The Beatles Remastered - Part II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Hmm, interesting. Hopefully that's not the case, as I've already seen Anthology. Can anybody confirm/disprove that?
 
Well the docs are more media collages than anything else, and you don't actually see any faces talking, just the voices of the band members and Martin over moving pictures and some old film. I thought I remembered reading that they were taken from the Anthology interviews.

They're not meant to be definitive, just introductions for new listeners. So it really doesn't bother me. The way they're edited is pretty cool, regardless.
 
Good deal. I'll check 'em out at some point. If they were new or something, then I was going to do so sooner rather than later, but since they're not, it's not as big a priority.
 
phanan said:
I couldn't even tell you when I heard The Beatles for the first time, but I'm sure my mother had some old 45s. I do remember visiting my uncle and listening to the "Red" and "Blue" compilations and being immediately drawn to the music. In the 80's, I started picking up some of their albums on cassette, and they used to have all different kinds of fucked up compilations; it took the longest time for me to figure out what was an actual album. For example, I had Hey Jude on tape and had no clue it was a damn compilation. And does anyone remember the Rock And Roll Music double set released in the mid-70's? Think of it as a glorified Beatles For Sale. I used to really dig that.
Click to expand...


i could tell you. i was about 4, still listening to the stupid kids shit my mom played between weavers and pete seeger albums. like that fucking raffi version of "octopus' garden." on day my dad, just to be a dick, played the original and told me raffi was crap, "baby beluga" was the worst song ever, and this [the original] was what the song was supposed to sound like and whatnot. i, being the same stubborn asshole at 4 that i am today, swore the beatles were the enemy and that i'd never listen to them EVER.

fast forward a few years to second grade, and i changed my mind. my best friend was a huge beatles fan because her dad had all the albums and played them all the time. she was over one day, going through my parents' records and pulled out all the beatles stuff for us to listen to. i'd moved on past lame-ass kids' music and on to listening to nothing, but i still considered them to be evil for some reason. probably because my dad liked them. however, i went along with listening sgt pepper and changed my mind pretty quickly. from there i went through meet the beatles, let it be, rubber soul, and a hard days night. i was pretty disappointed with my mom because after going over to my friend's house, i found out there were a bunch of other albums (all equally awesome) that she didn't have. i asked for the live at the bbc compilation for christmas. birthday money from when i turned 8 went toward acquiring myself a copy of help, and i got the blue compilation somewhere around the same time. being a broke kid, it took me til somewhere around age 13 to finally get the last bits of the catalogue (that was revolver).

i became a pretty militant fan. i know, probably have always known because i was aware of the original versions of buddy holly, chuck berry, smokey robinson, etc. songs they covered from listening to the live at the bbc set and comparing it to the local oldies radio station, that the beatles did not exist in a vacuum. but i've always looked at music as there's the beatles on one side, and then there's everything else ever played/recorded/written by anyone ever. talking about the beatles was talking about the single greatest band ever, and nothing else that came before or came after them could even come close to being of that calibur. that friend who got me listening to the band eventually decided she liked the monkees and some other lesser bands better than the beatles, and that actually put something of a strain on our friendship. i remember nearly getting into a fight with a girl who lived down the road when i was about 10, she was a couple years older than me, her sister was friends with my sister and they were over at our house one day. i was listening to the beatles and she said something to the affect of, "oh, how cute. i went through a beatles phase when i was your age, too." it wasn't the condescension that ticked me off as much it was the suggestion that liking the band was just a phase i'd grow out of. there was no fucking way i'd ever wake up one day and decide oh, you're right. early 90s pop music is soooooooooo much better. and until i was 14, i really didn't like any other bands. that many albums with that many different sounding songs, why the hell would i need to listen to anything else? in 7 years i went through some sort of...phase, i guess, for lack of a better word...where i was...obsessed, i guess, for lack of a better word...with one album or another. initially it was sgt pepper, then i moved on to middle-era rubber soul stuff, saw a hard day's night and loved the earliest stuff, realized hey, my mom has a copy of the white album and listened to that repeatedly...moved back on to pepper and gained new appreciation for stuff like good morning good morning and fixing a hole (those were not favorites when i was 7, but by the time i was 12 i thought they were the coolest things in the world).


