| February 8th, 2005 12:35 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
U2....The Worlds biggest band???
Why do I see this at times when I read an article about them?
Have the writers forgot who The Rolling Stones are?
*U2 were never the biggest band in The world with the Stones on duty.
As Long as The Rolling Stones are around they will ALWAYS take at least second place.
Look at the Fan Base which is close sure but still The Stones have more fans world wide.
Look at industry pull and revenue and concerts. U2 has had tours that didn't do so well in the past 15 years in which they actually lost alot of money on and The tour was a financial dissappoitment.
When has a Rolling Stones tour suffered financialy? Never!
Get it straight. U2 never will be as big as The Stones and will never be considered as influential or as legendary.
Geez Bono wants to be Jim Morrison so back it is sick.
Ian |
| February 8th, 2005 12:45 AM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
This, from 1993...
_______________________________________________________
'U2 is the most popular, and successful, musical export coming from Ireland today, but there's no comparison between the musical quality of what they do and what the Chieftans do,' he said. 'We play together here nearly every time they're in town and I love the sound these guys make. I love the melodies, the chord
changes and especially the way their music is performed. Each member of the group is expert on his instrument, not just in terms of technique, but in terms of the concept they have of what the final ensemble product is supposed to sound like. That is something you are only going to get with a group that has been together 30 years.'
Frank Zappa had shaken his head in a negative fashion when, earlier in the studio, someone mentioned that U2 now described themselves as 'post-modern rockers.' Why did that phrase, which is so appropriate in relation to his own work, so offend him when applied to this particular band?
'Post-modern rockers, what does that mean? Do they themselves know?' he asked smiling wryly. 'And which would you rather have? Mediocre invention or a direct linear descent from Celtic culture, which is what I hear in the music of the Chieftans? And even if you do stumble across excellent innovation, what are you going to
do with it, how are you going to appreciate it, if you don't first appreciate your own culture?'
http://home.online.no/~corneliu/irish_times.htm
[Edited by MrPleasant] |
| February 8th, 2005 01:01 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
MrPleasant wrote:
This, from 1993...
_______________________________________________________
'U2 is the most popular, and successful, musical export coming from Ireland today, but there's no comparison between the musical quality of what they do and what the Chieftans do,' he said. 'We play together here nearly every time they're in town and I love the sound these guys make. I love the melodies, the chord
changes and especially the way their music is performed. Each member of the group is expert on his instrument, not just in terms of technique, but in terms of the concept they have of what the final ensemble product is supposed to sound like. That is something you are only going to get with a group that has been together 30 years.'
Frank Zappa had shaken his head in a negative fashion when, earlier in the studio, someone mentioned that U2 now described themselves as 'post-modern rockers.' Why did that phrase, which is so appropriate in relation to his own work, so offend him when applied to this particular band?
'Post-modern rockers, what does that mean? Do they themselves know?' he asked smiling wryly. 'And which would you rather have? Mediocre invention or a direct linear descent from Celtic culture, which is what I hear in the music of the Chieftans? And even if you do stumble across excellent innovation, what are you going to
do with it, how are you going to appreciate it, if you don't first appreciate your own culture?'
http://home.online.no/~corneliu/irish_times.htm
[Edited by MrPleasant]
Sure, from Ireland there is no doubt U2 are the most successful. I just always have thought U2 as being very over-rated. I simply cannot dig them. And this is fine. However, when I see them labled as The biggest band in the world I have a problem with that.
Ian |
| February 8th, 2005 01:28 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I have a problem with it too! But, what was the sales of Live Licks again?
And, what are the sales of "How to dismantle and atom bomb?"
Whats that you say? You cant compare, because one is a new release, released to glowing reviews, and amazing sales.
The other is another tired old fucking live record, from shows over 2 1/2 years ago, and which much of it features on a dvd release from over 12 months ago!
The Stones might very well still be the biggest band in the world, if they had gotten some inspiration and released at least 2 new cd's in the past 8 years.
Instead of...none.
And, any new Stones release, no matter how good, will not match sales of U2. Hell, wont even match sales of Ac/Dc, which is due in May i think.
