 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John25
Date: 2006-05-25 17:48
Writing on any orchestral part should be kept to a minimum, unless it's something you've bought for yourself. The first thing I do when I get the music for a concert is to rub out every marking other than the printed notes. Sorry, but the most annoying thing is when someone has written the letters above the notes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-25 17:56
John25 wrote:
> Writing on any orchestral part should be kept to a minimum,
> unless it's something you've bought for yourself. The first
> thing I do when I get the music for a concert is to rub out
> every marking other than the printed notes. Sorry, but the most
> annoying thing is when someone has written the letters above
> the notes.
Is that common though? It just seems like it would be helpful. Or maybe a crutch. I don't know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2006-05-25 17:57
YCl,
This is a common thing that young musicians/beginners do as they learn to play and read music. I for one think it is perfectly normal and if it helps you at this stage then you should do it. I would like to add that the sooner you don't have to do this the better. When you do this, you are not learning to read the music as you play but rather you are reading letters(and possibly memorizing the music you are playing and not developing the reading while playing skill). I understand that as a new player a lot must be going on in your mind and there might not be room to concentrate completely on reading music when you are playing which is why reading music has to become effortless for you. It's a language and you have to learn it.
I would suggest spending time with your music when you are not playing your instrument and drill your self on note names. Study the notes, the staff, dynamic markings, number of bars, slurs/articulations......anything that you see on the page....you want your brain to understand what it is looking at and not get lost in the sea of dots and lines. Another helpful thing to do is to make flash cards of single notes and notes in succession both ascending and desending such as c,d,e,f, and f,e,d,c. Draw the notes on a staff on one side and write the names on the other side. Just making these cards will help you before you even drill them. Once you can identify these well, move on to intervals such as c, e, g, c and c, g, e, c. As you get better at this, make it harder by increasing the interval until you can skip octaves.
I'm sure there are 1000 suggestions that people can make on here as everyone has their own methods of teaching and ways of helping new students learn this. I simply gave some ideas to show you that learning to read music at this stage is just as important as how much you play your instrument. The sooner you master this part, the sooner you have one less thing to worry about as you learn to play.
Good luck and happy clarineting!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sanya
Date: 2006-05-25 18:10
Personally, I think that writing note names over the notes if you are a beginner is the worst idea ever. I know that I was actually specifically told to do that when I first picked up an instrument -- tenor sax at the time, and I later switched to clarinet. When I switched over, I had moved to a different school and I remember telling the new music teacher I had there to just give me a couple of days alone in a practice room with a fingering chart, and I would teach myself whatever I could to try and catch up to the others (which wasn't much, to be honest). Writing note names is used as a crutch for many beginners, and it can stick as a habit, and you will never learn the actual notes. Forcing yourself to learn them by never writing the note names should work. That's what I did, and that's how I'm teaching my brother.
Other than note names, I write a lot of stuff on my music -- photocopies only, of course. "Slow down!", "don't rush", "count properly, you idiot" are common phrases throughout my music. Sometimes, even if it's in a simple time signature like 4/4, I would have, like, 64th notes in triplet form with two 8th notes right after, and sometimes it gets confusing, so I write in the counting. I just put little flicks where the beat is, so I know how many notes come into one beat. Math flies right over my head, so, yes, sometimes I do have to sit down and write in the counting. Other than that, I don't write anything at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2006-05-25 20:34
It is a really bad idea.
If the music was written by hand and is messy, I rewrite the entire piece with a music authoring program (I use Midisoft's Forte, there are others available). This has an additional benefit in that the program finds errors in the original chart.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-05-25 21:02
There are some elementary music theory workbooks which have note reading exercises, where you can write in the names of notes. These can be beneficial to beginners who are first learning to read and identify note symbols.
However, writing the names of the notes on the music will force your eyes to look above or below the staff for guidance.
That is not the way we read music. ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2006-05-25 23:41
I would highly reccomend against writing the names below the notes. It will get easier with practice, that would be like trying to learn japanese, and writing the english wording below each sentence. It just doesn't help anything.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom A
Date: 2006-05-26 00:03
Others have given reasons why it isn't a good idea for a beginner. I'll just tell you from my teaching experience, DON'T. If you want to test yourself on whether you know the notes, write them on a separate piece of paper. Do not use it to help you read the music.