lazarus said:
I don't hate McCartney, and I imagine the impression I've given is that I cringe or fast-forward every time one of his songs come on. That's not the case. I enjoy a majority of what he's done. But there's something about his personality that rubs me the wrong way, and it's hard to completely disregard it. Lennon was a nutjob and could be a complete asshole, of course, but I just watched Let It Be with some friends, and everyone just wanted to sock Paul in the jaw. A lot of the time he's bossing the other band members around, trying to be the captain of the ship (and perhaps someone had to do this, but still), and then when he's trying to be funny, it often comes off (here we go again) forced and awkward. There's something about the way he looks into the camera every time one of his songs are being filmed...it's hard to put a finger on it. But he comes off a little smug.

As for the music itself, yeah, tons of great stuff. But to me he made some wonky or redundant choices that are frustrating to hear. I disagree with the notion that all of them wrote bad songs, especially if you disregard some of the primitive, earlier material. From Rubber Soul onward, the only Lennon song I can think of that's doesn't do it for me is Good Morning Good Morning (and luckily it's part of an album where the whole is better than the sum of the parts). Whereas with Macca, I could totally live without Magical Mystery Tour, Your Mother Should Know, Honey Pie, Wild Honey Pie, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, and Lovely Rita. That's not a long list, but it doesn't include a handful of his songs that I mostly enjoy but have questionable elements, and this also happens to be one of my favorite bands, with many albums that are among my all-time favorites.

Let's also not forget that the whole Let It Be/Get Back project was Paul's idea, and it pretty much destroyed the band. He was also the one behind the Magical Mystery Tour film, which tried to drag the Pepper's concept out a bit too far, and wound up being the band's first unequivocal failure.
Click to expand...




you know, up until very reccently (like two days ago), i wouldn't have been able to disagree with you more, but i do now see what you're saying (and what any of you guys who share a similar opinion are saying). because i pretty much grew up idolizing the guy, i'd scan over any remotely anti-paul posts i may encounter on here. there was a time when i thought "silly love songs" was brilliant and couldn't understand why my mom would get irritated when i'd insist on playing the mix tape with that, and other cheesy mccartney stuff, in the car. i can still listen to it now with some kind of fondness more than nostalgia (ultimately, i'm just a sucker for anything i can sing along to), but i do see why some people don't like that stuff.

also, the personality thing...maybe it's not the same thing, but i went through the anthology and watched it all, and a lot of his interview clips annoyed the crap out of me. this time around something didn't sit right with me in the way that he discusses everything with a smug distance, like he's over-analyzed every element of the beatles with his shrink and found a way to justify/excuse/explain any disagreement and every decision he made for the band that might have been taken the wrong way or disliked by anyone and everyone from when he first met john, up until the present day (or 1995, technically, i guess).

kind of like how i wrote my personal history as a beatles fan up there. yes, that was intentional. and no, i don't assume any of you actually cared to read all of it.


oh, i'm always going to love flaming pie, though. that, minus the pathetic last track, was a stellar bunch of songs.
 
IWasBored said:
i could tell you. i was about 4, still listening to the stupid kids shit my mom played between weavers and pete seeger albums. like that fucking raffi version of "octopus' garden." on day my dad, just to be a dick, played the original and told me raffi was crap, "baby beluga" was the worst song ever, and this [the original] was what the song was supposed to sound like and whatnot. i, being the same stubborn asshole at 4 that i am today, swore the beatles were the enemy and that i'd never listen to them EVER.

fast forward a few years to second grade, and i changed my mind. my best friend was a huge beatles fan because her dad had all the albums and played them all the time. she was over one day, going through my parents' records and pulled out all the beatles stuff for us to listen to. i'd moved on past lame-ass kids' music and on to listening to nothing, but i still considered them to be evil for some reason. probably because my dad liked them. however, i went along with listening sgt pepper and changed my mind pretty quickly. from there i went through meet the beatles, let it be, rubber soul, and a hard days night. i was pretty disappointed with my mom because after going over to my friend's house, i found out there were a bunch of other albums (all equally awesome) that she didn't have. i asked for the live at the bbc compilation for christmas. birthday money from when i turned 8 went toward acquiring myself a copy of help, and i got the blue compilation somewhere around the same time. being a broke kid, it took me til somewhere around age 13 to finally get the last bits of the catalogue (that was revolver).

