Tell Me :
Talk
Not sure I agre that they all sucked by 74. Paul had just released Band on the Run in December of 73. So was riding hi on that album through most of 74. He released Mrs. Vanderbelt, Jet and Band on the Run singles in 74. And he released the fantastic single Juniors Fram (scorching tune!) So he was on the ascent.
Lennon meanwhile released imo one of his best albums in 1974, Walls and Bridges! A fantastic gritty funk New York rock album full of pain, dispare, and light romanticism. All of Lennon's best psyches wrapped into one album.
Harrison's Dark Horse was a bit of a let down, but still had some interesting moments. But yes, not as good as his last two albums. And the tour that accompanied that album was not very good. He had blown out his voice.
Ringo release Goodnight Vienna, not a great album. But not terrible. I do think if they had reformed in 74, both Paul and John would have brought some very interesting material to the group.
Cool, so even in 1974 they were better, the album IORR is not that hard to be better than though.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
2 1 2 0
King Crimson - Red.
I've Got My Own Album To Do. Still one of my favourites
Far as good music in '74? Bob Marley, Roxy Music, Genesis, Gram Parsons,Dylan, Richard & Linda Thompson, Big Star
David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
Neil Young - On The Beach
Lou Reed - Rock n Roll Animal
BTO - Not Fragile
To name a few.
Neil Youngs 'On the Beach' is a great one, but Bachman Turner Overdrive...you can't be serious...
On Rate Your Music, Walls and Bridges is ranked no. 293 in 1974. It's only
rock'n'roll is ranked no. 399. I have no idea why Beatles fans would pick a Stones web site to discuss their idols.
Yeah I was yanking your chain on that one a bit. Walls & Bridges has 'Whatever Gets YOu Thru The Night' which is really one of Lennon's best ever tracks. "What You Got' is also killer.
By the way, W&B didn't get that good critics - mostly an average or "so-so" record.
That's the funny thing with a discuss site like this, to discuss music from Stones and other sucessful bands...at least for me...
2 1 2 0
You gotta spill what you can afford to spill...
Hang on, I gotta make another nonsense post...be right back
check out the great lead track on ry cooder's album: mutt romney blues. i think isaac is revenge for mitt's po' mutt.
Oops I've been gone for 2 days - but I see you covered me good. Thanks. Maybe you could have included irritate, but that's all
and testy
20 or 16.....I'm not awake for 20 hours a day, so I wouldn't know. It's up all the time as far as I'm concerned - untill sometime on October.
And he forgot about the greatest album of 1974 (in tough competition with Diamond Dogs) "Planet Waves"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-27 22:03 by Erik_Snow.
Dumbest thing I have ever heard. anyone who thinks this is an idiot.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 27, 2012 03:53
Quote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
Not sure I agre that they all sucked by 74. Paul had just released Band on the Run in December of 73. So was riding hi on that album through most of 74. He released Mrs. Vanderbelt, Jet and Band on the Run singles in 74. And he released the fantastic single Juniors Fram (scorching tune!) So he was on the ascent.
Lennon meanwhile released imo one of his best albums in 1974, Walls and Bridges! A fantastic gritty funk New York rock album full of pain, dispare, and light romanticism. All of Lennon's best psyches wrapped into one album.
Harrison's Dark Horse was a bit of a let down, but still had some interesting moments. But yes, not as good as his last two albums. And the tour that accompanied that album was not very good. He had blown out his voice.
Ringo release Goodnight Vienna, not a great album. But not terrible. I do think if they had reformed in 74, both Paul and John would have brought some very interesting material to the group.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 27, 2012 03:57
Quote
whitem8Quote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
Not sure I agre that they all sucked by 74. Paul had just released Band on the Run in December of 73. So was riding hi on that album through most of 74. He released Mrs. Vanderbelt, Jet and Band on the Run singles in 74. And he released the fantastic single Juniors Fram (scorching tune!) So he was on the ascent.
Lennon meanwhile released imo one of his best albums in 1974, Walls and Bridges! A fantastic gritty funk New York rock album full of pain, dispare, and light romanticism. All of Lennon's best psyches wrapped into one album.
Harrison's Dark Horse was a bit of a let down, but still had some interesting moments. But yes, not as good as his last two albums. And the tour that accompanied that album was not very good. He had blown out his voice.
Ringo release Goodnight Vienna, not a great album. But not terrible. I do think if they had reformed in 74, both Paul and John would have brought some very interesting material to the group.
Cool, so even in 1974 they were better, the album IORR is not that hard to be better than though.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 27, 2012 04:06
John and George started out gangbusters and rapidly declined over their next couple albums. Mind Games is unlistenable and I don't think I know a Harrison album after Living In The Material World. Paul kept climbing, on through the Wings tour in '76 before descending into silliness. I don't really care what Ringo did.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 27, 2012 04:24
Ahh, but for me Mind Games is a underlooked jem with some great songs on it! You are Here, Aussisumen, and I Know are fantastic songs! Beautiful, touching and full of passion. Meat City! Whew another classic Lennon rocker. Tight A$$ is a great rockabily roust about, like only Lennon can do. Great album! And yes, Silly Love Songs isn't a great album, mostly because he let the other Wings sing on it! But his songs were good, Beware My Love, Let em In, but the rest is pretty bad, accept for Denny Laine's Time to Hide, great song. After that was Wings Over America, a great live album, and then London Town, which also is a good album. More softer, but interesting. And then Back to the Egg, and the Wings were done.
