Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Metallica - Death Magnetic.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
lord lucan wrote: »if i was in a band as my full time occupation and my music was being downloaded for nothing i'd be livid.
Which is a fair point, however when the band once promoted bootlegging of their music, and then go back on that several years later. It left the band looking (and sounding) like a bunch of hypocrites.
And yes, Lars is indeed a twat.0 -
ShawnRaven wrote: »Which is a fair point, however when the band once promoted bootlegging of their music, and then go back on that several years later. It left the band looking (and sounding) like a bunch of hypocrites.
And yes, Lars is indeed a twat.
they actively encouraged the bootlegging of their live shows up to and including now,although their own downloads via livemetallica have killed a lot of that. they had no issue with that afaik,it was their recorded output that they took issue with. granted they got their first exposure via the trading of the bay area bashers stuff and 'no life til leather' demos but i never heard them actively encourage bootlegging their recorded music.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I have always felt that the two albums had the making of one Great Album.
1.Fuel
2.Aint My Bitch
3.The Memory Remians
4.The Unforgiven ii
5.King Nothing
6.Bad Seed
7.Bleeding Me
8.Hero Of The Day
9.Cure
10.Mama Said
11.Fixxer
12.Carpe Diem Baby
13.Wasting My Hate
14.The Outlaw Torn
Bonus Track Last Caress/So What
What do you guys think would have been the 14 best tracks for one album ?
It would have done more for their credibility to release the second album in the same vein as System Of A Down released Steal This Album in 2002.
Good lord, can you imagine Metallica releasing something called "Steal This Album"? It goes against everything they stand for!
0 -
First things first, Metallica sought out Bob Rock, they wanted to change and they wanted to change in the direction of Bob Rock's previous work - ie The Cult, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, etc that's why he was hired.ShawnRaven wrote: »Of course, it took about 13 years before they got rid of Bob Rock, but is it too little too late?
Metallica's movement away from heavy music was not the work of Bob Rock. If you'd care to look at the facts you'd see the likes of The Cult and Motley Crue produced by far their heaviest (and sonically best) work with Bob Rock producing, namely Beyond Good And Evil and Motley Crue, both released well after Metallica worked with him on the black album. You should try listening to them, you'll see that what you dislike about the last few years of Metallica has little to do with Bob Rock. Bob didn't lead them anywhere they weren't already going.
If you think about it, the only new music Metallica wrote in over a ten year period was Load and ReLoad (which were all written around the same time, yeah?) which was a definite attempt to not be a Metal band. Does that strike you as the act of people interested in writing music or with any sort of creative spark? Song writing is a skill, like any skill you have to work at it to stay sharp. What was obvious with stanger is that they had completely lost their way with songwriting. If you recall the hilarious Temptation listening scene with Lar's oul fella when he said if it was his track he'd delete it and Lars mentioned they were thinking of opening the album with that awful, awful tune? They don't strike me as people who listen to Metal music anymore, I dunno, could be way off the mark but when they were at their best they were immersed in the genre, they toured with their peers, they were aware of what was going on and where Metal was going. These days they strike me as people who don't really have an interest in Metal who happen to be in a band.
It was very easy to blame stanger on Bob Rock and, let's be honest, who'd say "I thought stanger was a good idea" but, as that film shows, he pretty much coaxed new music from people who showed little interest in being in a band and writing music, let alone being in the same room as each other. If not for him would that band even exist anymore? As this new album has shown, Metallica's lack of song ideas and stunning ability to botch a mix is still evident and Lars tried to fob it off again, saying something like they were happy to go with whatever's Rick Rubin's vision of Metallica was. It's bollocks. There's no way people as control-hungry as Lars and James didn't have their hands all over that mix. The only problem with Metallica is Metallica. Bob Rock is ok :pac:
I do think they were right to sue Napster though. To their eternal credit, they had the balls to do what every professional musician wanted to do.
Perhaps I shoud start a Bob Rock Is OK internet petition...
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
In fairness, Nothing Else Matters was spot on for the day that was in it. What Metallica song would you think would be more apt to play at a concert tribute to a guy who died of AIDS, For Whom The Bell Tolls? Creeping Death?
Didn't stop Guns N Roses doing "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" now did it? :P0 -
First things first, Metallica sought out Bob Rock, they wanted to change and they wanted to change in the direction of Bob Rock's previous work - ie The Cult, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, etc that's why he was hired.
I don't buy that for a second, primarily because they had already done that with certain songs with And Justice For All. They didn't need Rock to do that.Metallica's movement away from heavy music was not the work of Bob Rock. If you'd care to look at the facts you'd see the likes of The Cult and Motley Crue produced by far their heaviest (and sonically best) work with Bob Rock producing, namely Beyond Good And Evil and Motley Crue, both released well after Metallica worked with him on the black album. You should try listening to them, you'll see that what you dislike about the last few years of Metallica has little to do with Bob Rock. Bob didn't lead them anywhere they weren't already going.