i became a pretty militant fan. i know, probably have always known because i was aware of the original versions of buddy holly, chuck berry, smokey robinson, etc. songs they covered from listening to the live at the bbc set and comparing it to the local oldies radio station, that the beatles did not exist in a vacuum. but i've always looked at music as there's the beatles on one side, and then there's everything else ever played/recorded/written by anyone ever. talking about the beatles was talking about the single greatest band ever, and nothing else that came before or came after them could even come close to being of that calibur. that friend who got me listening to the band eventually decided she liked the monkees and some other lesser bands better than the beatles, and that actually put something of a strain on our friendship. i remember nearly getting into a fight with a girl who lived down the road when i was about 10, she was a couple years older than me, her sister was friends with my sister and they were over at our house one day. i was listening to the beatles and she said something to the affect of, "oh, how cute. i went through a beatles phase when i was your age, too." it wasn't the condescension that ticked me off as much it was the suggestion that liking the band was just a phase i'd grow out of. there was no fucking way i'd ever wake up one day and decide oh, you're right. early 90s pop music is soooooooooo much better. and until i was 14, i really didn't like any other bands. that many albums with that many different sounding songs, why the hell would i need to listen to anything else? in 7 years i went through some sort of...phase, i guess, for lack of a better word...where i was...obsessed, i guess, for lack of a better word...with one album or another. initially it was sgt pepper, then i moved on to middle-era rubber soul stuff, saw a hard day's night and loved the earliest stuff, realized hey, my mom has a copy of the white album and listened to that repeatedly...moved back on to pepper and gained new appreciation for stuff like good morning good morning and fixing a hole (those were not favorites when i was 7, but by the time i was 12 i thought they were the coolest things in the world).







you know, up until very reccently (like two days ago), i wouldn't have been able to disagree with you more, but i do now see what you're saying (and what any of you guys who share a similar opinion are saying). because i pretty much grew up idolizing the guy, i'd scan over any remotely anti-paul posts i may encounter on here. there was a time when i thought "silly love songs" was brilliant and couldn't understand why my mom would get irritated when i'd insist on playing the mix tape with that, and other cheesy mccartney stuff, in the car. i can still listen to it now with some kind of fondness more than nostalgia (ultimately, i'm just a sucker for anything i can sing along to), but i do see why some people don't like that stuff.

also, the personality thing...maybe it's not the same thing, but i went through the anthology and watched it all, and a lot of his interview clips annoyed the crap out of me. this time around something didn't sit right with me in the way that he discusses everything with a smug distance, like he's over-analyzed every element of the beatles with his shrink and found a way to justify/excuse/explain any disagreement and every decision he made for the band that might have been taken the wrong way or disliked by anyone and everyone from when he first met john, up until the present day (or 1995, technically, i guess).

kind of like how i wrote my personal history as a beatles fan up there. yes, that was intentional. and no, i don't assume any of you actually cared to read all of it.


oh, i'm always going to love flaming pie, though. that, minus the pathetic last track, was a stellar bunch of songs.
Click to expand...

I read it all so eat that.
 
No spoken words said:
You probably did not read my little emotional moment at the end of the first Beatles thread. It's me not being an asshole for a few wonderful minutes.
Click to expand...

i did not see it. how many pages back will i have to go? it's getting near my bed time, and my eyeballs are threatening to melt out of my skull if look at too many more words. damn...working saturday overnight and having to be back in for 10pm on sundays is really going to kill my enjoyment of this football season.
 
IWasBored said:
i found it. about magical mystery tour, right?

:up: you're alright.
Click to expand...

:)

I have questions for you but you are about to go to sleep so they will be tabled. Sleep well.

You live in the NE area, yes, so, I'll assume you are a Pats fan.....hopefully you are not working tomorrow night so you can watch them destroy Buffalo.
 
lazarus said:
I don't hate McCartney, and I imagine the impression I've given is that I cringe or fast-forward every time one of his songs come on. That's not the case. I enjoy a majority of what he's done. But there's something about his personality that rubs me the wrong way, and it's hard to completely disregard it. Lennon was a nutjob and could be a complete asshole, of course, but I just watched Let It Be with some friends, and everyone just wanted to sock Paul in the jaw. A lot of the time he's bossing the other band members around, trying to be the captain of the ship (and perhaps someone had to do this, but still), and then when he's trying to be funny, it often comes off (here we go again) forced and awkward. There's something about the way he looks into the camera every time one of his songs are being filmed...it's hard to put a finger on it. But he comes off a little smug.

