 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: TAS
Date: 2016-02-09 18:33
I find the stage presence of many clarinetists to be utterly distracting. Used to be, the professional clarinet soloists would generallly remain erect and play their solo with only slight body movement.
It seems to me that gyrations and contortions clarinetists of today throw into their solo act is a false attempt to add style to their solo performance. It looks like a circus sideshow.Why throw your generally very average looking torso in the way of an otherwise proficient solo endeavor? Channel your emotions through the bore of the instrument.
What's next, doing a backflip after the last note?
TAS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-09 19:06
TAS wrote:
>
> What's next, doing a backflip after the last note?
>
How about just before the last note, landing as you play it?
There is a simple solution to the distraction - don't look. If all you really want is pure sound anyway, why buy into the distraction by watching. Close your eyes, or if you can't keep from then dozing off, look at something else. The accompanist. Scan around the rest of the audience.
It isn't just clarinetists. Watch Anne-Sophie Mutter play a violin concerto. A lot of people saw Yo Yo Ma fall backward off his riser once. And pianistic histrionics are almost unavoidable. Some of it, btw, is a natural part of the performers' feeling of connection to the music. It isn't all blatant showmanship, though some certainly is.
But then, shall we next look (or not look) at conductors?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fernie51296
Date: 2016-02-09 19:34
It's interesting because if you ask younger players most would say seeing the performers into their music is very satisfying. For myself, a 20 year old, I find it bothersome when I see players who look so stiff and uptight.
Fernando
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2016-02-09 20:53
Dark arts of clarinet performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5twANQ7S050
fsbsde@yahoo.com
Post Edited (2016-02-09 20:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KenJarczyk
Date: 2016-02-09 21:27
Sometimes the gods just have to dance a wee bit.
Ken Jarczyk
Woodwinds Specialist
Eb, C, Bb, A & Bass Clarinets
Soprano, Alto, Tenor & Baritone Saxophones
Flute, Alto Flute, Piccolo
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-02-09 23:02
Very funny. Lowenstern is so good he makes the gyrations seem to actually work.
I watched Benny Goodman far too much in junior high school. I have a photo of the orchestra (yes, we had those even in junior high) of me playing while leaning 30 degrees to the left.
On the other hand, incorporating body movement -- even a lot of it -- can have a good effect IF IT'S IN SYNC WITH THE HARMONY AND PHRASE SHAPE. Sabine Meyer moves all over the place when she plays solo, but it enhances her performance (at least for me) because she moves where the phrases move.
Movement isn't necessary. Look at the old Boston Symphony videos, where Dwyer, Gomberg, Cioffi and Walt might as well be sculpted from stone, but their playing had infinite nuance.
Drucker moved about as much as is acceptable in the NY Phil. videos, and every movement was keyed to phrase shape. Also, he got some leeway because he and everybody else knew that he was DRUCKER.
Sometimes body movement is almost essential. It would be hard to end the Brahms First Sonata without a bit of bodily flourish. Even Heifetz would raise an eyebrow occasionally, and wave his bow a bit at the end of, say, the Brahms Concerto.
Your motto should be "if you can, leave it out." Let your phrasing made the effect, not your body.
You make your first and most important impression on the audience when you take your first step on stage. When you're in a class and somebody walks in wearing a suit and tie, everything gets quiet and all attention is focused on the authority figure. Thererfore, you need to buy, or at least rent, a set of tails, with a stiffly starched high collar and white bow tie.
Put your entire personality into your look and your first step. Stand up straight, and march on not as if, but BECAUSE, you own that stage and their attention. Stride out, take a full bow (i.e., look at your feet), make eye contact with the pianist, don't tune (you did that before you came out), give a nod and blow them away with the first note.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2016-02-10 06:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2016-02-10 00:02
I don't mind moderate movement that looks driven by the music, but a clarinetist who dips and swoops and waggles the instrument around enough to look silly can also mess up the intonation.
The performer I can't watch is a pianist, Lang Lang. His head-flinging, shoulder-rolling melodrama can't change the tone or the pitch of the piano one bit. The pianist's fingers, the force with which the arms drive the fingers and the feet on the pedals do control duration of notes and volume of notes, of course, but when pianists waggle their fingers on the keys as if they were going for violinist-style vibrato . . . well, good luck with that.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2016-02-10 08:17
Lelia, I would say that for the pianist "shoulder rolling" certainly can make a difference, usually not for the better. Shoulder motion that is either unconscious or an attempt at showmanship will change the direction and force of the arm that is connected to the hand that is connected to the fingers, "now there's the workin'of the Lord..." I can think of a couple of pieces where where learning how to involve the shoulders and upper arms just so was the most exciting part of learning the piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-02-10 10:30
I have to agree!If you want to do a solo standing up and moving all over the place, take dancing lessons too! It can be kinda distracting sometimes.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2016-02-11 00:22
Think of an unattended fire hose wildly dancing about, spraying water everywhere.
