Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 8 of 9
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 06:07

Quote
thewatchman
You should no better than to argue with a woman!

Reely. I phad know IDuh.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 06:10

Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 13, 2012 07:29

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Really? EVERYONE here has a problem with the way Mick Jagger sings? You speak for EVERYONE?

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 07:41

Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Really? EVERYONE here has a problem with the way Mick Jagger sings? You speak for EVERYONE?

No. I was talking to YOU about what YOU said. My comment about Mick's singing is merely that, something based on observation. Perhaps I should have said "most people" but it's not far off. Didn't know you'd get so upset about a truth like that. Funny how that comes out.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 13, 2012 09:28

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Really? EVERYONE here has a problem with the way Mick Jagger sings? You speak for EVERYONE?

No. I was talking to YOU about what YOU said. My comment about Mick's singing is merely that, something based on observation. Perhaps I should have said "most people" but it's not far off. Didn't know you'd get so upset about a truth like that. Funny how that comes out.

I wasn't upset. I was amused. And to quote you, "You seem to have an issue NO ONE ELSE HERE HAS." Therefore you were saying that I'm the only one who still enjoys the way Mick sings today. I have a feeling I'm not alone in my feelings.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: February 13, 2012 10:37

Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Really? EVERYONE here has a problem with the way Mick Jagger sings? You speak for EVERYONE?

No. I was talking to YOU about what YOU said. My comment about Mick's singing is merely that, something based on observation. Perhaps I should have said "most people" but it's not far off. Didn't know you'd get so upset about a truth like that. Funny how that comes out.

I wasn't upset. I was amused. And to quote you, "You seem to have an issue NO ONE ELSE HERE HAS." Therefore you were saying that I'm the only one who still enjoys the way Mick sings today. I have a feeling I'm not alone in my feelings.

Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-13 10:38 by Witness.

I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: Rolling Hansie ()
Date: February 13, 2012 11:13

Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

-------------------
Keep On Rolling smoking smiley

I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: Rolling Hansie ()
Date: February 13, 2012 11:21

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal

Oh help me, please doctor, I'm damaged
There's a song where there should be a pain
I like it, I love it
Can't ya please fix my ears, so I won't like
This song anymore ?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling smoking smiley

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: WeLoveYou ()
Date: February 13, 2012 11:44

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.

Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.

I agree, and also think Undercover is the last proper Stones album where they really made an effort to come up with original creative tunes, rather than just running on auto-pilot as they have for the later albums. Undercover was the last time Mick sung well, with a very tuneful and expressive voice.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 12:05

Quote
WeLoveYou
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.

Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.

I agree, and also think Undercover is the last proper Stones album where they really made an effort to come up with original creative tunes, rather than just running on auto-pilot as they have for the later albums. Undercover was the last time Mick sung well, with a very tuneful and expressive voice.

What's wrong with his singing on Steel Wheels?

Almost Hear You Sigh, Break The Spell and Hearts For Sale come to mind.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: windmelody ()
Date: February 13, 2012 12:09

I think his singing in 89/90 and 97-99 plus on the Licks tour was very good, better than in 81/82, it got worse during the ABB tour.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: WeLoveYou ()
Date: February 13, 2012 12:14

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
WeLoveYou
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.

Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.

I agree, and also think Undercover is the last proper Stones album where they really made an effort to come up with original creative tunes, rather than just running on auto-pilot as they have for the later albums. Undercover was the last time Mick sung well, with a very tuneful and expressive voice.

What's wrong with his singing on Steel Wheels?

Almost Hear You Sigh, Break The Spell and Hearts For Sale come to mind.

It's just not the same, doesn't have the same vitality and creative expression that he had in the early 80s.

windmelody - I'm referring to the singing on albums

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 12:16

Quote
WeLoveYou
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
WeLoveYou
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.

Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.

I agree, and also think Undercover is the last proper Stones album where they really made an effort to come up with original creative tunes, rather than just running on auto-pilot as they have for the later albums. Undercover was the last time Mick sung well, with a very tuneful and expressive voice.

What's wrong with his singing on Steel Wheels?

Almost Hear You Sigh, Break The Spell and Hearts For Sale come to mind.

It's just not the same, doesn't have the same vitality and creative expression that he had in the early 80s.

windmelody - I'm referring to the singing on albums

Yeah, in a way, I see what you mean, although some of the songs on SW imo are Jagger at his best.

IMO, Mick has never sung better than he did on Undercover, so maybe the comparison is a bit unfair?