As for the music itself, yeah, tons of great stuff. But to me he made some wonky or redundant choices that are frustrating to hear. I disagree with the notion that all of them wrote bad songs, especially if you disregard some of the primitive, earlier material. From Rubber Soul onward, the only Lennon song I can think of that's doesn't do it for me is Good Morning Good Morning (and luckily it's part of an album where the whole is better than the sum of the parts). Whereas with Macca, I could totally live without Magical Mystery Tour, Your Mother Should Know, Honey Pie, Wild Honey Pie, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, and Lovely Rita. That's not a long list, but it doesn't include a handful of his songs that I mostly enjoy but have questionable elements, and this also happens to be one of my favorite bands, with many albums that are among my all-time favorites.

Let's also not forget that the whole Let It Be/Get Back project was Paul's idea, and it pretty much destroyed the band. He was also the one behind the Magical Mystery Tour film, which tried to drag the Pepper's concept out a bit too far, and wound up being the band's first unequivocal failure.
Click to expand...

As much as I like Paul, I do think that the success of The Beatles did make him a little cocky and arrogant. His charisma and affable persona does much to hide this but I've no doubt that it irked the other Beatles more than he realised. I think he had a very 'take charge' mentality (particularly after Brian Epstein died) and this resulted in the feeling that he was forcing his ideas onto other people and believed that he always knew best.

The collapse of The Beatles was a serious blow to his confidence and he was never quite the same person again. The fact that, to all intents and purposes, he no longer had a job was a real wake-up call. After coasting along with the boys since his teens, this was a truly humbling experience.

Funnily enough, I think his supreme confidence was the key to him writing great songs, he believed in himself and the band 100%. After he suffered this knock, his songs never hit the same kind of heights again. In Wings or as a solo artist he is far more prone to self doubt.

Paul seemed to be the one who really wanted to keep The Beatles together, he loved them so much. After Epstein's death, I think he feared that the four of them could begin to drift apart if they didn't have somebody to pull them into line. He hastily concocted The Magical Mystery Tour in an attempt to counteract that.

He was trying to inspire them with Let It Be by filming the whole process in anticipation for some big live gig. He felt that performing again would soldify them. So whilst all his efforts backfired, I think they were always borne out of good intentions.
 
I agree that Paul believed in the band, perhaps too long for their own good - wanted to tour, wanted Let it be and convinced George Martin to do Abbey Road - and probably came off as forcefully leading after Epstein died. I also think none of that destroyed the band any more than the official "Yoko did it" story. It had more to do with his writing partner didn't want to be a part of the band anymore.

I don't think so much his ego failed at being solo, but he didn't have John to keep up his game in writing. Same goes for all their solo efforts - they were better together.
 
DevilsShoes said:
As much as I like Paul, I do think that the success of The Beatles did make him a little cocky and arrogant. His charisma and affable persona does much to hide this but I've no doubt that it irked the other Beatles more than he realised. I think he had a very 'take charge' mentality (particularly after Brian Epstein died) and this resulted in the feeling that he was forcing his ideas onto other people and believed that he always knew best.

The collapse of The Beatles was a serious blow to his confidence and he was never quite the same person again. The fact that, to all intents and purposes, he no longer had a job was a real wake-up call. After coasting along with the boys since his teens, this was a truly humbling experience.

Funnily enough, I think his supreme confidence was the key to him writing great songs, he believed in himself and the band 100%. After he suffered this knock, his songs never hit the same kind of heights again. In Wings or as a solo artist he is far more prone to self doubt.

Paul seemed to be the one who really wanted to keep The Beatles together, he loved them so much. After Epstein's death, I think he feared that the four of them could begin to drift apart if they didn't have somebody to pull them into line. He hastily concocted The Magical Mystery Tour in an attempt to counteract that.