It's our release of all that chi that makes us thrash about!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-02-11 03:05
I wanted to add another aspect to the "pro-movement camp."
I heard a professional audio engineer say the other day, "movement equals excitement."
The context was...... which microphone to use in a recording session, hand held or on a stand. Sometimes you can get a much better performance from the artist by allowing movement with a hand held mic (as if on stage).
It is important to keep in mind in this context there is no subjective opinion one way or the other coming from the engineer. The engineer gets paid when she/he can get the best sound out of the performer and into a mix and out from your speakers. And though it doesn't need to be said, no one sees what the artist is doing on the stream you pay Spotify to hear.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2016-02-11 19:53
I think movement should be natural and congruent with the musical material. Sometimes those gestures can be big, but they should always match the sound. For instance, Sonny Rollins moves a lot, even with some pretty big and outlandish motions sometimes, but I think they always match what he's saying. I personally tend to move with the music, but I don't think it's to distracting levels--it's just a byproduct of being loose and letting the music flow. Hopefully it matches the mood well enough that it enhances the live performance experience for the audience.
I find the silliest movements to be from soloists who, when you close your eyes, sound almost robotic...but you can see are making huge gyrations. Those are the types you almost feel sorry for: they can't get the emotion through the horn, so they have to exaggerate their movement. At least that how it can seem.
Music is a physical activity, though; not some mere intellectual thing. The body, and how we use it on stage, matters. So this is a subject every performer ought to think through for themselves, and at least know why they're doing what they do.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JEG ★2017
Date: 2016-02-12 02:18
I remember being at a Harold Wright recital in the late 70s, and marveling at all that was coming out of his clarinet while he sat almost perfectly still. Of course, he was a double lip player, so he sat and was restricted in his movements as his clarinet was usually held between his knees. Still, it was a good lesson in what you could do without the theatrics.
Performance practices change over time, and what I think we're seeing now is a trend toward theatricality. Nothing wrong, just different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2016-02-12 04:20
There seems to be a simplistic binary view that if performers are not moving wildly then they are rigid.
Totally false.
The great atrists of previous years expressed great music through their instruments without gratuitious movement - but they were not rigid.
What we see with too many of todays players, including I admit even a few very fine ones, is just affectation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-02-12 07:42
I agree with Norman. Watch pianists Martha Argerich and Vladimir Horowitz, to mention two extraordinarily energetic interpreters. They project the highest voltages, but with limited physical movement. Cziffra is another one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-ScKoB_BY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyzzAV9GhHQ
I don't care for added movement that's essentially all about the performer.
About Harold Wright holding his clarinet between his knees . . . . !!! Since switching to double lip several years ago I've been forever breaking the habit of doing that myself. Why? Because sometimes in the band I play with I have to solo standing up! I can manage it ok without much added lip pain, but when sitting the tendency to use the knees for support wants to keep creeping in. Sometimes practicing I sit with the music stand blocking out one knee.
What did Wright do when he played a concerto?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2016-02-12 18:31
What did Wright do when he played a concerto?
----------------------------------------------------------
He sat down in front of the orchestra. So did Marcellus, although (except for a brief time) he did not play double-lip.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-02-12 18:50
Wright and Marcellus SAT while playing a concerto???? But but but . . . . . that's not . . . . . No-o-o-o-o . . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fuzzystradjazz
Date: 2016-02-12 22:05
I think the words "Stage Presence" are key. What is stage presence vs. stage performance?
It seems that many of today's audiences appreciate theatrics. Today is the day where it is "cool" to remake rock/pop tunes with instruments thought of as "classical" (some even come out with original "pop" material), make over-the-top music videos of the event, and etc. (Examples: https://youtu.be/BseReHVrZ6k, https://youtu.be/RrutzRWXkKs, and https://youtu.be/JZPSV78iQxg)
Extra physical movement on the "classical" stage seems like a logical extension of what society expects from performers today...perhaps it is bleeding over to the classical stage?