-------------------------------------------
Could you play that part a little more greenie-orange? - Olivier Messiaen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joannew
Date: 2006-05-26 19:22
Does it matter what the name of the note is? The important thing is that the position on the staff translates to the fingers on the horn. Putting a step in between sounds like it would slow down the process, not speed it up. This will come in time, not to worry.
I find now looking back through the studies I played in school, the marks I made on the page actually seem to be counterproductive. I did things like put big arrows and stars pointing to the hard bits so I would remember to practice these sections, but what happens is the brain sees all this scribbling and starts to panic - hard part coming up - time to fumble!
Now my philosophy for marking orchestral parts is first to erase all previous markings. Then if I miss an accidental or something the first time, let it go. If I miss it the next time, maybe, depends on the difficulty of the music and how focused I was. But if I continue to make a mistake, then put a small unobtrusive marking, so it (hopefully) won't happen again. This works for simple slip-ups. Obviously some things take more than a little pencil cue to get right!
(greenie-orange - I love it!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-26 22:17
joannew wrote:
[ Entire quote of joannew's post deleted. You don't need to re-post an entire posting. Please edit the quote to refer to what you're replying to. Mark C. ]
Well, so far I am doing pretty good as I go throught the book. I haven't had any problem with forgetting the notes although I have to go slowly. I can figure out any note that I don't know by just counting forward or backwards. It's not as hard as I thought it would be.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2006-05-27 01:33
Exactly, YCL-450!
Nothing wrong with going slowly. After a while it will become more comfortable!
Trust us....we've all been there before and many of us have had students who have been there before!
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-05-27 12:43
Usually there is more than one way to learn something and what works for you may not be understood by the other guy. Do whatever you have to do ...but don't write on sheet music that is not your own. Aha, it's probably those ledger line notes!
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musicnotes92
Date: 2006-05-27 20:17
I only write the letters above the notes if it is somthing I keep missing. Usually I write them when the key signature has got alot of sharps/flats so I don't end up playing the wrong note. But I don't think there is a problem with it. But thats just me!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-27 21:15
Do you guys need to hear the melody before you try to play off sheet music you have never heard?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2006-05-27 22:19
YCL-450, that is a skill which develops over time.
I can "hear" the melody in my mind when I look at a piece of sheet music. I have been involved with music for 30-some years though, starting with piano when I was 6. I did end up in music school, too, for clarinet, and one of the classes all music majors are required to take is called "aural skills." This ranges from dictation to sight singing and more.
Keep being patient. These are not immediate skills! The more (and longer in terms of months and years) you work at this the easier it can get...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom A
Date: 2006-05-28 06:06
Assuming YCL is asking if we need to hear it played, the answer for most is no. If that were the case, there'd be no need for rhythm notation, only the positions of the notes on the stave.
The notes on the page tell you the two most fundamental elements to get it "correct":
1. Which note is it?
2. How many counts is it?
As others will no doubt point out, listening to a performance is helpful for interpretation, but to get it right you need to start by playing the right note for the right length as indicated on the music.
Judging by your second-to-last posting, you're on the right track if you're going slowly enough to get the right notes at the right time. It's like learning new vocabulary in your own language. As a small child it comes slowly, but as you grow older you acquire new language skills much more rapidly. The same will happen with your music reading. You get better at getting better.
-------------------------------------------
Could you play that part a little more greenie-orange? - Olivier Messiaen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BTBob
Date: 2006-05-31 00:59
I think what beginning musicians have to try and understand is that reading notes equals *musical literacy*. Just like few allowances are made in the working world for people with problems reading written language, no trained musician feels much sympathy for a musical illiterate.
The differenc eis there has been a lot more research and study put into teaching language illiterates to read than musical ones. The method in music up to now is "there isn't one." You either a. just do it by constant immersion or b. if you can't handle that, give up playing with others. I guess because your life is not over if you can't play music.
Post Edited (2006-05-31 01:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-31 01:32
BTBob wrote:
> I think what beginning musicians have to try and understand is
> that reading notes equals *musical literacy*. Just like few
> allowances are made in the working world for people with
> problems reading written language, no trained musician feels
> much sympathy for a musical illiterate.
That sounds a bit presumptuous if you ask me.
>
> The differenc eis there has been a lot more research and study
> put into teaching language illiterates to read than musical
> ones. The method in music up to now is "there isn't one." You
> either a. just do it by constant immersion or b. if you can't
> handle that, give up playing with others. I guess because your
> life is not over if you can't play music.