He was trying to inspire them with Let It Be by filming the whole process in anticipation for some big live gig. He felt that performing again would soldify them. So whilst all his efforts backfired, I think they were always borne out of good intentions.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. Yes, his intentions were certainly good, and it was certainly his headstrong ways that did more harm than good. Ultimately, if you assume the role as captain, you have to bear responsibility when you steer the ship into choppy waters. Who's to say that without the Get Back/Let it Be project the band would have broken up? Perhaps they would have just taken a short break, something they probably needed anyway.

As for Lennon, it seems that he didn't want to outright leave the band (because deep down he needed it as well) so much as have the freedom to go off and do other projects when he felt like it. Harrison seemed to be of this mind as well (and he was the one most opposed to traveling and playing live), and Ringo probably was just going with the flow.
 
It is interesting to me, band dynamics, etc. I remember reading about Keith Richards, and how much he just loved/needed being in the Rolling Stones. Not that the other members didn't, it just seemed like the idea of being in a band, specifically that band, meant everything to him.
 
U2girl said:
I agree that Paul believed in the band, perhaps too long for their own good - wanted to tour, wanted Let it be and convinced George Martin to do Abbey Road - and probably came off as forcefully leading after Epstein died. I also think none of that destroyed the band any more than the official "Yoko did it" story. It had more to do with his writing partner didn't want to be a part of the band anymore.

I don't think so much his ego failed at being solo, but he didn't have John to keep up his game in writing. Same goes for all their solo efforts - they were better together.
Click to expand...

The Beatles were so big though you couldn't touch them. McCartney never bothered to read reviews of the albums or checked to see where the singles reached in the charts, but in Wings he was far more aware of how the public and press received his work. There was a vulnerability that came with leaving The Beatles and I think they were all (not just Paul) very conscious of that.

Early Wings is pretty shaky. You have to wonder what he was thinking with some of the songs. Perhaps none of it was helped by that 'war of words' McCartney and Lennon had in the papers around 1971. I think Paul did begin to question whether or not John was the true talent of the group and the rest were just tagging along.

Mid Wings clearly captures McCartney in far more confident form. The band had slowly gained a following, achieved a few hit singles and were pretty tight as a live act. Band On The Run sort of proved to him that there was life beyond The Beatles.

But even now I get the feeling that he needs reassuring that a song is any good. Perhaps it's just the arrogance of youth, but he always seemed to know instinctively the merits of a tune in The Beatles.

I think John did some great stuff as a solo artist. It was only after he moved to New York and encountered all the problems he did there, along with splitting up with Yoko, that his creative fire seemed to dampen. He still had a few highlights even after that though.
 
lazarus said:
I agree with all of this. Yes, his intentions were certainly good, and it was certainly his headstrong ways that did more harm than good. Ultimately, if you assume the role as captain, you have to bear responsibility when you steer the ship into choppy waters. Who's to say that without the Get Back/Let it Be project the band would have broken up? Perhaps they would have just taken a short break, something they probably needed anyway.

As for Lennon, it seems that he didn't want to outright leave the band (because deep down he needed it as well) so much as have the freedom to go off and do other projects when he felt like it. Harrison seemed to be of this mind as well (and he was the one most opposed to traveling and playing live), and Ringo probably was just going with the flow.
Click to expand...

Yes, Ringo would definitely have gone along for the ride no matter what. I think George would have too you know. Although later on he said how stifling The Beatles had become, I think had Lennon and McCartney been up for carrying on, he would have too.

I've been re-reading the Anthology a lot lately and Paul actually admits that for a good 4-5 months after it had ended, they still kept in touch and tested the waters about possibly getting back together. Nobody could quite believe it was all over.

I think John wanted it both ways. He kind of wanted to go off and do his own thing with Yoko but then return to the familiarity and security of The Beatles.
 
Has anybody here ever listened in depth to the pre-Sgt. Pepper Capital U.S. albums? My gut says the only people those albums(in that form) appeal to are the boomers in the U.S. who actually grew up listening to them. But for boomers anywhere else and younger people everywhere who didn't actually grow up when the Beatles were around, the U.K. discography is the only discography. I don't really approve of how the U.S. albums came to be...Capital basically butchered the albums, cut-and-pasted tracks to make the albums they thought would sell the most, until the Beatles put a stop to it at Sgt. Pepper. I don't think anyone would disagree that the U.K. discography is the discography as the Beatles intended it. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone's listened to any of the U.S. albums extensively, and if anyone has any thoughts on them? I think I'm going to put some playlists together in ITunes that match the U.S. albums, and give them a try. Though Revolver without "I'm Only Sleeping", "And Your Bird Can Sing", and "Dr. Robert" seems blasphemous.
 
