Members BlueStrat Posted March 28, 2008 Members Share Posted March 28, 2008 Zero Heroes, many of your examples are very marginalized and because of that don't carry much weight. If anything, he's only reinforcing the fact that bands won't become big names without a label. None of the ones he mentioned are known by anyone but their fans, which aren't many, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 29, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 29, 2008 I'm going to spend $150K on a full page ad in Rolling Stone. No label is doing that for me. dude, if you have a $150k to spend, spend about half of it it on a better recording!:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cygnus64 Posted March 29, 2008 Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 dude, if you have a $150k to spend, spend about half of it it on a better recording!:poke:Zero Heroes' posts are actually very revealing of the attitude of a younger generation: he actually thinks that the product is irrelevant. Its all about how many hits on his myspace site, in his world its inconsequential if the music is played poorly and recorded horribly.Needless to say, that aint a-gonna work. Regardless of his claims of greatness, very few people will buy low quality recordings, unless the "artiste" is 20, female and has big boobs. Take out all the Rolling Stone ads you want. No major distributor/booking agent/ music exec/radio programmer will listen to three seconds of that.Its all about the music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted March 29, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 29, 2008 It was sort of an interesting OP, so I'm slightly confused as to why this thread has to suck as bad as it does. But suck it does, unfortunately. I've been thinking about this lately, does anyone feel pressure to release albums or eps as an indie artist? Anyway, yes, I do, but it comes from within. With my own stuff, at this point, if I'm not putting something out every year I begin feeling feel really stale and unproductive. But not from anywhere else. A lot of indie bands ride their first ten or songs for everything they're worth, sometimes for years and years, just relying on a good live performance to keep a buzz going. I'm just not like that. I feel like... if my band's not evolving, it's dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 29, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 A lot of indie bands ride their first ten or songs for everything they're worth, sometimes for years and years, just relying on a good live performance to keep a buzz going. At times this can be detrimental. A couple of my favorite local bands have been playing the scene for close to 5, maybe 6 years. But they've only released one lp. I used to frequent their gigs pretty heavily, but stopped a few months ago because it was the same old stale material. At some point you have to succumb to the pressure of not promoters, bookies, or journalists, but your true fans who go to your shows on a regular basis. They want to hear new material and deserve it. And they deserve to be able to acquire new copies of that material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 29, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 dude, if you have a $150k to spend, spend about half of it it on a better recording!:poke: I don't want to throw any more dirt in Zero's direction, but you're right. Spending $150k on a Rolling Stones ad as an independent artist is just plain foolish. All people have to do is turn to the next page, forget about you, and your $150k has been wasted. I wouldn't even spend $150k on a good recording. You can get that for a tenth of the cost and still have leg room for other great promotional schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cygnus64 Posted March 29, 2008 Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 I don't want to throw any more dirt in Zero's direction, Nor do I. Lets face it, he pretty much asked for it. Ive seen him do it another site as well. I wouldnt have been as harsh had I not seen him in action before, its the same old story. Moving on:I dont really find pressure from anyone to do any thing. What I find is that recording ultimately helps the band be better musicians, and thats good enough of a reason right there. Nothing is as humbling as hearing yourself play on a tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pjrake Posted March 29, 2008 Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 I dont really find pressure from anyone to do any thing. What I find is that recording ultimately helps the band be better musicians, and thats good enough of a reason right there. Nothing is as humbling as hearing yourself play on a tape. that is a very good point! and playing to a click is even more humbling!-PJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 29, 2008 Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 that is a very good point! and playing to a click is even more humbling!-PJ Amen! I produced a 3 song country demo for a kid I think shows a lot of promise. (*shameless plug: www.myspace.com/nickcangermusic)* I hired two guys who are top notch players in my area and whom I have worked with before to play bass and drums, while the mkid played acoustic and i did elecric guitar. I was quite shocked at how much trouble they had playing with a click! These aren't young guys; the bass player plays a 6 string and has been making a living at it for 37 years and the drummer has been at it for 33. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 29, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 Amen! I produced a 3 song country demo for a kid I think shows a lot of promise. (*shameless plug: www.myspace.com/nickcangermusic)* I hired two guys who are top notch players in my area and whom I have worked with before to play bass and drums, while the mkid played acoustic and i did elecric guitar. I was quite shocked at how much trouble they had playing with a click! These aren't young guys; the bass player plays a 6 string and has been making a living at it for 37 years and the drummer has been at it for 33. Click tracks suck. I can't stand them. Personally, I prefer to record everything live if it will turn out great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pjrake Posted March 29, 2008 Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 Click tracks suck. I can't stand them. Personally, I prefer to record everything live if it will turn out great. in the world of pro tools that's how things are recorded nowadays. which will bring up yet another debate: click track vs. free-form recording!!! oh boy, i don't think i want to open that can of worm! -PJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 29, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 in the world of pro tools that's how things are recorded nowadays. which will bring up yet another debate: click track vs. free-form recording!!!oh boy, i don't think i want to open that can of worm!-PJ Hmm, it's like comparing oranges and apples to me. Incubus records all of their stuff live and so does one of my favorite bands Boris. It just feels more comfortable to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 Click tracks suck. I can't stand them. Personally, I prefer to record everything live if it will turn out great. They may suck (though I don't believe they do), but if you're doing a multi-track project, they are essential in being able to record several takes and insert different takes into the song. Nothing is worse than trying to insert a nice alternate drum or bass track only to find that the timing is off. A click track beats the heck out of having to manipulate the timing digitally. FWIW, I didn't use one on any of my CDs, as I prefer the "live" sound. But when you're dealing with hired guns that come in for a day and lay down multiple takes and leave, a click is the best way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Instrospection Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 What:freak:I think there is a pressure because of the saturation in the market. If you have something new coming out you are garnering attention. If you don't put anything out then you lose out on that attention. I think that's what pushes people to put out records early. Also, I like the idea of getting albums pressed but when you have something coming out every 6 months it seems like lost money. One of my friends' bands recorded their first EP and had it pressed and packaged. It looked really nice, but a month after it came out they decided that the sound of the recording wasn't what they expected coupled with a bunch of new songs they wrote and now they are recording again. I see this happen a lot. My band probably won't ever get anything pressed unless we get picked up by a label, which we are talking to one now. Our CD-Rs have our name and contact info on it and that's all the kids that come to our shows need. It works great for us. GREAT response! I agree about the "need more releases" thing. But I think that what bands have gotta do is offer soundclips--maybe your best chorus. If people don't want to buy, they don't want to buy, no matter if there's a full song or no full song, i've found. If they pay $.99 cents from ITunes for a track that doesn't turn out the way they thought, due to a 20-30 second clip, then I think that they should be looking at it from the fact that they didn't spend $10-$15 bucks for the whole album. These days, new releases get lost in the shuffle. I think what i'm gonna do is release a new single every month for 12 months, with a bonus track on it--probably a remix of the main single, and another track. That way, people can buy what's essentially a whole other album, if they're so inclined. But the thing is that you always have a new buzz around a new single, which is the best way to push a full album, if you've got a full album's worth of songs. Or if you've only got four good songs, skip the full release, but offer it online. In my case, the cd version of our new release is 50 minutes long with two tracks that aren't on the vinyl, the vinyl version is 40 minutes long (due to time constrictions...20 minutes is what you can fit per side, before compromising sound) with a track that won't be on the cd. So even though the vinyl is shorter, there's a track on there that you can't get anywhere else. As well, when it comes time to push the album, there's actually 13 songs in total, but it varies with the format, so that gives people that bought the vinyl to be interested in the cd release (or the cd only tracks). That's 13 months for us of "wow, look, new songs!", which works alot better than pushing an album for one or two months and then wondering if the sales have dropped off. You have to never go away in this day and age, because the "hype" curve is so bloody short these days, that you need the singles ' power to keep on selling the album, and that means that every track on an album has got to be as strong as it possibly can. Now, for bands that sort of run out of singles, the tradition is to release all your strongest material first, and then get to the moodier, non-single tracks. My analysis is that if you come out swinging with 2 or 3 singles type tracks, that gives you some leeway to release, maybe "Stairway To Heaven" instead of "Black Dog". One track on our upcoming release is 8 minutes long, another is 10 minutes long. These are both further in the album, so the way that I sequenced the album was that side one is a shorter, deadlier onslaught of heavy psych; side two is a slower, sludgier onslaught of heavy psych that makes more sense from the standpoint of slowly ebbing the album out. Given that sort of leeway, the fans that bought the previous songs will probably really dig the chronological order of things just sort of going for the throat for the first half; then letting up and easing up on just sheer power or energy. Here's the problem--you can't release something physically with that sort of frequency, it has to be online. I mean, I don't think alot of bands are going to pay to master 2 or 3 tracks for a single. You're better off paying a mastering engineer to master a whole bunch of songs, and in some cases, not even releasing a full album, just releasing those as singles. And the other problem is that if you're releasing to campus radio, alot of places don't take cd-r's or