It's hard to take, i know. But it had to happen eventually.
If only Keith paid as much attention to his hair color and decoration, as he did to "dreaming" up new riffs!
"Incoming" he says. Indeed. Aint no incoming been received for nigh on 10 years. |
| February 8th, 2005 01:29 AM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Sure, from Ireland there is no doubt U2 are the most successful. I just always have thought U2 as being very over-rated. I simply cannot dig them. And this is fine. However, when I see them labled as The biggest band in the world I have a problem with that.
Ian
Actually Zappa, whom I quoted, didn't care so much (at all?) about U2. And I agree with him... and I agree with you... for some part.
My main distress with U2 is that THEY seem to overrate themselves. R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe, alongside Bono, looks like J.J. Cale in terms of modesty.
As for their music, I've only listened to Zooropa. Not bad ("Stay" is gorgeous). Probably it doesn't relate to their classic, yet obnoxious, booming style.
Maybe I'm wrong, and they aren't obnoxious after all, but there are so many artists and bands left to know and very little VH1 worth watching...
[Edited by MrPleasant] |
| February 8th, 2005 02:14 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Sure U2 sells more albums than The Stones. But in that aspect so does Usher, Christina Augueliera, and Enimem for that matter. I would not lable Sound Garden as a bigger band than the Stones simply because they sold more albums in the past 10 or 12 years. There is alot more involved than just selling records when it comes to The title of "The Worlds Biggest Band".
Album sales is only part of it. This is the only aspect you can stake a claim for U2.
And yes Bono's cockyness is tiresome. Especially these days.
Atleast Mick tries to act semi- Tongue in Cheek with his cockyness thses days. Bono hasn't changes his act in 20 years. What if Mick was still actling like he did in the mid-eighties. He would be looked at as being kinda silly.
Bono can't even play an instrument can he?
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 8th, 2005 03:05 AM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
U2....The Worlds biggest band???
Why do I see this at times when I read an article about them?
Have the writers forgot who The Rolling Stones are?
Maybe if the Stones died after Steel Wheels or Voodoo Lounge
quote:
*U2 were never the biggest band in The world with the Stones on duty.
Well, they arent on duty now.
quote:
As Long as The Rolling Stones are around they will ALWAYS take at least second place.
Lets just tally all the points after they both are gone
quote:
Look at the Fan Base which is close sure but still The Stones have more fans world wide.
Maybe, maybe not. Looks like U2's fan base is still growing. Not so sure about the Stones, seems to have tapered off in the last decade or so.
quote:
Look at industry pull and revenue and concerts. U2 has had tours that didn't do so well in the past 15 years in which they actually lost alot of money on and The tour was a financial dissappoitment.
A tour (Popmart) had some stale sales but for the most part all their tours have done well. They might have overextended themselves when booking stadiums in B markets. Exactly how much money did they lose on that tour? The Stones almost had the same problem on Voodoo Lounge.
quote:
When has a Rolling Stones tour suffered financialy? Never!
Michael Cohl is a genius
quote:
Get it straight. U2 never will be as big as The Stones and will never be considered as influential or as legendary.
Probably not as influential, but legendary is a subjective term. I am sure the Stones are much more legendary than even Robin Hood or Jesus Christ - on a Stones board that is!
quote:
Geez Bono wants to be Jim Morrison so back it is sick.
Ian
Fat and dead of old age at 27? |
| February 8th, 2005 05:13 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Stones fans are notoriously touchy and competitive about ANY band who sells a lot of concert tickets, gets a lot of press or who shifts more units than them, in case (heaven forbid) anyone may call said act "the biggest band in the world". Personally, I find it childish.
It's evidenced by the puerile anti-Beatles nonsense you read ad nauseam where people compare them with a band who havent existed for 35 years, and often insist you cant like both - an argument that no one over the age of about 12 should have taken seriously from about 1965 onwards.
You can adapt whatever maxim you want to define "the worlds biggest band" to suit your own agenda, whether its concert tickets sold, money generated (which IMO says more about their marketing skills and ability to gouge fans) and their record sales. The tag also has a lot to do with timing.
