Christgau, Chusid, or DeRogatis: Which critic is the most useless?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
"Let's face facts here—what Robert Christgau does is write about his mail." Mike Doughty, Soul Coughing

I've always been incredulous of the supposed value of criticism, but I despise rock critics with a passion, most notably the ones who actually take themselves seriously.* Anyone who is convinced that their opinions (of rock & roll, for Chrissakes!) are so refined as to warrant them a living wage is delusional. In particular, the three I find most odious are Robert Christgau, Irwin Chusid, and Jim DeRogatis. Despite the latter two having produced a few good books (including Songs In The Key Of Z and Turn On Your Mind), they have nonetheless proven time and again to be both completely full of shit and utterly unaware of this fact. Which of the three is the worst? I await your perspectives.

*Chuck Klosterman therefore is above reproach.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

god i miss old ilx so much

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

Pyongyang is in the room.

Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

Chuck Klosterman therefore is above reproach.

jim, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Question mark.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Shoot.

Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

anyone who can make a living writing what are essentially more refined ilm posts has achieved some sort of small victory.

rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

As long as they're aware of their own bullshit, I agree.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

dude you are on a very large music webboard that has been around since ~2000CE. i know you're new but really, think about it.

gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

a world of chuck klosterman-esque critics is a world which is "dressing for it"

rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

"think about it" should actually come up after you hit "submit response" like the itunes "you really sure you wanna buy this?"

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

uhmm

I like christgau because he's funny and he's a good writer. He sort of reminds me of Pauline Kael, who I also like a lot. I don't think all, or even many critics believe that their tastes are so refined as to deserve payment. They believe (and in my opinion some rightfully so) that their ability to articulate an opinion about music within a social/art history/or whatever else context is developed enough that they can write about it and that people will want to read it. And a lot of people do. This is why music publications and blogs exist.

By your logic isn't equally presumptious for someone to write their serious opinion about politics or sports? Or is it because rock and roll isn't serious, and thus to discuss it seriously is ridiculous? I don't know if I believe either of those ideas. I think rock and roll is serious some times and not at others. That's sort of irrelevent though isn't it? Do you get pissed off when you read a TV Guide review of Curb Your Enthusiasm?

filthy dylan, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

Trust me, I'm a vet to a number of other similar boards that have been around just as long, if not longer. I know the general mindset. Doesn't mean it's not worth stating.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

"dude. seriously, don't"

gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

lock thread

Tim Ellison, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

Haha Strongo otm.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

Is that a storyboard from a Jacques Tati movie, nabisco?

James Redd and the Blecchs, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

You realize that plenty of people make about as much of a living brewing coffee, answering phones, glazing lawn gnomes, writing press releases about new models of radio-controlled hobbyist gliders, designing Kleenex cosies, throwing rubber balls to one another, recruiting Amway sales force, and having therapy sessions with cats, right?

nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

the fact that christgau has been sandwiched between chusid and derogatis is making my bad headache way worse

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

I do love that the two he shields are DeRo & Klosterman.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

Reviews that steer more toward synopsizing and less toward editorializing are more my preference, only because I'd rather know the facts than the critical musings of a self-proclaimed authority. This applies to criticism of any medium. But sticking to music for now: if you've ever read the 33 1/3 books, the best ones tend to be those which primarily relate the circumstances which led to the creation of the album (e.g., The Velvet Underground And Nico, Paul's Boutique) and don't devolve into proselytization (e.g., The Stone Roses, OK Computer). Lester Bangs might have produced the occasional tasty bon mot, but his opinions were no more valid than yours or mine.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

proselytization isn't a word

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

And the only one I was "shielding" was Klosterman. DeRo's a tool.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

DESTROY NEW ILX

Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

proselytization

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

Posts that steer more toward synopsizing and less toward editorializing are more my preference, only because I'd rather know the facts than the preferences and interests of online freaks who haven't figured out that criticism is less AUTHORITY and more PERSPECTIVE. (See post #1)

nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

more history papers, less creative writing

rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't think any (good) critic honestly believes that his opinions are more "valid" than someone else's.

Chusid is a weird person to toss into this thread, simply because he's a historian and journalist and not the same kind of graded-album-review critic as Xgau or DeRo.

jaymc, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

I've always been incredulous of the supposed value of criticism, but I despise rock critic critics with a passion, most notably the ones who actually take themselves seriously. Anyone who is convinced that their opinions (of rock & roll criticism, for Chrissakes!) are so refined as to warrant them a living wage is delusional. In particular, the one I find most odious is souldesqueeze.

Fixed.

Mordechai Shinefield, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

if we work hard, we can hit every half-assed point, joke, nasty remark, and considered opinion we've ever made on one of these threads guys. i know we can do it!

