Jump to content

03/08 EDITORIAL: "AMERICAN IDOL" MEETS THE NEW REALITY


Anderton

Recommended Posts

  • Members

(Every month or so, a new editorial is posted in Sound, Studio, and Stage. Your comments and feedback are encouraged!)

 

"AMERICAN IDOL" MEETS THE NEW REALITY

 

By Craig Anderton

 

Now in its seventh year, American Idol has been a ratings powerhouse for Fox, easily outdistancing other shows in its various time slots. Yet this year, ratings have dipped. Its opening show was down 13% from the year before, and down 10% compared to 2006. It drew a total audience of just over 33 million, a little over a 10% drop from last year.

 

For musicians, American Idol is an easy target. First of all, and most glaringly, it hasn't produced any idols. It has produced people who've sold quite a few CDs, to be sure; but no one who graduated from the show has been a talent on the order of a John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Prince - or Ani DiFranco, for that matter. Second, it perpetuates the "we're gonna make you a star" mentality that has increasingly little to do with reality. Third, all the artists do cover versions - and maybe that explains why there always seems to be a disconnect between emotions and the songs being sung: They're not the artists' songs. Granted, they're allowed to play instruments this season. But that has the unfortunate effect of underscoring that their playing is as ordinary as their singing.

 

Yet there's also something very positive about American Idol: It gets people talking about music, and performances. Simon Cowell, love him or hate him, makes some extremely astute comments that anyone who wants a long-term career in the music business would do well to heed. Same with Randy Jackson, who brings the mentality of an actual producer to the show. (The function of Paula Abdul, the remaining judge, seems mainly to make sure that none of the contestants slit their wrists after the show.) In an era when the musical landscape is shifting so much, American Idol represents one place where the American public shares a common ground - ironically something that the Grammys, with all their potential starpower, don't seem to be able to do.

 

But what inspired me to write this editorial is that so far, I haven't seen any threads started about American Idol, and I wondered why. Then it hit me: American Idol is all about a record company going out, finding talent, signing it, and creating a star. And we all know that model is becoming less and less relevant. In today's world, the real American Idol is someone with 5,000,000 hits on YouTube, or who has managed to sell 10,000 CDs after gigs from the back of a van. Visionary '60s artist Andy Warhol was right: "In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." But what a lot of people don't know was Warhol's subsequent quote, made over a decade later: "I'm bored with that line. I never use it anymore. My new line is, 'In fifteen minutes everybody will be famous.'" Bingo.

 

And I think that might be why American Idol, while still slaying the competition, isn't what it once was: The star-making machinery it purports to feed no longer exists. It speaks to a different time - a time that is now becoming part of our past, not our future.

 

It will be interesting to see if, whether in the years ahead, American Idol will be able to adapt and change to the new model of "stardom." Whether it will pick, say, the artists who made the Top 24 videos over the past year in terms of aggregate internet hits rather than holding physical auditions all over the US. Would you rather watch the guy who did "Shoes" on American Idol, or someone who could have a comfortable career playing the local Holiday Inn every Friday night?

 

We'll find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Yet this year, ratings have dipped.
Its opening show was down 13% from the year before, and down 10% compared to 2006. It drew a total audience of just over 33 million, a little over a 10% drop from last year.

 

That's interesting. Last week was the first time I ever watched the show, and I actually kinda enjoyed it. But that darn Simon really gets my goat! :evil:;)

 

I don't see anything wrong with AI's format. I don't see them switching gears and going for singer/songwriters from Youtube. Few people are good at everything. If you write great songs, you may not be much of a performer. They don't always go hand in hand. If the singers on AI don't seem to be feeling the lyrics, it's probably because they're nervous as hell about how the judges are going to react. Also most shows begin losing steam after 7 or 8 seasons. AI's just running it's course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see what you're saying about AI catering to an increasingly irrelevant model, but I think its complete lack of relevance goes way deeper than what you're suggesting, and in that sense it was just as irrelevant the day it started as it is today. Whether the ratings have dropped because the public is finally realizing this, I couldn't say. I'm more inclined to think ratings have dropped just because people eventually tire of the latest TV fad and move on to something else. Just like Survivor or any of those other lame shows, eventually people tire of the same concept and it becomes played out.