The Stones are the biggest act in the world IMO only when they're on the road selling tickets and generating money. They certainly aren't when they release records. There are about 20-30 acts in the world at least I'd reckon who sell more records than the Stones do with each new release (I'm not talking about live albums). You couldnt make that argument with U2. The Stones, however, are more universally recognizable I would imagine. For what that's worth. But then again, probably not as much as Michael Jackson or Madonna are.
Finally, an act doesnt even have to be still in existence to be the biggest in the world. Elvis, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin still sell more records every year than the Stones and U2 do.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| February 8th, 2005 08:16 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
I believe the old Bachman Turner Overdrive/Guess Who are the worlds biggest band.Between em they must weigh in at over a ton!.......... |
| February 8th, 2005 08:22 AM |
|
|
| keith_tif |
Yes the Rolling Stones are the biggest band in the world!!)))
After Stones, it's REM! |
| February 8th, 2005 08:32 AM |
|
|
| padre |
A few more extra players on Stones' stage and they'll truly be the biggest band in the world! Bring back Matt Clifford! |
| February 8th, 2005 08:42 AM |
|
|
| KeithRichards |
Open your eyes a little bit.
Outside of the Stones forums, U2 are definitely the biggest act around. Probably it would be different if the Stones had released something new in the past 8 years, but it was very silent. The Stones are endangered of becoming a nostalgia act, that only draws masses to the concerts because the Tours are always promoted as "the last Stones tour" (at least that's what the media does) - it became somehow a "must" to see the Stones live. But not so much because of the music, more because they are the rock dinosaurs, the living legends and people think: yeah, it's a good show, I can hear Satisfaction and Brown Sugar, and I can tell my kids that I still saw the Stones live. And look at the crowd at the Stones concerts - old people who just came from work...probably still in suits.
Sorry, but that's just different with U2. They make new albums on a regular basis, they really sell good, theý are played on the radio (no Stones on the radio!!), on MTV, Viva, whatever. They are in the newspapers,...
I don't think they deserve the title of being the biggest act , but they are! They are bigger now than the Stones. |
| February 8th, 2005 09:04 AM |
|
|
| L&A |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Stones fans are notoriously touchy and competitive about ANY band who sells a lot of concert tickets, gets a lot of press or who shifts more units than them, in case (heaven forbid) anyone may call said act "the biggest band in the world". Personally, I find it childish.
It's evidenced by the puerile anti-Beatles nonsense you read ad nauseam where people compare them with a band who havent existed for 35 years, and often insist you cant like both - an argument that no one over the age of about 12 should have taken seriously from about 1965 onwards.
You can adapt whatever maxim you want to define "the worlds biggest band" to suit your own agenda, whether its concert tickets sold, money generated (which IMO says more about their marketing skills and ability to gouge fans) and their record sales. The tag also has a lot to do with timing.
The Stones are the biggest act in the world IMO only when they're on the road selling tickets and generating money. They certainly aren't when they release records. There are about 20-30 acts in the world at least I'd reckon who sell more records than the Stones do with each new release (I'm not talking about live albums). You couldnt make that argument with U2. The Stones, however, are more universally recognizable I would imagine. For what that's worth. But then again, probably not as much as Michael Jackson or Madonna are.
Finally, an act doesnt even have to be still in existence to be the biggest in the world. Elvis, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin still sell more records every year than the Stones and U2 do.
[Edited by Gazza]
Great post, Gazza. The age of reason... lol   |
| February 8th, 2005 09:32 AM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
Ian, I can't believe you. You are the only one around here that worries to death about unimportant things. At first I thought your album release date frenzy couldn't be topped -- well, now it has.
What, are you gonna die if some people think that U2 is greater than the Stones? A piece of advice: Just sit back, relax, and let things come to you. And quit worrying about what the hell is going on in the Stones camp. You're gonna get an ulcer. |
| February 8th, 2005 10:00 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Stones fans are notoriously touchy and competitive about ANY band who sells a lot of concert tickets, gets a lot of press or who shifts more units than them, in case (heaven forbid) anyone may call said act "the biggest band in the world". Personally, I find it childish.