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

Wow, the flames appeared before the smoke detector even caught a whiff.

You're partially right about Chusid not being as much of a critic as an historian. But he's no less an unctuous prick.

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

ok in the interests of not being a complete glib prick:

the internet discussion board I Love Music has seen probably hundreds of Christgau, DeRogatis, and Klosterman threads at this point. Some people like Xgau, some don't. Nobody likes DeRo or Klosterman. Some of the threads discussing these writers have ended in board-historic flameouts.

I have never knowingly read a word of Irwin Chusid nor seen a thread on him.

Some of the writers of 33 1/3 books have and do post here, as well.

The poster "strongohulkington" is actually a very single and attractive marketing exec from Toronto, watch out for her (she is very pretty but kind of mean [sorry it's true!]). The poster "nabisco" works for said firm (I know, it's wierd).

Good luck and happy posting.

gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

And why we should we listen to the dude from Soul Coughing??

Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

I had a musician write me a letter once and thank me for a criticism I made that he thought was valid.

Tim Ellison, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

"I know the general mindset."

What the hell does that even mean? Is there a "general mindset" that pervades all music boards?

Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

anyway i would just like to say i love reading about awesome music.

Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

Is there a "general mindset" that pervades all music boards?

It's called "smarmy douchebaggery," and yeah, it's pretty common.

unperson, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

And why we should we listen to the dude from Soul Coughing

Soul Coughing is soooooooooooooooooooo much more useless than Christgau.

Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

Seriously, though, I can't work out what kind of blockhead you'd have to be to sit around sputtering at the GALL of critics to have freaking OPINIONS, as if you haven't noticed that healthy human beings are actually often interested in opinions that aren't their own, and kinda the whole point of criticism is how those healthy human beings are even willing to pay 99 cents or look at some ads in order to maybe find out and think about someone's opinions on a topic, maybe even someone with a track record of experience, attention, knowledge, and provocative thought w/r/t the topic at hand, whether the topic is music or politics or which desktop conference speakerphone design is the best value.

I imagine these blockheads wandering in a strictly utilitarian world of blank walls and Hannibal Lecter masks and their mothers call and go "hey, I saw that Diane Keaton movie yesterday" and they say "thank you for that factual information" and their mothers say "you know, I thought it was a little--" and they say "I have already formed an opinion of said film and your opinion is no more valid than mine, and if you think your opinion is SO GREAT that it's worth eating up my daytime minutes to share it then you've got another think coming, ho."

nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

What the hell does that even mean? Is there a "general mindset" that pervades all music boards?

I meant no disrespect. I've simply noticed that the majority of people who post regularly on such sites get extremely defensive when their own opinions are called into question, more so than is logical or necessary.

Why does everyone hate Klosterman?

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

Is there a general mindset that pervades all new posters who start threads like this? Yeah, it's called "I have an original thought to tell you guys and it's going to blow your stupid minds"

Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

Does this site feature a search function that isn't powered by Google?

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives

Matos W.K., Monday, 26 March 2007 20:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

I can't blame you there. We lost our old search function when we switched over to the nu format, and the google search sux.

Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

we sold the search function to get t-shirts with our names on them

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives

Fair shot. ;)

souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

if you didn't get one, it means exactly what you think it means

strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

extremely defensive when their own opinions are called into question

so which reviews that you disagreed with caused you to start this thread

rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

M@tt is on point. Opinion is almost the secondary consideration to teh learning of teh stuff. (Unless of course you're reading Ent Weekly's bite-size crapola.) Of course if I tend to agree with a critic's opinion more times than not, I'm going to heed him in the future.

MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

Dude, Christgau is/was a college professor. He gives records GRADES. Is the humor/tongue-in-cheekness not evident to you?

Ya srsly. He's the "dean of rock criticism" for crissakes.

Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

thought about posting my tuppence here, but as usual, "Nabisco OTM" will suffice.

tom, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's that these things ARE real judgements of value for us and we feel that there are elements of human nature involved in these perceptions of value, i.e., some music seems to be about beauty and passion and transcendence and freedom.
Kant to thread

Hi tehre I'm new here but I knwo the general mindset.

Sparkle Motion, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

i think one major point is that a lot of these reviews exist to either elicit contentious responses or to spawn discussion. tongue-in-cheek, "i'm jus messin about guys lol" reviews result in a wasteland of failed pussy-ass writers who are too afraid to get behind their own arguments.

rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

There's a very good essay called "The Critic as Artist" by a certain Oscar Wilde our beleaguered topic poster should read. I always thought it contained a pretty excellent justification for the entire critical enterprise.

Frankly, I find it more than a little bizarre that anyone would question the legitimacy of criticism at this point in history.

Angsty, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Uh, examples?

Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

(xpost)

Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Getting behind" your arguments is one thing, and I agree: if you're going to post an opinion, you may as well do it with conviction. But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

more qualified than others to believe what you do???

ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

all my posts are being deleted here...so i wont be back..bye...

marissa, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

[weird scott seward image]

ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

AWESOME XPOST

ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

you might be projecting self-delusion onto writers where none exists but for argument's sake i think a little of that isn't necessarily a bad thing in writing.

rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

finally someone who can communicate with souldesqueeze at his level of rhetoric has arrived on the thread!

ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

xpost to marissa obv, who has gone off this thread because of me ;_;

ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

don't blame yourself.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Getting behind" your arguments is one thing, and I agree: if you're going to post an opinion, you may as well do it with conviction. But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

souldesqueeze on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:07 (5 minutes ago)

Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

Srsly dude what do you want every record review to come with a disclaimer to spell out the obvious for you?

Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

Strong people used to enjoy really talented people....

they weren't feeling threatened...they just enjoyed their music....

but you've got to maintain perspective..... and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do......

ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

you might be projecting self-delusion onto writers where none exists but for argument's sake i think a little of that isn't necessarily a bad thing in writing.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

At this point, I think a distinction should be made between critics and historians. The latter contribute a definite service to society; the former do not.

souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

isn't criticism supposed to be our way of trying to think about what art means and a process of trying to understand it and how it affects us?

you don't think that's important?

M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

So, like, Birth of A Nation is worthwhile, but essays about it are not.

Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

I relied on a large number of literary critics during my university days since my professors generally preferred papers with some attributed research. I would call that a definite service to me at least.

Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

Thanks literary critics.

Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

historians often act as critics of history, though, ones whose opinions affect the slant of their works.

rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't think the line between music historians and music critics can be drawn in thick black marker, because very little that is of interest about music is purely objective or scientifically measurable. A history of 20th century music that contained nothing but measurable facts that could be proved scientifically would be a very dry and irrelevant read. The very act of deciding which musicians and which music to write about is a value judgment.

o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

And the statement that all criticism is equally valid is only true in a very trivial sense. I think it's easy to dismiss criticism as meaningless navel gazing, until you've actually tried to say something meaningful about music yourself. It's not easy to write criticism that is informative, enlightening, astute, realistic, colorful, provocative, realistic, etc.

o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

Sparkle Motion, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

1: Many critics are more qualified than you to write about music (your general douchery on this topic makes it clear to me that you hold no advanced degree in musicology)
B: A critic must fundamentally "believe" that he is correct in order to write with authority on the topic at hand. A world of opinion journalism that adhered to your standards would be a flaccid bore.
Third: If you (yes, you souldesqueeze) can't write well or with conviction on music or film then I don't care about your "interpretation." Therefore, not all interpretations are valid. Especially yours.

MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism creation of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no a major part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism Art exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

ArtCookery exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

basically I think everything we need to know about this dude can be deduced from the fact that he views criticism as some sort of monolithic enterprise which threatens his own opinions and tramples dissent underfoot, rather than a means to promote discussion among intelligent people

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Am I insane, or is Pitchfork not mentioned once on this thread?

schwantz, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

that's not writing, it's typing.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (7 years ago) Permalink

haha, I was actually just thinking, the only thing this dude could do at this point that would save face and make me empathize with his position would be to reveal that he's that guy who posted a thread here recently about how he would play records for his roommate and his roommate would tell him they sucked and he didn't want to listen to them and then would go out and buy the same records as soon as Pitchfork reviewed them

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (7 years ago) Permalink

(xpost)

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

glazing lawn gnomes??

m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

Cynthia Ozick wrote an article in this month's issue of Harpers called "Literary Entrails: They boys in the alley, the disappearing readers, and the novel's ghostly twin" about the place of criticism in art. Reducing her argument to a few sentences, she argues that what gives culture (particularly literary culture) context is criticism. She is, of course, a writer who knows a couple things about criticism and literature. I think she'd probably disagree with your entire assumption.

Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 00:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more.

I.e., food for thought is of no consequence.

I.e., thought is of no consequence.

I.e., if you really believed this, you'd have shot yourself in the face long ago.

nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

syllogistic nabisco otm

James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Although I guess that's not a syllogism.

James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

My mind hungers for the misguided opinions of others.

M.V., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

God Bless You, g®▲Ðұ.

m0stlyClean, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

5 years pass...

I await your perspectives.

buzza, Sunday, 23 December 2012 08:48 (1 year ago) Permalink

5 Years Pass...

maura, Sunday, 23 December 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink

Meanwhile, I'm still thinking

Rumba de Schmillsson (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:42 (1 year ago) Permalink

I like Chusid, if only for highlighting worthy way-out-in-left-field artists and bands

Lee626, Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:52 (1 year ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.