Rock didn't lead them, but he was a big help in keeping them there for 13 years while mounds of sh*t came out of One on One studio and The Plant! Crue is a bad example as Girls Girls Girls was pretty much their first commercially successful album, and Rock wasn't involved in that. Beyond Good and Evil was a commercial disaster for The Cult, as was the previous one he produced (their self titled album aka black sheep), the only successful album he did for them was Sonic Temple, so he's 1/3 there.
Trust me, i'm no stranger to Bob Rock, i actually don't mind Payola$ or Rock & Hyde (same band to a certain degree), i just think he's a jinx as far as production goes. Cult didn't make a great album after Sonic Temple (although Rock tried, Zito failed miserably), Jovi stopped making listenable albums after Keep The Faith (thanks again Bob!), trust me, i think his commercial successes turned said bands into failures in the long run.If you think about it, the only new music Metallica wrote in over a ten year period was Load and ReLoad (which were all written around the same time, yeah?) which was a definite attempt to not be a Metal band. Does that strike you as the act of people interested in writing music or with any sort of creative spark? Song writing is a skill, like any skill you have to work at it to stay sharp. What was obvious with stanger is that they had completely lost their way with songwriting. If you recall the hilarious Temptation listening scene with Lar's oul fella when he said if it was his track he'd delete it and Lars mentioned they were thinking of opening the album with that awful, awful tune? They don't strike me as people who listen to Metal music anymore, I dunno, could be way off the mark but when they were at their best they were immersed in the genre, they toured with their peers, they were aware of what was going on and where Metal was going. These days they strike me as people who don't really have an interest in Metal who happen to be in a band.
I do pretty much agree with this, hence my wording earlier in the thread that they'd gone soft. If that is the case, then disband, or go under a different name (ala The Sharks/Shark Island). But don't go under the name "Metallica" if the first part of that word doesn't correspond to the music they may or may not be interested in performing anymore?As this new album has shown, Metallica's lack of song ideas and stunning ability to botch a mix is still evident and Lars tried to fob it off again, saying something like they were happy to go with whatever's Rick Rubin's vision of Metallica was. It's bollocks. There's no way people as control-hungry as Lars and James didn't have their hands all over that mix. The only problem with Metallica is Metallica. Bob Rock is ok :pac:
There's the thing, hard as i tried, i found it very difficult to find an album that Rubin produced that i didn't actually like, probably because he generally listens to a band or artist, throws in his two cents worth and usually the end product is what both parties agree with. Listen to the Manor Sessions by the Cult, which were basically what Astbury and Co wanted to go with for the final album. Rubin took one listen and said "lad's, this is bollocks, music is changing, that jingle jangly sound has to go otherwise you're gonna be stuck in categories such as Big Country and Level 42". Of course, Rubin was right, and Electric was redone and is now considered a classic album.
I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree on Bob Rock, I still maintain that he does produce some good albums, they end up harming a bands reputation in the long run.Perhaps I shoud start a Bob Rock Is OK internet petition...
Oh sweet jesus! :rolleyes:0 -
-
120_Minutes wrote: »J and i are totally on the same page. its scary.
Well there are two things you could do about that, either get a room, or get professional help!
0 -
If you recall, they hired Mike Clink for the initial AJFA sessions, who had just finished Appetite For Destruction. There is now way the songs on AJFA were ever going to sound commercial though. However, songs and song structure shifted dramatically between AJFA and the Black album. The demos made for that album by Hetfield and Ulrich well before they engaged Bob Rock and, yes it was they who went after him, show they had decided on a radical shift towards simpler rock songs and the big chorus well before Rock's involvement.ShawnRaven wrote: »I don't buy that for a second, primarily because they had already done that with certain songs with And Justice For All. They didn't need Rock to do that.
Exactly, he didn't push The Cult or Motley Crue into being more commercial, he was quite happy when they went heavier. Personally, Beyond Good And Evil and The Cult would be among my favourite Cult albums, aspecially the self titled one. So saying Rock intentionally kept Metallica light while allowing others get heavier doesn't make a lick of sense. As for commercial success, that has and never will be an indicator of the musical quality of an album. Stanger sold, what, 5 million copies?ShawnRaven wrote: »Rock didn't lead them, but he was a big help in keeping them there for 13 years while mounds of sh*t came out of One on One studio and The Plant! Crue is a bad example as Girls Girls Girls was pretty much their first commercially successful album, and Rock wasn't involved in that. Beyond Good and Evil was a commercial disaster for The Cult, as was the previous one he produced (their self titled album aka black sheep), the only successful album he did for them was Sonic Temple, so he's 1/3 there.
Yeah, hard rock was doing so well in the 90's after grunge it's amazing those records didn't sell when so many others who were big in the 80's did well like... like... like... help me out hereShawnRaven wrote: »Trust me, i'm no stranger to Bob Rock, i actually don't mind Payola$ or Rock & Hyde (same band to a certain degree), i just think he's a jinx as far as production goes. Cult didn't make a great album after Sonic Temple (although Rock tried, Zito failed miserably), Jovi stopped making listenable albums after Keep The Faith (thanks again Bob!), trust me, i think his commercial successes turned said bands into failures in the long run.