It's evidenced by the puerile anti-Beatles nonsense you read ad nauseam where people compare them with a band who havent existed for 35 years, and often insist you cant like both - an argument that no one over the age of about 12 should have taken seriously from about 1965 onwards.
You can adapt whatever maxim you want to define "the worlds biggest band" to suit your own agenda, whether its concert tickets sold, money generated (which IMO says more about their marketing skills and ability to gouge fans) and their record sales. The tag also has a lot to do with timing.
The Stones are the biggest act in the world IMO only when they're on the road selling tickets and generating money. They certainly aren't when they release records. There are about 20-30 acts in the world at least I'd reckon who sell more records than the Stones do with each new release (I'm not talking about live albums). You couldnt make that argument with U2. The Stones, however, are more universally recognizable I would imagine. For what that's worth. But then again, probably not as much as Michael Jackson or Madonna are.
Finally, an act doesnt even have to be still in existence to be the biggest in the world. Elvis, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin still sell more records every year than the Stones and U2 do.
[Edited by Gazza]
Outstanding and EXTREMELY well written Post Gazza .....
Please feel free to take the rest of the day off !
" Stones Rule You Bastards ! "
Jacky ! ™ |
| February 8th, 2005 10:02 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Outstanding and EXTREMELY well written Post Gazza .....
Please feel free to take the rest of the day off !
I'm just about to!
|
| February 8th, 2005 10:08 AM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Stones fans are notoriously touchy and competitive about ANY band who sells a lot of concert tickets, gets a lot of press or who shifts more units than them, in case (heaven forbid) anyone may call said act "the biggest band in the world". Personally, I find it childish.
It's evidenced by the puerile anti-Beatles nonsense you read ad nauseam where people compare them with a band who havent existed for 35 years, and often insist you cant like both - an argument that no one over the age of about 12 should have taken seriously from about 1965 onwards.
You can adapt whatever maxim you want to define "the worlds biggest band" to suit your own agenda, whether its concert tickets sold, money generated (which IMO says more about their marketing skills and ability to gouge fans) and their record sales. The tag also has a lot to do with timing.
The Stones are the biggest act in the world IMO only when they're on the road selling tickets and generating money. They certainly aren't when they release records. There are about 20-30 acts in the world at least I'd reckon who sell more records than the Stones do with each new release (I'm not talking about live albums). You couldnt make that argument with U2. The Stones, however, are more universally recognizable I would imagine. For what that's worth. But then again, probably not as much as Michael Jackson or Madonna are.
Finally, an act doesnt even have to be still in existence to be the biggest in the world. Elvis, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin still sell more records every year than the Stones and U2 do.
[Edited by Gazza]
completely right. especially about the anti-Beatles thing. music isn't a monopoly and though I like it when the Stones are out kicking everyone else's ass, so can't get an enriched or even worthwhile musical perspective disregarding every other band you out them up against. I like some of U2's stuff OK for the sound they've contributed but as soon as it becomes about being the best is when it starts to get a little silly. I'd rather just see them do their own thing. The more they try to maintain their status as one of the biggest bands in the world, the more their stuff sounds the same. The reason I justify liking the Stones best is because they always kept finding their way to being the best by accident. Sticky Fingers, Black & Blue, Some Girls were all very different records. The didn't just go into the studio and say "hey guys, lets be the greatest rock n roll band in the world, how's that sound." and just rocked. Some hit like Exile, some missed like Emotional Rescue (though a holdover album wouldn't be the best example), but at least they just went in and played music and worked out who was gonna be the greatest band in the world ever. There's no way the Stones could've known that Tattoo You was going to be their new Let It Bleed when they made it, they just did what they felt like doing and without the bullshit.
The reason I have a hard time getting into U2, and, like said before, they overrate themselves. Before all this new album hype came out of the band I would have NEVER considered them in the top 10 bands in the world, and suddenly they want to let everyone know they're #1, and everyone believes them. All seems like a bunch of hype.