>
>
> Or C. do like Pete Fountain and just play by ear. Just because someone fails to learn to read music doesn't mean they have to just quit. I think sucsessful musicians come in three flavors. Those who play by ear, those who play by sight reading and those who can do both. I also think that if a beginner quits it's usually because it was just a passing fad. If someone is really serious about playing a musical instrument they will find a way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BTBob
Date: 2006-05-31 01:36
Yes, it's presumptuous. Professional music presumes a lot on people. No one gives a flip what is too difficult for you because there is always someone better.
Good musicians may not sight read but I can't imagine any of them really becoming successful. It's a business, based on perfectionism and extremely limited time and resources. Those who can't do everything everyone else can do just get tossed out.
Post Edited (2006-05-31 01:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-31 03:08
BTBob wrote:
> Yes, it's presumptuous. Professional music presumes a lot on
> people. No one gives a flip what is too difficult for you
> because there is always someone better.
>
> Good musicians may not sight read but I can't imagine any of
> them really becoming successful. It's a business, based on
> perfectionism and extremely limited time and resources. Those
> who can't do everything everyone else can do just get tossed
> out.
Well apparently they didn't toss Pete Fountain who CAN"T sight read and is among the best and most successful clarinetist ever. In fact he's probably better than most clarinetist have dreamed of being. I'd bet that he's not the only one too.
>
>
> Post Edited (2006-05-31 01:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-05-31 03:31
YCL-450 wrote:
> ...Pete Fountain who CAN"T sight read
Pete Fountain worked with Welk and other major groups.
I'd like to hear about some definitive proof ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-05-31 05:38
I think what people are trying to say here (if they don't mind me speaking for them) is that being able to read music is never a detriment to a musician; that the ability to read music expands your versatility as a clarinetist. Knowing how to read music will never hurt you in your musical life but the inability to read very well could. Like many things in music the learning curve is steep at the beginning of your attempts to read music, but evens out very quickly. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised at how easy it becomes within a short period of time. Quite literally you'll be counting lines and spaces one week and knowing the notes without thinking in another.
It is true that some very good musicians don't read music but they spend many years of dedicated practice learning tunes by ear. Most of them also have a natural talent (approaching prodigy) for mimicry that allow them to learn by ear very quickly. The nice thing about being able to read music is that you can get together with any number of musicians and immediately "speak" the same language. I can sit down with musicians from any country and play a band piece or a woodwind quintet or a major symphony without speaking a word of their language. To me that's a pretty powerful inducement to read music.
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-05-31 10:45
Cuisleannach wrote:
> I think what people are trying to say here (if they don't mind
> me speaking for them) is that being able to read music is never
> a detriment to a musician; that the ability to read music
> expands your versatility as a clarinetist.
Well, I worked as a studio musician for a bit. Not being able to read music means no job - I call that a detriment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-31 12:09
Proof? ...GBK
My clarinet teacher knows Pete Fountain and he told me that Pete doesn't sight read. His father played with Pete Fountain so apparently He is a family friend.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-05-31 12:17
The nice thing about being able to read music is that you can get together with any number of musicians and immediately "speak" the same language. I can sit down with musicians from any country and play a band piece or a woodwind quintet or a major symphony without speaking a word of their language. To me that's a pretty powerful inducement to read music.
This is very true. That's what sparked my interest in learning. I have a good ear for music and I can learn songs without sight reading but reading music definately has advantages and it seems easier than I thought it would be.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-06-01 12:40
Well, YCL, where I come from "sight read" means something a bit different than the way you are using it. You're talking about "reading music"....period. Sight reading is reading a piece of music for the first time while playing it......at least that's the way I learned it. Just write the notes until you don't need to anymore.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bawa
Date: 2006-06-01 19:12
BobD,
Where I come from sight reading has exactly the same meaning too. In fact, in conservatories here, it is one of the essential skills taught and a separate component of the instrument exam.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: glin
Date: 2006-06-01 20:44
So, I'm subbing in for two concerts with The City of Faifax Band, a very good community band in Northern VA. Last night's rehearsal was the third rehearsal I've sat it on.
Last night, prior to this Sunday's concert, the conductor pulls out new unrehearsed music (at least for the subs like me) as a last minute substitution. So, I have to sightread. There's a particularly fast section of arpeggios in Die Fledermaus (sorry,if I misspelled) and someone had written out all the notes (ie all Bbs, Eb,s C#'s, G#'s). It was so bad I couldn't see the musical notes as opposed to the written notes. I guess if I was a good enough musician, I could deduce the key and figure out if it was diminished chords, etc., but I'm not there and frankly, I don't think I could have picked it up that quick at such a brisk tempo. So, the point I'm trying to make it is don't write out all the notes-but perhaps write out if the arpeggios or grouping of notes is part of a major/minor/diminished scale or chord. That makes it easier on the eye and helps reinforce learning scales and chords.
