electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
Live streaming at radio.electro-music.com

  host / artist show at your time
  mosc Back on the air tonight - Twyndyllyngs
Please visit the chat
 Forum index » Discussion » Composition
L'art pour l'art
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: elektro80
Page 1 of 2 [45 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:38 am    Post subject: L'art pour l'art Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I'd like to take this in another direction. What does this phrase mean to us as individual composers? Can we agree that it means that non aesthetic considerations should be banned, or that non aesthetic considerations are allowed if they do not compromise the aesthetics? And what are our working definitions of aesthetics? Or is the issue even relevant to your work?
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seraph
Editor
Editor


Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12096
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

let's start saying that this thread is an offspring of another one Cool
_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube

Quote:
Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex - Frank Zappa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

L'art pour l'art does have a specific meaning in art and music history. It has its place in history. Are now discussing a new use of the term? Are we looking at some new manifesto in the making?? Shocked Very Happy Cool
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
L'art pour l'art does have a specific meaning in art and music history. It has its place in history. Are now discussing a new use of the term? Are we looking at some new manifesto in the making?? Shocked Very Happy Cool


It's not clear to me that most people use the term in its historical context. It seems to me it has become a slogan without a generally accepted meaning. I thought I might get some useful reflections on the subject by asking composers what concepts the phrase invokes in them that are relevant to their work.

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

seraph wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:
The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,...


Vaughan Williams - Serenade to Music

I love it.

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:08 pm    Post subject: Re: L'art pour l'art Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

bachus wrote:
I'd like to take this in another direction. What does this phrase mean to us as individual composers? Can we agree that it means that non aesthetic considerations should be banned, or that non aesthetic considerations are allowed if they do not compromise the aesthetics? And what are our working definitions of aesthetics? Or is the issue even relevant to your work?


It is possible to write and perform excellent music without bothering with art history and art philosophy. I believe this is a fact.


However, most of us will sooner or later ponder stuff like:

What is music?
Why am I making music?
Who will listen to the music?
Is the listener hearing what he is supposed to hear?
What is musical and what is nonmusical?
What is essential?
What is the worth of my music?
Is music a language?
If it is not, can music say anything worthwhile at all?
Are there any valid criteria that can be used for analysing and understanding music?
Are there any clear boundries between the aesthetic and the non aesthetic ?

..and so forth..


Alll these questions and more have been raised in previous threads in this forum.

The same questions have also been raised again and again for centuries. Intuitively one might think that perhaps there are some solid answers because of this. I am sorry to say that there aren´t any.. yet.. But there are shitloads of very interesting ideas. One of the reasons why old answers and old ideas rarely translate well is that the society has changed drastically. However, the old ideas might be still seen as valid and we are "using" the concepts but yet things might not be how they seem. And if they are or aren´t what they seem, do we really understand the basic principles and the implications?

An experiment. One might ask if not contructivism is still not one of the ruling art philosophies. It dismissed "pure" art in favour of art used as an instrument for social purposes. Originally this was a socialist/communist idea, but fascism adopted the very same concept from day one. Did it end there? Not really. The advertising industry, folk singers, well adjusted christan whites and what have you.. they all adopted this understanding of art. One interesting side to this is that many within the well adjusted establishment would often reinvent old art in order to make old arty shit conform to the contructivist ideology. Left wing radicals would hail old masterpieces as radical, brownshirt conservatives would do the same but this time other/or the same masterpieces would be a support for their cause.. and so on. But.. weren´t they often missing something seriously important? Consider that in the western world before the 19th century, pretty much every christian person would truly believe in the Apocalypse. Even those who didn´t quite really believe in God or go to church would still believe they were living in "The End of Days". The apocalyptic philosophy is mindboggingly strange. I know this is hard to grasp now, but reality as we know it is a modern invention.
Anyways, contructivist ideas are still around. It can be argued that the big entertainment corporations have adopted this philosophy as well. Art has one purpose: It must generate a profit. If it doesn´t, it must go. The nation is dead. Long live the corporation. The purpose of all art is to serve the corporation.

Hmm, I should mention that L'art pour l'art was in itself a radical movement.

Quote:
"Art for art's sake" was a bohemian creed in the nineteenth century, a slogan raised in defiance of those who — from John Ruskin to the much later Communist advocates of socialist realism — thought that the value of art was to serve some moral or didactic purpose. "Art for art's sake" affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification and that art did not need moral justification


L'art pour l'art did branch out into various forms. One form, which also gained momentum from some art critics, was that art should be a purely aesthetic venture and it should be judged using only aesthetic criteria. Art should be pure and nothing worldly should mess up the aesthetics.