I also think we should have the Rocks Off message board split into 2 forums. 1 for people who want to have a discussion about music, and another for people who can't get enough of looking at record sales. If record sales is all you have to go on your really wasting my time. There are a lot of acts out there who can sell their albums better than U2, I don't see anyone calling them the Greatest Band In The World. |
| February 8th, 2005 10:10 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
But you know what?...I bought the record...and I still do not know how to dismantle an atomic bomb...But when I bought Sticky Fingers...well...that's exactly what I got...my life ain't been the same since |
| February 8th, 2005 10:27 AM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
I know a lot of U2 fans who couldn't get past Vertigo on "...Bomb". The consensus is that U2 is on a downward creative spiral. |
| February 8th, 2005 10:35 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
so were the Stones after the early 70's, yet their biggest selling albums were released in 1981 and 1978
(although personally I rate Some Girls as one of their best two or three albums, way better than Let It Bleed or BB - however most people dont)
Point being that your most commercial work isnt always going to be your best (case in point, Springsteen's "Born In the USA" - one of the weakest two or three albums he ever did, but sold about 3 times as much as any of his other records) |
| February 8th, 2005 10:41 AM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
that's reassuring that U2 fans can at least admit that the album isn't living up to the hype. |
| February 8th, 2005 12:10 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
But you know what?...I bought the record...and I still do not know how to dismantle an atomic bomb
Pretty much remove the core, or just about any major or minor component and it will cease to be a working device.
|
| February 8th, 2005 06:59 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Quick post before i have some toast.
I can dig Ian Billan's thoughts though.
I am still immature enough to despise any challengers.
I cant help it.
But, i have seen the light, and realised, no matter how much it hurts, that the Stones just are not as big as i like to think they are. |
| February 8th, 2005 07:03 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
But, i have seen the light, and realised, no matter how much it hurts, that the Stones just are not as big as i like to think they are.
They could have stayed that way. But to quote Spinal Tap, their audience has become more selective. As in those who can pay $350 for tickets etc. I think Steel Wheels is still the biggest rock n roll tour ever, if not in gross receipts, than at least in the amount of people attending. |
| February 8th, 2005 07:15 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
But you know what?...I bought the record...and I still do not know how to dismantle an atomic bomb...
hilarious feej - perhaps you could sue - misleading and decpetive conduct and all that - damages would be extensive if the thing goes off before you can disarm it!! |
| February 8th, 2005 08:23 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
There simply comes a time when the old lion is challenged. U2 are not the latest in a long line of challengers. Guns & Roses, Beatles (grrrrr), Who, Ac/dc (maybe) even Kiss. All fell away.
But, U2 are different. Their popularity has astonished me. They are the real deal. They have at least another 5 years, hell, maybe 10 left in them. The Stones dont. Not at the level they and we are used to anyway. I know the Stones paved the way for acceptance of "oldies" in rock, and good on them, but U2 are following right along, and over taking.
I'll say it again and again. Most people under 30 dont give a rats ass for the Stones. If some kid was just getting into U2 in 97, he has been rewarded with several studio cds. We've had none. 8 years away from the charts with new stuff is a hell of a long time.
I cant wait for the new Stones cd. But, we all know, the sharpened knives will be out. There will be "Why do they bother?", "Who cares?", "It took 8 years to make this?" - and all that stuff. And, maybe apart from 3-4 songs, the critics will be right.
U2 can bring out a dog of an album, and even radically change direction, but they can recover. They have not only a large core fan base, they win new fans every tour/cd.
The Stones dont!
If the next Stones cd is really bad, thats it. Either way, isnt this the last cd in their contract? If so, dont expect another.
They might as well just do farewell tours and be done with it. How about a "Stones Live: With the London Sypmphony Orchestra!!" Hey, think about it. How long until that happens?
Live Licks has really pissed me off. The utter contempt for us fans is just breathtaking. I used to appreciate their arrogance once, but then again, when i was young, i thought Jim Morrison's poetry was cool.