George Lin
Fairfax, VA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-06-02 02:44
YCL-450,
I have read many of your posts and would like to offer you some private advice. I looked at your profile and did not find your email address. Click on my name above and then click on my email address and send me an email. I will respond to you then.
Thanks,
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BTBob
Date: 2006-06-04 15:53
Bawa wrote:
"BobD,
Where I come from sight reading has exactly the same meaning too. In fact, in conservatories here, it is one of the essential skills taught and a separate component of the instrument exam."
Is sight reading actually "taught" in Spain, ie, with a method? Most places it's strictly "learn by doing."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-06-04 19:07
Forgot where i saw it but there are "rules" or guidelines published for sight reading.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seafaris
Date: 2006-06-04 23:13
I would find it hard to believe that Pete Fountain does not read music. He played in elementary school, high school, had private teachers etc. He is a great musician and does improvise a lot, and maybe doesn't have to read everything, but I'll bet he can sight read. He is very modest.
To quote the article above:
"Nick: Pete, what method, if any, did you use to learn how to improvise?
Pete: I was improvising before I was reading music. I was just trying to play things on the clarinet by ear. I think my ear is one of my greatest assets. I could always hear it. I got away with a lot of stuff in high school playing first clarinet. I read, but I didn't read that great. But if they would play it once, I had it. I could cut the parts, 'cause my ear would catch it and go right along. It was my secret for playing first chair for a while."
....Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-06-04 23:27
Re: Pete Fountain's ability to read music (or lack thereof):
Looks like he dabbled in reading music as a youth but never mastered it. But then he didn't have to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-06-04 23:32
YCL-450 wrote:
> Looks like he dabbled in reading music as a youth but never
> mastered it. But then he didn't have to.
And your assuption is based on what? He worked with Lawrence Welk - if you don't think he had to read the music working for Welk (a stickler for detail and perfection if there ever was one) then you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-06-04 23:48
YCL-450
I am also anxious to know what you base your statement "but never mastered it" on.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2006-06-05 00:19
ycl450,
Your statement - "Looks like he dabbled in reading music as a youth but never mastered it" - assumes that Pete didn't improve after high school and I see no evidence to support it. Do you know something that you haven't shared?
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-06-05 01:45
And your assuption is based on what? He worked with Lawrence Welk - if you don't think he had to read the music working for Welk (a stickler for detail and perfection if there ever was one) then you don't know what you're talking about.
You don't know any more of what you're talking about than I do because you don't know him personally and neither do I. So we are both speculating at best. However I am going on what I was told by my clarinet teacher who apparenty does know Pete fountain personally. He told me he did. His father worked with Pete Fountain. I have know reason to doubt the man. He teaches high school band and seems to have enough integrety as not to be a lier but I guess you never know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-06-05 01:58
Your statement - "Looks like he dabbled in reading music as a youth but never mastered it" - assumes that Pete didn't improve after high school and I see no evidence to support it. Do you know something that you haven't shared?
Right, assumed, which implies a guess based one what I read in the article not a statement of fact.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-06-05 02:13
YCL-450 wrote:
> You don't know any more of what you're talking about than I do
> because you don't know him personally and neither do I.
I worked with Lawrence Welk, having subbed for Richard Maloof in 1974, 4 shows, Yokosuka, Japan, Club Alliance. I know what I'm talking about. You can't read music, you didn't work in Lawrence Welk's band. He could throw ANYTHING at that band, stuff they'd never seen before, and they could play it cold. That was the gig.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-06-05 02:23
YCL-450,
Can you enlighten me as to what a "guess based one...not a statement of fact" happens to be, please. I'm not very familiar with that type of assertation.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-06-05 03:02
I worked with Lawrence Welk, having subbed for Richard Maloof in 1974, 4 shows, Yokosuka, Japan, Club Alliance. I know what I'm talking about. You can't read music, you didn't work in Lawrence Welk's band. He could throw ANYTHING at that band, stuff they'd never seen before, and they could play it cold. That was the gig.
