THE MUSIC SALON: classical music, popular culture, philosophy and anything else that catches my fancy...
Monday, November 11, 2024
Pierrot Lunaire
Schoenberg, Self-portrait, 1910
In preparation for the first performance of Pierrot Lunaire in Berlin in 1912, they held forty rehearsals! For comparison, a typical orchestral concert these days would likely have two, perhaps three rehearsals and the recording of an orchestral soundtrack for a motion picture would have no rehearsals. Yep, they just sightread it. Now, of course, chamber music is different and a piece using new techniques for an entirely new kind of ensemble with a singer using an entirely new kind of vocal technique would require quite a few rehearsals. But I very much doubt that any performance of any kind of music whatsoever gets forty rehearsals these days. So, yes, this is a different kind of piece than pretty much anything else you have encountered. You have to listen very closely and very carefully. Let's start by listening to this fine performance (especially by the pianist, Pierre-Laurent Aimard who I heard play a huge program focussed on Schoenberg in Salzburg this past August, and the soprano, Kiera Duffy) with English sub-titles:
What you should do now, is, wait for it, listen to it again! In that special concert series Schoenberg organized, the Society for Private Musical Performances, they actually did this in concert: the same piece might be played twice.
Now for some context: Schoenberg was a very creative person across various genres: the self-portrait at the top of the post was painted just before he composed Pierrot Lunaire and is a quite respectable artwork in the German expressionist tradition. He was also very influenced and inspired by poetry. As we learn from the Wikipedia article, Pierrot Lunaire is a setting of 21 poems from the cycle of the same name by the Belgian symbolist poet Albert Giraud.
Schoenberg's career came at a moment of severe transition in music history spanning the movement from late 19th century lushly orchestrated works for large orchestra, such as his Gurrelieder, through a period of free atonality, where Pierrot falls, through a Neo-classic period with reference to older forms, to a serialist phase using 12-tone technique. Schoenberg was a leading figure in all of these phases.
He was obsessed with numerology which in this piece involves the numbers 3 and 7: three main sections, each with seven poems, many seven-note motifs throughout, the ensemble (including conductor) comprises seven performers, and so on.
Here is another performance of the piece:
And here is an analysis by Samuel Andreyev:
After walking through a piece like Der Mondfleck with its multiple canonic imitations, motivic density and palindrome structure, you can certainly see why it took a lot of rehearsal. The corollary to that is that it requires that we listen to it lots of times. Here is yet another performance, this time by an Irish ensemble:
I might come back to this piece in a followup post, but for now this will serve as an introduction.
Thanks Bryan, for provoking me to listen to Pierrot Lunaire, a piece I heard live about 12 years ago, performed at the Yale Cabaret. Today I listened to a French version! I had a long frive home from work and driving alone is an excellent way to listen without any interuptions, so I searched Spotify and found a 2024 recording and listened to the whole thing. I didn't expect it to be in French! And the recording follows your recommendation to listen AGAIN, since after the vocal version there was another version purely instrumental, which was easier to study because the emotional charge of the vocalist was not there. Her name is Jessica Martin Maresco.
I have many subjective reactions (not much objective analysis) but that will have to wait another day, since it's already after midnight meaning in less than 7 hours I'll be back to that stupid 75-90 minute drive. I'll look for a German version for that ride.
The really excellent thing about the first performance I posted is that there are subtitles in English for all the texts. I kind of think this is essential, unless you are following in the score. The only problem there is you have to watch the video, so not recommended while driving!
This has always been a hard nut to crack for me. For one, the poetry is not very good; there’s a reason that Albert Giraud is basically forgotten outside of contributing the libretto to Schoenberg’s piece. Secondly, Schoenberg was writing with a certain kind of caberet-ish live performance in mind, and I think audiences listening at home are missing an essential ingredient.
I think that there are historical reasons why Schoenberg was drawn to this kind of poetry and I'm planning on doing another post locating the work in the historical context. But don't you think it is just amazing to listen to?