Now, i just wince and slap my forehead when i see Live Licks, and no new stuff for 8 years. Not even a rarities. You just know all the unreleased stuff is gonna trickle out for the next 15 years - just before Christmas. But, all that unreleased shit must be pretty bloody bad, as what stopped them releasing something (ANYTHING!) in the past 8 years. Just to keep them in the cd buying publics eye.
Ahh, fuck it. We can all just accept it. We can brag that no one can make Exile, or Sticky, and just take it as the youngies look at us with bewildered eyes, and buy U2's latest album in their millions. We can all sit comfortably in the past, and just love it. I can still crack a stiffie over Exile once a week. I can still cry at footage of the 81 tour. I can still marvel at songs like Winter, Moonlight Mile and Sway.
Who cares? I mean, why should we? Why should we fight for our band? Why should we defend them? Why should we validate them?
When the lazy old fuckers wont do it for themselves!
P.S. And yes, the day the new cd comes out, i'll be buying it. And, yes, i will swallow up any news of the new tour and pray like a Muslim swine that they tour here. And, yes, i will pay whatever they want, they can tip me upside down and shake me, to get the best seats.
I'm such a wimpy slut. |
| February 8th, 2005 08:54 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Most people under 30 dont give a rats ass for the Stones.<
Most...well yeah, but there are more young Stones fans than you think. The last time out for the Stones I was really amazed at the number of young people in the audience...and they were groovin'.
I think that this is due to some hip "new" bands that literally wear their influences on their sleeves. I see Rolling Stones merch at all the "hip" boutiques in the shopping malls. And it seems that the Stones songs are popular for selling stuff to young people.
But the larger point to all this is....why does anyone care who someone else thinks is the "World's Greatest Rock n Roll Band"? See, I know who I think is the "World's Greatest Rock n Roll Band"...and that is all that matters. I don't give a flyin' fuck what anyone else thinks...because they don't matter to me. There is only one opinion that should really matter to any of us on an issue like this one...and that is our own opinion.
Fuck everyone else. Fuck 'em right in the ear.
So let's start a betting pool. How long before Ian gets a stress ulcer.
I say June. Once it becomes clear that there will be no Stones album or tour this year, he will double over with abdominal pain, and have bloody poo. I think June is it.
He's either gonna get an ulcer, or he's gonna wig out and shoot up the McDonalds where he works.
I'm glad I don't eat fast food any more. |
| February 8th, 2005 09:13 PM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
U2 can bring out a dog of an album, and even radically change direction, but they can recover. They have not only a large core fan base, they win new fans every tour/cd.
The Stones dont!
If the next Stones cd is really bad, thats it. Either way, isnt this the last cd in their contract? If so, dont expect another.
It's probably true, but I don't worry too much.
I can still listen to the old Stones albums.
I didn't become a fan of them because of their newest studio cds but rather in spite of them. (Not that they're bad or anything, it's just that they've done "better" in the past. Still Bridges to Babylon kicks Undercover's ass.)
Can, say, U2 "recover" after they hit 60? Maybe. I don't care. Some pople will like their music, others won't. The persevering ones will search for their past glories, others won't "eat it up" in the first place. Nevertheless there will always be somebody looking back, and, amongst other popular artists, there will be the Stones. There will always be cults around.
[Edited by MrPleasant] |
| February 8th, 2005 10:28 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
-I sincerely don't consider U2 in the top best bands of all time for Crimonies sake-
Geez my Kneeze it is U2. Not The Who, The Beatles, Led-Zepplin, or even Aerosmith for that matter. I never seen the big fixation.
And for this we are the biggest band in the world stuff I just don't get. Bono needs to tone down this cocky bit. Geeze every year he acts the same damn way....like a Jim Morrison wanna be. The mans act never changes what-so-ever.
It is so tireing to seem his doing his cocky thing in the camera again and again and again.
*By the way look at the album cover for HTDAAB and the video Vertigo. Is that a stripped rip off or what? Look at how U2's drummer is posing. His sun-glasses and all. It is all so stripped Geeze.
Ian |
| February 8th, 2005 11:53 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
IAN- I THINK SHOCK TREATMENTS WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]