Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Wed December 13th, 2017, 05:28 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 940 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 38  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun September 21st, 2014, 14:39 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat June 1st, 2013, 08:42 GMT
Posts: 5853
Location: on a rail leading West
Bobby_D wrote:
I'll be in Chicago for the run of shows and into Cleveland. I'm always down to meet up.


awesome i'm going to the Chicago 3 nights, and wanted to go to Cleveland, i splurged on nice seats in Chicago instead - you'll see some official meet-ups i will set up here, or on the tour thread,
but in truth i begin preparations at Sunrise. bikeriding is an important part to getting ready for a Dylan show.

there's this going on during the day each day too - may be a good way to warm up for a performance:

http://www2.mcachicago.org/exhibition/david-bowie-is/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun September 21st, 2014, 17:36 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18th, 2006, 17:13 GMT
Posts: 3620
Location: smashed world
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
Sphere wrote:
All I'll say is I don't think it's right to be drawing conclusions (of any kind) about all these concerts unless you're out there experiencing it for yourself.

No different than you making fun of my remark about Duke conquering all musical genres without ever having seen Duke perform live with his band or having any of his solo albums or any albums by the bands he's been in. What's fair for one is fair for another.

I don't relate to music that way and I don't think musicians do either. I think you may mean that he possesses versatility on his instrument and maybe as a band leader. But as far as conquering certain styles or all styles I just don't even believe that is possible. You are 100% correct that I'm not up on Duke's catalog and all that but I don't need to be to know that the man is not a master of all musical styles. I've never even heard of such a thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun September 21st, 2014, 19:09 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 17:48 GMT
Posts: 3030
Location: Pittsburgh (duh!)
OK, you get the last word coz I've said my piece & I don't believe in extending these debates to the point where we're boring other people. I highly recommend seeing Duke & his band whenever you get the chance. I dunno how much time you spend around Pittsburgh, but he's usually at the Thunderbird Cafe when he's here & it's a helluva good time. You'd enjoy meeting him, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon September 22nd, 2014, 15:21 GMT 

Joined: Sun July 6th, 2014, 19:57 GMT
Posts: 472
"You don't know/can't say 'cause you weren't there" is one of the biggest Bob show myths ever. It appeals to this sense of "authenticity" and experience which plays so well with the younger crowd these days.

Note that people almost always invoke "you had to be there" to describe positive elements of the show. In other words, you had to be there to know how good it was. No one--on this forum, at least--says "you had to be there" in a way that suggests that the show may have been worse than impression given by recordings, even though people often revise their opinion of a show they've seen (upward) after hearing a recording of it. Indeed, the quality of most of Bob's circulating, fan-captured live recordings has been so good for so long that people frequently report that the sound of the recording is superior to the one they had at the show. Most people would agree that the actual music being played/sung is the key element of a pop/rock concert, at least in the case of a guy like Bob who has little going on visually. We have this element captured, to be experienced over and over if we like, at the click of a button.

Note also that visually, Bob's show is pretty static. In other words, you can view the pictures/video from each tour and get a very good idea of how the show looked. If you've seen a few Bob shows, you know what he looks like when he's bopping around on stage. Any Bob fan with any amount of imagination should be able to listen to a good recording of a recent Bob show, look at a few pictures and watch a couple of videos, and have an excellent idea of what that show was like.

On the other hand, I think that the effect of having actually attended a show is often a detriment to our ability to ascertain it objectively. When we put too much emphasis on our subjective experience of a past event, all the little particulars of that day--what was going on in your life at the time, how much sleep you got the night before, whether or not you had anything on your mind, whether or not you had a good seat or could hear well--all become matters of unwarranted importance.

I once had a Bob-friend with emotional problems who hated everything Bob did while he was in an emotional "trough", yet felt that everything Bob did was supremely awesome whenever he was riding high on a wave. It was so predictable/laughable. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it shows how much your general state at any given time can influence your opinions. Recordings, however, provide an opportunity to subvert this dynamic by allowing you to listen to a show multiple times, in a variety of moods, and get a general feel for how it compares to others.

Of course, there's something that you get from attending a show that you can't get from recordings. But to imply that the opinion of someone who didn't attend a (documented/recorded) show is always trumped by that of someone who did attend the show is ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon September 22nd, 2014, 22:43 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21409
Nothing beats being there in the flesh to experience it yourself.
That doesn't really pertain only to Bob though. It's more of a life thing, isn't it?