cheapie demo things, simply because they get hundreds of releases a week (trust me, i've worked at campus radio and i've seen the deluge of cds come in). My advice is to press up low run cds through something like TuneCore (they've made Digipaks VERY affordable), because they've realized that unlike alot of disc duplicators, that bands just can't afford to shell out for the minimum of 300. Because the difference between 300 and 500 is usually $100-$200 bucks difference, so then you're sitting with 500 cds.....and physical cds are dying, you're still better off with vinyl or, in the worst case scenario, digital downloads. I'm probably printing up 100 cds with regular jewel cases and downsized for promo and keeping shipping weight down (as well as omitting a couple of tracks from the actual release, so that even the people who receive promo that like it may be prompted to purchase the full version....even something such as someone on radio or a reviewer buying a cd helps, because promo and shipping is VERY expensive, and the horror story is that you send it out and don't get any press, radio or airplay.....but that's the crapshoot), then maybe 200 digipak deluxe cd versions, and the vinyl is going to be 300-400 on coloured WITH a track that you can't get on the cd versions--or online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Instrospection Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 Too much pressure because everyone and their dead brother has a cd out. Wether its good or not people expect you to have one. We've been working at our own pace for quite awhile now and it seems like everyday we are missing out on something or someone thinks we should have a CD. Club owners, promoters, fans, everyone expects it. Yeah, that's the unfortunate part. Due to the costs of what it takes to do a release up properly, i'm thinking that bands have got to put more emphasis on less.....but that doesn't exactly work when you have maybe 4 songs to sell as singles, as opposed to a full album. Next question: if the material is substandard in writing or recording--instead sacrificing quality for quantity, right down to the production part--are bands any better off releasing only 3 or 4 good songs, as opposed to an album full of 12 songs, but with only 3 or 4 of those being better or receiving proper attention, anyways? I'm just trying to justify the costs for bands, when if, let's say, they have a few days to record and mix and master, and then dilute the whole album in sacrifice of what they really wanted to do to their favorite and strongest songs? Let's say that you wanted to hire an orchestra for song #2, but that budget was eaten up with 4 days of recording, mixing and mastering 5 more that you were just really kind of padding out an album with? Even our most favorite artists have songs of theirs that they don't like as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Instrospection Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 You are completely ridiculous. You are not in NIN. A band starting out is a totally different world. NIN had label support until what, their last album? Now they have a fan base built in so that they don't need a label, but they would have never gotten to the place that they are now without a label.Read: They couldn't* have gotten to the place they are now without a label.*Couldn't is the past tense form of can't. Yup, I totally agree. NIN and Radiohead can now circumvent the proper ways of doing things, simply because the record industry has been killed off so much, BUT I doubt Trent would have been able to release "Pretty Hate Machine" in 2008 instead of 1989 with the new industry model; same as that I highly doubt that Radiohead would have been able to release "Pablo Honey" in 2008 instead of 1993. The industry climate and the sales figures were very, very different back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Instrospection Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 A label can pay for your recording and send it to press, magazines, etc. You can do it yourself if you work hard enough, but it will be taken more seriously if it is sent by a label with a reputation.One thing that an established label can do that you may have a hard time doing is get your record into a good distribution. That is one thing that small labels and self-released folks always have a hard time with - getting distro. Most established labels already have an "in" with distributors and anything they release automatically gets sent to record stores nationwide. Speaking as a musician that also who runs their own label--registered as an official business-- it is exhausting doing all the promo and all the phoning and all the checking back to call stores whether they need to be restocked. That {censored} all takes time away from the music making end of it. I like knowing that things get done, but i'd gladly pay someone to do it if I actually had the money. Even independent record labels are taking less chances on bands in the past that may or may not sell--95 percent of artists on majors lose money, i'm not sure about the indies, but they've never been rolling in the dough, either. As someone else said to me, "it's not the record industry that's dying, it's the distribution industry that's dying". I agree. One store that had a listening wall for years, replaced it with video games. They're under pressure to stock only what sells, and the development of bands that are otherwise under fire to "sell sell sell" right away will go down the tubes. Most stores, as a whole, are not stocking more, they're stocking less. And I know for a fact that people are less inclined to buy music online, simply because of shipping and maybe the disc getting lost in the mail, or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Instrospection Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 Camp Freddy, appeared on Jay Leno Oct 5th, 2006. I'll get you some others as I'm sure you're going to be complaining about that one, but they are an unsigned band. Question: Camp Freddy's members have also been on how many major labels? That's some pretty prestigious names there. The reason why they're on Leno, is because people actually only give a {censored} about them due to the collective experience that they've got on the majors. Post an example of a band that's totally, totally new, been in no major label promoted bands, etc. that hit Leno in recent memory. Or at least not on a "power indie" (SubPop, Merge, Matador, etc....actually, SubPop is with Warner, Matador has had major distro for years now). 