You don't know Pete Fountain and that's who we are discussing, not Lawrence Welk. Who said anything about Lawrence Welk? Unless you know Pete Fountain personaly then you are as ignorent about weather he can read music as I am. Ha ha this really the most rediculous discussion I have ever seen. I mean who really cares if Pete Fountain reads music and what someone casually speculates. That is unless some of you are just looking for a fight. I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject. Now if the moderator would please close this thread.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YCL-450
Date: 2006-06-05 03:08
Can you enlighten me as to what a "guess based one...not a statement of fact" happens to be, please. I'm not very familiar with that type of assertation.
Well I'd rather just go play my clarinet Hank. Why don't you do the same and let's just forget about all this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-06-05 03:10
YCL-450 wrote:
> You don't know Pete Fountain and that's who we are discussing,
> not Lawrence Welk. Who said anything about Lawrence Welk?
Well, Pete Fountain worked for Lawrence Welk. If he worked for Welk he could read music very well.
I am far from ignorant on the subject; some of the people you have chosen to argue with are also far from ignorant, and I would suspect that some of the people who post here have worked with Pete Fountain. Many of us are not children.
> I mean who really cares if Pete Fountain reads music and what
> someone casually speculates. That is unless some of you are just
> looking for a fight.
You didn't "speculate", you stated as fact. Some of us know better, and wanted to find out how and why you came by such misinformation.
> I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject. Now if the
> moderator would please close this thread.
Please don't waste your or my time.
BTW - I am the moderator & owner of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seafaris
Date: 2006-06-05 03:37
AMEN!
And I was thinking this was going to be a boring Sunday evening! :-)
...Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rc_clarinetlady
Date: 2006-06-05 12:57
Wasn't the original question something about YCL learning to read music...not Pete ??
YCL, if you can learn to play clarinet like Pete Fountain and NOT read music then I don't suppose you'd get much of an argument from the good folks on this board anymore. The cold truth it that there are so many wonderful musicians out there that can play circles around you and no matter how good you get there will always be someone waiting in the wings that can play better. Most of us know that from the experience of auditions, contests, or just sitting in the orchestra or playing on gigs with these colleagues.
If you're looking to learn music for you own enjoyment then just do it the way you want to do it but don't SCREW up the published parts for the rest of us to have to try and read at a later date. That just annoys the heck out of me when I can't read what the composer wrote because someone who Can't read music had to write the notes in.
If you're serious about becoming an accomplished musician, do yourself a HUGE favor and learn to read the notes at sight.
If you have the gift of a good ear why not enhance that gift and be able to read too?? Don't be stubborn and think you're all THAT and a bag of chips too just because you can play by ear. It's not going to get you any studio jobs as Mark pointed out. Studio musicians are some of the finest musicians around. They can play anything. They amaze me.
There's no easy way about it. It's time spent in the practice room which, by the way, is what most of us have done....for hours... to master what we love.
Rebecca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2006-06-05 14:04
Sheesh!
Do I dare add anything to this long thread?
It’s pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of the people reading this board understand the value and importance of being able to read music and to sight read.
As a teacher I usually feel that I have failed in some way if I can’t get a student to learn to read. Most teachers would agree, don’t you think?
That having been said, let’s not forget that music is aural.
Pianist Errol Garner was described as being some kind of savant. He was not high in intelligence as measured by an IQ test. But he was gifted in music. He couldn’t read music. When asked about it, he replied, “Hell, nobody can hear you read!”
Check out the lyrics to “When Malindy sings” : http://www.plethoreum.org/dunbar/gallery/WhenMalindySings.asp
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with all that Rebecca said in her last post about doing the hard work of reading.
I have given “cheat sheet” notes to piano students, and it hasn’t been very helpful in teaching them to read. Reading this thread embarrassed me a bit, to realize how ineffective this method is. But at the same time, private teachers face tough choices when we have students who don’t seem to “get” note reading, but still have interest in music. When you know they aren’t taking music to be serious musicians, and you want to give them the chance to play an actual song, you try different things, even if it means teaching a song or two by rote.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-06-05 16:43
RC,
Yes, the original thread was about writing in the names of notes which then went to reading, then sight-reading, and then YCL-450 made the comment that "Or C. do like Pete Fountain and just play by ear. Just because someone fails to learn to read music ..."
Then IMHO YCL-450 got out on a branch which several people began to cut off. I believe that at this point, YCL-450 is playing his clarinet just like he told me to do. I think he said he wanted to forget the whole thing.
HRL
Post Edited (2006-06-05 17:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
