>over the age of eighteen >still listening to popular "music"

File: VaporwaveHerbie.jpg (105KB, 736x478px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 736x478px

No, we just have good taste.

I can't see how other people's enjoyment of pop music would prevent you and any other interested parties from discussing whatever music interests you.

It seems to me this thread is a very thinly veiled excuse for you to try to feel superior to other people who you will never meet and to try to bait them into arguing with you.

>>70423820
This. OP is like a STEMlord who can't into science, it's even more pathetic.

>>70423820
>>70423844
Are you mad because Im better than you

Are you mad because you have shit taste

Are you mad because when you listen to Bach all you hear are random notes that make your small heads hurt

Are you mad because I've probably beaten you in everything in life

Are you mad when you see a clearly superior being

>>70423908
>Are you mad because when you listen to Bach all you hear are random notes that make your small heads hurt
I get paid to teach Bach inventions, what's your musical resume like?

File: ReasonsToLive.png (3MB, 1352x1864px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1352x1864px

>>70423908
Are you mad because Herbie's better than all of us?

Are you mad because Bach cried when he first heard a Herbie album?

Are you mad because when people listen to Bach it cures racism, depression, and all diseases?

Are you mad Bach never learned the synthesizer or how to make amazing jazz funk?

Are you mad because Herbie composed 'Butterfly', while Bach could never create such a moving symphony...

Are you mad because Herbie is a superior being?

>>70423791
>>70423820
>>70423844
>>70424043
t. brainlets

>>70423908
You sound like you've been single for a really long time

>>70425389
Look, i get it, you're jealous of Herbie, I understand. We all are. But damnit, at least he gives us something amazing to listen to.

>>70423908
Holy fucking shit dude

File: 1480373168070.jpg (35KB, 228x336px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 228x336px

>>70425424
>settling for a pop-listening gf

tfw saw a terry riley concert last weekend... and didn't really like it much

The two spheres of music. Popular music, which produces the stimuli we are here investigating, is usually characterized by its difference from serious music. This difference is generally taken for granted and is looked upon as a difference of levels considered so well defined that most people regard the values within them as totally independent of one another. We deem it necessary, however, first of all to translate these so-called levels into more precise terms, musical as well as social, which not only delimit them unequivocally but throw light upon the whole setting of the two musical spheres as well.

A clear judgment concerning the relation of serious music to popular music can be arrived at only by strict attention to the fundamental characteristic of popular music: standardization. The whole structure of popular music is standardized, even where the attempt is made to circumvent standardization. Standardization extends from the most general features to the most specific ones. Best known is the rule that the chorus consists of thirty two bars and that the range is limited to one octave and one note. The general types of hits are also standardized: not only the dance types, the rigidity of whose pattern is understood, but also the "characters" such as mother songs, home songs, nonsense or "novelty" songs, pseudo-nursery rhymes, laments for a lost girl. Most important of all, the harmonic cornerstones of each hit — the beginning and the end of each part — must beat out the standard scheme. This scheme emphasizes the most primitive harmonic facts no matter what has harmonically intervened. Complications have no consequences. This inexorable device guarantees that regardless of what aberrations occur, the hit will lead back to the same familiar experience, and nothing fundamentally novel will be introduced.

File: MrHands.jpg (36KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x500px

Seems like a good time to aks.

What's your guys's favorite Herbie Hancock album?

>>70425709
The most drastic example of standardization of presumably individualized features is to be found in so-called improvisations. Even though jazz musicians still improvise in practice, their improvisations have become so "normalized" as to enable a whole terminology to be developed to express the standard devices of individualization: a terminology which in turn is ballyhooed by jazz publicity agents to foster the myth of pioneer artisanship and at the same time flatter the fans by apparently allowing them to peep behind the curtain and get the inside story. This pseudo-individualization is prescribed by the standardization of the framework. The latter is so rigid that the freedom it allows for any sort of improvisation is severely delimited. Improvisations — passages where spontaneous action of individuals is permitted ("Swing it boys") — are confined within the walls of the harmonic and metric scheme. In a great many cases, such as the "break" of pre-swing jazz, the musical function of the improvised detail is determined completely by the scheme: the break can be nothing other than a disguised cadence. Here, very few possibilities for actual improvisation remain, due to the necessity of merely melodically circumscribing the same underlying harmonic functions. Since these possibilities were very quickly exhausted, stereotyping of improvisatory details speedily occurred. Thus, standardization of the norm enhances in a purely technical way standardization of its own deviation — pseudo-individualization.

