Tell Me :
Talk
First of all, you have been drinking the kool-aid, as far as the "weaving" goes. There was "weaving" before Ronnie Wood joined. Please listen to Ya Yas. It's all there. Interlocking guitar parts in the Rolling Stones did not start with Ron Wood joining the band. You have read too many Keith Richards interviews. We should know by now, much of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, I fail to understand why the celebration of Taylor playing with the Stones again has anything at all to do with taking anything away from Ronnie Wood, and why so many people here seem to get incredibly insecure about him whenever Taylor is mentioned. Why does excitement about Taylor have to lead to a full defense of Ron Wood and yet another recitation of the history of Taylor's leaving and Wood's joining (a history we are all very familiar with, by the way).
I think of this as a celebration of the band's history and the contribution Taylor made (albeit a belated celebration, but no matter). I do not think of it in terms of Taylor vs. Wood. Ron Wood's position in the band is very secure, but you would never know it by some of the defensive and almost frightened comments here.
idk, just wondering how to determine who the best James Bond actor might have been. Is it perhaps Roger Moore because he's been in the most films of the series or is it perhaps Daniel Craig because all the previous actors "quit" the series or got fired?
Clearly it's George Lazenby, as he's the only Bond to have bowed out after his best Bond film.
...and Rockman'll agree with me because he's ozzie.
live ,certainly , in the studio keith (or mick j) seem to change already recorded weaving for a new version , like - all down the line II and outtakes of other songs in that period.
Lazenby gets an automatic DQ for the fact that he married Pam Shriver.
perhaps you should listen to Bye Bye Johnny live from the 1972 tour...
You're right. But there was also "non-weaving" with Keith and Ronnie - take the 1975 tour for example. Or tours where Ronnie was just plain drowned out by Keith, and what Ronnie played didn't much matter one way or the other. That was hardly weaving. My point is that two interlocking guitars is a Stones thing - not a Wood vs. Taylor thing. I think Keith perpetuated a myth about he and Ronnie being all about "weaving", when in fact that was often not the case, and sometimes was the case with Keith and Taylor.
that's a whole band weaving though , keith on rhythm , mick t riffing round the vocals and the brass riffing in the gaps left . simply great !
but the remark was about studio weaving replaced by rhythm / lead
More like a single at this rate. I am hoping for enough songs for an EP, though.
True, but in 1975 they just went by the same formula as in 1973.
From 1989 on, the weaving drowned in the big band concept. They more or less had to change the guitar arrangement into the old soul-thing - a few licks here, a few licks there.
In 1978, however, they really nailed it.
@ straycatblues73:
Yep, BBJ is a good example, but it is Keith who is playing the lead guitar, although Taylor plays the licks that go on and on.
Yup, nearly as bad as "their creative peak".
It's all about musical interaction and that interaction on stage between Keith and Taylor is far more interesting than the 'interaction' between the lookalikes Keith and Ronnie. The MR versions on this tour show it once more. One must be blind not to hear it.
i do miss the wobble.
Musically speaking they're lookalikes. As for playing guitar, to be more specific. Do you get it now?
They are very different. No one sounds like Keith. Ronnie is more rhythm-oriented than Taylor, but it's superficial, compared to Keith. Musically, they are more different than some clueless journo described them as back in the day (established as the truth by fans, for some reason)...
You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? Taylor isn't stealing the show from anybody. sheesh.
Yes! Sat with this properly and...
I got goosebumps listening to and watching it!
... They are actually playing, listening, inspiring each other and it's obvious that something special is taking place. You can feel the atmosphere change as they get deeper in to it.
This is from Las Vegas? If so, that's funny in the best possible way.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 30, 2013 06:19
Quote
Beast of BabylonQuote
rambler44
Before making my point I want to say I love the Mick Taylor era Stones albums. His contribution to the group tremendous and enduring.
But too many people on this site seem to forget he quit the band! And not just any band. He quit THE ROLLING STONES! No one was even remotely pushing him out. And when he quit he was burnt out from his drug use and crying about not getting writing credits. And his quitting really left the Stones in a bad spot. And as our beloved Keith likes to point out "He quit to go and have this great solo career. I'm still waiting."
And so the Stones are in a terrible spot with a tour coming up and in walks Ronnie Wood. He fit like a glove and the ancient art of weaving began.
And I agree it is great to see Taylor playing with them and hopefully he will get 4 or 5 songs in the full set. But this movement to try and push Ronnie aside is really disrespectful. First, Ronnie Wood has been playing with the Stones for 38 of their 50 years! And Yes while Taylor played on Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc... It could easily be argued that Ronnie Wood was a huge part of the most important Rolling Stones album ever made, Some Girls.So ease off Ronnie and give the man the respect he deserves. And be happy that Taylor will also be a part of the tour.
