|
bell biv devoe posted:I just purchased a Yamaha CP33 as my first foray into the world of Piano. Well, I didn't get very far. A few too many vacations and bad money decisions and I've posted this puppy up for sale. I guess I'll get another one in the near future. 
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
bell biv devoe posted:Well, I didn't get very far. A few too many vacations and bad money decisions and I've posted this puppy up for sale. I guess I'll get another one in the near future. Aw, sorry to hear that. You know, I really wish there was such a thing as a place you could go with multiple practice rooms and just rent by the hour. Why doesn't that exist? I'll never be without a piano (I have two of them, I wish I could sell one and get rid of it!) but even I would use this service (I have roommates and sometimes get embarassed about practicing in front of people). I guess there isn't enough demand for something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 23:16
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:So I'm trying to work out why those seemed to work. F#/B/D is playing a Bm chord, so why does it segue well into C or Em? Is there a rule for each chord? Is there no actual rule and what I found just seems to work in my head but isn't really there? Let's talk less about rules and more about the musical experience. The first time you used that chord, it felt really natural and smooth and proper, right? And the next time it felt a bit jarring and unusual? Let's see if we can find any reasons why that might be. But first: Vanmani posted:For whatever reason the human ear tends to follow the root you play (the lowest note of the chord) I hate to be nitpicky, but that's not the proper definition of root. The "bass" is the lowest pitch, and the movements of the lowest pitches form the "bassline". "Root" describes the tonal center of whatever particular harmony you're hearing. It's something of an abstraction, but a useful one. Let's say that, from low to high, you see the following notes in a chord: C - G - C - E - G - C. What chord is it? It's C major, pretty simple. All three of the notes present, C E and G, form a triad, and C is at the bottom of the abstracted triad, so we call it "C major" and say that C is its root. But imagine you see this, low to high: E - C - E - G - E - G. Since there's an E on the bottom, you might start to think it's an "E something" chord. But it's just like last time: all of the notes present, C E and G, form a triad and C is at the bottom of the ABSTRACTED triad, even if it's not at the bottom of the actual chord we're hearing. (Same goes if you had, for example, G - C - E - C.) So, and this is important: it's a chord with E in the bass but with C as it's root. You'll see that "bass" is a very practical term, and "root" is more analytical. You play the bass and hear the bass, but you have to stop and analyze to see what the root is. You'll see why that's important if you keep reading... G - Em - G - C is in the key of G major. You can be sure of that because of how the G is repeated, and because of the plagal cadence, C to G, finishing off the phrase. So in roman numerals it's I - vi - I - IV. That's all root movement by thirds and fourths/fifths, which is no surprise to someone reading a theory textbook. Fourths/fifths root movement will always have a natural and simple and predictable "stepping forward" kind of feel to it... just because.* (This is why you almost always see that kind of movement towards I at the end of the song, for example, G - C or F - C in the key of C.) Movement by third is similarly smooth, and not very dramatic or rough at all. So, if that's true, you'd think that an easy way to embellish these chords is to stick another fourth/fifth root movement in there somewhere. Like I - iii - vi, which is what you did. Sticking that Bm in there gives an extra little push in the direction of Em, which is where you end up. And what's more, the way you voiced the chords gives you a nice stepwise motion in the bass, G - F# - E. This brings out that "little push" thing even more, resulting in a very natural passing harmony. Now, since everything's "pushing" towards Em, it's going to be a bit weird when you repeat it but end up at C instead. For one thing, Bm to C is a root movement by second. That's definitely the least smooth, since all three notes of the triad have to change. If you're familiar with the term "deceptive cadence," there is a reason why the most typical deceptive cadence is V - vi. Now, this passing chord I - iii - IV thing isn't a cadence, but it's certainly deceptive for the same reasons. The natural movement-by-fifths makes you expect Em, and the G - F# stepwise movement in the bass makes you expect an E for the next note, not a C. C and F# are a tritone apart, which probably the most dissonant (i.e. jarring, rough, dramatic) diatonic interval you could have picked. All of that explains why the Bm - C movement is not as smooth. But I want to stress that this doesn't make it a BAD thing in itself. I actually have a piece I wrote, on piano, in the key of G, that approaches a C chord very similarly, and it works to great effect. (The Bm is a D instead, but the bass still goes F# to C.) The difference is that I used that movement deliberately as a surprise, something that's somewhat jarring and deceptive, rough and dramatic. What you were looking for is very different -- a "passing harmony" (or chord) is by definition smooth and predictable (i.e. going where you expect it to once you hear it), and something that doesn't call quite so much attention to itself. I hope that was at least comprehensible. Here's something you might try: Play the I - iii - vi just like you were, with G - F# - E in the bass. Then play I - iii - IV but keep the G - F# - E in the bass, so the C chord is voiced in first inversion. Basically, play C's in the C chord where you used to have B's in the Em chord. That could be interesting... (Wow that's a lot of words about just a passing chord, huh) * Here's a good, basic description of what we call "Circle of Fifths progressions," which also explains some of the terms I'm using here, if you don't already know them: http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/html/id56_en.html pyknosis fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jul 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