>>70423768

None of those forms of music are necessarily more intellectually or artistically impressive than much 20th/21st century popular music. You are a laughably ignorant cringey pleb for thinking they are. I would advise you to go out and listen to more music and learn more about music before bothering to post again.

>>70425748
yes it is you fucking bitch

ill fucking kill you

>>70425748
Serious music, for comparative purposes, may be thus characterized: Every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece which, in turn, consists of the life relationship of the details and never of a mere enforcement of a musical scheme. For example, in the introduction of the first movement of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony the second theme (in C-major) gets its true meaning only from the context. Only through the whole does it acquire its particular lyrical and expressive quality — that is, a whole built up of its very contrast with the cantus firmus-like character of the first theme. Taken in isolation the second theme would be disrobed to insignificance. Another example may be found in the beginning of the recapitulation over the pedal point of the first movement of Beethoven's "Appassionata". By following the preceding outburst it achieves the utmost dramatic momentum. By omitting the exposition and development and starting with this repetition, all is lost.
7 Nothing corresponding to this can happen in popular music. It would not affect the musical sense if any detail were taken out of the context; the listener can supply the "framework" automatically, since it is a mere musical automatism itself. The beginning of the chorus is replaceable by the beginning of innumerable other choruses. The interrelationship among the elements or the relationship of the elements to the whole would be unaffected. In Beethoven, position is important only in a living relation between a concrete totality and its concrete parts. In popular music, position is absolute. Every detail is substitutable; it serves its function only as a cog in a machine.

File: Sextant.jpg (74KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x500px

>>70425731
So you're telling me Sextant?

Well I wasn't a big fan personally but yeah I definitely see why people like the album. The middle track was pretty damn good.

>>70425802
All works of the earlier Viennese classicism are, without exception, rhythmically simpler than stock arrangements of jazz. Melodically, the wide intervals of a good many hits such as "Deep Purple" or "Sunrise Serenade" are more difficult to follow per se than most melodies of, for example, Haydn, which consist mainly of circumscriptions of tonic triads and second steps. Harmonically, the supply of chords of the so-called classics is invariably more limited than that of any current Tin Pan Alley composer who draws from Debussy, Ravel, and even later sources. Standardization and non standardization are the key contrasting terms for the difference.
14 Structural standardization aims at standard reactions. Listening to popular music is manipulated not only by its promoters but, as it were by the inherent nature of this music itself, into a system of response mechanisms wholly antagonistic to the ideal of individuality in a free, liberal society.

>>70425748
>than much 20th/21st century popular music
Such as?

>cringey
17 year old detected.

>>70425709
Headhunters senpai

>>70425856
This has nothing to do with simplicity and complexity. In serious music, each musical element, even the simplest one, is "itself", and the more highly organized the work is, the less possibility there is of substitution among the details. In hit music, however, the structure underlying the piece is abstract, existing independent of the specific course of the music. This is basic to the illusion that certain complex harmonies are more easily understandable in popular music than the same harmonies in serious music. For the complicated in popular music never functions as "itself" but only as a disguise or embellishment behind which the scheme can always be perceived. In jazz the amateur listener is capable of replacing complicated rhythmical or harmonic formulas by the schematic ones which they represent and which they still suggest, however adventurous they appear. The ear deals with the difficulties of hit music by achieving slight substitutions derived from the knowledge of the patterns. The listener, when faced with the complicated, actually hears only the simple which it represents and perceives the complicated only as a parodistic distortion of the simple.

File: 549c0acb09ae6.jpg (223KB, 1000x1458px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1000x1458px

>>70425856

Im 23. For a start, almost all jazz from Charlie Parker onward uses harmonic, melodic and rhythmic concepts that are dimensions ahead of 99% of western art music (excluding some late romantic composers basically).
For a good example see attached, and compare it to the harmonic content of anything from the Baroque or Classical eras.