I put more stock in a known attendee's thoughts than a known non-attendee's opinions...just sayin'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue September 23rd, 2014, 12:58 GMT 

Joined: Sun July 6th, 2014, 19:57 GMT
Posts: 472
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
Nothing beats being there in the flesh to experience it yourself.
That doesn't really pertain only to Bob though. It's more of a life thing, isn't it?

I put more stock in a known attendee's thoughts than a known non-attendee's opinions...just sayin'


Seems like a non sequitur to me. I acknowledged that attending a show is different from listening to a recording of it. But how to do we go from that to attending a show = monopoly on assessing it? It's absurd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue September 23rd, 2014, 13:51 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed September 14th, 2011, 13:25 GMT
Posts: 12325
Location: Wherever I am welcome
I don't think there's a monopoly, but surely the weight has to be given to the eye (ear) witness. Publications do send their music journalists to shows. They don't snatch a recording from the internet as a measure to judge a live show. That is what we are talking about. Live shows.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue September 23rd, 2014, 17:50 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 17:48 GMT
Posts: 3030
Location: Pittsburgh (duh!)
There a couple music stores in this town where the owner or an employee knows my musical tastes & points me directly to the latest stuff that just came in that I'd like. Other than these 2 people, I generally don't take anybody's recommendations about music. Nobody can predict what my experience will be when I listen to music. As for Dylan shows, this goes for attendees & nonattendees. I've wasted time listening to shows that the attendees raved about. I don't care that Bob seemed to be having a good time dancing behind his keyboard, or that he spotted you in the front row & smiled at you, or that it was your first show & you were excited to be in his presence, or you met your girlfriend there. That's all nice, but none of that means it will be a good listening experience for me. My only point about hearing it live vs. hearing it a recording is this: They are both experiences of listening to music. We can argue forever about the differences between them, but if I hear a recording where Bob is croaky & struggling to sing, I doubt that he sounded like The Great Caruso to the attendees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue September 23rd, 2014, 18:06 GMT 

Joined: Sun July 6th, 2014, 19:57 GMT
Posts: 472
raging_glory wrote:
Publications do send their music journalists to shows. They don't snatch a recording from the internet as a measure to judge a live show. That is what we are talking about. Live shows.


Of course the ultimate "experience" of the show is to actually attend it and I'm sure most of us would rather attend a show than have a great-sounding recording of it. I am not suggesting otherwise. Of course journalists review shows that they actually attend. But most journalists are simply good writers who have a taste for music and performance in general. As any Dylan fan should know by now, they often miss the point of the show completely. When a guy from the New York Times reviews a Paul Simon concert, probably the only Paul Simon show he's seen in a year or more, do you think his account of the show should be valued above a fan who sits at home and pores over recordings of every show Paul plays, supplements them with video and still images, then (reliably) reviews them? Bear in mind that gopherstick, one of the most highly regarded reviewers of the NET, fits that description. Wouldn't you trust gopherstick's word over that of some journalist who went to a random Bob show--much less a big Bob fan who went to a random Bob show?

First-hand accounts typically hail some kind of major improvement in Bob's show, such-and-such is "much better", etc. Yet the quality of Bob's show remains rather static. People get caught up in the emotional aspect of seeing Bob and it makes them say crazy things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue September 23rd, 2014, 20:05 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
I do think listening to so many shows does blinds us to some aspects of the experience. We receive each evolution of Dylan's live sound piecemeal, usually song-by-song. I do envy those hearing the show as a cumulative, new experience. Those who are familiar with Dylan's latest records, but largely ignorant about the tour are in a position to enjoy his show the most, I'd say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue September 23rd, 2014, 21:17 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat June 1st, 2013, 08:42 GMT
Posts: 5853
Location: on a rail leading West
but how does Duke feel about all this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 01:49 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21409
A Merry Llama wrote:
but how does Duke feel about all this?

He feels "already finished!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 02:42 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat June 1st, 2013, 08:42 GMT
Posts: 5853
Location: on a rail leading West
ah, right, he's with the 'i just listen to the recordings now' camp i suppose! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 14:02 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri January 21st, 2011, 19:55 GMT
Posts: 7369
Location: missin' The Mirror Girl
I like your new Avatar A Merry Llama :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 14:11 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat June 1st, 2013, 08:42 GMT
Posts: 5853
Location: on a rail leading West
i like all of your avatars, S.S. :wink: :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 14:14 GMT 

Joined: Sun July 6th, 2014, 19:57 GMT
Posts: 472
Warren Peace wrote:
I do think listening to so many shows does blinds us to some aspects of the experience. We receive each evolution of Dylan's live sound piecemeal, usually song-by-song. I do envy those hearing the show as a cumulative, new experience.