Yes, George suffered with his stuff. 33 and 1/3 is very good. And so is George Harrison. But Extra Texture and Gone Troppo are pretty lifeless, as is Somewhere in England. He recovered with Cloud Nine and Brainwashed.
Ringo. Don't have any of his albums other than Ringo and Beaucap of Blues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-27 04:31 by whitem8.
Yes, George suffered with his stuff. 33 and 1/3 is very good. And so is George Harrison. But Extra Texture and Gone Troppo are pretty lifeless, as is Somewhere in England. He recovered with Cloud Nine and Brainwashed.
Ringo. Don't have any of his albums other than Ringo and Beaucap of Blues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-27 04:31 by whitem8.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: August 27, 2012 08:26
Quote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 27, 2012 09:35
Quote
Come OnQuote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
King Crimson - Red.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 27, 2012 09:47
I dont spill beer often, but when I do, I make sure its a keystoneQuote
Munichhilton
Dammit. I just spilled a keystone
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 27, 2012 09:57
Quote
Come OnQuote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
I've Got My Own Album To Do. Still one of my favourites
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 27, 2012 10:27
Damn it, I was just getting ready to post that. somehow there was always good stuff coming out of the Stones camp.Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Come OnQuote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
I've Got My Own Album To Do. Still one of my favourites
Far as good music in '74? Bob Marley, Roxy Music, Genesis, Gram Parsons,Dylan, Richard & Linda Thompson, Big Star
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: August 27, 2012 10:57
Quote
Come On
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
Neil Young - On The Beach
Lou Reed - Rock n Roll Animal
BTO - Not Fragile
To name a few.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: August 27, 2012 11:08
Quote
terraplaneQuote
Come On
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
Neil Young - On The Beach
Lou Reed - Rock n Roll Animal
BTO - Not Fragile
To name a few.
Neil Youngs 'On the Beach' is a great one, but Bachman Turner Overdrive...you can't be serious...
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
walkingthedog
()
Date: August 27, 2012 11:57
Quote
Come OnQuote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
On Rate Your Music, Walls and Bridges is ranked no. 293 in 1974. It's only
rock'n'roll is ranked no. 399. I have no idea why Beatles fans would pick a Stones web site to discuss their idols.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: August 27, 2012 12:03
Quote
Come OnQuote
terraplaneQuote
Come On
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
Neil Young - On The Beach
Lou Reed - Rock n Roll Animal
BTO - Not Fragile
To name a few.
Neil Youngs 'On the Beach' is a great one, but Bachman Turner Overdrive...you can't be serious...
Yeah I was yanking your chain on that one a bit. Walls & Bridges has 'Whatever Gets YOu Thru The Night' which is really one of Lennon's best ever tracks. "What You Got' is also killer.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
jamesjagger
()
Date: August 27, 2012 12:09
Are we in 2012 ?
Beatles versus Stones.............. my godness!
Beatles versus Stones.............. my godness!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 27, 2012 12:21
Easy conclusion 292 to choose fromQuote
walkingthedogQuote
Come OnQuote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
On Rate Your Music, Walls and Bridges is ranked no. 293 in 1974. It's only
rock'n'roll is ranked no. 399. I have no idea why Beatles fans would pick a Stones web site to discuss their idols.
By the way, W&B didn't get that good critics - mostly an average or "so-so" record.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: August 27, 2012 12:30
Quote
walkingthedogQuote
Come OnQuote
His MajestyQuote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.
The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.
They all sucked by 1974.
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
On Rate Your Music, Walls and Bridges is ranked no. 293 in 1974. It's only
rock'n'roll is ranked no. 399. I have no idea why Beatles fans would pick a Stones web site to discuss their idols.
That's the funny thing with a discuss site like this, to discuss music from Stones and other sucessful bands...at least for me...
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
buffalo7478
()
Date: August 27, 2012 14:29
George harrison's first solo output was great. But IF the Beatles were putting out records in 1971-72, would Harrison have gotten more than one song on any of them? As it was a number of his songs had been collecting dust for years while Lennon/McCartney dominated the records.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: August 27, 2012 16:01
Quote
Max'sKansasCityI dont spill beer often, but when I do, I make sure its a keystoneQuote
Munichhilton
Dammit. I just spilled a keystone
You gotta spill what you can afford to spill...