Bob Shadycharacter posted:Aw, sorry to hear that. They certainly do exist. Dunno about where you live but we have a place exactly like that in Halifax and at least one exists in Calgary as well. They may not be well advertised, try asking at a local music store maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
el Trentoro posted:I hate to be nitpicky, but that's not the proper definition of root. The "bass" is the lowest pitch, and the movements of the lowest pitches form the "bassline". Yes, I used the wrong term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
TheBlackRoija posted:They certainly do exist. Dunno about where you live but we have a place exactly like that in Halifax and at least one exists in Calgary as well. They may not be well advertised, try asking at a local music store maybe? Greater Boston area. I went through a majorly weird episode last year where I couldn't practice with anyone around and my roommates were ALWAYS AROUND and I googled like crazy but could never find one! I just figured they didn't exist. What are they called?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 14:19
|
|
|
Rehearsal Studios/Spaces Googling Boston I get a couple, This place: http://jamspot.com/ has a pair of locations and charges by the hour It's the kind of thing you'd need something portable for as they are usually geared towards jam space for bands
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 14:49
|
|
|
I apologize in advance if this has been asked before, I did skim the thread. I've been practicing a lot recently and am seriously getting pissed off at my 49 key midi keyboard. Is this worth my money if all I'm looking for is 88 keys and somewhat decent action on the keys? I'd be using it with Reason through my monitors. I'd just be using this for learning purposes, I have other goodies if I want knobs/sliders/pads. Any help is appreciated. Happy Hedonist fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jul 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
Happy Hedonist posted:I apologize in advance if this has been asked before, I did skim the thread. I've been practicing a lot recently and am seriously getting pissed off at my 49 key midi keyboard. Is this worth my money if all I'm looking for is 88 keys and somewhat decent action on the keys? I'd be using it with Reason through my monitors. I'd just be using this for learning purposes, I have other goodies if I want knobs/sliders/pads. Yeah, it'll do the job. If you want "piano" training though, you probably want something with fully weighted keys... but fully weighted keys are a bit of a drawback when doing synth work, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2009 09:25
|
|
|
Vanmani posted:Yeah, it'll do the job. If you want "piano" training though, you probably want something with fully weighted keys... but fully weighted keys are a bit of a drawback when doing synth work, really. I just want something cheap with 88 keys and midi out so I can work on technique. When I'm caught up on bills I plan on picking up something nice but I figure this will do for the time being. I realize the keys on that model aren't that great but it may have to do. I'm always welcome to suggestions as well. I know theory backwards and forwards and have been running through scales and Hanon slowly but now I'm to the point where I'd like to try my hand at some jazz standards and the like which is near impossible with 49 keys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
Just get it. An 88 key midi controller is always handy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2009 09:19
|
|
|
Thanks for the input. I ordered it today and can't wait to dig into 'The Jazz Pinao Book'. I haven't been this excited about learning a new instrument since I started playing guitar back in '91. Woohoo!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2009 22:26
|
|
|
A belated thank you to Vanmani and el Trentoro to explaining the Bm thing is good detail. Nice to see two different approaches to the same question, and it shows me there's still a lot to learn about the theory. I know a little bit about the Circle of Fifths and general music theory (I actually really like learning about the theory and find finding time and discipline to practice to be the hardest bit!) but the explanation was good and although there were bits I didn't understand too well, I think I get the idea and will do some more reading to fill the gaps. Going to check out the link you provided. I can see why the shift of the one note to F# sets up Em so well. Although it doesn't seem to 'fit' so well, I actually like the use of it to flow into the C as well, it just seems to make it sadder yet grander than the expected shift to Em. I tried what you said (changing the Cs in the C chord from the Bs in the Em chord) and with right hand alone, it seemed to segue in nicely, I was pleasantly surprised! I'm not sure whether I just got used to the non-inversion C, but I think I prefer that one even though, in fact, maybe because it's a little more jarring, but I can definitely see how on a less sad song that the first inversion sounded better. It's stuff like this that makes me enjoy piano. In fact I keep saying I want to get better but I need a better structure to getting better. As I said I enjoy reading the music theory, but get frustrated easily when practicing, and don't know anything about how to prepare for playing or even how to practice beyond just finding some music. I have some basic books of piano music but it's either too simple and boring, or it's two handed and too hard. Which is when I tend to just find chords of songs I like and try to improvise between them (like above). Which probably isn't a good way to learn, but if someone can suggest a particular method I'd be interested in following it. As in the actual practice