 

For musicians, American Idol is an easy target. First of all, and most glaringly, it hasn't produced any idols.
It
has
produced people who've sold quite a few CDs, to be sure; but no one who graduated from the show has been a talent on the order of a John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Prince - or Ani DiFranco, for that matter.

 

That's because nobody of that calibre would ever agree to appear on a show like AI, and more than likely wouldn't have even as kids. Therein lies its total irrelevance. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Just like
Survivor
or any of those other lame shows, eventually people tire of the same concept and it becomes played out.

 

 

Well, take the concept of people playing guitar, bass, and drums with a lead singer; that concept has been around so long that if we were dealing solely with something playing itself over time, that should have been gone a long time ago. But it hasn't, because it keeps re-inventing itself. And regardless of whether or not game shows are a lame concept, they keep surviving by re-inventing themselves...I don't know if Survivor is still on, but the concept of "voting people off the island" continues in shows that have re-invented the concept in different contexts, like the Apprentice and yes, American Idol.

 

It's too easy to say that AI's ratings have dipped because people are losing interest. The ratings themselves tell you that. The far more interesting question is WHY have they lost interest. (The "lame concept" theory has merit, but I don't buy it as all there is. The concept was sufficient to attract huge numbers of people, so if people did drop off because they got tired of the concept, the show should have been able to attract new viewers who were not familiar with the show...it's like magazines, they don't always have the same 50,000 subscribers...they'll lose 5,000 in a year, but get 5,000 new ones).

 

My theory for the drop off is because the show hasn't re-invented itself to reflect today's reality. Seinfeld's ratings didn't drop significantly over the years it was on, and I believe that had a lot to do with not only the quality of the writing, but because they continued to touch on contemporary themes. They kept to the same concept, the same characters, the same dialog, and the same schtick -- but they remained relevant because they were able to stretch within the box they had built for themselves.

 

There are plenty of shows that adapted and survived (e.g., the Simpsons); my point is whether AI can adjust to the "new reality." What strikes me as most interesting is that it now seems quaint, as if addressing some bygone era.

 

But on a different subject, from the standpoint of a network wanting ratings in order to sell ads--which is the context of a show like AI--I don't accept that the concept is fundamentally flawed from a commercial standpoint. Game shows have always been popular, so has karaoke...AI simply combines the two in a family-friendly format. As I've said before, AI is primarily a game show that happens to revolve around music. To expect it to deliver the same kind of punch as, say, a good concert is unrealistic. But AFAIC, anything that exposes the public to music on prime time TV is a good thing. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a FAR better thing, but remember, we ARE talking about American network TV so don't expect Shakespeare. Or NIN, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I gotta say one more thing...the same musicians who consider AI crap are very often the same musicians who feel the lowest common denominator record-buying public wouldn't recognize good music if it collided with them, which is why the charts are ruled by disposable blonde singers with large breasts who are auto-tuned to death. Not that I disagree with that :)

 

Yet here's a show that has a bona fide non-musician A&R guy, a respected record producer/bassist, and a...uh, never mind about that one...actually trying to provide constructive criticism to performers about what's good and bad about what they do, and I do believe that some of those comments are not just relevant, but insightful. So we have a show reaching tens of millions of people that, mixed in with the game show/karaoke element, is trying to educate people about what is and is not a good performance.

 

It's too easy to look at it from an elitist working musician perspective and see it as hopelessly elementary. But there are millions and millions of people who don't play an instrument, don't know much about music (we can thank the morons who cut art out of the schools for that one), yet are being exposed to the thought process of evaluating a musical performance. How can that be such a bad thing? People have to start somewhere. AI isn't aiming for people like us as its target audience; we have movies like "Derailroaded" for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

just read the editorial above and my 1st question was

who the hell is Ani DiFranco?

 

 

The reason why I "idolize" her has to do with how she was one of the first to kiss the record labels goodbye and do her own thing -- not because she couldn't get signed so she HAD to create a label, but because she stuck to her convictions and wanted to do things her way. Her music's okay too, but it's everything she's surrounded herself with that gained my admiration.