>>70423820
In the sphere of luxury production, to which popular music belongs and in which no necessities of life are immediately involved, while, at the same time, the residues of individualism are most alive there in the form of ideological categories such as taste and free choice, it is imperative to hide standardization. The "backwardness" of musical mass production, the fact that it is still on a handicraft level and not literally an industrial one, conforms perfectly to that necessity which is essential from the viewpoint of cultural big business. If the individual handicraft elements of popular music were abolished altogether, a synthetic means of hiding standardization would have to be evolved. Its elements are even now in existence.

>>70423768
>Western art music
>Western academic music
Department of redundancy department.

>>70423768
u 4 u

>>70425971
In jazz the amateur listener is capable of replacing complicated rhythmical or harmonic formulas by the schematic ones which they represent and which they still suggest, however adventurous they appear.

Read again >>70425891

>>70425891

Hey just going to put it out there that you are talking mostly twaddle that is only somewhat managing to make some poorly explained, nebulous half-points, and hiding that fact behind excessive verbosity. If you can't explain yourself with concise, clearly understandable writing then you should ask yourself if you actually are saying anything.

>>70425971
Your comparison implies that you don't actually know anything about Western art music.

>>70426093
So thats the point i'm talking about. Excatly the difference between serious music and pop crap, fag.

The composition hears for the listener. This is how popular music divests the listener of his spontaneity and promotes conditioned reflexes. Not only does it not require his effort to follow its concrete stream; it actually gives him models under which anything concrete still remaining may be subsumed. The schematic buildup dictates the way in which he must listen while, at the same time, it makes any effort in listening unnecessary. Popular music is "pre-digested" in a way strongly resembling the fad of "digests" of printed material. It is this structure of contemporary popular music which in the last analysis, accounts for those changes of listening habits which we shall later discuss.

>>70426093
>hello I have nothing to say so I'm gonna complain about the amount of words

>>70425891
Where's this copypasta from? It's great.

>>>/pol/

If you can't appreciate pop music you're the fucking child. Your primary interest is probably just massaging your own mental testicles more than anything. I know I'm being trolled

I , for one, would LOVE to hear the worthless opinion of a poptimist or - worse - a jazz "musician: on even a middling piece of Scriabin's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usLmeAjIugI

>>70423768
Yesterday's pleb taste is today's patrician taste, if you catch my drift. Also, do you go to threads that would be conducive to such discussion? There's a lot of threads every day.

>>70426093
Probably put in another way, even a pleb can understand:

This "freezing" of standards is socially enforced upon the agencies themselves. Popular music must simultaneously meet two demands. One is for stimuli that provoke the listener's attention. The other is for the material to fall within the category of what the musically untrained listener would call "natural" music: that is, the sum total of all the conventions and material formulas in music to which he is accustomed and which he regards as the inherent, simple language of music itself, no matter how late the development might be which produced this natural language. This natural language for the American listener stems from his earliest musical experiences, the nursery rhymes, the hymns he sings in Sunday school, the little tunes he whistles on his way home from school. All these are vastly more important in the formation of musical language than his ability to distinguish the beginning of Brahms's Third Symphony from that of his Second. Official musical culture is, to a large extent, a mere superstructure of this underlying musical language, namely, the major and minor tonalities and all the tonal relationships they imply. But these tonal relationships of the primitive musical language set barriers to whatever does not conform to them. Extravagances are tolerated only insofar as they can be recast into this so-called natural language.

>>70426187
>early scriabin
lol kys retard

>>70426093

Without picking sides and acknowledging that the guy you're replying to 100% didn't write that, it's not twaddle. It make actually quite a few straightforward arguments.

File: 8ab.jpg (53KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x640px

>>70423908
>>70425389

>>70426040

No I wont read it again. You are talking nonsense. What you are essentially trying to say in an excessively bombastic manner is that for example in the piece given, the chord changes are merely representative of simpler, more formulaic popular harmony and whats what an "amateur" listener (l didn't realise there were many paid positions for listening to jazz) listener would hear. However this is simply a completely unjustified claim that you've thrown out there with no evidence or theoretical justification. I can't see any reading of harmonic theory that would lend credence to this idea, at least with reference to Dienda. Sounds to me like you are making up academic theories about music on the spot, despite the fact that you lack the theoretical knowledge to even know what you are talking about on a base level.