Having said that: I'm not one of the folks who enjoys the theatrics. I do enjoy hearing people break the mold of how an instrument "should" be used though. ;^)>>>
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-12 22:36
Quote:
I think movement should be natural and congruent with the musical material. Sometimes those gestures can be big, but they should always match the sound. For instance, Sonny Rollins moves a lot, even with some pretty big and outlandish motions sometimes, but I think they always match what he's saying. I personally tend to move with the music, but I don't think it's to distracting levels--it's just a byproduct of being loose and letting the music flow. Hopefully it matches the mood well enough that it enhances the live performance experience for the audience.
I find the silliest movements to be from soloists who, when you close your eyes, sound almost robotic...but you can see are making huge gyrations. Those are the types you almost feel sorry for: they can't get the emotion through the horn, so they have to exaggerate their movement. At least that how it can seem.
Music is a physical activity, though; not some mere intellectual thing. The body, and how we use it on stage, matters. So this is a subject every performer ought to think through for themselves, and at least know why they're doing what they do.
Eric
Pshhh! What does Sonny know about music??? If only he read the bboard--could've made something of a career for himself...
But seriously, can't we all get over these performance histrionics? Return to the good ole' days when lemonade was a nickle, an apple pie was in every window sill, and clarinetists sat frozen in their chairs like double-lipped gargoyles? Better yet, why not return to the birth of modern solo playing? Yeah, like Liszt and Paganini! Those were truly decorous gentlemen; they would never stoop to the sorts of theatrics that infect our concert halls!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-02-12 22:51
About sight overpowering hearing . . . . I listen to online music videos without watching them. A lot these days.
Once while driving, I turned on the radio to a classical station. A piece was being played. A single note was heard, played by a single instrument, and I immediately turned off the volume and announced to my passenger the composer, piece, conductor, and orchestra. And I was right. Am I awesome? - no, lucky. It was the hideous sounding bell the BSO under Munch used to use in the finale of Symphonie Fantastique. Unmistakable and unforgettable.
- which has little to do with stage presence, except that all you need from music is in the sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-02-13 05:07
Liszt and Paganini did a lot of things that wouldn't pass today, and neither would many other practices during concerts of the time. For example, audience members would walk around and chat during the performances. Liszt was well known to alter the music he performed on the fly, especially during repeats. A solo recital was a new thing at the time, so exhibitionism was the word. Since Liszt and Paganini were now depending on concert proceeds instead of patronage, they pulled every stunt they could think of to get people to attend. Was there music made and appreciated? Sometimes, going by reports of some attendees. Is that what we're coming around to, a time where music alone doesn't suffice, but needs sensational extra-musical additions in order to engage an audience?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-14 02:03
Quote:
Liszt and Paganini did a lot of things that wouldn't pass today, and neither would many other practices during concerts of the time. For example, audience members would walk around and chat during the performances. Liszt was well known to alter the music he performed on the fly, especially during repeats. A solo recital was a new thing at the time, so exhibitionism was the word. Since Liszt and Paganini were now depending on concert proceeds instead of patronage, they pulled every stunt they could think of to get people to attend. Was there music made and appreciated? Sometimes, going by reports of some attendees. Is that what we're coming around to, a time where music alone doesn't suffice, but needs sensational extra-musical additions in order to engage an audience?
Maybe your thought that much of what Liszt and Paganini did would be frowned upon by today's concertgoing public says something about the state of classical music audiences?
At any rate, my point in bringing up perhaps the two greatest solo performers was to shoot down this idea that "today's audiences only appreciate theatrics." Yeah, maybe today's audiences do like showmanship, but so did Liszt's audiences, who were arguably more in tune with classical music performance than their contemporary counterparts.
The silly notion that Lang Lang, Yuja Wang, et al. represent some sort of deviation from the norms of music performance needs to die. As I said, Liszt, the first modern recitalist, was certainly a showman. But I don't think his stage persona was simply a matter of selling tickets. Liszt's contemporary Charles Halle, for example, also had an incredibly successful career as a solo pianist, but he was commonly regarded as "cold and scholarly" on the stage. So I think Liszt would have sold tickets regardless of what he did. Nevertheless, as Liszt's success and Halle's criticism shows, I think it was natural for mid 19th century audiences to value showmanship.
The bboard's current attitudes, however, are the result of a couple of strains of thought that I'd like to sketch in outline. Firstly, there was a major change in musical philosophy during the latter part of the 19th century. In Europe, there emerged something of a museum culture, which lead to the creation of the musical canon (Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, and Brahms) as well as the establishment of conservatories, critical editions, composer biographies, and new theories of musical analysis (Schenker) in order to further reinforce it. These composers achieved godlike status, a sort of cult of the genius, to which perfomers were expected to completely subordinate themselves (as Wagner wrote: "The real dignity of the virtuoso rests solely on the dignity he is able to preserve for creative art; if he trifles and toys with this, he casts his honor away. He is the intermediary of the artistic idea."). I see these sorts of Romantic ideas posted here almost daily, usually along the lines of "Why do performers get in the way of the music?", and they're still a mainstay in a lot of academic circles (though usually older ones), symphony orchestras, and chamber music societies.