Oh and as for Ronnie fighting for writing credits I believe his quote is; "That is a sandwich you learn early on not to get between."
THANK YOU
First of all, you have been drinking the kool-aid, as far as the "weaving" goes. There was "weaving" before Ronnie Wood joined. Please listen to Ya Yas. It's all there. Interlocking guitar parts in the Rolling Stones did not start with Ron Wood joining the band. You have read too many Keith Richards interviews. We should know by now, much of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, I fail to understand why the celebration of Taylor playing with the Stones again has anything at all to do with taking anything away from Ronnie Wood, and why so many people here seem to get incredibly insecure about him whenever Taylor is mentioned. Why does excitement about Taylor have to lead to a full defense of Ron Wood and yet another recitation of the history of Taylor's leaving and Wood's joining (a history we are all very familiar with, by the way).
I think of this as a celebration of the band's history and the contribution Taylor made (albeit a belated celebration, but no matter). I do not think of it in terms of Taylor vs. Wood. Ron Wood's position in the band is very secure, but you would never know it by some of the defensive and almost frightened comments here.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: April 30, 2013 09:13
Quote
WitnessQuote
SweetThing
Well, lets see.. The Dark Ages lasted longer than The Renaissance.... so, then, well, therefore the Dark Ages were the best version of humanity.
It is debateable though to which extent those rather highflown analogies would hit the target that you here mean them to do. And to the more limited extent they still possibly could be said to do some justice, one might then in the next instance ask by the virtue of what (band personnel or, as I myself have learnt to take into consideration, too, one special peak in the songwriters' abilities and in their recording ambitions).
(I have later added the word "too".)
idk, just wondering how to determine who the best James Bond actor might have been. Is it perhaps Roger Moore because he's been in the most films of the series or is it perhaps Daniel Craig because all the previous actors "quit" the series or got fired?
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 30, 2013 10:31
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
bigmac7895
()
Date: April 30, 2013 14:35
First of all- not complaining. A complaint is a statement about something. I am asking a question... maybe with a sarcastic twist, but not complaining. I like what someone said above- it's about celebrating the life of the band and even though Taylor is only a part of 10% of the band's life, it was the BEST 10% of the band's life.
Wood and Taylor get along great- Taylor even deferred to Ronnie for a solo on MR on the PPV special. I think they could trade solos on several songs that have room for multiple solos. They can make it work if they continue practicing to do so.
Wood and Taylor get along great- Taylor even deferred to Ronnie for a solo on MR on the PPV special. I think they could trade solos on several songs that have room for multiple solos. They can make it work if they continue practicing to do so.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 30, 2013 15:46
Quote
SweetThingQuote
WitnessQuote
SweetThing
Well, lets see.. The Dark Ages lasted longer than The Renaissance.... so, then, well, therefore the Dark Ages were the best version of humanity.
It is debateable though to which extent those rather highflown analogies would hit the target that you here mean them to do. And to the more limited extent they still possibly could be said to do some justice, one might then in the next instance ask by the virtue of what (band personnel or, as I myself have learnt to take into consideration, too, one special peak in the songwriters' abilities and in their recording ambitions).
(I have later added the word "too".)
idk, just wondering how to determine who the best James Bond actor might have been. Is it perhaps Roger Moore because he's been in the most films of the series or is it perhaps Daniel Craig because all the previous actors "quit" the series or got fired?
Clearly it's George Lazenby, as he's the only Bond to have bowed out after his best Bond film.
...and Rockman'll agree with me because he's ozzie.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: April 30, 2013 18:26
Quote
DandelionPowderman
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
live ,certainly , in the studio keith (or mick j) seem to change already recorded weaving for a new version , like - all down the line II and outtakes of other songs in that period.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: April 30, 2013 19:34
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
SweetThingQuote
WitnessQuote
SweetThing
Well, lets see.. The Dark Ages lasted longer than The Renaissance.... so, then, well, therefore the Dark Ages were the best version of humanity.
It is debateable though to which extent those rather highflown analogies would hit the target that you here mean them to do. And to the more limited extent they still possibly could be said to do some justice, one might then in the next instance ask by the virtue of what (band personnel or, as I myself have learnt to take into consideration, too, one special peak in the songwriters' abilities and in their recording ambitions).
(I have later added the word "too".)
idk, just wondering how to determine who the best James Bond actor might have been. Is it perhaps Roger Moore because he's been in the most films of the series or is it perhaps Daniel Craig because all the previous actors "quit" the series or got fired?
Clearly it's George Lazenby, as he's the only Bond to have bowed out after his best Bond film.
...and Rockman'll agree with me because he's ozzie.