>>70425891
Not true and also completely retarded if you think it is

>>70426214
>Scriabin's 1903 year
>early

lurk more you fucking faggot.

>here_we_go_again.jpg

>>70426181
"On Popular Music" by Theodore Adorno

comes in three different sections

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/SWA/On_popular_music_1.shtml
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/SWA/On_popular_music_2.shtml
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/SWA/On_popular_music_3.shtml

The whole thing is kinda verbose and gets a bit overly technical at times, but there are definitely some interesting points to pick up from it. Recommended reading for everyone on /mu/ whether you agree or not, and far more interesting either way than anything one normally sees from the likes of Pitchfork, Fantano, Scaruffi, etc.

>>70426208

>Put it in another way, even a pleb can understand

>Literally the first sentence is meaningless fluff

File: smuk_skriab.jpg (16KB, 230x311px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 230x311px

>>70426264
early to middle then u fucking memer. if u like chopin worship thats fine with me but dont act like u know what ur talking about

sonata 5 and beyond is real scriabin

>>70426239
just because there is fag, kek, nigger, pleb involved... man don't claim anything i already ripped to shreds by telling me you won't read that shit again...
This subservience of improvisation to standardization explains two main socio-psychological qualities of popular music. One is the fact that the detail remains openly connected with the underlying scheme so that the listener always feels on safe ground. The choice in individual alterations is so small that the perpetual recurrence of the same variations is a reassuring signpost of the identical behind them. The other is the function of "substitution" — the improvisatory features forbid their being grasped as musical events in themselves. They can be received only as embellishments. It is a well-known fact that in daring jazz arrangements worried notes, dirty notes, in other words, false notes, play a conspicuous role. They are apperceived as exciting stimuli only because they are corrected by the ear to the right note. This, however, is only an extreme instance of what happens less conspicuously in all individualization in popular music. Any harmonic boldness, any chord which does not fall strictly within the simplest harmonic scheme demands being apperceived as "false", that is, as a stimulus which carries with it the unambiguous prescription to substitute for it the right detail, or rather the naked scheme. Understanding popular music means obeying such commands for listening. Popular music commands its own listening habits.

>>70425837
So that's a yes? Alright cool.

>>70426338

Right. Im going to start from the start and try to show how your writing style is fucked.

>This subservience of improvisation to standardization explains two main socio-psychological qualities of popular music.

Okay you have started your paragraph with "this", making a reference to a point that you haven't made yet. So straight away we are on hard to read, confusing ground. You may claim that you are continuing from your previous paragraph, however in your previous paragraph I see no reference to the concept of "the subservience of improvisation to standardization". That sounds like a big ole fleshy concept that you need to explain and make an argument for in clear reference to a piece of pieces of music that are relevant to our debate. Don't just start your fucking paragraph with "This subservience of improvisation to standardization" like it's not even a thing and just go from there. So you've got an un-argued, unsupported concept that you've just thrown out of nowhere, and then "explains two main socio-psychological qualities of popular music". First of all you've tied that concept to a point that you are going to try to make about the entirety of "popular music". That is an absolutely massive logical jump, you haven't defined or contained the idea of "popular music", nor shown how your examples (of which you have given none) can be used as a microcosm that reflects apon popular music as a whole in such a powerful overarching fashion. You've linked a poorly explained musical claim to suddenly explaining a "socio-psychological function", which is massive jump as well and implies that you need to pull psychological analysis of average human consumption of music into it as well. And it just continues like this. Every single sentence pretty much makes massive, bold claims with little to no argument given to justify them, let alone a foolproof effective one. If you wrote essays like this at Uni you would fucking fail man.

>>70426340
No its not. But i'd be a fag not aknowledge that fact. That does not change the underlying problem. The whole point is of this thread is to prove why serious-western-art-music is superior to any pop/jazz crap.