Secondly, and perhaps working in tandem with the cult of the genius idea, our musical culture is greatly affected by an element of puritanism. Not only has this purtanism given us a right and wrong way to behave as an audience or a performer (on stage or in relation to the composer), but it's also responsible for the binary opposition between art and entertainment. True art, which comes from the canon, should be appreciated intellectually and with an air of disinterestedness. And anything that entertains us or appeals to our baser desires should be avioded. Of course, this thinking ignores centuries of musical practice: the thrill of improvisation in a Mozart piano concerto, the spectacle of Wagner's operas, or the wild virtuosity of Paganini and Liszt. Today's audiences (at least the older ones) don't want improvisation in a Mozart concerto; they attend a concert to hear a note perfect reproduction of their favorite recording (and then offer the customary post-concert platitudes, such as "No one plays this concerto like Rudolf Serkin used to. Alas, it's all about the performer these days.")
So, "Is that what we're coming around to, a time where music alone doesn't suffice, but needs sensational extra-musical additions in order to engage an audience?" I'd say outside of a hundred years or so, that's where we've always been. And, in my opinion, it'd be in our best interests to shake off the stuffy pretensions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2016-02-14 03:26
Well put, brycon. I had a similar discussion recently on the absurd subject of musical puritans insisting on "proper" performances of The Star Spangled Banner...as though any could exist, beyond what sounds good and moves an audience.
"The scholar's pathetic trust in the written word often leads him into difficulties."
--Ralph Vaughan Williams, The Evolution of the Folk Song
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-02-14 05:22
Art has always veered into excess. Opera isn't about "civilization," it's about people torn to pieces by love and revenge. Picasso's contorted faces are about his domineering of women. Serial music reproduces the ugliness and brutality of modern cities.
And 99% of music performed today is built around a sexual pounding and ends up with smashing guitars and jumping into the mosh pit while boiling with drugs.
Lang Lang is a peaceful baby compared to any rock band you can name. I don't enjoy watching him, but he sure plays piano good.
If you want to hear music without movement, listen to Philip Glass.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-15 05:26
Eric,
I once had one of these puritans insist that the "Star Spangled Banner" should only be played in Bb!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2016-02-15 05:36
"I once had one of these puritans insist that the "Star Spangled Banner" should only be played in Bb!"
I thought it was should be played in the key of Francis Scott Key
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-02-15 07:48
The SSB works best in Ab. That makes the high notes only Eb.
However, if you ever try to read it as poetry, you realize that FSK was one of the worst poets ever. What a stinker of a poem, so the more it's torn to rags the better.
IMHO
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-02-16 00:43
Brycon, you're right but I disagree. I shouldn't speak for others, but the reason I enjoy certain music isn't because it's canonical, it's because it does something special for me. I always liked music, but the first time I heard a significant classical work (Dvorak's New World) it was something new I didn't even realize was possible until then.
I rarely get as deep an automatic involvement with other kinds of music - occasionally something else grabs me, but it isn't as likely as listening to "the canon".
And that may be designed into other kinds of music. My brother is a "Dead Head", who used to go far out of his way to attend Grateful Dead performances. One time he played one of his treasured tapes for me, and I was listening attentively. My brother looked at me and said, "Phil, you're not going to get it by listening." He was right.
Further, to really enjoy great classical music requires attentive listening from me, because the smallest detail might change everything. Having said that, I don't always do it: I listen while driving, writing software, exercising, or playing solitaire. I enjoy the music anyway, but to get the really good experiences from great music I have to follow the details moment by moment, and experience it on several levels. It isn't being prudish, I just have to do that to get what I want.
So, to some extent the "canon" is the canon because it delivers something the other stuff doesn't. Or, the other stuff does other things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-16 23:33
Quote:
Brycon, you're right but I disagree. I shouldn't speak for others, but the reason I enjoy certain music isn't because it's canonical, it's because it does something special for me. I always liked music, but the first time I heard a significant classical work (Dvorak's New World) it was something new I didn't even realize was possible until then.
I rarely get as deep an automatic involvement with other kinds of music - occasionally something else grabs me, but it isn't as likely as listening to "the canon".