Lazenby gets an automatic DQ for the fact that he married Pam Shriver.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: May 1, 2013 08:22
Overheard, "Mick T.'s 2 songs on the tour will be Under the Radar and Don't Wanna Go Home." Hey, I'm all for being different.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: May 1, 2013 08:33
I hear weaving on BETWEEN THE BUTTONS (e.g., "Miss Amanda Jones").
Why does no one ever speak of the guitar macramé of the Stones??
Why does no one ever speak of the guitar macramé of the Stones??
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 1, 2013 09:00
Quote
straycatblues73Quote
DandelionPowderman
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
live ,certainly , in the studio keith (or mick j) seem to change already recorded weaving for a new version , like - all down the line II and outtakes of other songs in that period.
perhaps you should listen to Bye Bye Johnny live from the 1972 tour...
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 1, 2013 09:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
You're right. But there was also "non-weaving" with Keith and Ronnie - take the 1975 tour for example. Or tours where Ronnie was just plain drowned out by Keith, and what Ronnie played didn't much matter one way or the other. That was hardly weaving. My point is that two interlocking guitars is a Stones thing - not a Wood vs. Taylor thing. I think Keith perpetuated a myth about he and Ronnie being all about "weaving", when in fact that was often not the case, and sometimes was the case with Keith and Taylor.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: May 12, 2013 20:23
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
straycatblues73Quote
DandelionPowderman
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
live ,certainly , in the studio keith (or mick j) seem to change already recorded weaving for a new version , like - all down the line II and outtakes of other songs in that period.
perhaps you should listen to Bye Bye Johnny live from the 1972 tour...
that's a whole band weaving though , keith on rhythm , mick t riffing round the vocals and the brass riffing in the gaps left . simply great !
but the remark was about studio weaving replaced by rhythm / lead
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
kpl
()
Date: May 12, 2013 20:48
At least satisfaction and MR are a 50% increase over the first couple of shows for MT. Sorry that the version of Love in Vain has not shown up on UTUBe or anywhere else. I hope they let MT play it again.
In 72 and 73 he played that slide so beautifully on that piece. Really intense and emotionally playing. Sorry they only performed it with MT on the club show LA opener.
In 72 and 73 he played that slide so beautifully on that piece. Really intense and emotionally playing. Sorry they only performed it with MT on the club show LA opener.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
sanQ
()
Date: May 13, 2013 03:04
I hope they do Love In Vain again on this tour. At least do enough songs with Taylor to put a bootleg album together of reunion songs.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 13, 2013 04:16
Quote
sanQ
I hope they do Love In Vain again on this tour. At least do enough songs with Taylor to put a bootleg album together of reunion songs.
More like a single at this rate. I am hoping for enough songs for an EP, though.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 13, 2013 15:12
Now Satifaction has been added, but it's some sort of foreplay before the final bow. Taylor seems to be only strumming and is hardly audible on the Vegas Satisfaction, whereon Keith did all the soloing.
I think it will not change during this US/Canada tour. Perhaps Taylor will get a bit larger role during the Hyde Park gigs, if only for historical reasons and because it's in their own city. But I'm not certain about it of course.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-13 15:22 by kleermaker.
I think it will not change during this US/Canada tour. Perhaps Taylor will get a bit larger role during the Hyde Park gigs, if only for historical reasons and because it's in their own city. But I'm not certain about it of course.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-13 15:22 by kleermaker.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: May 13, 2013 15:17
It's mission impossible for Taylor.
He cannot play like he did, and if he could, well...I don't know..
He cannot play like he did, and if he could, well...I don't know..
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 13, 2013 15:33
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
You're right. But there was also "non-weaving" with Keith and Ronnie - take the 1975 tour for example. Or tours where Ronnie was just plain drowned out by Keith, and what Ronnie played didn't much matter one way or the other. That was hardly weaving. My point is that two interlocking guitars is a Stones thing - not a Wood vs. Taylor thing. I think Keith perpetuated a myth about he and Ronnie being all about "weaving", when in fact that was often not the case, and sometimes was the case with Keith and Taylor.
True, but in 1975 they just went by the same formula as in 1973.
From 1989 on, the weaving drowned in the big band concept. They more or less had to change the guitar arrangement into the old soul-thing - a few licks here, a few licks there.
In 1978, however, they really nailed it.
@ straycatblues73:
Yep, BBJ is a good example, but it is Keith who is playing the lead guitar, although Taylor plays the licks that go on and on.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 13, 2013 17:27
again with the weave. sigh. just when you think it's gone....
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 17:29
Quote
GRNRBITW
again with the weave. sigh. just when you think it's gone....
Yup, nearly as bad as "their creative peak".
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 13, 2013 17:40
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
There was weaving in the Brian era already (listen to Spider And The Fly). Keith has only stated that the guitar arrangements became more like they were in the Brian-days when Ronnie joined.
Sure, there were lots of cool weaving with Taylor as well. My beef with it is that it completely vanished by 1972.
I Got The Blues and Shake Your Hips were probably the best examples of weaving between Keith and Taylor. And don't say it's just an empty word - it's very describing for how the guitars interact. Those two songs simply wouldn't have been as cool if the guitars were more lead and rhythm.
You're right. But there was also "non-weaving" with Keith and Ronnie - take the 1975 tour for example. Or tours where Ronnie was just plain drowned out by Keith, and what Ronnie played didn't much matter one way or the other. That was hardly weaving. My point is that two interlocking guitars is a Stones thing - not a Wood vs. Taylor thing. I think Keith perpetuated a myth about he and Ronnie being all about "weaving", when in fact that was often not the case, and sometimes was the case with Keith and Taylor.
True, but in 1975 they just went by the same formula as in 1973.
From 1989 on, the weaving drowned in the big band concept. They more or less had to change the guitar arrangement into the old soul-thing - a few licks here, a few licks there.
In 1978, however, they really nailed it.
@ straycatblues73:
Yep, BBJ is a good example, but it is Keith who is playing the lead guitar, although Taylor plays the licks that go on and on.
It's all about musical interaction and that interaction on stage between Keith and Taylor is far more interesting than the 'interaction' between the lookalikes Keith and Ronnie. The MR versions on this tour show it once more. One must be blind not to hear it.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 13, 2013 18:41
I can't see any lookalikes, but they're really sounding good 
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 13, 2013 18:43
Quote
His MajestyQuote
GRNRBITW
again with the weave. sigh. just when you think it's gone....
Yup, nearly as bad as "their creative peak".
i do miss the wobble.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 13, 2013 19:03
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I can't see any lookalikes, but they're really sounding good
Musically speaking they're lookalikes. As for playing guitar, to be more specific. Do you get it now?
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
JumpinJeppeFlash
()
Date: May 13, 2013 19:16
Thank god he only is allowed to play one song or maybe two. I haven't paid $$$ to see a guest steel the show from a bandmember.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 13, 2013 19:30
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DandelionPowderman
I can't see any lookalikes, but they're really sounding good
Musically speaking they're lookalikes. As for playing guitar, to be more specific. Do you get it now?
They are very different. No one sounds like Keith. Ronnie is more rhythm-oriented than Taylor, but it's superficial, compared to Keith. Musically, they are more different than some clueless journo described them as back in the day (established as the truth by fans, for some reason)...
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: May 13, 2013 19:56
On Satisfaction in Las Vegas .... Was there even a Mick Taylor solo? Looked to be a very quick 10 second one
My bet is MT will be on three tunes by the end of the tour but not any that he is known for. The Glimmers will refuse to give him this glory on tunes such as Dead Flowers, CYHMK and Sway, Time Waits for No One etc
Actually Satisfaction hit new heights when Mick Taylor was there as heard in Phildelphia, Brussels affair etc where he freakin' slams and dominates the tune, thereby reducing MJagger to a supporting role
My bet is MT will be on three tunes by the end of the tour but not any that he is known for. The Glimmers will refuse to give him this glory on tunes such as Dead Flowers, CYHMK and Sway, Time Waits for No One etc
Actually Satisfaction hit new heights when Mick Taylor was there as heard in Phildelphia, Brussels affair etc where he freakin' slams and dominates the tune, thereby reducing MJagger to a supporting role
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 13, 2013 20:04
This version of MR is astonishing. Look how Keith and Taylor interact with each other. Fantastic.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: May 13, 2013 20:08
Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash
Thank god he only is allowed to play one song or maybe two. I haven't paid $$$ to see a guest steel the show from a bandmember.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? Taylor isn't stealing the show from anybody. sheesh.
Re: Really guys? 2 songs for Taylor and that's it?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 13, 2013 20:52
Quote
kleermaker
This version of MR is astonishing. Look how Keith and Taylor interact with each other. Fantastic.
Yes! Sat with this properly and...
I got goosebumps listening to and watching it!
... They are actually playing, listening, inspiring each other and it's obvious that something special is taking place. You can feel the atmosphere change as they get deeper in to it.
This is from Las Vegas? If so, that's funny in the best possible way.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
armin944 , DelcoProud , Doxa , eibert , fedecarp , frankotero , hockenheim95 , jumpingjackflash5 , Justjon , kidquick185 , littlevillage , MadMax , MJAGGER123 , NedKellyBandit , onestep , poti , powerage78 , Sighunt , SirCorto , Stoneswolf , WembleyWhammer , wiredallnight , WorriedAboutYou
Guests:
2294
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10