Hang on, I gotta make another nonsense post...be right back
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: August 27, 2012 16:02
What is up with Isaac? He is so democrat!!!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: August 27, 2012 16:35
Quote
Munichhilton
What is up with Isaac? He is so democrat!!!
check out the great lead track on ry cooder's album: mutt romney blues. i think isaac is revenge for mitt's po' mutt.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 27, 2012 19:28
Quote
StonesTod
erik never jokes....sometimes he banters, chaffs, deceives, derides, fools, frolics, horses around, jests, jives, jollies, joshes, kids around, makes merry, mocks, needles, plays thes clown, plays tricks, pokes fun, pulls one's leg, puns, puts on, quips, rags, ribs, ridicules, roasts, and spoofs...but NEVER jokes.
rock on, erik...
Oops I've been gone for 2 days - but I see you covered me good. Thanks. Maybe you could have included irritate, but that's all
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: August 27, 2012 19:29
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
StonesTod
erik never jokes....sometimes he banters, chaffs, deceives, derides, fools, frolics, horses around, jests, jives, jollies, joshes, kids around, makes merry, mocks, needles, plays thes clown, plays tricks, pokes fun, pulls one's leg, puns, puts on, quips, rags, ribs, ridicules, roasts, and spoofs...but NEVER jokes.
rock on, erik...
Oops I've been gone for 2 days - but I see you covered me good. Thanks. Maybe you could have included irritate, but that's all
and testy
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 27, 2012 19:31
Quote
walkingthedogQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
mtaylorYou nailed it ...Quote
walkingthedogQuote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
It's getting dark in northern Norway these days and depression is already setting in.
Nailed what? You haven't even been here
Sun is up 20 hours a day here. Way brighter days than what you suckers down south has the cope with. So much for your nailings
Keep on raising toasts to yourself, Per Arne and "walking the dog"s great heads. You got yourself nailed for sure - nailed in your private parts
Just for the record: The sun is up 16 hours 14 minutes in northern Norway (Tromsø) today, decreasing by 9 minutes every day.
20 or 16.....I'm not awake for 20 hours a day, so I wouldn't know. It's up all the time as far as I'm concerned - untill sometime on October.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 27, 2012 19:54
Quote
Come OnQuote
terraplaneQuote
Come On
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
Neil Young - On The Beach
Lou Reed - Rock n Roll Animal
BTO - Not Fragile
To name a few.
Neil Youngs 'On the Beach' is a great one, but Bachman Turner Overdrive...you can't be serious...
And he forgot about the greatest album of 1974 (in tough competition with Diamond Dogs) "Planet Waves"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-27 22:03 by Erik_Snow.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 28, 2012 02:55
Yeah Diamond Dogs is one of my favs period. One of Bowie's best albums, and one of the best of 74. But Walls and Bridges is fantastic! Yes, it got luke warm reviews in some of the rags, but then, so did Diamond Dogs. And they both have withstood the test of time. Scared is a stunning and epic opera of angst and pain. Dream No. 9 is one of Lennon's best singles, harkening back to the more whimsical psychedelic Beatles sound. And Old Dirt Road is sublime with the slinky intro, and beautiful singing. Great albums.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 06:08 by whitem8.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 06:08 by whitem8.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
GADAWG
()
Date: August 28, 2012 05:52
Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
Dumbest thing I have ever heard. anyone who thinks this is an idiot.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 28, 2012 06:04
Well I find people who have to shout on the internet and label other people's opinion shouldn't throw stones while living in a glass house.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 06:16 by whitem8.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 06:16 by whitem8.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: August 28, 2012 06:10
This why I chose not to post on this topic. GADAWG though I would agree that Let It Be is nowhere near as good as the big four Erik_Snow is not an idiot for posting his opinion just as Send it to me is doubting the moonlandings on the Neil Armstrong thread. Sendittome may be having deluions and is a skeptic but that does not make him an idiot. I don't understand Erik would go on a Stones board and post this unless he wanted to stir it up is another question. Overall in the studio maybe the Beatles were better song crafters than the Stones does not mean I have to like thos songs better. Also Erik Snow Keith may not have invented open G but he certainly pioneered it and mastered and influenced many guitarists with his mastery of the open G thingy. Why put him down for an important musical contribution?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: August 28, 2012 08:21
Talking Bowies Albums, 'Hunky Dory', Ziggy Stardust', '¨Station to Station', 'Low', 'Heroes' and 'Lodger' is the albums I want to talk about. coming to 'Diamond Dogs' it sounded to me like Bowies attempt to make a boring rock-opera ,-, but OK, Rebel Rebel is fine....
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 28, 2012 08:52
Sorry Comeon I just can't agrew with you on this. Bowie plays all the guitar and sax on the album, and there are simply amazing songs on it. Sweet Thing alone is worth the price of the album. Big Brother, Rock and Roll with Me, We are the Dead, all fantastic. Hell the entire album is top notch. It is dark, forboding and passionate. And his voice is incredible. And this is where he starts toying with krautrock/funk. Yes, it is a operetic piece, but well worth the efforts it takes on repeated listening. This isn't an easy album to penetrate, but when you do, it reaps a bountifull of satisfying music.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , Boett , BowieStone , diddleydad , eduardoacdc , fortilix , Halup , hockenheim95 , hot stuff , Irix , Jfk19562003 , P@py , rogerriffin , spunky , switchblade1975
Guests:
1664
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10