95 percent of major label artists are tax writeoffs. This is because the label has to spend tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) on bands' recordings, then give them tour advances (sometimes nice tour buses) and the like. You haven't addressed the fact that the most expensive part of an album is pushing it. Promo. Greasing the industry machine with a cd in every major newspaper, at every major radio station, and then tons of other freebies given out and giving out a cd to everyone and their dog and pretending to be their dog, JUST in the hopes that people catch onto the good word of mouth. And that's IF it's good word of mouth, never mind the negative reviews. And also, the record companies do this for established artists--they don't NEED to promo the latest Celine Dion record or the new Bruce Springsteen, but they do....because even big, established artists need awareness that their release exists, and at no point in this industry can you expect to even fart into a mic and then have people be expected to know that those farts, indeed, are available. That all costs big $$$. Plus, the maintenance of big artists come big bills--big producers, big jets, big promo, big everything. Sure they may outsource PR firms, but what pays PR firms? Air? Do these firms work for free? I mean, who pays for this, by your logic PR firms must GIVE away free work, right? I mean, I totally must have been missing out on something here all this time!! And this is all taking into account expenses WITHOUT payola, or greasing the radio's palms just a wee bit further, so that they put you on a priority. Let's face it, the grease in this industry is cash. You have it, you can stand out from the pack. You don't have it, and you're {censored}ed. At least from the standpoint of hitting the top 100. All of this is before the band has sold A SINGLE RECORD. Sure they may have had good independent sales (ie: Liz Phair, Sloan....some independent artists that sold great, but lost money, etc) but they have to shift hundreds of thousands of units. Seaweed signed to Hollywood Records with a reported advance of 500 grand. You're probably asking, "who the hell is Seaweed"? Yet they worked with Andy Wallace for mixing, and Adam Kaspar engineering. That's some HUGE coin right there, I mean, forget about the 500 grand advance. For every artist that materializes with big sales, there's tons of others that end up owing money. Sloan was a cool million dollars in the whole on Geffen, DESPITE decent sales and DESPITE great reviews. I think that they probably sold 20-30K units, tops--I don't have official figures, but i'm assuming that it was a couple of tens of thousands. The Jayhawks were over 500 grand in debt to their label. The truth of the matter is that in order to push and record an album, you have to throw alot of $$$ at the wall and see what sticks where. The only thing that sells mass amounts of records is gambling big. The exception to that is something like the Offspring's "Smash" (which was on Epitaph and was totally 100 percent non-major, even down to the distribution, which was on Cargo here in Canada.....all WITH a hit!). So even there, with the Offspring's case, they had trouble stocking the stores properly, just because they never printed up that many copies (they certainly didn't anticipate a few million units sold), so they were playing catch up. And with that stock not being in the stores, they lost out on money and additional units. If you think that overstock is bad (stores shipping back unsold units to labels), think of what understock does. There's a price for that stock being available so that you can even walk into a store and consider not buying it. A label has to print up enough copies that they think they need, but also not too many, in fear that it doesn't sell. Whether the audience buys a recording or not, labels have to pre-spend money, just in case people want to buy. My contention with anyone saying that you don't need a major label is like this: who else is going to spend a few hundred grand pushing an album that may or may not sell? Are YOU going to take out that loan and that risk? Sure record companies are evil as {censored} and have ripped off artists for years, but they're also the only people ponying up $$$ for artists, whether they sell or don't sell. I'm pretty sure if 95 percent of my roster lost money, that i'd have to get a bit flim flam, as well. The result is that the distribution industry is in the {censored}ter, and bands are waiting to get paid for views on MySpace or wherever, in the meantime, to compensate. Case in point: I wanted to buy the new Black Crowes "Warpaint". Been hearing good things, plus I like the Crowes. Went to two stores, didn't find it. The band couldn't find a major to release their stuff, so they did it on their own label. That's all fine and nice, but I spent my time walking into two stores that didn't have it. Cracker was on Virgin. Had many complaints for years, they did. So they finally got off the label and released "Greenland". Couldn't find it in any stores here if I tried, YET, I mysteriously found their Virgin releases there. The death of the distribution industry is a cruel, cruel mistress indeed. Sorry to get cranky, but you need to know what you're talking about before you get into five pages of arguments with people who you think are just blowing smoke, dude. I've been around in this industry as a rock journalist, radio guy, and had friends in bands with failed major distribution (ie: there went their chances of making it big, because they've been screwed ever since), and now my own music and label, trying to make a go of it in an industry that's collapsing. You don't need to sell tons of records--i'm more anti major than I am pro major, but i'm sorry, your attitude of "we don't need majors" is total whack, dude. I'm also