playing bit, not the theory. The "Fundamentals of Piano Playing " Ebook recommended earlier in the thread is interesting but is taking a while to get through and isn't helping with the actual practice. I may try the exercises in the teoria site linked above. Fat Turkey fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jul 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:It's stuff like this that makes me enjoy piano. In fact I keep saying I want to get better but I need a better structure to getting better. As I said I enjoy reading the music theory, but get frustrated easily when practicing, and don't know anything about how to prepare for playing or even how to practice beyond just finding some music. I have some basic books of piano music but it's either too simple and boring, or it's two handed and too hard. Which is when I tend to just find chords of songs I like and try to improvise between them (like above). Which probably isn't a good way to learn, but if someone can suggest a particular method I'd be interested in following it. As in the actual practice playing bit, not the theory. The "Fundamentals of Piano Playing " Ebook recommended earlier in the thread is interesting but is taking a while to get through and isn't helping with the actual practice. I may try the exercises in the teoria site linked above. Improvising various ways to play a set of chords is good practice, have at it. Don't just play them in different orders though, try different inversions, try playing them arpeggiated in all different orders, try playing the chords with the left hand and melody with your right, etc. etc. All great practice. But to make sure you really expand your horizons do learn more theory, which inevitably involves more than just reading about it of course, although reading is a good way to start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
To spark a discussion, what do you guys think of padding your repetoire with THE most famous pieces ever. Like this year for school I'm going to have to have 3 pieces again, last year I ended up not using Listz's Liebestraum so I'm definitely going to use that this year, I also want to play Clair de Lune by Debussy of course and then the third will probably either be a 3 movement sonata (oh god) or a 4 part fugue. Last year my piano professor frowned upon me selecting like THE piano pieces. But the way I'm looking at it, there's a reason they are the most famous and heard pieces by these composers. Because it's some of their best work. At my level, it's not like I'm saying "oh I want to play fur elise because everyone knows it" they're all Grade 10 or ARCT level pieces, and I'm not selecting them just so that I can play the pieces that everyone knows, I just am selecting my favorite music to play. Can someone maybe explain further the perspective of my piano professor, why this might be a bad idea? Maybe I'm just ignorant of the countless pieces these great composers have created that I have yet to listen to (I will admit in my day to day listening I don't listen to classical music SHAME ON ME I know). The only thing that was really a legit point that she made was that it might not look good when I go for my end of year performance which I get graded on in front of a panel of professors. But, I'm not a performance major, and I really don't care too much about getting deducted 1 mark because my musical selection appears limited. I'd rather just play the pieces I love, it makes it far more fun to practice. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 13:56
|
|
|
I think you should play the music you love, regardless. However, I agree with your professor to a degree. Back when I was serious into violin, everyone was playing either the Mozart or Mendelssohn concertos. One music director told me that he is far more interested in auditionists who choose more obscure pieces, as it shows that they have a deeper interest in music (compared to those who play because their parents wanted them to, and have just gotten into the habit). This was important to them because they wanted their orchestra members to be willing to get into and explore new music with the conductor. But since that doesn't matter to you, it's sort of a moot point. I just see where she is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 17:08
|
|
|
I just remember sitting around during juries (waiting my turn) and thinking "oh this one again". Not that there's anything WRONG with that piece it's just been done to death so to speak, I guess there's a hint of trying to prove something by playing this recognizable piece? I dunno. Also the more well known something is the harder it is to put your own interpretations into it because then you're not playing it the "right" way. On the other hand, you're right, a lot of stuff is famous for a reason. You've mentioned this other times in the thread - pieces being "grade X" - and I just wondered how do you know this? It's not something I've heard - my teacher never mentions it and I can't seem to find a good list of "these pieces are this hard" anywhere. Is there a book or something? I'm just curious how badly I'm doing.  EDIT: you know what I just thought of? If someone is playing a more obscure sonata or something, it tends to give me the impression (false or not!) that they've already learned all the more well known ones and have moved on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 17:54
|
|
|