 

I would consider Trent Reznor an idol, too. He may not have the big numbers, but he has the devoted following and an ability to keep pushing the envelope.

 

No, you won't see either one on American Idol. Apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, take the concept of people playing guitar, bass, and drums with a lead singer; that concept has been around so long that if we were dealing solely with something playing itself over time, that should have been gone a long time ago.

 

Well not every idea peters out over time. The good ones last, the lame ones fade away. :lol: Or get recycled in 20 years when the "nostalgia wave" rolls around and everyone's had 20 years to forget how lame it really was. :D

 

It's too easy to say that AI's ratings have dipped because people are losing interest. The ratings themselves tell you that. The far more interesting question is WHY have they lost interest.

 

Well yeah, it's an interesting and valid question. I just don't know that there is a good answer... then again, I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand why some of this stuff gets commercially popular in the first place.

 

My theory for the drop off is because the show hasn't re-invented itself to reflect today's reality....What strikes me as most interesting is that it now seems quaint, as if addressing some bygone era.

 

Well, OK but do you think Joe Middle America even realizes that "today's reality" is different? Sure, WE know because we're musicians. But all those people who only buy Top 40 major label records and listen to mainstream radio - and there are a lot of those - don't have a clue. They still believe in superstars and stuff.

 

So... I dunno if that's it. I'd like to think that longtime viewers of the show came to the realization that the show's format really isn't conducive to exposing real talent, but who knows.

 

But on a different subject, from the standpoint of a network wanting ratings in order to sell ads--which is the context of a show like AI--I don't accept that the concept is fundamentally flawed
from a commercial standpoint
. Game shows have always been popular, so has karaoke...AI simply combines the two in a family-friendly format.

 

Well... OK, except that 1) music isn't a game or a contest, and 2) karaoke is popular in large part because of the participation aspect. Does anybody actually go to karaoke bars just to watch? Maybe some people do, but I can't imagine. Most people are there to wait around for their own turn to perform, then wait around for the winner to be announced. Maybe a few people are there to egg their friends or relatives on. But I can't imagine lots of people going to a karaoke bar and watching a bunch of strangers... same thing with watching it on TV.

 

So it seems to me that AI is like karaoke without the most important part (participation), combined with a game show involving something that inherently isn't and shouldn't be a contest (music). :lol: So... I don't get its appeal at all. But I don't claim to be any expert on cultural trends. :idk:

 

But AFAIC, anything that exposes the public to music on prime time TV is a good thing.

 

I dunno. If it shows music in a bad light it could be a bad thing. And I think presenting it as a contest of elimination is a bad light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's too easy to look at it from an elitist working musician perspective and see it as hopelessly elementary. But there are millions and millions of people who don't play an instrument, don't know much about music (we can thank the morons who cut art out of the schools for that one), yet are being exposed to the thought process of evaluating a musical performance. How can that be such a bad thing?

 

That in itself isn't a bad thing. It's mainly the "contest" aspect of it that I think is a bad thing. Music isn't a competitive sport, and the things that ultimately define talent aren't necessarily readily on display in a contest.

 

I'll tell you what might be a cool idea for a show, though. Remember WKRP? All about the inner workings of a radio station? That was a great show and it was very popular, too. I think there could be a show like that about the music biz. Only it shouldn't be a friggin "reality" show. It should have actual writers and be a fictional show with characters that are developed, although it can feature actual unknown artists. There can be evil A&R guys who want to rip off the musicians, and good A&R guys who are trying to do something for a band but the label doesn't care. They could show the trials and tribulations of a young indie band trying to "get signed" vs. another trying to make it on their own. There could be a producer who has to evalute new talent and in the process describes how he picks the acts that are ready for prime time vs. those who aren't, and what he does to try and develop young talent. The show could follow the A&R guys as they go to clubs and check out unsigned bands and evaluate them. It could follow bands and solo artists on tour and in the studio, and the producer in the studio explaining to a band why one arrangement is better than another, or coaxing take #57 out of them because "we haven't done 'the one' yet". It could be like the "Mixerman Diaries" on TV.