This is pretty confusing and still highly interesting. First of all, we are talking about the romantic era here. Don´t think softporn, the romantic era was the great liberation of the middle classes and this is the period that managed to create the modern holistic art concept.

The Romantic Era


A thought, consider :

Quote:
L'art pour l'art did branch out into various forms. One form, which also gained momentum from some art critics, was that art should be a purely aesthetic venture and it should be judged using only aesthetic criteria. Art should be pure and nothing worldly should mess up the aesthetics.


and then think about it! Wouldn´t this mean that a lot of artists would start questioning the essential basic of aesthetics? Wouldn´t this partly explain later stuff like cubism and whatnot?

As any avantgarde artist soon learns, art does have implications beyond the aesthetic simply because the aesthetic is a product of society. Enter dadaism, futurism and modernity.

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Any artist should question what we know, why we know it and what that really means. I recommend looking into knowledge oriented theories.
Try: social constructionism. After that treat I strongly suggest looking into Herbert Blumer and symbolic interactionism.

Blumer´s three premises are hot:

1. "Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them"
2. "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one's fellows."
3. "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

So, what is real?

Before any of you start quoting greek philosophers, please look into consensus reality

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

As for the apocalypse, try this article. It is fairly good, but it does not go deep enough into this. It is a good introduction though.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
Any artist should question what we know, why we know it and what that really means. I recommend looking into knowledge oriented theories.
Try: social constructionism. After that treat I strongly suggest looking into Herbert Blumer and symbolic interactionism.

Blumer´s three premises are hot:

1. "Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them"
2. "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one's fellows."
3. "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."


Wow! I do not accept premise 2 above. Though I might be convinced of it. But many of my most important meanings are felt to derive from the contemplation and direct experience of (interaction with) with nature. Perhaps 2 is a valid premise for a subset of people but I am not convinced of its generality. What say you?

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

bachus wrote:
elektro80 wrote:
Any artist should question what we know, why we know it and what that really means. I recommend looking into knowledge oriented theories.
Try: social constructionism. After that treat I strongly suggest looking into Herbert Blumer and symbolic interactionism.

Blumer´s three premises are hot:

1. "Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them"
2. "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one's fellows."
3. "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."


Wow! I do not accept premise 2 above. Though I might be convinced of it. But many of my most important meanings are felt to derive from the contemplation and direct experience of (interaction with) with nature. Perhaps 2 is a valid premise for a subset of people but I am not convinced of its generality. What say you?


The really interesting thing about symbolic interactionism is its implications. I think it does provide some insights into these matters and by doing so it also becomes a framework for understanding reality. I don´t think we should look at this theory as a full unified theory .
Symbolic interactionism has been very influential ( and still is ) and this means it has become one of the premises for understanding human interaction and meaning.


Completey OT, but perhaps slightly relevant ( after some serious thought ) is the famous Funeral Oration by Pericles. Try reading the Gettysburg address after reading the Funeral Oration. Also consider some of the War on Terror speeches by Bush and do look for traces of the Funeral Oration. You might be amazed. Do you see any similarities? So, what is going on here?

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The Funeral Oration
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Pericles
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

bachus wrote:

Wow! I do not accept premise 2 above. Though I might be convinced of it. But many of my most important meanings are felt to derive from the contemplation and direct experience of (interaction with) with nature. Perhaps 2 is a valid premise for a subset of people but I am not convinced of its generality. What say you?


Well, I can have a go at it, but I won´t argue this according to Blumer.

I think it is interesting to consider what got you there.

Quote:
my most important meanings are felt to derive from the contemplation and direct experience of (interaction with) with nature


What exactly is the theoretical framework which is in use here? You have a relationship with nature. What is that about?

Quote:
my most important meanings are felt to derive from the contemplation and direct experience of (interaction with) with nature


This might be as valid as any human statement can ever be, but I think this conclusion is probably based on something else or rather, something more.

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Another diversion, this time a look at occultism.
Occultism and Avantgarde around 1900

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
Another diversion, this time a look at occultism.
Occultism and Avantgarde around 1900



This is written by Wolfgang Hagen - http://www.whagen.de
His website is hot!

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
Completey OT, but perhaps slightly relevant ( after some serious thought ) is the famous Funeral Oration by Pericles. Try reading the Gettysburg address after reading the Funeral Oration. Also consider some of the War on Terror speeches by Bush and do look for traces of the Funeral Oration. You might be amazed. Do you see any similarities? So, what is going on here?