Some years ago now I did a post here where I talked about acknowledged masterpieces that people don't read or listen to. Two examples I gave were Pindar's Odes and Pierrot Lunaire. Part of the issue as Bryan alludes to is the echt Viennese ambiance that these works draw upon. ( NB I also made a later post concerning Webern's vocal works that made the same point about his songs.) It must be remembered that there was a thriving cabaret and operetta scene, what the Viennese called Volkstheater up to WW2. Unfortunately this style is kaputsky now. You have to hear recordings from the 20s and 30s or see German movies of that era on how the style was performed. There are a few recordings from the 50s which still have some of that flavor without being full bore; Merry Widow with Schwarzkopf and Giuditta with Hilde Gueden.
With that said, I do not find any of these posted vocal performances of Lunaire remotely adequate. The singers are all over the place regarding sprechstimme and overall are very bland and generic in their approach. Technically the musicians are excellent but lack any sense of the style either. While there is no great performance I would suggest one recording that at least is in the ballpark: Boulez with Helga Pilarczyk. The recording is a bit rough though.
Schoenberg with sprechstimme and that operettaish musical style guaranteed unwittingly that the piece would become completely dated in a style sense. It would take a stylistic excavation similar to HIP Baroque music to re-establish but I don't see anyone making that kind of effort. Sprechstimme is too difficult for most classical singers and probably would require actresses who can sing if they were willing to practice for hours.
Pierrot Lunaire is a complex and challenging piece, and part of the complexity is certainly the fact that it is a very innovative piece, musically, that at the same time on the surface makes reference to the musical style of a cabaret. He makes this interesting comment in the foreword to the score:
"The performer's task here is at no time to derive the mood and character of the individual pieces from the meaning of the words, but always solely from the music. To the extent that the tonepainterly representation [tonmalerische Darstellung] of the events and feelings in the text were of importance to the composer, it will be found in the music anyway. Wherever the performer fails to find it, he must resist adding something that the composer did not intend. If he did so, he would not be adding, but subtracting."
That certainly has implications for the performance practice.
Composer manifestos are all very interesting but if Schoenberg were serious about what he said he should have written a wordless vocal.The medieval contrapuntalists were far more successful in maintaining music over words by paying no attention to any speech pattern for the words they set.
In any event, my main objection to the posted vocalists is that they are not doing sprechstimme but just some idiosyncratic way of singing. They also seem to have no sense of following the accompaniment in the requisite style demanded by Schoenberg, perhaps because the instrumentalists aren't doing it either. Cleo Laine with the Nash Ensemble did a better job of it without being great.
The fact that these sprechstimme vocals are not to be sung but spoken in a very theatrical way also makes it difficult for vocalists to ignore the words. For those who don't know, sprechstimme is speaking a vocal part that is still notated with (approximate) pitch and exact rhythmic values. The note pitch should not be maintained the way a singer would normally do but as one would in speaking it. This is why classical singers are a poor fit for sprechstimme because it requires them to forget everything they have been taught. It is much closer to the way many less trained vocalists sing cabaret songs, half speaking them. I again recommend using cabaret/theater singers instead if they are willing to practice it adequately.
Here is a quote from Schoenberg: the singer “immediately abandons [the note] by falling or rising. The goal is certainly not at all a realistic, natural speech. On the contrary, the difference between ordinary speech and speech that collaborates in a musical form must be made plain. But it should not call singing to mind, either." Pierre Boulez noted "the question arises whether it is actually possible to speak according to a notation devised for singing. This was the real problem at the root of all the controversies. Schoenberg’s own remarks on the subject are not in fact clear.” By all accounts Schoenberg himself was dissatisfied with many performances of Lunaire.
Asking singers to ignore the words (poetry) they are speaking as actual words and grammatical phrases when their setting is fairly close to the norm is a bit much. But what you end up with now are younger classical singers and musicians without any stylistic awareness playing it as generic classical songs sung oddly.
I'm not sure who you are most unhappy with: Schoenberg for coming up with a vocal technique that is impossible to realize, or for being ambiguous about how to execute the technique, or with classical singers for failing to ignore their training in order to do this technique to your satisfaction. And I have no idea what you mean by "They also seem to have no sense of following the accompaniment in the requisite style demanded by Schoenberg, perhaps because the instrumentalists aren't doing it either."
Is Pierrot Lunair good music? Which provokes another question Bryan has explored here: of what are aesthetics made or judged?
Listening three times a few days ago, I heard once in French, then instruments only, then in German. I don't know either language (still working on my English), did not read anything about the piece except Bryan's article above and the comments that followed. Although therefore perhaps an inauthentic or unqualified assessment of a piece originally intended for audiences understanding the words, it also gives me freedom from any distracting literary analysis so I can isolate the musical qualities alone, including of course in the vocal forefront.