 

I think that would be not only a really entertaining show, but educational both for audiences and anybody considering becoming a musician who thinks that you get signed and then hit records just fly out of your ass. OK, so I just talked to a producer friend yesterday who walked away from a project because the young band apparently really did think that and had no work ethic and thought they just showed up whenever they felt like it, did one take and he'd fix the rest in Pro Tools, and a hit would result. So maybe I'm a little pissed off right now. :D But still. People really don't get how much work it is, and as you say a lot of them don't know much about music or how it gets evaluated. I think this would be a way cooler way to show that than AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well - if 33 million viewers means it is dying then it s going to have a very profitable and protracted death.

 

THe positives mentioned re: providing a focus on music that many people share as a common experience really is a positive. I see this a Clives attempt to revive the old model and keep it alive. Its not dead yet.

Its genius getting a large audience so invested in /involved with an "artist" even before they have a release.

 

Another thing it brings to the fore is the value of a good song- the songwriting - the song selection.

 

It also demonstrates the sometimes subtle diffrence between good stage presence and not so good.

 

Having said all that - its simply becoming a bit old,

'Ho many times can you hear the same comments.

"Yo dude you were a little pitchy in spots but you really got it together"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So it seems to me that AI is like karaoke without the most important part (participation), combined with a game show involving something that inherently isn't and shouldn't be a contest (music).
:lol:
So... I don't get its appeal at all. But I don't claim to be any expert on cultural trends.
:idk:

I dunno. If it shows music in a bad light it could be a bad thing. And I think presenting it as a contest of elimination is a bad light.

 

Well, there is participation. The participation comes in the form of allowing the public to vote for their favorite contestant. Also, I think a lot of people sort of live vicariously through their favorite contestants; part of the appeal of the show is that it allows the average person to think, "That could be me." Not to mention the freak-show aspect of the initial auditions (which is the part of the show I can stand the least, but many people I've talked to say it's their favorite part.)

 

And I agree that music shouldn't be a contest, but I don't assume the general public feels the same way. I think most people like competition (as evidenced by the plethora of Red Sox fanatics where I'm from), and they like music too. So here's a show that combines both.

 

Really, I think the reason for the show's declining popularity is just that it's been around for about eight years now. We kind of live in an ADD culture. Once something new comes along, everybody shifts towards that. And there's only so much re-invention a TV show can do without becoming an entirely different show. My prediction is that the general public will move on, but the show will still retain a sizable chunk of loyal fans which will keep the show on the air for a while to come. It'll be a gradual decline, rather than an abrupt one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, OK but do you think Joe Middle America even realizes that "today's reality" is different?

 

ABSOLUTELY. They're the ones "sharing" files, loading up their iPods with stuff they've downloaded, and the like. Over half of today's teenagers didn't buy a CD in the last year. When I toured the US consistently, at first it surprised me that it was the people in the midwest -- Kansas, Iowa, Indiana -- who were listening to the most progressive music. After a while I started to understand that coastal stereotypes about "middle America" were waaaay wrong.

 

This became even clearer as I started getting reports from AOL about who participated in SSS 1.0, and I could see the demographic breakdown of who was participating and who wasn't. Some of the best discussions I ever had about music were with people in Columbus and Cleveland...Joe Middle America no longer exists IMHO unless you're talking about people over 40. The internet has been the great leveler. It's because times have changed, and AI hasn't, that sparked me to write that editorial.

 

So... I dunno if that's it. I'd like to think that longtime viewers of the show came to the realization that the show's format really isn't conducive to exposing real talent, but who knows.

 

I really don't think people are watching because they expect to see talent exposed, but believe me, I could be 100% wrong. I just finished watching tonight's show with my daughter and I realized part of the appeal is watching people change -- or not change -- from week to week. Some people really grow under the spotlight, some shrivel up. If you just see one show, you lose that element of progression. And I think that's why the competition element is important, because it rewards the artists who grow, and penalizes the ones who don't. That's a lesson I don't mind seeing conveyed :) :) The guy who got the best response tonight took the most risks -- another good lesson, I think.