No spoken words said:
It is interesting to me, band dynamics, etc. I remember reading about Keith Richards, and how much he just loved/needed being in the Rolling Stones. Not that the other members didn't, it just seemed like the idea of being in a band, specifically that band, meant everything to him.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Part of what I love about The Stones, The Beatles, The Who, and even U2 to some extent is that while they're all solid, even brilliant musicians/lyricists/etc..., they're better together than when they are apart. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that's most of the reason why the "supergroup" concept doesn't work for me.
 
namkcuR said:
Has anybody here ever listened in depth to the pre-Sgt. Pepper Capital U.S. albums? My gut says the only people those albums(in that form) appeal to are the boomers in the U.S. who actually grew up listening to them. But for boomers anywhere else and younger people everywhere who didn't actually grow up when the Beatles were around, the U.K. discography is the only discography. I don't really approve of how the U.S. albums came to be...Capital basically butchered the albums, cut-and-pasted tracks to make the albums they thought would sell the most, until the Beatles put a stop to it at Sgt. Pepper. I don't think anyone would disagree that the U.K. discography is the discography as the Beatles intended it. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone's listened to any of the U.S. albums extensively, and if anyone has any thoughts on them? I think I'm going to put some playlists together in ITunes that match the U.S. albums, and give them a try. Though Revolver without "I'm Only Sleeping", "And Your Bird Can Sing", and "Dr. Robert" seems blasphemous.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't listen to those corporate mockeries of the albums if you paid me. Though it should be noted the U.S. version of Magical Mystery Tour has become the official version.

Something I've been thinking about lately: although Sgt. Pepper's is pretty secure in its "Greatest Album of All Time" status, I can't help wondering how much better it would be (and let's face it, many hardcore Beatles fans prefer Revolver, Abbey Road, or The White Album) if Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane had not been abducted by Brian Epstein to satisfy the overeager record company. George Martin has been quoted as saying this was a terrible mistake, despite the album's eventual success.

So I'm wondering, if the only reason the songs were left off the album was because at that time they didn't want to double-dip and put out something that had already seen released as a single, wouldn't it make sense to try and work them back into the album and make a more definitive version? One could also look at Only A Northern Song, which was recorded during the Pepper's sessions as well.

The big question of course would be where to put them in the track listing, and even the release version had a different order on side one.

Any ideas?
 
I'm not so sure "Strawberry Fields Forever" has a place anywhere on the album. I can't think of a place it'd fit.
 
I burned both Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour onto one cd today to listen to while I was at work and mixed it around a little bit. The flow was off in a few places, but it was alright.
 
"Strawberry Fields" would have to go before or after "Within You, Without You" and "Penny Lane" somewhere in the "When I'm Sixty-Four"/"Lovely Rita"/"Good Morning Good Morning" trifecta, I'd assume.
 
It should also be noted that the album was original going to be a concept piece about daily life in Liverpool or material reflecting on their childhood. I think from that standpoint, Strawberry Fields fits the album more than Mr. Kite or Lucy do.

Also, apparently the album having a gatefold cover was because the band originally thought it would be a double album. So to put two or three more songs on there isn't exactly blasphemous.

Because the band's recording sessions were pretty close together, it's easy to look at the other stuff found on MMT and try to put it on Pepper's, but that stuff was definitely created for a new project, so I think it's best to just keep it to the three songs that were actually meant to be for Pepper's specifically.
 
Do you have any of the Anthology discs, YLB? Volume 3 (at least) is essential. You get the acoustic White Album demos (including While My Guitar with an extra verse, and in my opinion a superior version of All Things Must Pass), the incinerating Not Guilty, an early version of Macca's Junk, What's the New Mary Jane, some covers from the Get Back sessions. SO worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
678
mikal
mikal
N
Hello From Alberta, Canada
Replies
4
Views
403
NormB
N
MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
911
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom