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: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 2 of 5
Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: punkfloyd ()
Date: July 21, 2017 01:27

There is something particularly not great about using teleprompters for the lyrics to songs YOU wrote.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Rolling Hansie ()
Date: July 21, 2017 01:29

Quote
Send It To me
3. Keith's acoustic guitar intro to Paint it Black

Love it, and then Charlie boom boom boom

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

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: wonderboy ()
Date: July 21, 2017 01:46

I give them points for professionalism.
At this point in their careers, they could no longer just show up and wing it. There had to be a little more planning and rehearsals.
Audiences had changed -- fans were older, there were more casual fans, they were paying more for a ticket and overall expected something more predictable.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: rattler2004 ()
Date: July 21, 2017 02:02

The show was incredible, always better to be there than to listen to it afterwards.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Duked ()
Date: July 21, 2017 14:02

My favorite Sympathy version is from Toronto 1990:
[www.youtube.com]


Another: the tightest Bitch version was on this tour.


Another: Charlie's drum sound and style was the most powerful on this tour.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: bigmac7895 ()
Date: July 21, 2017 15:39

I'll add about Charlie's drumming on this tour as well. I really liked his change of kick drum on Start Me Up. Rather than a single kick (4/4 with kick on 2 & 4)he did a double kick on the pause of the guitar riff. I may not be using the technical drum terms so forgive me- just listen to it compared to the studio and you will see.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 21, 2017 16:11

Quote
punkfloyd
There is something particularly not great about using teleprompters for the lyrics to songs YOU wrote.

You have to consider not just age but the amount of songs... a lot of older been around a while artists are using them now.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: HonkeyTonkFlash ()
Date: July 21, 2017 17:33

It was great that the Stones regrouped after such a long time since the 1981/82 Tour but I personally was a little let down by their decision to start recreating the studio arrangements. I remember having tickets to Shea Stadium and reading one of the first reviews of the tour that mentioned their new modus operandi. I was hoping to hear them play like they used to but those days were gone for good. Glad they're still playing at all but they went slick.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: punkfloyd ()
Date: July 21, 2017 18:43

I think it's more genuine to flub the lyrics than to strive for perfection. But that's just like my opinion, man.

I mean who cares if Mick get's the lyrics to Bitch wrong?

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: July 21, 2017 18:53

The only major acts that come to mind that don't use teleprompters are Springsteen and Iron Maiden (both fronted by guys named Bruce). Also Lemmy from Motorhead, since his neck was craned towards the ceiling when he sang.

I've seen singers literally reading the teleprompter (Ozzy, anyone?), and some that use it as a backup just in case they lose their place. It's a safety net for professionalism. It's not very rock'n'roll, but it's pretty standard for touring acts nowadays.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MelBelli ()
Date: July 21, 2017 19:26

Quote
keefriff99
The only major acts that come to mind that don't use teleprompters are Springsteen and Iron Maiden (both fronted by guys named Bruce). Also Lemmy from Motorhead, since his neck was craned towards the ceiling when he sang.

I've seen singers literally reading the teleprompter (Ozzy, anyone?), and some that use it as a backup just in case they lose their place. It's a safety net for professionalism. It's not very rock'n'roll, but it's pretty standard for touring acts nowadays.

Springsteen absolutely uses a teleprompter!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: July 21, 2017 19:31

Quote
MelBelli
Quote
keefriff99
The only major acts that come to mind that don't use teleprompters are Springsteen and Iron Maiden (both fronted by guys named Bruce). Also Lemmy from Motorhead, since his neck was craned towards the ceiling when he sang.

I've seen singers literally reading the teleprompter (Ozzy, anyone?), and some that use it as a backup just in case they lose their place. It's a safety net for professionalism. It's not very rock'n'roll, but it's pretty standard for touring acts nowadays.

Springsteen absolutely uses a teleprompter!
My mistake:

[www.washingtonpost.com]

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: July 21, 2017 21:44

1989. I was excited, didnt see them live, heard and saw the Barcelona concert and was just devastated by the poor sound (which was really a little better on the boots), the lame modern "correct" versions of the songs, shocked by how embarrassing Keith was on Happy (the poses, the stupid singing, lack of danger, no attitude, no 70s live anthem anymore), Micks posing and Mickey Mouse style. They werent bad, they just turned into a Vegas money making machine and that was the only way Mick would tour again with Keith so... To me the Stones were the real deal 1962-1982.


Keith Richards: I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get.
Redhotcarpet: I took Keith Richards for everything I could get.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: punkfloyd ()
Date: July 21, 2017 23:41

What he said.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: July 22, 2017 01:01

.


Keith Richards: I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get.
Redhotcarpet: I took Keith Richards for everything I could get.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-22 21:12 by Redhotcarpet.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 22, 2017 15:54

I remember the SW tour well. And many of the faults listed in this thread have only surfaced with passing time, and historic context. E.g. Jagger's hair was not that big of a deal then. The big thing was that the Stones were back! There were huge cardboard cutouts in gas stations even. ( That was the whole Budweiser connection)
But the show was great. And tight. Obviously Jagger knew there was a lot to prove. They had not toured since 82. Yes the Stones started the whole stadium rock thing, but in the decade music biz had become a BIZ. And now it was all about insurance, and safety concerns. Jagger didn't throw water on the crowd because they were about a mile away. And in 89 there was no B stage or bridge out into the audience yet.
They gt better and better at it. The horns started to sound much warmer. They dumped Matt Clifford and one BU singer; no more towers and elevators; less synth, better guitar sounds.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: July 22, 2017 16:56

it was hitting the reset button and if a little over-produced I'm still glad they did it because if they'd continued down the sloppy path it would have devolved into a complete shambolic mess decades later.

I like the raggedness as much as the next guy however it's great when the singing is on key and a integral part of the melody and the players are all at the top of their game.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 22, 2017 17:15

Quote
bigmac7895
I'll add about Charlie's drumming on this tour as well. I really liked his change of kick drum on Start Me Up. Rather than a single kick (4/4 with kick on 2 & 4)he did a double kick on the pause of the guitar riff. I may not be using the technical drum terms so forgive me- just listen to it compared to the studio and you will see.

Spot on. And you're right! It was much better.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: July 22, 2017 17:15

Quote
punkfloyd
I think it's more genuine to flub the lyrics than to strive for perfection. But that's just like my opinion, man.

I mean who cares if Mick get's the lyrics to Bitch wrong?

What makes you think artists don't flub just because of a teleprompter? They do.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: July 22, 2017 19:15

Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will. winking smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 22, 2017 20:13

Quote
stone4ever
Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will. winking smiley

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour smiling smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: straycatuk ()
Date: July 22, 2017 20:39

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will. winking smiley

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour smiling smiley

I honestly don't think everything can be blamed on Mick. Around the time of DW Charlie was in a bad way with smack addiction and Ronnie broke both his legs in an accident. It would have been interesting, but a disaster !

sc uk

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: July 22, 2017 20:44

Quote
DP
For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will


Agree. Dito. They should have toured on Undercover, maybe 84-85, and skipped the solo crap. 7 years was too long a wait. it didn't do them any good. Or us...

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: July 22, 2017 20:52

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will. winking smiley

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour smiling smiley

Yeah i was between 19 to 21 years of age at this time scale and so obsessed with this band that it was consuming, nothing in life has ever grabbed me the same way.


By the time it reached 89' 90' things were different, it was like the whole thing sobered up and became business as usual, my life seems to have run parallel with the Stones through the years, fascinating, do others share aspects of their life that run along similar lines to the Stones in their lyrics and personal life etc.
Art seems to reflect reality, today's music feels plastic, manufactured, less organic,and certainly its not about the love anymore.
Looking back though the 80's comes across as cheesy , almost cringey, the production sound so dated, it was a time of transition and experimentation though and it still had the after effects of the 70's etched deeply into it.
Today feels soulless in comparison, there was still an innocence to the 80's that feels lost today. Fashions and music still said something about you, there was still a choice or a statement to be made from the clothes you wore to the music you listened to, it was still a time to be an individual, or so it felt.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-23 09:13 by stone4ever.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Monsoon Ragoon ()
Date: July 22, 2017 21:49

Quote
straycatuk
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
stonehearted
The Rolling Stones could have been polished and professional in performance from the start if they wanted to -- and they were, as one listen to their BBC radio stereo experiment from the Camden Theatre in 1964 will attest: [www.youtube.com]
In the above BBC set, they were also performing their music exactly as it sounded on record.

It makes you realize that the earlier "sloppy" version of the band was an act, like the 1981-1982 shows. Part of it was just drink- and drug-induced laziness on the part of the front line -- the rhythm section was never sloppy. The other part of it was posing to jump on the punk/new wave bandwagon, which in retrospect is ridiculous -- like a bunch of dissatisfied middle-aged reprobates who all of a sudden decide to rebel against their own history.

Live at the Max is unlistenable, like the proverbial fingernails down the chalkboard -- in post-production for that DVD release they really messed with the sound, made it all tinny, trebly, scratchy, and that's not the way I remember broadcasts from that tour sounding.

There was a live radio broadcast of the last night of the U.S. tour. For the first time in living memory, they were actually playing music. Mick was actually singing -- in melody -- rather than those years of monotonal, coked-out shouting, which is part of what makes that recent LA Forum 1975 DVD release so unlistenable. I was also very impressed with Bill Wyman's bass playing on the tour, and the fullness and clarity of the musical arrangements overall.

I also recall from cable TV in the early 1990s an HBO(?) special taken from the last show of the 1990 Urban Jungle tour, at Wembley Stadium. I enjoyed that over and over, because they could actually recreate the sound and tempos as they were originally recorded, like your favorite classic records were coming to life in a technicolor cartoon, with a fullness you never imagined. So, I don't know what happened with Live at the Max, because that's not the way it really sounded.

If they had toured in 1986, it would have been the heavy metal tour, which would have been the fashionable bandwagon to jump on then -- Mick with his extra long tour hair like in the One Hit video, the guitars extra loud and shrill to prove that they could match the worst of the hair metal bands of the time. I suppose we should be glad that tour never happened. The 1989 SW/UJ tour wouldn't have had the same impact.

For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will. winking smiley

I was at the peak of my fanhood myself. No Undercover or DW-tours was a major blow. That's why Harlem Shuffle was one of my favourites on the 1990-tour smiling smiley

I honestly don't think everything can be blamed on Mick. Around the time of DW Charlie was in a bad way with smack addiction and Ronnie broke both his legs in an accident. It would have been interesting, but a disaster !

sc uk

Ronnie’s accident was in late 1990.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: rattler2004 ()
Date: July 23, 2017 07:53

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I remember the SW tour well. And many of the faults listed in this thread have only surfaced with passing time, and historic context. E.g. Jagger's hair was not that big of a deal then. The big thing was that the Stones were back! There were huge cardboard cutouts in gas stations even. ( That was the whole Budweiser connection)
But the show was great. And tight. Obviously Jagger knew there was a lot to prove. They had not toured since 82. Yes the Stones started the whole stadium rock thing, but in the decade music biz had become a BIZ. And now it was all about insurance, and safety concerns. Jagger didn't throw water on the crowd because they were about a mile away. And in 89 there was no B stage or bridge out into the audience yet.
They gt better and better at it. The horns started to sound much warmer. They dumped Matt Clifford and one BU singer; no more towers and elevators; less synth, better guitar sounds.


This, also if memory serves, they were named the live act of the year by a few music magazines, and MTV (when they still were Music television)

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 23, 2017 11:48

Quote
Stoneage
Quote
DP
For me personally this would have been their finest hour.
At a time when it would have meant everything to me, round about 86' was when i needed to see this band live above anything else. Still haven't forgiven Mick, don't think i ever will


Agree. Dito. They should have toured on Undercover, maybe 84-85, and skipped the solo crap. 7 years was too long a wait. it didn't do them any good. Or us...

Good, but it was Riffie who said it, not me smiling smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Monsoon Ragoon ()
Date: July 23, 2017 12:16

The only good thing about the 1989/90 tour was that it was over within a year.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 23, 2017 16:57

Purely from an "arrangements" standpoint,the '89/'90 arrangements of the songs from the '60's and from the '80's were good. Especially the arrangements of the early to mid 1960's songs such as "Ruby Tuesday" and "Play With Fire".

I don't really like the '89/'90 arrangements of the songs from the '70's. They did provide a template for later live arrangements .... which while similar,were better (the songs from the '70's) on later tours in the '90's and into the 2000's.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: July 23, 2017 17:27

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Purely from an "arrangements" standpoint,the '89/'90 arrangements of the songs from the '60's and from the '80's were good. Especially the arrangements of the early to mid 1960's songs such as "Ruby Tuesday" and "Play With Fire".

I don't really like the '89/'90 arrangements of the songs from the '70's. They did provide a template for later live arrangements .... which while similar,were better (the songs from the '70's) on later tours in the '90's and into the 2000's.

I agree, but with TD as the exception. IMO, this song never really worked live before 1989.

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 2 of 5


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 380
Record Number of Users: 135 on May 20, 2015 22:23
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home