DDD Home Page
DDD Music Lists Page
DDD Movie Lists Page
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 ... 420  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Sampson wrote:
The ones who were writing the praise about rock by the 60's and claiming it "grew up" were simply trying to justify their placing so much importance on it.



Yes, they wanted to feel better about caring so much about something that many people thought was for kids.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Negative Creep wrote:
...which gets incredibly old and predictable after a while...


Not for those of us who have no interest in lyrics.

For me and the guys I hang with it was never about the lyrics. It was always about the beat, the groove, the harmony, the vocals, the sax break, etc...

In 40 years of hanging out with this crowd and playing records I don't remember EVER discussing lyrics other than on the occasional X-Rated item. Some of the crowd did not like the X Rated things, others like me, loved them.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 4084
Bruce wrote:
Brett Alan wrote:
I'm sure these aren't the only ways they made the music "grow up", but it's a good start.


I still don't buy that it "grew up."

I don't buy that moving from singles to albums represents an advancement, or something more adult as opposed to singles being childlike.


That's fine. It's a phrase, it's shorthand for a bunch of changes that happened. I certainly would not in any way say that the music after those changes was better than the music before. There are lots of different kinds of great rock and roll (and lots of different kinds of mediocre rock and roll).

Bruce wrote:
As I see it, the greatest songs of the 60s were all about less serious subjects (Louie, Louie, My Girl, Respect, She Loves You, Satisfaction, In The Midnight Hour, Good Vibrations, etc....)

Most of the stuff about serious subjects is hopelessly dated now (Eve Of Destruction, In The Year 2525).


Well, you named two records by rather unimportant artists. Clearly, neither one is a great record, or even close. But "Blowin' In The Wind", "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall", "A Change Is Gonna Come", "Give Peace A Chance", "Say It Loud--I'm Black & I'm Proud", "For What It's Worth", and "Fortunate Son", to name a few key examples, hold up very well. "Respect" itself had considerable polticial import, although implicitly rather than explicitly. And there are plenty of non-political songs--think "Eleanor Rigby" or "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times"--which came out of these changes which aren't dated, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Brett Alan wrote:
"I Just Wasn't Made For These Times"


Don't know what this is.

Just Googled it, I guess it's one of those faggy songs on "Pet Sounds?"

Never understood what the fuss was with that album, The hit singles on it are great, but the rest of the album was boring as hell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Brett Alan wrote:

"Give Peace A Chance",


This sounds horribly dated to me. I think it's been unplayable for decades.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:56 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 4084
Sampson wrote:

REPLIES:
1. There actually was serious social commentary but it wasn't PRESENTED as serious social commentary, largely because that wouldn't have sold and because artists in the 50's had absolutely no outlets, let alone sympathetic outlets (such as later rock mags) to discuss their intent as they would later on, nor did they have intellectual music fans who parsed every lyric and found (mostly mistakenly) insigificant things for which they then attributed great insight and meaning. There's a fairly well known story from a few years back about some blog or something online discussing what certain Dylan lyrics meant and all these weighty ideas were being thrown around. Dylan himself then logged on and told them they were full of shit, it wasn't about ANY of that stuff, it just flowed well and sounded good at the time. Nobody believed it was him and they challenged him to prove it by opening his next show with a song he hadn't done in decades. He did, shocking the hell out of these nitwits who couldn't believe they'd actually been talking to Bob Freaking Dylan. Once they got over it of course they then went on to discuss what they felt the rest of his lyrics "really meant", ignoring the actual writer's own explanations. The moral - the introspection everyone often credits is only found by those looking for it because they WANT to find it and have it mean something more than lyrics like ' You look good, let's get wasted and fuck in the backseat".


I'm not sure what the point of this story is. Sure, some of the lyrics that came out of that time were taken as having much more import than they did. So? It doesn't change the fact that the way rock songwriting was done changed hugely, as did the way rock was perceived and consumed.

Sampson wrote:
But songs like Chuck Berry's "Downbound Train" about alcoholism, or Leiber & Stoller's "Run Red Run", or Dave Bartholomew's "The Monkey" were blatant social protests, none of which of course became hits because the era's listeners were interested in that. The next generation were. It was the AUDIENCE that grew up, the artists simply followed the money.


They didn't just follow the money. They drove the changes. If The Beatles hadn't come along, social conscience probably would have remained the province of folk music, and rock and roll may well not have become the overarching force we think of it as being today.

Sampson wrote:
2. The first album to be unquestionably "an event unto itself" (artistically, creatively, socially, etc.) was James Brown's Live at The Apollo. I thought this has already been definitively shown. It was an album for which you had to hear the entire thing to appreciate, it wasn't singles and filler, it was a full-length "expression" over two sides, even the fade at the end of side one in the midst of the epic 11 minute "Lost Someone" before it fades back in on side two shows how this was consciously crafted. When that album went to #2 on the charts, by a still largely unknown artist on a small label, with no singles from the LP to sell it, that was what showed the album market was viable for more than just the few big names in rock that previously sold LP's in big numbers. Dylan and the Beatles and the Beach Boys all recorded for major labels that had extensive experience in albums and knew the value of them financially and when they saw that rock LP's could sell, they gave them the means to do it. But Brown, the Ventures (who were really the FIRST album-oriented rock artists) and Ray Charles had already proven this was possible.


Sure. But the James Brown album was a concert recording, which is a somewhat different thing. The Ventures and Ray Charles were making very successful (and, at least with Charles, artistically very important) albums, but they weren't perceived the way albums were later perceived. The fact is that it wasn't until the albums of 1965-66 (Rubber Soul and Revolver, Highway 61 Revisited, Bringing It All Back Home and Blonde On Blonde, Pet Sounds) that the nature of the album in rock fundamentally changed. And one way we know that those were the albums that did that is that despite the importance of Apollo and Modern Sounds (and Otis Blue), thinking of the album that way never took root among black artists and audiences to quite the same extent, and the closest it came was in the early 70s, not the 60s.

This is where I think your defining "influence" as "doing it first" rather than "influencing what others do" falls short. Not to mention that it's so hard to define what "it" is.

Sampson wrote:
Furthermore by the mid-60's you had the first wave of adults who had grown up with rock 'n' roll as a steady presence in their lives entering into the media. The obvious examples are Paul Williams founding Crawdaddy and Jann Wenner former Rolling Stone, but just in general you had an influx of now-grown up rock fans contributing to the national dialogue on the subject and so postions softened. This is absolutely no different than any other form of popular music that begins as disrespectable (jazz in the 20's, rock in the 50's, rap in the 80's) but once it proves it's not going anywhere and enough time passes the views on it change and jazz by the 50's became "serious" music, while rock by the late 60's became "serious" music and rap by the 90's became "serious" music. The same people that were ripping Public Enemy when they were new and controversial were writing essays a decade later on how "important" their social outlook had been. Nothing changes in that regard. The ones who were writing the praise about rock by the 60's and claiming it "grew up" were simply trying to justify their placing so much importance on it.

There's a great line in the movie Chinatown that goes - "Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough". Same with rock 'n' roll. It had been around damn near twenty years by then, of course it got respectable.


So, teenage music was inevitably going to become huge because of the demographics--guess Elvis wasn't that important. The electric guitar was the perfect instrument for its times--guess Chuck Berry wasn't so important, either.

Sure, artists acheive what they do in part because of the times they live in. But that shouldn't change the credit they get for doing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:01 am 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 1407
Brett Alan wrote:
If The Beatles hadn't come along, social conscience probably would have remained the province of folk music, and rock and roll may well not have become the overarching force we think of it as being today.


I find it hard to see any social conscience in any of the songs of the Beatles did other than "Revolution" really, maybe one or two others ("Blackbird"). Unlike Bruce I actually do appreciate lyrics, and I do think very highly of the Beatles as songwriters, but their social conscious is largely a myth when it comes to their music. The Impressions were FAR more socially conscious than anything the Beatles attempted and did so far earlier as well. The Beatles wrote amazing vingettes, they were exceptional at personal introspection (In My Life, Yesterday, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away etc.), wonderful with melodies and great experimentors, but this is again a case of blind misconception of fans attempting to find some deeper relevance in their songs. Lennon famously shot down that one starry eyed fan who came wandering in from the wild at his home as shown in the Imagine film where the guy was trying to say how important the lyrics were and what they meant and John said his words meant something completely different and it could've been simply what he had for breakfast that day or whatever. The Robins "Framed" from 1955 is explicit social commentary well over a decade before the Beatles even attempted anything that blatant in a song.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 1407
Brett Alan wrote:
Sampson wrote:
2. The first album to be unquestionably "an event unto itself" (artistically, creatively, socially, etc.) was James Brown's Live at The Apollo. I thought this has already been definitively shown. It was an album for which you had to hear the entire thing to appreciate, it wasn't singles and filler, it was a full-length "expression" over two sides, even the fade at the end of side one in the midst of the epic 11 minute "Lost Someone" before it fades back in on side two shows how this was consciously crafted. When that album went to #2 on the charts, by a still largely unknown artist on a small label, with no singles from the LP to sell it, that was what showed the album market was viable for more than just the few big names in rock that previously sold LP's in big numbers. Dylan and the Beatles and the Beach Boys all recorded for major labels that had extensive experience in albums and knew the value of them financially and when they saw that rock LP's could sell, they gave them the means to do it. But Brown, the Ventures (who were really the FIRST album-oriented rock artists) and Ray Charles had already proven this was possible.


Sure. But the James Brown album was a concert recording, which is a somewhat different thing. The Ventures and Ray Charles were making very successful (and, at least with Charles, artistically very important) albums, but they weren't perceived the way albums were later perceived. The fact is that it wasn't until the albums of 1965-66 (Rubber Soul and Revolver, Highway 61 Revisited, Bringing It All Back Home and Blonde On Blonde, Pet Sounds) that the nature of the album in rock fundamentally changed. And one way we know that those were the albums that did that is that despite the importance of Apollo and Modern Sounds (and Otis Blue), thinking of the album that way never took root among black artists and audiences to quite the same extent, and the closest it came was in the early 70s, not the 60s.

This is where I think your defining "influence" as "doing it first" rather than "influencing what others do" falls short. Not to mention that it's so hard to define what "it" is.


The black artists not doing albums was 100% because of erroneous perception on the part of record labels. Jerry Wexler, as liberal racially as any exec of his era, once famously claimed, then repeatedly stated over the years, that black albums "only" sold about 25,000 units at the most, so it wasn't a viable market and thus they were justified in not putting much effort into it because it wouldn't pay off. This was total bullshit. The same people buying singles bought albums provided the album was good. Brown proved this unequivocally, especially considering none of those sales came from name recognition. It was a cop-out on Wexler's part, and the common belief in the industry, including with black owned labels like Motown, that black audiences couldn't afford, or weren't interested in full length albums.

In 1966 Atlantic Records signed Cream, a newly formed group made up of mostly total unknowns to American audiences and they were given the time, care, personal attention and the budget to craft a full length LP, it was given good graphics and excellent promotion and sold well. Meanwhile, Wilson Pickett, who was a MUCH bigger name who'd already made Atlantic tons of money with his singles was given limited time in the studio on an off day in between tour stops to do an album that consisted mostly of covers of other artists material, they slapped shitty graphics on the album and offered absolutely no promotion for it. Even "Otis Blue" was done the same way - cut in a 24 hour period, around the regular nightly gig the MG's were performing in town and half of the LP was covers - it's just that they were the best rock band in the universe at the time and Redding was at the peak of his power and everything gelled beautifully, but Atlantic viewed that album as a throwaway too.

The perception was that a white artist would sell, and they could open up the market for Cream by giving them the money and means to make a good album, while Pickett and Redding were really only good for singles, but you'd give them albums to boost their catalog, keep them happy and sell a handful to their core audience and they'd all make a little money out of it. It wasn't racist, in that Ahmet Ertegun and Jerry Wexler weren't anti-black, it's just their perception was so skewed by the overall climate of the times (racial, financial, social, etc.) that they made an horrendous error in judgement and continually compounded it. The truth is bad albums that clearly had no effort put into them by the company, whether by white or black artists, didn't sell, while good albums, regardless of the race of the performer, sold. The proof came to Atlantic the next year when Wexler brought in Aretha Franklin and, because he was feeling increasingly marginalized at the company himself, set out to establish her as a star (and re-establishing his own importance within the company) by giving her the time and quality musicians and production and artwork and promotion to do a proper album. She wasn't a name artist when it was released either, but it made her one and not surprisingly it was a huge hit. Why? Because they put a legitimate effort into making and selling it.

This whole "black artists couldn't sell albums" myth is one of the most transparent ones in rock history - it was the labels that had no faith that they could sell and in the process they shortchanged their artists, and cost themselves, as a result of that inane belief that never held up under scrutiny, even then.

As for the era you mention, 65/66, as when albums "importance" took off, I agree, but that was also perception based, except now you had fledging rock writers around to trumpet it as important. All of those albums are absolutely great and influential, but they were beat to it by a load of others that just didn't have a sympathetic press to talk about how important they were.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Sampson wrote:
Lennon famously shot down that one starry eyed fan who came wandering in from the wild at his home as shown in the Imagine film where the guy was trying to say how important the lyrics were and what they meant and John said his words meant something completely different and it could've been simply what he had for breakfast that day or whatever. .


John said (paraphrasing) "It might just mean that I had a good shit that day."

The guy was actually talking about a song that Paul wrote anyway.

Both sides of one Chuck Berry single (Too Much Monkey Business / Brown Eyed Handsome Man) were probably more socially conscious than the Beatles entire catalog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:13 am
Posts: 172
Sampson wrote:
Brett Alan wrote:
If The Beatles hadn't come along, social conscience probably would have remained the province of folk music, and rock and roll may well not have become the overarching force we think of it as being today.


I find it hard to see any social conscience in any of the songs of the Beatles did other than "Revolution" really, maybe one or two others ("Blackbird"). Unlike Bruce I actually do appreciate lyrics, and I do think very highly of the Beatles as songwriters, but their social conscious is largely a myth when it comes to their music. The Impressions were FAR more socially conscious than anything the Beatles attempted and did so far earlier as well. The Beatles wrote amazing vingettes, they were exceptional at personal introspection (In My Life, Yesterday, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away etc.), wonderful with melodies and great experimentors, but this is again a case of blind misconception of fans attempting to find some deeper relevance in their songs. Lennon famously shot down that one starry eyed fan who came wandering in from the wild at his home as shown in the Imagine film where the guy was trying to say how important the lyrics were and what they meant and John said his words meant something completely different and it could've been simply what he had for breakfast that day or whatever. The Robins "Framed" from 1955 is explicit social commentary well over a decade before the Beatles even attempted anything that blatant in a song.

What about "All You Need Is Love" or "The Word"? Where you see The Beatles singing about love as a force of change, more than just the romantic love traditional in rock&roll, and as a way of living and freeing society from most of its problems. I don't think a song of social conscience necessarily has to be politics-related.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:18 am 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 1407
Bruce wrote:
Sampson wrote:
Lennon famously shot down that one starry eyed fan who came wandering in from the wild at his home as shown in the Imagine film where the guy was trying to say how important the lyrics were and what they meant and John said his words meant something completely different and it could've been simply what he had for breakfast that day or whatever. .


John said (paraphrasing) "It might just mean that I had a good shit that day."

The guy was actually talking about a song that Paul wrote anyway.

Both sides of one Chuck Berry single (Too Much Monkey Business / Brown Eyed Handsome Man) were probably more socially conscious than the Beatles entire catalog.


The most socially conscious Berry song is undoubtedly Promised Land, which if people know their history and the time in which it was written was an obvious commentary on the Freedom Riders. Every stop in the song refers to something specifically from that brutal trip through the south.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Johnny wrote:
What about "All You Need Is Love"


I love the record, but not because of the lyrics. They are, at best, a pipe dream. A copout instead of coming up with words that are actually insightful.

"It's easy....all you need is love?"

MY FUCKING ASS

Sounds like these schmucks who think you can beat cancer with the power of positive thinking.