There is another type of individualization claimed in terms of kinds of popular music and differences in name bands. The types of popular music are carefully differentiated in production. The listener is presumed to be able to choose between them. The most widely recognized differentiations are those between swing and sweet and such name bands as Limp Bizkit and Death Grips. The listener is quickly able to distinguish the types of music and even the performing band, this in spite of the fundamental identity of the material and the great similarity of the presentations apart from their emphasized distinguishing trademarks. This labeling technique, as regards type of music and band, is pseudo-individualization, but of a sociological kind outside the realm of strict musical technology. It provides trademarks of identification for differentiating between the actually undifferentiated.

Popular music becomes a multiple-choice questionnaire. There are two main types and their derivatives from which to choose. The listener is encouraged by the inexorable presence of these types psychologically to cross out what he dislikes and check what he likes. The limitation inherent in this choice and the clear-cut alternative it entails provoke like-dislike patterns of behavior. This mechanical dichotomy breaks down indifference it is imperative to favor sweet or swing if one wishes to continue to listen to popular music.

>>70426681
Not that anon, but...bruh, you could've at least copy pasted ONE of his many lines and Googled it, or look at other posts like >>70426314/>>70426181 in this topic, or better yet just looked at the wall and realize that it's probably a copypasta.

You're being baited, stop wasting your time writing long walls of text.

File: Throbbing Gristle 20 Jazz Funk Greats 01.jpg (605KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1600x1600px

>>70424043
did somebody say jazz funk

>>70426833
I think all the criticism against my bad copy-pasta are justified. It was bait, yes. BUT read that shit, even though i do not agree with Adorno this might spawn a genuiinly interessering conversation... but it's not reddit, i know.

>>70426833
...you have to admit there some great punchline there and most of it still holds true, but what he wrote about JAZZ might be a bit unjustified.

File: MMDATNOTGOD.jpg (126KB, 504x398px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 504x398px

>>70426848
FAKE JAZZ FUNK ALERT!!

THIS IS REAL JAZZ FUNK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOQ5lHQQakM

THIS IS NOT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fo-G5f3Q3o

The difference could save your life one day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfPtL0tQKRY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhOvUAH3EoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E46xORIukk

File: tumblr_oas6s9VACe1uxd3t8o1_500.jpg (70KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 480x360px

I used to work at AppleCare taking support calls as a T2 and I remember getting a call escalated to me because of some fucking psycho like OP.
>can't organize classical music exactly to his autistic needs in iTunes
>berates minimum wage employee about not knowing about classic music and music terminology
>asks to talk to manager
>I explain iTunes doesn't do that and it won't for a half an hour until he finally realigns with reality and gets off the phone like a sad little bitch realizing the world doesn't fucking care about him just because he has a big ego

>>70427051
>>70427090
I agree that it's an interesting read, that's why I posted links to all three parts earlier in this topic. But in this fast moving forum board format, all it's going to get is mostly people that got baited, or attack Adorno's writing style (and credit it to an anon.)

I wouldn't mind a discussion on the stuff. But it would be nice if people have read it all and understood the context of the work and why/how the author wrote the way he did before doing so.

That and I kinda felt bad for that anon that was being baited hard. Am I getting soft in my old age?

>>70427414
i don't it was viscious bait, though. nobody got harmed and there where some efforts made to start an actual argument. Amog all that shitposting this a positiv thing. and if just one person is going to the read the whole thing now, great. i think we could raise the bar for our conversion here a bit,

>western
Talk about shit taste.

>>70425971
>ahead
*behind

>>70426314
>Published in 1941

Decades before the onset of psychedelia. The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are practically interchangeable in this context. Even when discussing a decent portion of Pitchfork/Fantano-core, the terms are not interchangeable (let alone Scaruffi, who by the way was heavily influenced by Adorno as a critic).

If I'm not wrong, he's writing this mostly with easy-listening and big band music in mind.

>>70426338
>In jazz the amateur listener is capable of replacing complicated rhythmical or harmonic formulas by the schematic ones which they represent and which they still suggest, however adventurous they appear.
This does not apply at all to, say, Sun Ra or Bardo Pond, or most of the non-mainstream acts that /mu/ listens to (yes, /mu/ is one person). That's why these threads make for such good bait.