Bob Shadycharacter posted:I just remember sitting around during juries (waiting my turn) and thinking "oh this one again". Not that there's anything WRONG with that piece it's just been done to death so to speak, I guess there's a hint of trying to prove something by playing this recognizable piece? I dunno. Also the more well known something is the harder it is to put your own interpretations into it because then you're not playing it the "right" way. I'm not into giving false impressions =P The Grades I'm talking of are mainly Canada and England only I believe. It's Royal Conservatory of Music grade levels. 1-10 are the grades and the ARCT is the level required to call yourself a certified teacher with RCM. You find these grades in the Royal Conservatory of Music Syllabus. If you live in canada, you should be able to find one at your local music store. They list all the pieces NOT in the RCM grade books and gives them a grade (well most well known ones). Also, not all the pieces I list are in the Syllabus book. I just approximate their grade. It's pretty easy when you're at the highest level to say "Okay this is harder then anything I've ever played and I'm at the highest level... I wonder what grade this is". RCM makes books grade level 1-10 that you study and perform with. There are exams that you take that require you to learn pieces from the RCM Grade books and when you do festival performances for prizes (medals and scholarships) you are required to use the Grade books as well. TO SUMMARIZE: It's basically the regulation in Canada that pretty much all young canadian musicians that take private lessons study from. Every exam, university, competition recognizes these books as the standard for distinguishing level and what is appropriate to play to learn an appreciation for classical music. Hopefully that helped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 18:05
|
|
|
Alizee posted:I'm not into giving false impressions =P OHH that explains it. I'm not in Canada (sadly!). I have seen lists before - specifically I remember when I was fussing about learning all the pieces in WTC book one my teacher gave me a little chart of the fugues in order of difficulty but even then I felt like it didn't really hold up (some of the ones listed as easy were hard as poo poo for ME and the opposite was true as well). Maybe I can find a copy anyway though, it sounds interesting. I'm just always wondering about it because I have this sort of bias where while I'm learning something new it's the HARDEST THING EVER WTF and then once I'm able to actually play it I'm all "pfft this is easy I bet everyone else in the world can do this I suck". Working on Chopin ballade 1 in gm now and sure enough the better I get at it the more I feel like it can't be that hard...(speaking of famous pieces).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 18:48
|
|
|
Does anyone have a book of piano arrangements of Beatles songs to recommend? I don't know how exactly piano pieces are ranked in terms of difficulty, I guess I am looking for something in the intermediate range? For reference I am working on Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata right now, so something in that range. I would rather get something a little too hard than too easy though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 19:10
|
|
|
Bob Shadycharacter posted:OHH that explains it. I'm not in Canada (sadly!). I have seen lists before - specifically I remember when I was fussing about learning all the pieces in WTC book one my teacher gave me a little chart of the fugues in order of difficulty but even then I felt like it didn't really hold up (some of the ones listed as easy were hard as poo poo for ME and the opposite was true as well). Chopin's Ballde in g minor is definitely an ARCT piece (highest level).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Does anyone have a book of piano arrangements of Beatles songs to recommend? I don't know how exactly piano pieces are ranked in terms of difficulty, I guess I am looking for something in the intermediate range? For reference I am working on Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata right now, so something in that range. I would rather get something a little too hard than too easy though. I'm assuming Moonlight Sonata first movement? Can you play Fur Elise the B section with the 16th notes? Or can you just play the theme at the moment? Just go to the music store and buy your local greatest hits beatles book. Look at the music and see if it's something you can play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 19:37
|
|
|
Alizee posted:I'm assuming Moonlight Sonata first movement? Yeah, the first movement of Moonlight. I can play all of Fur Elise, though it took me quite a while to get the B section down. I will head over the the music store soon, I just wanted to see if there was a definitive one, or something somebody had a good experience with before I make the plunge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
Alizee posted:To spark a discussion, what do you guys think of padding your repetoire with THE most famous pieces ever. If you are intending to teach you need to know the popular pieces, because you will inevitably have students want to hear them. The problem arises because they hear those pieces thousands of times, so they will notice everything they don't like about your rendition. With a more obscure piece you will probably be judged less strictly, as they will be less accustomed to judging that piece... although it can go both ways. Personally I'd just play the songs I wanted to play, provided they fall within the criteria and will not unfairly disadvantage me. Also, listening to lots of classical music is not a requisite for music taste or knowledge and anyone who frowns upon you for not doing it is a music snob and a pillock. Music is, ultimately, intended to be a visceral experience. People experience it differently, and should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they like. The only crime you can commit is listening to a particular brand of music just because someone tells you to (whether through peer pressure or music snobbery) and not because you enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2009 05:00
|
|
|
Vanmani posted:If you are intending to teach you need to know the popular pieces, because you will inevitably have students want to hear them. Well I'm an education/music major and will either be teaching in high school or privately so thanks for making that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2009 14:49
|
|
|
Okay I decided to scrap the Liszt as I don't see a reason to keep that piece at performance level for whole 2nd year. Going with Nocturne in C Minor, Op. 48, No. 1. instead ^_^
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2009 21:25
|
|
|
I'm learning Rachmaninoff's Prelude Op. 23 No. 5 right now, and it's really fun to play. Can anyone recommend any other pieces of music where you get to pound the crap out of the piano?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 02:59
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:I'm learning Rachmaninoff's Prelude Op. 23 No. 5 right now, and it's really fun to play. Can anyone recommend any other pieces of music where you get to pound the crap out of the piano? The obvious comes to mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtuMVBLEWJU
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 04:24
|
|
|
Alizee posted:The obvious comes to mind. Haha, that's actually the only other piano song I know how to play. Rachmaninoff kicks rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 11:44
|
|
|
You would enjoy Chopin's Cm Prelude, I bet. Look in here: http://imslp.org/wiki/Preludes,_Op.28_%28Chopin,_Frederic%29 it's number 20. Oh and I can share a video I guess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdso4VZok1E However, the recording doesn't quite convey what it's like hearing this one on a real piano, if you're playing it properly. pyknosis fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Aug 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 14:33
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:Haha, that's actually the only other piano song I know how to play. Rachmaninoff kicks rear end. You only know how to play 2 piano pieces and they're both at that level? For shame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
Alizee posted:You only know how to play 2 piano pieces and they're both at that level? For shame. Yeah...how is this even possible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
I took piano lessons for 10 years when I was a child but really didn't care for it back then and then didn't really play anything for about 7 years after that. I recently just picked it back up and really don't remember much of anything from back then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:I took piano lessons for 10 years when I was a child but really didn't care for it back then and then didn't really play anything for about 7 years after that. I recently just picked it back up and really don't remember much of anything from back then. In my opinion, look at some stuff you can learn fairly quickly that you love. Since you only have one piece that you know there has to be hundreds of pieces that you could learn fairly quickly (or relearn) to be able to play. Obviously this doesn't benefit your progression technically or anything really but for myself, it's all about just sitting down and saying. Today I'm going to do a Chopin mini concert and then I'm going to play everything else I love and just enjoy the music. Some pianists get too caught up in constant progression, always moving onto a new piece, getting something ready or getting it to performance level. It's a lot of fun to just sit back and play play play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
I've been playing for a while and I've recently been wanting to start playing rock piano. Until now I've just been playing random music and working on my own stuff with very little direction. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with music theory so I understand chord progressions and other basic stuff, but I'm at a loss of where to start. I have an old Jazz theory book that's just kind of been sitting around, should I start with that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 02:15
|
|
|
Monocular posted:I've been playing for a while and I've recently been wanting to start playing rock piano. Until now I've just been playing random music and working on my own stuff with very little direction. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with music theory so I understand chord progressions and other basic stuff, but I'm at a loss of where to start. I have an old Jazz theory book that's just kind of been sitting around, should I start with that? Rock piano is often very simple. Just mash the right chords in the right order in the right way. Just look up some sheet to some "rock piano" songs you're interested in and you should see that they're mostly just playing a chord progression with a particular playing pattern, maybe with some little filler bits to make it interesting. It's a pretty easy jump to make, if you have the theoretical grounding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 03:17
|
|
|
Yeah seriously. Well, maybe not. It depends on what you really mean when you say "rock piano," since the word "rock" is used in a very non-specific way these days. Try this: go figure out what the piano is doing in "Rock and Roll" by Led Zeppelin, and learn it and play it. Then, basically, just do that exact same thing in any other song you want to play. If you don't like the thought of that, then maybe what you really want to play is some Coldplay stuff, or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 03:48
|
|
|
el Trentoro posted:Yeah seriously. Yeah, sorry, "rock piano" is really vague. What I'm mostly interested is bright, quick piano, like you hear in songs like Don't Stop Me Now by Queen, or Crocodile Rock by Elton John. But yeah, I guess most of it will probably come down to emulation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
Monocular posted:Yeah, sorry, "rock piano" is really vague. What I'm mostly interested is bright, quick piano, like you hear in songs like Don't Stop Me Now by Queen, or Crocodile Rock by Elton John. But yeah, I guess most of it will probably come down to emulation. Find sheet for those songs. Learn them, which shouldn't take long. Understand them, which shouldn't take long, depending on how advanced your understanding of music theory really is. Once you understand how those songs work, you can apply the techniques they used to most any other progression you like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Check out some Ben Folds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 08:16
|
|