I'm not sure what you mean. Someone who's at the show is getting it song-by-song, too. Unless I've misunderstood.

Listening to many shows means that when it comes to assessing a particular show, you have a strong frame of reference. You'll be able to tell how it compares to other shows from that tour. You will know when a new arrangement is played, when Bob changes a lyric, etc. You will know how Bob's voice sounded compared to a week before. You'll know whether there are any setlist abnormalities. These aren't detriments to your ability to assess a show, they're assets.

The journalist, as I said, probably sees and listens to few Bob shows and can't tell if Bob is having an off night or not. Now consider the fact that we're not really discussing journalists here, we're talking about existing, active Bob fans, many of whom see no more shows than the journalists do. And, once again, these NET "dabblers" typically give rave, and often clearly hyperbolic, reviews. If they saw two shows, lord knows the better of the two will be hailed as a yearly highlight. The often report Bob's voice sounding "much" better, a show being a huge standout, etc. None of these things ever end up being true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 14:42 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed September 14th, 2011, 13:25 GMT
Posts: 12325
Location: Wherever I am welcome
Beets14beets wrote:
Warren Peace wrote:
I do think listening to so many shows does blinds us to some aspects of the experience. We receive each evolution of Dylan's live sound piecemeal, usually song-by-song. I do envy those hearing the show as a cumulative, new experience.


I'm not sure what you mean. Someone who's at the show is getting it song-by-song, too. Unless I've misunderstood.

Listening to many shows means that when it comes to assessing a particular show, you have a strong frame of reference. You'll be able to tell how it compares to other shows from that tour. You will know when a new arrangement is played, when Bob changes a lyric, etc. You will know how Bob's voice sounded compared to a week before. You'll know whether there are any setlist abnormalities. These aren't detriments to your ability to assess a show, they're assets.

The journalist, as I said, probably sees and listens to few Bob shows and can't tell if Bob is having an off night or not. Now consider the fact that we're not really discussing journalists here, we're talking about existing, active Bob fans, many of whom see no more shows than the journalists do. And, once again, these NET "dabblers" typically give rave, and often clearly hyperbolic, reviews. If they saw two shows, lord knows the better of the two will be hailed as a yearly highlight. The often report Bob's voice sounding "much" better, a show being a huge standout, etc. None of these things ever end up being true.

You're describing fans of any band, attending a live show.

Also, I think in your argument, you are making the assumption that all Bob fans here listen to multiple shows. That may be true for some, but not all. I haven't listened to a single show since I last attended one in August 2013. I did listen to a few random songs that were recommended such as LAWY and Roll on, John from the fall 2013 shows.

I form my opinion on what I hear at the shows (two in 2013.)

I don't even remember what we are supposed to be discussing anymore and if my contribution is at all relevant. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 17:44 GMT 
Titanium Member

Joined: Sun February 28th, 2010, 20:24 GMT
Posts: 8218
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
OK, you get the last word coz I've said my piece & I don't believe in extending these debates to the point where we're boring other people. I highly recommend seeing Duke & his band whenever you get the chance. I dunno how much time you spend around Pittsburgh, but he's usually at the Thunderbird Cafe when he's here & it's a helluva good time. You'd enjoy meeting him, too.


I've seen Duke, both with his band and years ago with The T-Birds, puts on a great show.
The man is a stone cold pro, in my book. I wish he would have stuck around
longer in the cowboy band. It could have gotten interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 17:53 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18th, 2006, 17:13 GMT
Posts: 3620
Location: smashed world
Beets14beets wrote:
"You don't know/can't say 'cause you weren't there" is one of the biggest Bob show myths ever. It appeals to this sense of "authenticity" and experience which plays so well with the younger crowd these days.

Note that people almost always invoke "you had to be there" to describe positive elements of the show. In other words, you had to be there to know how good it was. No one--on this forum, at least--says "you had to be there" in a way that suggests that the show may have been worse than impression given by recordings, even though people often revise their opinion of a show they've seen (upward) after hearing a recording of it. Indeed, the quality of most of Bob's circulating, fan-captured live recordings has been so good for so long that people frequently report that the sound of the recording is superior to the one they had at the show. Most people would agree that the actual music being played/sung is the key element of a pop/rock concert, at least in the case of a guy like Bob who has little going on visually. We have this element captured, to be experienced over and over if we like, at the click of a button.