Is it good music? I could only admire the technical skill of the instrumentalists, precisely controlling their tone, annunciation and especially timing despite the music seemingly detached from virtually all conventions of tonality, rhythm and melody. There is nonetheless a coherency to the work, a spirit of continuous and living identity, a point of view expressed. It's not chaos or noise or accidental or automatic. Not mere devices but alive. All that taken together shows a composer of great skill and originality. Does that make it great music?
What lives in it has a sonic skin of fine tone in the strings and usually in the flute –until the screech or groan is intentional. It has impulse more lifelike than musical, often jarring and otherwise unpredictable, going places evocative of ironic and foreboding unfamiliarities, leaving me lost in a probably dangerous place but one I could not understand. I couldn't tap my foot, I couldn't guess the next pitch. Nor could I let down my guard. Perhaps this living music is a monster?
So too with the woman. I don't understand her words but so much communication is in the tone of voice, the emotional content (and effect) are mostly in the style of delivery…and this woman is in some type of madness. If it were a man, I could not even listen, I would run away or, if necessary, be ready to fight. Luckily it is a female voice, and frankly I entertain that perhaps much of her arousal and irrational annunciations could be erotic,luring me to tolerate danger, but I must be deluding myself and really it's time to hide all sharp objects.
Of course this is not musical analysis, and although I lack the technical language to describe her singing or the music, what good are the sounds without emotional response in the listener? What I hear is skillful and articulate and living, but it is not beautiful. It is madness, it is a perversion of music and of singing, it is grotesque and not world where children are given hope.
When I visit museums and galleries, I survey many works of art, with all sorts of qualities, many of which are not purely beautiful (or sometimes not beautiful at all), and it enriches my experience to have the varied reactions. These are not scientific studies of objective phenomena but stipulations of personal response. Even classical art where traditional forms are important has lasting relevance precisely because we like it. I am enriched even by the pieces I don't want to revisit, and I like much that I'm content to visit occasionally but do not want to live with. In this way art is rather like people. There are so many ways to assess. But judging people aesthetically is heartless, whereas my conscience is clear in calling Pierrot Lunair perverted and grotesque and not something I want to hear often.
But the funny thing is retains an allure, and in my wide range of emotional and subconscious world, there will probably be moments when I go there again, seeking the comfort in confirming that I'm not the only person who ever felt like this. I can't bring myself to call it good music but it sure is important that it be there when I need it.
Will, I always welcome your comments because they record an unmediated personal reaction to the music, which is really very valuable. Pieces like Pierrot Lunaire challenge us in a way that very few pieces do. That is their value. They put in question what music is and what it should do. I've been listening to Schoenberg for fifty years now and as you say, it is important that it be there. For my, I really enjoy the music because it is full of all sorts of substance. To me it is lyric, graceful, sometimes raucous, sometimes gentle, but what it always is, is profoundly musical. What he was doing and what, say, Taylor Swift is doing, are so different that it is hard to see them as the same art form.
Let me suggest that now you listen to Verklärte Nacht--also a very profound piece, but one that I think you will simply enjoy.
Will, your second comment got sent to Spam hell, so I rescued it. Yes, this music is very, very eerie, but I enjoy it nonetheless. I think that he was intuitively sensing the approach of the collapse of European civilization because of the First World War. I am going to do another post on Pierrot in a few days...
On the German recording of Pierrot Lunair I also listened to another short vocal work in German (with piano and maybe a small chamber ensemble) and an Ode to Napoleon sung in English. I expect these pieces were relatively close together in time because the same anxiety and tension was heard. Although I don't think they were of the actual sprechstimme style. I welcome your suggestion to revisit Verklarte Nacht, which I have on a CD and had listened to sometimes back 30 years ago. I recall it as much more listenable, not Brahms of course but somehow more conventional. Back in my LP days I used to listen to 2 of his chamber symphonies, that was when I was new to classical music and blindly exploring and that record opened my ears, I knew there that Schoenberg is special and that I liked him because he took me places I had never been in my psyche, places abstract but real. Another thing I liked was one of his reworking of a Bach piece, l was already deciding that Bach was my favorite of them all (when I had maybe 50 classical LPs as my total experience so far) and I admired how Schoenberg paid tribute to the master by somehow coloring the work yet leaving it recognizably Bach even to my freshman ears. So after not listening to Schoenberg for years, I will be interested in revisiting the CDs I have (a few more that I haven't mentioned) and of course Spotify will offer dozens of recordings. Mostly I listen to early music (or 70s rock) now but I feel I know what I'm getting into but will also be surprised with older, more experienced ears now.