an engineer/ producer, and i've seen many friends say, "well, i've been in this industry for 20 years and it's so slow that i'm thinking of finding another job". Well, tell me, with your "anti major" stance, who pays engineers to make quality albums, when the bands aren't making any money and don't have a deal? Even indie labels have been stung by that. WITH the capitulation of the majors went all the other jobs too--producers, engineers, mixing engineers, now music stores are facing layoffs (when they're not going completely out of business--ie: Tower Records), cd pressing plants, ink manufacturers (for liner notes of cds) and still we have people on messageboards thinking that we don't need majors. Sure we don't need majors, but I hear tons of bands slapping L2 plugins and slamming the {censored} out of their recordings and it most of the time, it sounds like {censored}. WITH all the industry went all the quality control. And we're back to square one, debating this on a messageboard as to "what the best way to get their music ouot there is?". Well, how is anyone else supposed to know if the majors are tanking? Make no mistake, if you or anyone else thought that they jumped the Titanic, how about the whirlpool of suction that the Titanic takes with them in the nearby radius? Sure you may be in a life raft, but you're going down with the Titanic, too, whether you believe it or not. The sooner that people actually start paying for music is when everyone wins. The whole thing about the "digital revolution" was that it was supposed to liberate artists, freeing them from the "shackles" of the evil man and his evil industry. Guess what? Like when every revolution is overthrown, there's someone helming the revolution to promise "prosperity for everyone". Daltrey said it best: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Considering that the original topic was basically addressing "gee, how do we, the independent artist that was supposed to be LIBERATED by this, how do we finally find the silver lining in this here black cloud"? That's the REAL ironic part. And now we're still back at square one---getting people to buy, when it seems that NO ONE is really selling records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 30, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 FWIW, I didn't use one on any of my CDs, as I prefer the "live" sound. But when you're dealing with hired guns that come in for a day and lay down multiple takes and leave, a click is the best way to go. This is true...but it can be a nightmare for a player like me who can barely count. I was taught how to count rhythm three different ways, so I'm forced to go off the feel of the other players and the overall vibe of the song 90% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 30, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 are bands any better off releasing only 3 or 4 good songs, as opposed to an album full of 12 songs, but with only 3 or 4 of those being better or receiving proper attention, anyways? I feel it depends upon what the artist wants to accomplish with those songs. Personally, I would rather put out 3 or 4 amazing songs as opposed to 12 filler songs. But that's just my opinion and not encompassing of the entire industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 This is true...but it can be a nightmare for a player like me who can barely count. I was taught how to count rhythm three different ways, so I'm forced to go off the feel of the other players and the overall vibe of the song 90% of the time. Hey, from what I heard, your counting is just fine, mister! Don't slag yourself-you're good at what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cygnus64 Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 This is true...but it can be a nightmare for a player like me who can barely count. I was taught how to count rhythm three different ways, so I'm forced to go off the feel of the other players and the overall vibe of the song 90% of the time.There is nothing wrong with either approach, click or not.A click ultimately just takes a lil practice and getting used to, like anything else. If you can play with humans, playing with a click track is MUCH easier when you get used to doing it. Click tracks dont drink beer, drummers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted March 30, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 Hey, from what I heard, your counting is just fine, mister! Don't slag yourself-you're good at what you do. Well thanks for the compliment, but I've always been slightly confused about time. Some people are taught to count the 1 e and a and others just count straight through 1,2,3,4, etc. The actual units of time are no different though. Technically, an and is the same as a 1. But in melody, an E is definitely not an A...do you catch my drift? It's a little strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 30, 2008 Members Share Posted March 30, 2008 Well thanks for the compliment, but I've always been slightly confused about time. Some people are taught to count the 1 e and a and others just count straight through 1,2,3,4, etc. The actual units of time are no different though. Technically, an and is the same as a 1. But in melody, an E is definitely not an A...do you catch my drift? It's a little strange. I do catch it. But you have a natural feel, which serves you well. How do I know? Because your phrasing wouldn't be as good as it is (and it is quite good) unless you had an "internal metronome". Phrasing is all time, isn't it? I started practicing with a click years ago, not so much anymore, but it helped me a lot. You could probably be just fine without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted March 31, 2008 Members Share Posted March 31, 2008 I think playing with a click is a talent you either have or not.I know really, really incredible players who can make runs on a guitar or other instruments but have some problems keeping tempo.I never play with a click at home and sometime I can record my full tracks one take with a click in the studio. I just have it. Well... What I play is not that hard I must say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.