Again, I really think you should try reading non-pasta Scaruffi writings.

http://www.scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol5/royaltru.html (explains how pop cliches can be utilized to make great art)
http://www.scaruffi.com/interv/hassell.html (not his writing, but a great rationale for listening to non-primarily-stored-in written-form music.)

>unironically being this pretentious and stuck up your own ass
lmao loser

>>70430168
>unironically being this much of a pleb

Can I listen to Bach and Weezer and still be accepted as patrician?

>>70425709
Maiden Voyage, as it was my first encounter to Herb

>>70423908

>taking music taste this seriously

look I like classical music a lot but you are seriously autistic

>>70426314
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1017/s0261143012000281
Here's an interesting paper about 'difficult' popular music (read: /mu/core) and the listening habits reported by fans of this music.
This is examined in contrast with Adorno's thoughts about how truly attentive listening can only happen in the concert hall environment.

>>70426314
Popular music was actually good in 1941 though. They used chords beyond basic major and minor chords, and aimed to write great songs instead of pumping out formulaic trash for the latest music video.
We'll meet again, for example, is still a classic all these years later.

>>70432524
>le wrong generation

>>70432536
Good argument. I enjoy modern music, as well as old music. I mostly dont enjoy popular music unless its well written though. Pretty much only listen to music written by trained composer from 1400 to today. Even then I'll never hear it all.

is this unty

>>70432536
>tfw incapable of communicating without memes

>>70423908
This better be bait cause Im getting a headache from your fucking existence

>>70432593
>uses meme arrows

>>70432524
You still haven't proven anything. In the 40's-60's pop music was inspired by jazz which is why the Beach Boys were so fucking good. That still doesn't mean anything. I don't care how many minor7 flat 5ths you play, if I don't like it its shit to me.

>>70432626
>Beach Boys were so fucking good

ahahahahahahaha

>>70432626
Well written music made by people with an understanding of harmony and voice leading is good. Unfortunately most popular music these days is not.

>>70432646
in a technical understanding sure its good. It doesn't make it any more enjoyable, it's dependent on what you consider good.

>>70432684
I enjoy well crafted music with interesting and effective harmony.

Using basic triads and nothing else is just lazy songwriting. So much can be done with harmony.

>>70423820
rekt

Is the guitar responsible for ruining pop music forever?

>>70432707
I'd have to agree from my own tastes. I like to listen jazz which can be technical or absolutely emotional. However sometimes someone like Bob Dylan's goal is to tell a story through lyricism so three basic triads go a long way for him in a song. The ambitions of a musician can help better determine how lazy they are in their songwriting. Hell Michael Gira plays the same chord for half an hour and the atmospheres he builds around it give me shivers. It's what you want to do with it, it's pretty ignorant to call someone lazy without looking at what they are trying to achieve.

>>70432754
nothing to do with instruments.

Schnittke uses electric guitar often in his orchestral pieces. Murail wrote a piece for distroted electric guitar.

Thats just electric guitar too, classical guitar has been around for centuries.

Turning music into a commodity is largely to blame for popular musics mediocrity. The actual music isn't as important as music videos, album art, marketing and profits from album sales and concert tickets.

>>70423768
>Western
>Western
>Western

Racist.

>>70432803
Playing the same chord for an hour is the literal definition of lazy. hence why I have no respect for Gira or desire to listen to his music.
Dylan is pretty lazy too. Never thought much of his music.

>>70432813
>Murail
man I love robert fripp

>>70432840
am I being memed with?

>>70432842
thats not how you spell Tristan Murail

>>70423908
cringe.

>>70432856
Is it that hard to believe that someone doesn't like the music you like?

Shit popular music is always going to be shit compared to masters like Palestrina, Bach, Brahms, Schoenberg, Janacek and Bartok.
Even good popular music pales in comparison to those guys.

CRETINOUS
LOSERS
APPRECIATING
STALE
SOUNDS
INCLUDING
CHOPIN'S
AUTISTIC
LAMENTATIONS

>>70423768
>Western traditional music
lol