This is a recurring element in my life. It used to be that if I got a new and better stereo I would have to listen to all my records over again, especially the ones with big orchestra. But nowadays, as I develop an increased understanding in a certain area, I have to go back and listen to certain music because my reception will now be different. Listening to piano performance now is more refined because I have heard a lot of very fine pianists and understand better what the piano is capable of.
The above link takes you to a short review of a 7-disc set the Juilliard Quartet playing Schoenberg, t sets of the string quartets plus a Verklarte Nacht and a piano quintet. I've loaded into my Spotify for my work commutes this week. Each day is about 3 hours round trip lately, so I'll probably hear it all by Wednesday night! Driving is a great way to listen but I'll be glad when we start a new job closer to home. Sitting is terrible for your health!
.jpg)
17 comments:
Thanks Bryan, for provoking me to listen to Pierrot Lunaire, a piece I heard live about 12 years ago, performed at the Yale Cabaret. Today I listened to a French version! I had a long frive home from work and driving alone is an excellent way to listen without any interuptions, so I searched Spotify and found a 2024 recording and listened to the whole thing. I didn't expect it to be in French! And the recording follows your recommendation to listen AGAIN, since after the vocal version there was another version purely instrumental, which was easier to study because the emotional charge of the vocalist was not there. Her name is Jessica Martin Maresco.
I have many subjective reactions (not much objective analysis) but that will have to wait another day, since it's already after midnight meaning in less than 7 hours I'll be back to that stupid 75-90 minute drive. I'll look for a German version for that ride.
The really excellent thing about the first performance I posted is that there are subtitles in English for all the texts. I kind of think this is essential, unless you are following in the score. The only problem there is you have to watch the video, so not recommended while driving!
This has always been a hard nut to crack for me. For one, the poetry is not very good; there’s a reason that Albert Giraud is basically forgotten outside of contributing the libretto to Schoenberg’s piece. Secondly, Schoenberg was writing with a certain kind of caberet-ish live performance in mind, and I think audiences listening at home are missing an essential ingredient.
I think that there are historical reasons why Schoenberg was drawn to this kind of poetry and I'm planning on doing another post locating the work in the historical context. But don't you think it is just amazing to listen to?
Some years ago now I did a post here where I talked about acknowledged masterpieces that people don't read or listen to. Two examples I gave were Pindar's Odes and Pierrot Lunaire. Part of the issue as Bryan alludes to is the echt Viennese ambiance that these works draw upon. ( NB I also made a later post concerning Webern's vocal works that made the same point about his songs.) It must be remembered that there was a thriving cabaret and operetta scene, what the Viennese called Volkstheater up to WW2. Unfortunately this style is kaputsky now. You have to hear recordings from the 20s and 30s or see German movies of that era on how the style was performed. There are a few recordings from the 50s which still have some of that flavor without being full bore; Merry Widow with Schwarzkopf and Giuditta with Hilde Gueden.
With that said, I do not find any of these posted vocal performances of Lunaire remotely adequate. The singers are all over the place regarding sprechstimme and overall are very bland and generic in their approach. Technically the musicians are excellent but lack any sense of the style either. While there is no great performance I would suggest one recording that at least is in the ballpark: Boulez with Helga Pilarczyk. The recording is a bit rough though.
Schoenberg with sprechstimme and that operettaish musical style guaranteed unwittingly that the piece would become completely dated in a style sense. It would take a stylistic excavation similar to HIP Baroque music to re-establish but I don't see anyone making that kind of effort. Sprechstimme is too difficult for most classical singers and probably would require actresses who can sing if they were willing to practice for hours.