Note also that visually, Bob's show is pretty static. In other words, you can view the pictures/video from each tour and get a very good idea of how the show looked. If you've seen a few Bob shows, you know what he looks like when he's bopping around on stage. Any Bob fan with any amount of imagination should be able to listen to a good recording of a recent Bob show, look at a few pictures and watch a couple of videos, and have an excellent idea of what that show was like.

On the other hand, I think that the effect of having actually attended a show is often a detriment to our ability to ascertain it objectively. When we put too much emphasis on our subjective experience of a past event, all the little particulars of that day--what was going on in your life at the time, how much sleep you got the night before, whether or not you had anything on your mind, whether or not you had a good seat or could hear well--all become matters of unwarranted importance.

I once had a Bob-friend with emotional problems who hated everything Bob did while he was in an emotional "trough", yet felt that everything Bob did was supremely awesome whenever he was riding high on a wave. It was so predictable/laughable. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it shows how much your general state at any given time can influence your opinions. Recordings, however, provide an opportunity to subvert this dynamic by allowing you to listen to a show multiple times, in a variety of moods, and get a general feel for how it compares to others.

Of course, there's something that you get from attending a show that you can't get from recordings. But to imply that the opinion of someone who didn't attend a (documented/recorded) show is always trumped by that of someone who did attend the show is ridiculous.

I was referring to what I view as a lot of generalizing about concerts that people aren't experiencing themselves. I never said you had to be there to get it. What I was getting at is what I view as lazy, unwarranted criticism that seems like a person's online agenda for some reason. It's called bad form.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 22:59 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 17:48 GMT
Posts: 3030
Location: Pittsburgh (duh!)
Sphere wrote:
I was referring to what I view as a lot of generalizing about concerts that people aren't experiencing themselves. I never said you had to be there to get it. What I was getting at is what I view as lazy, unwarranted criticism that seems like a person's online agenda for some reason. It's called bad form.

After I exited this discussion & gave you the last word, I would have hoped you could reply to Beets without taking any more swipes at me, speaking of "bad form." If I have an "agenda," I've done a lousy job of pushing it, what with me posting about it only twice in 3 months & you seemingly being the only one here who's aware of it. You don't know anything about me. I've been defending Bob Dylan for (I'm guessing) longer than you've been alive. I first became a fan 40 years ago. You should know the debates, arguments, & near-fights (luckily no fights) that I've gotten into for 38 years defending Dylan against the usual stuff----he can't sing, I can't understand him, he doesn't care about his fans coz he doesn't talk during his concerts, he abandoned "the movement" when he became rich, he's a plagiarist, etc., etc. A couple years ago or so I determined that I can't understand him any more either. Many others here have felt the same way & either don't post any more or don't post as often. I decided to stay & offer my honest opinion in threads where opinions were discussed. I'd love it if you took time off from touring to come & work for me in my dept. during the winter months when we regularly put in 65-70-hour work weeks. I'll show you who's "lazy" then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed September 24th, 2014, 23:08 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21409
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
I'd love it if you took time off from touring to come & work for me in my dept. during the winter months when we regularly put in 65-70-hour work weeks. I'll show you who's "lazy" then.

I hope you get paid more than Duke for all that effort.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu September 25th, 2014, 00:27 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 17:48 GMT
Posts: 3030
Location: Pittsburgh (duh!)
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
I'd love it if you took time off from touring to come & work for me in my dept. during the winter months when we regularly put in 65-70-hour work weeks. I'll show you who's "lazy" then.

I hope you get paid more than Duke for all that effort.

:lol: That's good - I liked that one. I won't say whether I make more than Duke.

But the pay, if what was posted here is correct, intrigued me, too, but hasn't been discussed yet. $3,000 a week is "good money" for touring? I always assumed those guys made a lot more than that. If Bob tours 40 weeks a year---& that's probably a high estimate---that's $120,000 in earnings for the year. If a guy's got a family & a mortgage---& has to provide his own equipment---that's not really a helluva lotta money!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu September 25th, 2014, 13:34 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18th, 2006, 17:13 GMT
Posts: 3620
Location: smashed world
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
Sphere wrote:
I was referring to what I view as a lot of generalizing about concerts that people aren't experiencing themselves. I never said you had to be there to get it. What I was getting at is what I view as lazy, unwarranted criticism that seems like a person's online agenda for some reason. It's called bad form.