 

So it seems to me that AI is like karaoke without the most important part (participation), combined with a game show involving something that inherently isn't and shouldn't be a contest (music).
:lol:
So... I don't get its appeal at all. But I don't claim to be any expert on cultural trends.
:idk:

 

I dunno, I don't see how music ISN'T extremely competitive. When I was doing session work in New York, I felt more like a hired gun than a musician. The competition was intense, at any moment some new guy could come along who could blow me away. I always had to be at the top of my game, always had to be sensitive to what the producer and artist wanted (even when the artist was an alcoholic country and western singer trying for a comeback), always had to bring the right gear...I do see that competitive element in play in AI, and frankly, it's a lesson that will serve those starry-eyed teenagers well.

 

Even with HC, I'm aware that I'm competing with other sites, with other forums, with other ways for people to spend their time. Sure, the tunes I do for my own listening pleasure, where I don't care what other people think, have nothing to do with competition. But almost all other aspects of my life do.

 

When one of my cuts is included on a compilation CD in Europe, it has to be as good as or better than what else is on the CD, or I'm toast. It is a cutthroat business, and as I was told so often, "you're only as good as your last single."

 

I dunno. If it shows music in a bad light it could be a bad thing. And I think presenting it as a contest of elimination is a bad light.

 

For all of AI's flaws, and there are more than I have time to mention here, the singers in AI are singing, and the band is actually playing. I respect that.

 

As usual you make some excellent points. My point of reference is that there used to be a lot of music performed live on TV. I still remember seeing kinescopes of performances on the Ed Sullivan show that were mind-boggling. In the 60s ABC had a show called "In Concert" that is just what you'd expect from the title. I don't like seeing music marginalized, and on AI, music matters. Whether it matters as much as the game show aspect is open to debate, but when I hear my daughter say "Wow, he was really flat on that last note," and then Randy Jackson says "Dude, you were really pitchy at the end," I can't help but think that AI has some redeeming qualities :)

 

Lee, I luv ya -- and not just because when you stop by, the post counts go up :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'll tell you what might be a cool idea for a show, though. Remember WKRP? All about the inner workings of a radio station? That was a great show and it was very popular, too. I think there could be a show like that about the music biz. Only it shouldn't be a friggin "reality" show. It should have actual writers and be a fictional show with characters that are developed, although it can feature actual unknown artists. There can be evil A&R guys who want to rip off the musicians, and good A&R guys who are trying to do something for a band but the label doesn't care. They could show the trials and tribulations of a young indie band trying to "get signed" vs. another trying to make it on their own...


...I think that would be not only a really entertaining show, but educational both for audiences and anybody considering becoming a musician who thinks that you get signed and then hit records just fly out of your ass.

 

 

Lee, that is so effing brilliant that I am tempted to delete this IMMEDIATELY before someone reads this, pitches it to a network, makes a zillion dollars, then denies that you ever existed.

 

Seriously...find someone who knows how to pitch. You could wake up in a month with $50K in the bank. I'm not joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think there could be a show like that about the music biz. Only it shouldn't be a friggin "reality" show. It should have actual writers and be a fictional show with characters that are developed, although it can feature actual unknown artists. There can be evil A&R guys who want to rip off the musicians, and good A&R guys who are trying to do something for a band but the label doesn't care.

 

 

Did you see "Love Monkey"? 8 episodes made, killed after 2-3 episodes, and the other 5 were run on VH1. Actually fits somewhat close to your template. It's about an A&R guy from a big label getting fired (for making an impassioned plea for signing quality) ending up at an indie label. Interesting cameos (Ben Folds, She Loves Revenge, etc), and kinda fun.

 

With that title though, had a strike against it out of the block.

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Try and imagine a young Bob Dylan or Joni Mitchell on Idol. Randy Newman. Rickie Lee Jones. John Prine. Warren Zevon. (Imagine Simon on Warren: "The delivery was a little, um, strident, wouldn't you say? Over the top? Melodramatic? You seem rather attached to the material, and put a lot of energy into the performance. Energy better spent, say, digging a ditch?")