Pierrot Lunaire is a complex and challenging piece, and part of the complexity is certainly the fact that it is a very innovative piece, musically, that at the same time on the surface makes reference to the musical style of a cabaret. He makes this interesting comment in the foreword to the score:
"The performer's task here is at no time to derive the mood and character of the individual pieces from the meaning of the words, but always solely from the music. To the extent that the tonepainterly representation [tonmalerische Darstellung] of the events and feelings in the text were of importance to the composer, it will be found in the music anyway. Wherever the performer fails to find it, he must resist adding something that the composer did not intend. If he did so, he would not be adding, but subtracting."
That certainly has implications for the performance practice.
Composer manifestos are all very interesting but if Schoenberg were serious about what he said he should have written a wordless vocal.The medieval contrapuntalists were far more successful in maintaining music over words by paying no attention to any speech pattern for the words they set.
In any event, my main objection to the posted vocalists is that they are not doing sprechstimme but just some idiosyncratic way of singing. They also seem to have no sense of following the accompaniment in the requisite style demanded by Schoenberg, perhaps because the instrumentalists aren't doing it either. Cleo Laine with the Nash Ensemble did a better job of it without being great.
The fact that these sprechstimme vocals are not to be sung but spoken in a very theatrical way also makes it difficult for vocalists to ignore the words. For those who don't know, sprechstimme is speaking a vocal part that is still notated with (approximate) pitch and exact rhythmic values. The note pitch should not be maintained the way a singer would normally do but as one would in speaking it. This is why classical singers are a poor fit for sprechstimme because it requires them to forget everything they have been taught. It is much closer to the way many less trained vocalists sing cabaret songs, half speaking them. I again recommend using cabaret/theater singers instead if they are willing to practice it adequately.
Here is a quote from Schoenberg: the singer “immediately abandons [the note] by falling or rising. The goal is certainly not at all a realistic, natural speech. On the contrary, the difference between ordinary speech and speech that collaborates in a musical form must be made plain. But it should not call singing to mind, either." Pierre Boulez noted "the question arises whether it is actually possible to speak according to a notation devised for singing. This was the real problem at the root of all the controversies. Schoenberg’s own remarks on the subject are not in fact clear.” By all accounts Schoenberg himself was dissatisfied with many performances of Lunaire.
Asking singers to ignore the words (poetry) they are speaking as actual words and grammatical phrases when their setting is fairly close to the norm is a bit much. But what you end up with now are younger classical singers and musicians without any stylistic awareness playing it as generic classical songs sung oddly.
I'm not sure who you are most unhappy with: Schoenberg for coming up with a vocal technique that is impossible to realize, or for being ambiguous about how to execute the technique, or with classical singers for failing to ignore their training in order to do this technique to your satisfaction. And I have no idea what you mean by "They also seem to have no sense of following the accompaniment in the requisite style demanded by Schoenberg, perhaps because the instrumentalists aren't doing it either."
Is Pierrot Lunair good music? Which provokes another question Bryan has explored here: of what are aesthetics made or judged?
Listening three times a few days ago, I heard once in French, then instruments only, then in German. I don't know either language (still working on my English), did not read anything about the piece except Bryan's article above and the comments that followed. Although therefore perhaps an inauthentic or unqualified assessment of a piece originally intended for audiences understanding the words, it also gives me freedom from any distracting literary analysis so I can isolate the musical qualities alone, including of course in the vocal forefront.
Is it good music? I could only admire the technical skill of the instrumentalists, precisely controlling their tone, annunciation and especially timing despite the music seemingly detached from virtually all conventions of tonality, rhythm and melody. There is nonetheless a coherency to the work, a spirit of continuous and living identity, a point of view expressed. It's not chaos or noise or accidental or automatic. Not mere devices but alive. All that taken together shows a composer of great skill and originality. Does that make it great music?
What lives in it has a sonic skin of fine tone in the strings and usually in the flute –until the screech or groan is intentional. It has impulse more lifelike than musical, often jarring and otherwise unpredictable, going places evocative of ironic and foreboding unfamiliarities, leaving me lost in a probably dangerous place but one I could not understand. I couldn't tap my foot, I couldn't guess the next pitch. Nor could I let down my guard. Perhaps this living music is a monster?
So too with the woman. I don't understand her words but so much communication is in the tone of voice, the emotional content (and effect) are mostly in the style of delivery…and this woman is in some type of madness. If it were a man, I could not even listen, I would run away or, if necessary, be ready to fight. Luckily it is a female voice, and frankly I entertain that perhaps much of her arousal and irrational annunciations could be erotic,luring me to tolerate danger, but I must be deluding myself and really it's time to hide all sharp objects.