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: seitan ()
Date: February 13, 2012 15:19

Quote
proudmary
I do not understand this strange logic
If one is old and singing about how he regrets the fact that he became impotent - he's baring out his soul.
If one is old and singing about how he's glad not to have erectile dysfunction - he obviously lost touch with his creative genius.
confused smiley

thumbs up

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 15:24

Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Really? EVERYONE here has a problem with the way Mick Jagger sings? You speak for EVERYONE?

No. I was talking to YOU about what YOU said. My comment about Mick's singing is merely that, something based on observation. Perhaps I should have said "most people" but it's not far off. Didn't know you'd get so upset about a truth like that. Funny how that comes out.

I wasn't upset. I was amused. And to quote you, "You seem to have an issue NO ONE ELSE HERE HAS." Therefore you were saying that I'm the only one who still enjoys the way Mick sings today. I have a feeling I'm not alone in my feelings.

DAMMIT! Awright, so it was a bit...what, across the board. How about 'a lot'? That's not specific about any amount percentage wise. It was a bit tongue in cheek.

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: stonesdan60 ()
Date: February 13, 2012 16:39

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

likewise! smileys with beer

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: February 13, 2012 16:55

Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

likewise! smileys with beer

You're all into nasality then! eye popping smiley

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Date: February 13, 2012 16:56

Quote
Stoneage
Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

likewise! smileys with beer

You're all into nasality then! eye popping smiley

Tell that to Bob Dylan winking smiley

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 13, 2012 17:08

it's not about the nasality or quality of his voice. it's about the affected mannered and the weirdly adopted vocal personas. please. the man can't help it if he has an upper respiratory infection...but he can help it that he sings like a moron.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 17:18

Blame it on the vocal coach.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 13, 2012 17:25

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Blame it on the vocal coach.

ok. i would feel better knowing who's responsible and possibly taking legal action.

however, even if we can blame the coach...mick must share SOME accountability. he hired a coach, yes? and this from a guy who was universally accepted as one of the great rock singers. that's like alfred hitchcock, ingmar bergman or woody allen hiring a film-directing coach late in their careers...well, ok, i could see woody doing that...he's insecure....but still...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 13, 2012 17:28

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Blame it on the vocal coach.

ok. i would feel better knowing who's responsible and possibly taking legal action.

however, even if we can blame the coach...mick must share SOME accountability. he hired a coach, yes? and this from a guy who was universally accepted as one of the great rock singers. that's like alfred hitchcock, ingmar bergman or woody allen hiring a film-directing coach late in their careers...well, ok, i could see woody doing that...he's insecure....but still...

LOL, but I agree! Still, Mick is old. So is Keith, and he certainly doesn't sing like he used to either smiling smiley

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 13, 2012 19:01

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
24FPS
THANK GOD I'm not afflicted with ears that suffer from hearing Mick's nasalness. I'm free to enjoy. I'm so sorry for the others and all they're missing. Thank you ears.

Make up yer mind. You thank "god" and then you thank you ears? "God"'s got nothing to do with it - it's YOU. Your ears don't work normal. You seem to have an issue no one else here has.

Really? EVERYONE here has a problem with the way Mick Jagger sings? You speak for EVERYONE?

No. I was talking to YOU about what YOU said. My comment about Mick's singing is merely that, something based on observation. Perhaps I should have said "most people" but it's not far off. Didn't know you'd get so upset about a truth like that. Funny how that comes out.

I wasn't upset. I was amused. And to quote you, "You seem to have an issue NO ONE ELSE HERE HAS." Therefore you were saying that I'm the only one who still enjoys the way Mick sings today. I have a feeling I'm not alone in my feelings.

DAMMIT! Awright, so it was a bit...what, across the board. How about 'a lot'? That's not specific about any amount percentage wise. It was a bit tongue in cheek.

Just pulling your chain, mate. It just makes me angry that after the fantastic vocal performance Mick gave last year at the Grammys that he doesn't get the respect he deserves. IMHO he's the only Stone still operating at the highest level. Solomon Burke didn't give him that cape for nothing.
smileys with beer

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: stonesdan60 ()
Date: February 13, 2012 19:08

Quote
Stoneage
Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

likewise! smileys with beer

You're all into nasality then! eye popping smiley

Maybe my ears are damaged from decades of loud rock and roll but I don't really hear "nasality" in Mick's vocals as of the recent tours. To me it sounds like his voice has naturally deepened with age but I never thought of it as "nasal" in the way one might describe someone like Dylan. I think Mick has been coached to sing in a different way than he did long ago simply for preservation of his voice. Rather than straining at the top of his lungs or reaching for high notes he might not be able to hit, he sometimes changes the melody a bit. He may not sound like he did in '73 but I think he's still a damn good rock singer who knows how to put across the essence of a song.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 13, 2012 19:43

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
WeLoveYou
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
WeLoveYou
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.

Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.

I agree, and also think Undercover is the last proper Stones album where they really made an effort to come up with original creative tunes, rather than just running on auto-pilot as they have for the later albums. Undercover was the last time Mick sung well, with a very tuneful and expressive voice.

What's wrong with his singing on Steel Wheels?

Almost Hear You Sigh, Break The Spell and Hearts For Sale come to mind.

It's just not the same, doesn't have the same vitality and creative expression that he had in the early 80s.

windmelody - I'm referring to the singing on albums

Yeah, in a way, I see what you mean, although some of the songs on SW imo are Jagger at his best.

IMO, Mick has never sung better than he did on Undercover, so maybe the comparison is a bit unfair?

He was razor sharp on that...love that tune/album

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 13, 2012 21:29

Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Stoneage
Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

likewise! smileys with beer

You're all into nasality then! eye popping smiley

Maybe my ears are damaged from decades of loud rock and roll but I don't really hear "nasality" in Mick's vocals as of the recent tours. To me it sounds like his voice has naturally deepened with age but I never thought of it as "nasal" in the way one might describe someone like Dylan. I think Mick has been coached to sing in a different way than he did long ago simply for preservation of his voice. Rather than straining at the top of his lungs or reaching for high notes he might not be able to hit, he sometimes changes the melody a bit. He may not sound like he did in '73 but I think he's still a damn good rock singer who knows how to put across the essence of a song.

I remember Keith complimenting Mick on the '81 tour I think it was. He said something to the effect that Mick was actually singing now instead of just barking out the lyrics. I can't hear this mannered nasality, but I do hear a master.

"The car you drive's a rusty wreck,
It's always you that pays the check....."

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 13, 2012 21:47

Quote
24FPS
I remember Keith complimenting Mick on the '81 tour I think it was. He said something to the effect that Mick was actually singing now instead of just barking out the lyrics. I can't hear this mannered nasality, but I do hear a master.
"

People have different opinions how great Jagger's singing in 1981/82 tour was, but whatever it was it was not "mannered nasality". No, he shouted his lunghts out, was raw and edgy. The nasal thing started, pretty much with much vocal coaching during the *Vegas' era. Check this out, and compare (even the first "oh yeah!" tells the he difference):








- Doxa

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: February 13, 2012 22:13

Quote
StonesTod
it's not about the nasality or quality of his voice. it's about the affected mannered and the weirdly adopted vocal personas. please. the man can't help it if he has an upper respiratory infection...but he can help it that he sings like a moron.

My impression is that this is what it might be most about. What some do not like.

I might be completely wrong, of course, but I wonder if it has to do with Mick expressing, not always, but maybe sometimes .... in fact, mixed emotions, with his voice. Sometimes perhaps even self-irony built in as a part of a feeling.

If this is the case, and it tends to be my view, it adds to rather than detracts from the quality of Mick's vocal delivery. It might point to new aspects of the nuances and richness of his singing.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 13, 2012 22:35

Quote
Witness
Quote
StonesTod
it's not about the nasality or quality of his voice. it's about the affected mannered and the weirdly adopted vocal personas. please. the man can't help it if he has an upper respiratory infection...but he can help it that he sings like a moron.

My impression is that this is what it might be most about. What some do not like.

I might be completely wrong, of course, but I wonder if it has to do with Mick expressing, not always, but maybe sometimes .... in fact, mixed emotions, with his voice. Sometimes perhaps even self-irony built in as a part of a feeling.

If this is the case, and it tends to be my view, it adds to rather than detracts from the quality of Mick's vocal delivery. It might point to new aspects of the nuances and richness of his singing.

StonesTod is right though...the affectation does spoil some songs. With that said, his vocal does still work well for a lot of songs, but it spoils a lot of them as well.

I wonder if he started singing this way to compensate for the fact that his register deepened with age. Whatever the reason, it's too bad as he can still sing very well, with the right song.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 13, 2012 22:43

If this is the case, and it tends to be my view, it adds to rather than detracts from the quality of Mick's vocal delivery. It might point to new aspects of the nuances and richness of his singing.[/quote]- Witness

drinking smiley Tru dat

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 8 of 9


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 466
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home