Like John said in his own lyrics, he was a dreamer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:26 am
Posts: 7526
Location: New Jersey
Sampson wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Sampson wrote:
Lennon famously shot down that one starry eyed fan who came wandering in from the wild at his home as shown in the Imagine film where the guy was trying to say how important the lyrics were and what they meant and John said his words meant something completely different and it could've been simply what he had for breakfast that day or whatever. .


John said (paraphrasing) "It might just mean that I had a good shit that day."

The guy was actually talking about a song that Paul wrote anyway.

Both sides of one Chuck Berry single (Too Much Monkey Business / Brown Eyed Handsome Man) were probably more socially conscious than the Beatles entire catalog.


The most socially conscious Berry song is undoubtedly Promised Land, which if people know their history and the time in which it was written was an obvious commentary on the Freedom Riders. Every stop in the song refers to something specifically from that brutal trip through the south.


Even Little Richard had "Miss Ann," about a Southern white girl wanting to be with a black man, but afraid to let anybody know. " I love to hear you call my name, You can't call it loud, but you call it so sweet and so plain."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:33 am 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 1407
Johnny wrote:
Sampson wrote:
Brett Alan wrote:
If The Beatles hadn't come along, social conscience probably would have remained the province of folk music, and rock and roll may well not have become the overarching force we think of it as being today.


I find it hard to see any social conscience in any of the songs of the Beatles did other than "Revolution" really, maybe one or two others ("Blackbird"). Unlike Bruce I actually do appreciate lyrics, and I do think very highly of the Beatles as songwriters, but their social conscious is largely a myth when it comes to their music. The Impressions were FAR more socially conscious than anything the Beatles attempted and did so far earlier as well. The Beatles wrote amazing vingettes, they were exceptional at personal introspection (In My Life, Yesterday, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away etc.), wonderful with melodies and great experimentors, but this is again a case of blind misconception of fans attempting to find some deeper relevance in their songs. Lennon famously shot down that one starry eyed fan who came wandering in from the wild at his home as shown in the Imagine film where the guy was trying to say how important the lyrics were and what they meant and John said his words meant something completely different and it could've been simply what he had for breakfast that day or whatever. The Robins "Framed" from 1955 is explicit social commentary well over a decade before the Beatles even attempted anything that blatant in a song.


What about "All You Need Is Love" or "The Word"? Where you see The Beatles singing about love as a force of change, more than just the romantic love traditional in rock&roll, and as a way of living and freeing society from most of its problems. I don't think a song of social conscience necessarily has to be politics-related.


Ahh, excellent observations, but see the following: "Please Send Me Someone To Love" - Percy Mayfield 1950 and "Shake A Hand" - Faye Adams 1953.

There is nothing new under the rock 'n' roll son, my friend.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:00 am
Posts: 2039
Bruce wrote:
Brown is only 6th in top 40 hits and has only had 7 top ten hits, which is not even among the top 50 in that category.

Whitburn ranks him 9th all time on the singles chart and 14th all time on the LP chart (as of 1996). Same strory on the LP chart. Lots of charted albums but not many that got very high on that chart.


Most top 10 singles
Madonna (38)
Elvis Presley (36) (Pre-Hot 100 charts and Hot 100)
The Beatles (34)
Stevie Wonder (28) tie
Michael Jackson (28) tie
Elton John (27) tie
Janet Jackson (27) tie
Mariah Carey (27) tie

Most number-one hits
The Beatles (20)
Mariah Carey (18)
Elvis Presley (17) (Pre-Hot 100 charts and Hot 100)
Michael Jackson (13) This total does not include "We Are the World", co-written by Jackson and credited to USA for Africa, or the four #1 singles by The Jackson 5.
Madonna (12) tie
The Supremes (12) tie
Whitney Houston (11) tie
Rihanna (11)[24] tie
Janet Jackson (10) tie
Stevie Wonder (10) tie


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 ... 420  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Search for:

DigitalDreamDoor.com   

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

DigitalDreamDoor Forum is one part of a music and movie list website whose owner has given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...


DDD Home Page | DDD Music Lists Page | DDD Movie Lists Page