I do not mean this to be an offence to my good countrymen who have served and sacrificed for our great country. But it is difficult for me not to conclude that our lofty patriotism is not far from instinct and an inherent feature passed down to us by our more distant but no less glorious simian ancestors whose stirring war cry was: "For the sake of our most glorious tribe, if you have any poo, fling it now!" Even I felt strongly these stirrings in my godless liberal flesh after my country was attacked. It took weeks for older habits of thought to reassert themselves and re-establish what my conscious mind takes as rationality and an inhibition against the (literal) flinging of poo.

It is my belief that consciousness is an artifact of processes that lie beneath it, that when we proudly make an intellectual decision the conscious experience of that process has little to do with that reality. Nor am I alone in this kind of thinking. See Francis Crick’s "The Astonishing Hypothesis"

Thus it is not at all surprising that these things echo throughout human history. Their basis is preverbal coming not from mental abstractions but from inherent neuro-physiological patterns.

Coming to terms with this is much like passing through the total perspective vortex. So good luck and write if you find work.

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
Completey OT, but perhaps slightly relevant ( after some serious thought ) is the famous Funeral Oration by Pericles. Try reading the Gettysburg address after reading the Funeral Oration. Also consider some of the War on Terror speeches by Bush and do look for traces of the Funeral Oration. You might be amazed. Do you see any similarities? So, what is going on here?


Continuing...

The mafia, Fascist Germany, Stalinist Russia, Islamist Afghanistan, the current Authoritarian trend in America, these are just different clothings of the same fetid body, the same simian tendencies. To focus on the details of any one of these is to miss the point and the truth.

Edit:
Removed an inappropriate apostrophe Rolling Eyes

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Last edited by bachus on Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
bachus wrote:
my most important meanings are felt to derive from the contemplation and direct experience of (interaction with) with nature


What exactly is the theoretical framework which is in use here? You have a relationship with nature. What is that about?


It is about the non-verbal, about the direct experience of reality, those experiences of reality more analogous to those of "animals." See "Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin for an explanation of concepts and conceptualization without verbal abstractions. Another astonishing hypothesis if ever there was one and one badly needed by the rest of our kind.

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

IMO Gradin's work is not as unrelated to music as one might think on first encountering it.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seraph
Editor
Editor


Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12096
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

bachus wrote:
"Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin

thanks for the link Very Happy it looks like a great book Exclamation

_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube

Quote:
Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex - Frank Zappa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

seraph wrote:
bachus wrote:
"Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin

thanks for the link Very Happy it looks like a great book Exclamation


It is a momentous and important book. I wish every human being would read it. However it is a bit oddly constructed and sequenced. Only once you've read the whole thing does the relevance and significance of all its parts become clear. My copy is constantly out on loan and I always hand the book over with the admonition that you have to read the whole thing to have a valid opinion of any of it.

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seraph
Editor
Editor


Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12096
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

bachus wrote:
I wish every human being would read it.

I can only promise I'll read it myself Very Happy

_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube

Quote:
Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex - Frank Zappa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bachus



Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2919
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
Another diversion, this time a look at occultism.
Occultism and Avantgarde around 1900


Quote:
But that means in reverse: Without these ceaseless efforts of proofing the existence of an impossible, diamond-hard, totally inflexible, universe-filling but nevertheless atmosphere-like, complex-paradoxical matter called ether, the theory of relativity never could have come to existence.


Not that the truth or falsehood of this quote has any consequence to his argument (So why is it there?) I have to say I don’t think that it is true. According to his recollections Einstein's initial conception of special relativity was derived from thought experiments not from a desire to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 or the Loretnz transformations derived from it, though without these relativity’s full expression and acceptance would have been delayed.

Picky, picky, picky, not to mention it's the only intelligent thing I can come up with to say about this. Rolling Eyes

This is not to say that the analysis of the origins of Kandinsky's work is not interesting and enlightening. And it's good to learn that occultism, once in its sorry existence, resulted in something of interest. Very Happy

_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The exact claim as it stands might of course be a tad fuzzy, but I take you you haven´t read Einstein´s Leyden lecture?
The web is a wonderful place... I googled Einsten Leyden ether and found: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
There is in fact a real lot to be said and read about ether and Einstein.

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: elektro80
Page 1 of 2 [45 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Discussion » Composition
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
e-m mkii

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from
our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use