After I exited this discussion & gave you the last word, I would have hoped you could reply to Beets without taking any more swipes at me, speaking of "bad form." If I have an "agenda," I've done a lousy job of pushing it, what with me posting about it only twice in 3 months & you seemingly being the only one here who's aware of it. You don't know anything about me. I've been defending Bob Dylan for (I'm guessing) longer than you've been alive. I first became a fan 40 years ago. You should know the debates, arguments, & near-fights (luckily no fights) that I've gotten into for 38 years defending Dylan against the usual stuff----he can't sing, I can't understand him, he doesn't care about his fans coz he doesn't talk during his concerts, he abandoned "the movement" when he became rich, he's a plagiarist, etc., etc. A couple years ago or so I determined that I can't understand him any more either. Many others here have felt the same way & either don't post any more or don't post as often. I decided to stay & offer my honest opinion in threads where opinions were discussed. I'd love it if you took time off from touring to come & work for me in my dept. during the winter months when we regularly put in 65-70-hour work weeks. I'll show you who's "lazy" then.

You're taking things way out of context. It's great that you're proud of your job and all but that has nothing to do with anything I said. I meant lazy arguments. Don't just take a word I used and apply it to something completely irrelevant in the discussion. What is that?

The bottom line is you got sore over what happened with Duke and instead of just defending him you started criticizing Bob. That's fine but to me it didn't ever really seem like you knew what you were talking about or even believed it yourself. You were just pissed and had to show everybody that Bob was the bad guy and can't play good shows anymore. I thought it was annoying so I spoke up. That's it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu September 25th, 2014, 20:35 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon April 2nd, 2007, 06:31 GMT
Posts: 774
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
:lol: That's good - I liked that one. I won't say whether I make more than Duke.

But the pay, if what was posted here is correct, intrigued me, too, but hasn't been discussed yet. $3,000 a week is "good money" for touring? I always assumed those guys made a lot more than that. If Bob tours 40 weeks a year---& that's probably a high estimate---that's $120,000 in earnings for the year. If a guy's got a family & a mortgage---& has to provide his own equipment---that's not really a helluva lotta money!



If the pay is good depends on who you are. Charlie and Tony probably earn more than 3 grand. I've heard figures like 10.000 a week for esteemed sessionplayers like Jim Keltner, Steve Gadd etc. Anyway for a guy like Duke who is not in demand as a touring guitar player for A level talent like Dylan, Clapton and similar. That pay might not be way off. Compared to what some of these blues combos get per gig 3000+ expenses paid would be considered a great pay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu September 25th, 2014, 22:58 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 17:48 GMT
Posts: 3030
Location: Pittsburgh (duh!)
Sphere wrote:
You're taking things way out of context. It's great that you're proud of your job and all but that has nothing to do with anything I said. I meant lazy arguments. Don't just take a word I used and apply it to something completely irrelevant in the discussion. What is that?

It's called overreacting. :lol: I'm only human. Sorry.
Sphere wrote:
The bottom line is you got sore over what happened with Duke and instead of just defending him you started criticizing Bob. That's fine but to me it didn't ever really seem like you knew what you were talking about or even believed it yourself. You were just pissed and had to show everybody that Bob was the bad guy and can't play good shows anymore. I thought it was annoying so I spoke up. That's it.

Well, I think we're getting somewhere, Sphere. I can at least respect the tone & rationale behind that post, even if I disagree with it. Sure, I didn't like seeing Duke leave the tour under those circumstances---which fan or his would?---& yes, I blame Bob, but I believe everything I say & feel like I knew what I was talking about at least as much as others here who "knew" that Duke was fired for some heinous misconduct. And honest, I've been down on Dylan as a live performer since about 2011 & had sworn off his shows. I said this on Dec. 23, 2012 when we learned Duke was joining the band:
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
I was likely gonna stop attending any further NET shows. Now I have to rethink it if the NET comes here in '13.

...and I said this on May 5, 2013, when we had no reason to believe that Duke wouldn't continue on with the NET for the rest of the year:
P. Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
in Raleigh some of Bob's singing & phrasing was starting to get just a little ugly like 2011-12 IMHO.

It's just how I've felt. It's all here on the message boards. No relation to Duke leaving the NET.

Sphere, sincere thanks for that post.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 940 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 38  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group