Of course this is not musical analysis, and although I lack the technical language to describe her singing or the music, what good are the sounds without emotional response in the listener? What I hear is skillful and articulate and living, but it is not beautiful. It is madness, it is a perversion of music and of singing, it is grotesque and not world where children are given hope.
When I visit museums and galleries, I survey many works of art, with all sorts of qualities, many of which are not purely beautiful (or sometimes not beautiful at all), and it enriches my experience to have the varied reactions. These are not scientific studies of objective phenomena but stipulations of personal response. Even classical art where traditional forms are important has lasting relevance precisely because we like it. I am enriched even by the pieces I don't want to revisit, and I like much that I'm content to visit occasionally but do not want to live with. In this way art is rather like people. There are so many ways to assess. But judging people aesthetically is heartless, whereas my conscience is clear in calling Pierrot Lunair perverted and grotesque and not something I want to hear often.
But the funny thing is retains an allure, and in my wide range of emotional and subconscious world, there will probably be moments when I go there again, seeking the comfort in confirming that I'm not the only person who ever felt like this. I can't bring myself to call it good music but it sure is important that it be there when I need it.
Will, I always welcome your comments because they record an unmediated personal reaction to the music, which is really very valuable. Pieces like Pierrot Lunaire challenge us in a way that very few pieces do. That is their value. They put in question what music is and what it should do. I've been listening to Schoenberg for fifty years now and as you say, it is important that it be there. For my, I really enjoy the music because it is full of all sorts of substance. To me it is lyric, graceful, sometimes raucous, sometimes gentle, but what it always is, is profoundly musical. What he was doing and what, say, Taylor Swift is doing, are so different that it is hard to see them as the same art form.
Let me suggest that now you listen to Verklärte Nacht--also a very profound piece, but one that I think you will simply enjoy.
Will, your second comment got sent to Spam hell, so I rescued it. Yes, this music is very, very eerie, but I enjoy it nonetheless. I think that he was intuitively sensing the approach of the collapse of European civilization because of the First World War. I am going to do another post on Pierrot in a few days...
On the German recording of Pierrot Lunair I also listened to another short vocal work in German (with piano and maybe a small chamber ensemble) and an Ode to Napoleon sung in English. I expect these pieces were relatively close together in time because the same anxiety and tension was heard. Although I don't think they were of the actual sprechstimme style. I welcome your suggestion to revisit Verklarte Nacht, which I have on a CD and had listened to sometimes back 30 years ago. I recall it as much more listenable, not Brahms of course but somehow more conventional. Back in my LP days I used to listen to 2 of his chamber symphonies, that was when I was new to classical music and blindly exploring and that record opened my ears, I knew there that Schoenberg is special and that I liked him because he took me places I had never been in my psyche, places abstract but real. Another thing I liked was one of his reworking of a Bach piece, l was already deciding that Bach was my favorite of them all (when I had maybe 50 classical LPs as my total experience so far) and I admired how Schoenberg paid tribute to the master by somehow coloring the work yet leaving it recognizably Bach even to my freshman ears. So after not listening to Schoenberg for years, I will be interested in revisiting the CDs I have (a few more that I haven't mentioned) and of course Spotify will offer dozens of recordings. Mostly I listen to early music (or 70s rock) now but I feel I know what I'm getting into but will also be surprised with older, more experienced ears now.
This is a recurring element in my life. It used to be that if I got a new and better stereo I would have to listen to all my records over again, especially the ones with big orchestra. But nowadays, as I develop an increased understanding in a certain area, I have to go back and listen to certain music because my reception will now be different. Listening to piano performance now is more refined because I have heard a lot of very fine pianists and understand better what the piano is capable of.
https://www.thestrad.com/reviews/juilliard-quartet-schoenberg/18598.article
The above link takes you to a short review of a 7-disc set the Juilliard Quartet playing Schoenberg, t sets of the string quartets plus a Verklarte Nacht and a piano quintet. I've loaded into my Spotify for my work commutes this week. Each day is about 3 hours round trip lately, so I'll probably hear it all by Wednesday night! Driving is a great way to listen but I'll be glad when we start a new job closer to home. Sitting is terrible for your health!
Wow, Will, that's some serious listening!
Post a Comment