And that may be designed into other kinds of music. My brother is a "Dead Head", who used to go far out of his way to attend Grateful Dead performances. One time he played one of his treasured tapes for me, and I was listening attentively. My brother looked at me and said, "Phil, you're not going to get it by listening." He was right.
Further, to really enjoy great classical music requires attentive listening from me, because the smallest detail might change everything. Having said that, I don't always do it: I listen while driving, writing software, exercising, or playing solitaire. I enjoy the music anyway, but to get the really good experiences from great music I have to follow the details moment by moment, and experience it on several levels. It isn't being prudish, I just have to do that to get what I want.
So, to some extent the "canon" is the canon because it delivers something the other stuff doesn't. Or, the other stuff does other things.
Hi Philip,
Firstly, the canon isn't the same thing as classical music. Even among the composers commonly grouped into the Western canon, some works are excluded, such as Haydn's operas; Wagner's string quartet; and until the 20th century, Mozart's Cosi fan tutte.
Secondly, my point wasn't that we enjoy canonical works because of their status, but that by privileging them, they in turn make demands of us. These pieces become sacred objects, which require us to treat them with a reverence that we wouldn't give to other works (does anyone feel the same obligation to pore over Dittersdorf's markings that they do with Mozart's scores?). And as I said, this reverence also leads us to expect certain things in concert settings--namely, that performers treat the score with the respect it deserves and ditch the mindless showmanship.
Furthermore, this idea of the piece of music as a sacred object implies a godlike creator--the solitary composer genius. And the concert therefore becomes a sort of religious communication. We are hearing the word of god transmitted through the performer, and we don't want our transmission mucked up by musicians' attempts to entertain us. I think this was what you were getting at when you wrote, "all you need from music is the sound." All you need is the composer's voice (the sound), and the performer and the audience are almost passive participants. As I said, I wouldn't mind ditching these sorts of pretensions.
And just to provide something to further think about with regard moving while performing, Alfred Brendel noted in his memoirs that:
"The sound of sustained notes on the piano can be modified with the help of certain movements, which make the pianist's conception of cantabile actually visible... There are many examples of pieces where suggesting things with physical gestures is necessary. Things like the end of Liszt's b minor sonata, where before the three pianissimo b major chords, there is a crescendo on one chord that one has to convey bodily, with a gesture. It is the only possibility."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Floydinoz
Date: 2016-02-17 11:59
Yes, Harold Wright sat with legs crossed in front of the National Symphony Orchestra c. 1966 when he performed Debussy's Rhapsodie.
I studied with him for just over 3 years in Washington. He never mentioned double lip embouchure in our lessons.
If you have access to the Turnabout live recording from a concert at the Library of Congress it's a particularly accurate example of his beautiful tone and music-making.
Before I Left Washington Eugene Ormandy guest conducted the orchestra and Rachmaninov 2nd symphony was on the program. At the end of the concert as Ormandy was taking his bows he gestured for Wright to come up to the front of the stage where Ormandy embraced him. I'Ve never seen that happen before or since.
Floydinoz
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2016-02-18 02:28
A story: a friend of a friend is associate principal woodwind in a major, MAJOR orchestra. One day at rehearsal, a sub showed up to do the 2nd part: young, bright, eager, etc. At one point the sub had a solo, and started doing that "floaty" thing. After she was done, associate principal leaned over and whispered to her, "We don't do that here."
I have another friend who's done first-call work in the period instruments field for decades, playing with major orchestras in THAT area. He's been finding that lately, some ensembles are asking for more physical movement from players, as a way of conveying excitement. (My friend isn't at all against this, his attitude is "If it helps get an audience in the door, I'm for it.")
I'm a little bit agnostic on movement -- I mostly listen to live music with eyes shut because I get so distracted by the visual aspect of performance that I don't always hear what I'm hearing, if you follow. But I'm tempted to wonder if there isn't a little bit of an age breakdown in the "movement vs. dignity" divide (I just made up a name for it!)--older people like me who remember the solemnity of the televised Bernstein concerts in the '60s versus younger people who like to witness more evidence of musician involvement?
I suppose one could get "sold" on a performance by an overt visual expression of excitement, lyricism, and whatnot rather than the musical content. In the old days, with orchestras behaving with a fair amount of decorum, you really had to LISTEN rather than watch, and I suppose you could argue that a visually relatively static orchestra leaves one more room to hear the music (if you're easily distracted by the visual, as I am). But not everyone is afflicted in that way; possibly audience tastes and performance orientation have changed as well, and if one can adapt to those taste changes without screwing up the music, why not do it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