 

AI = All Sizzle + No Steak. Where's the beef?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

It will be interesting to see if, whether in the years ahead, American Idol will be able to adapt and change to the new model of "stardom."

Maybe the show will go off the air and become an "Internet only" program to catch the real audience. I don't watch the show myself, but I know some perfectly normal people, musicians even, who think it's entertaining.

Would you rather watch the guy who did "Shoes" on American Idol, or someone who could have a comfortable career playing the local Holiday Inn every Friday night?

Neither, really. I'm not interested in someone who could have a comfortable career as an accountant or a purchasing agent or an engineer. Why should someone who has a comfortable but nothing-special job in music?

 

There have been some really super musicians who have chosen the comfortable Holiday Inn career rather than that as a short-term superstar, but we're more likely to see them on human interest shows than low budget music spectaculars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Maybe the show will go off the air and become an "Internet only" program to catch the
real
audience. I don't watch the show myself, but I know some perfectly normal people, musicians even, who think it's entertaining.

 

 

Looking at it from the angle of this particular point in time, I think the most likely scenario is that it will eventually go into syndication, have a completely different panel of judges, and retain only a fraction of the audience it once had (which is what usually happens to most "game shows" that have been on the air for a long time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

But what inspired me to write this editorial is that so far, I haven't seen any threads started about American Idol, and I wondered why. Then it hit me: American Idol is all about a record company going out, finding talent, signing it, and creating a star. And we all know that model is becoming less and less relevant.

 

 

I only wanted to comment on this one part of your commentary Craig. My family and I are big AI fans. We like listening to see how the contestants are doing. We DVR the shows so we can all watch them and usually we make a family time out of it.

 

I like discussing AI and the different talents the next day but I find that posting threads about it on any music forums always ends up the same with several posters joining in to bash the program.

 

My reason for not starting any AI threads is not so deep as the reason you cite. I simply hate trying to share in a discussion that always turns into a negative bashing of the commercialism of the music industry.

 

Maybe I'm the only person left on any music forums who likes to just enjoy something without worrying about the social implications of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well... OK, except that 1) music isn't a game or a contest, and 2) karaoke is popular in large part because of the participation aspect. Does anybody actually go to karaoke bars just to watch? Maybe some people do, but I can't imagine. Most people are there to wait around for their own turn to perform, then wait around for the winner to be announced. Maybe a few people are there to egg their friends or relatives on. But I can't imagine lots of people going to a karaoke bar and watching a bunch of strangers... same thing with watching it on TV.

 

 

I think you'd be surprised. Karaoke is popular in all the local watering holes. And the people who participate are way outnumbered by the people who go to watch. It's like a form of comedy watching these people make fools of themselves. Which I always thought was he main draw of AI. Without Simon's scathing criticisms and the horrible audition outtakes, would AI have been successful?

 

I think this show (and karaoke) is popular because of people who like to watch, not because of some desire to participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the one thing you didn't pick up on Craig is the appeal of watching 'no talent' on the show. I used to watch the first couple of episodes where they show people perform who think they are totally genuine and think they have talent and then they stink and don't do well at all. Lately though they have started to show more and more freaks, like people dressing up in a batman costume, etc... This basically means that the show has gone down in quality, and like you did mention has not been able to properly reinvent itself.

 

As for the stars it produces, look at Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson. Even though I am not a personal fan. Kelly has won 2 Grammys and both have sold platinum records. Check their credentials out on Wikipedia...

 

I think overall people who are involved with music tend to listen to music differently. The exception is usually the marketing/sales department. Several ground breaking records and bands over the years have been pushed aside by labels. Some great examples are Wilco being pushed away by their label then later picked up by another label. Interestingly both labels were owned by Warner Bros and they ended up paying Wilco twice. Another great example is Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys. It was way ahead of it's time and far surpassed it's predecessor 'Licenced to Ill' yet the label pulled the plug on marketing the record.

 

Most good records don't sound good the first time you hear them, it takes a while to get used to them. Once you have gotten used to them they are awesome. Somehow marketing folks don't have time to listen to a record twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...