Absolutley, he worked with Trouble and Masters of Reality and helped make two of my favourite albums. His influence on Reign In Blood is also well known. However, it's been a long time since Rubin has done anything that has reached the level of his work in the 80's and early 90's and, yeah, I include Johnny Cash's later work in that too and the decline of Red Hot Chili Peppers. The difference is, he shaped those Cult songs, but he didn't write them, he sped up those Slayer songs but he didn't write them, just like Bob Rock didn't write the crap on Load or Reload. Mama Said would never be a heavy riff fest no matter how you tweak it. There will never be the killer riff in Hero Of The Day. He only had a hand in the creative process of stanger because the band were pretty much incapable of functioning in any regard. Even then, he didn't tell Lars to take off the snareShawnRaven wrote: »There's the thing, hard as i tried, i found it very difficult to find an album that Rubin produced that i didn't actually like, probably because he generally listens to a band or artist, throws in his two cents worth and usually the end product is what both parties agree with. Listen to the Manor Sessions by the Cult, which were basically what Astbury and Co wanted to go with for the final album. Rubin took one listen and said "lad's, this is bollocks, music is changing, that jingle jangly sound has to go otherwise you're gonna be stuck in categories such as Big Country and Level 42". Of course, Rubin was right, and Electric was redone and is now considered a classic album. Metallica have never, ever deviated far from the demos that James and Lars make. That's what they're aiming for and, while a producer might tweak the sound, no Metallica producer has ever been able to steer them too far away from the pre-concieved notion of how each song should sound which the boys have before they meet the producer and enter the studio. The new Metallica album has a lot of the same features of the last one. Different producer, same basic end result.
Guns 'N' Roses will never top Appetite For Destruction. Boston never topped their debut. AC/DC will never again reach the standard of Back In Black. Def Leppard won't better Hysteria no matter how hard they try. When a band makes a great album which sells big, it will always overshadow the rest of their work. Bob Rock had was involved in quite a few of the great rock albums of the late 80's and early 90's. It wasn't just the bands he worked with who suffered a drastic decline in popularity in the 90's, ask Extreme, Poison, Cinderella, Warrant, etc etc etc. Hard rock was like audio leprosy, nobody wanted to know. That, also, is not Bob Rock's fault.ShawnRaven wrote: »I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree on Bob Rock, I still maintain that he does produce some good albums, they end up harming a bands reputation in the long run.
Look, Metallica do their own thing, it's what has made them brilliant and tragic in equal measure, no producer is going to drastically change what they're trying to do at any given time. Metallica went where they went in the 90's because that's what they wanted to do. Bob Rock didn't push them there, nor did he keep them there. Bob Rock didn't make Metallica do medleys of the AJFA material live because they disliked it so much 10 years ago. If you want to make a great, heavy album with a superb, fat sound, then he's the man to talk to, his list of credits is testament to that. However, Metallica, not Bob Rock, chose not to.0 -
-
-
The demos made for that album by Hetfield and Ulrich well before they engaged Bob Rock and, yes it was they who went after him, show they had decided on a radical shift towards simpler rock songs and the big chorus well before Rock's involvement.
Again, my point wasn't so much Rock's fault for sending them in that direction, my gripe with Bob was keeping them in that said direction for 13 years. The difference between Metallica and The Cult, is that the latter only worked with Bob Rock sparingly so albums sounded different. Metallica continued album after album, that by the time Reload was released, a lot of people basically gave up. It was a two way street.Exactly, he didn't push The Cult or Motley Crue into being more commercial, he was quite happy when they went heavier. Personally, Beyond Good And Evil and The Cult would be among my favourite Cult albums, aspecially the self titled one. So saying Rock intentionally kept Metallica light while allowing others get heavier doesn't make a lick of sense. As for commercial success, that has and never will be an indicator of the musical quality of an album. Stanger sold, what, 5 million copies?
BGAE was a great sound considering the disaster Rock had produced in 1995. Plus not a lot of people were expecting a comeback so soon after they had initially split. It's horses for courses though, some bands change their sound for the better (Something, i believe The Cult did with Rick Rubin in 86-87, and it stood to them). I honestly don't believe Metallica pulled that off in the same fashion as far as album quality is concerned, and Rock does take some of the blame for that.Yeah, hard rock was doing so well in the 90's after grunge it's amazing those records didn't sell when so many others who were big in the 80's did well like... like... like... help me out here
Gladly! The Eagles made their biggest comeback in the mid 90s when Grunge was still going (albiet dying on it's knees) and the britpop scene was in full swing. Sorry, i don't buy that one for a second.Absolutley, he worked with Trouble and Masters of Reality and helped make two of my favourite albums. His influence on Reign In Blood is also well known. However, it's been a long time since Rubin has done anything that has reached the level of his work in the 80's and early 90's and, yeah, I include Johnny Cash's later work in that too and the decline of Red Hot Chili Peppers. The difference is, he shaped those Cult songs, but he didn't write them, he sped up those Slayer songs but he didn't write them, just like Bob Rock didn't write the crap on Load or Reload. Mama Said would never be a heavy riff fest no matter how you tweak it. There will never be the killer riff in Hero Of The Day. He only had a hand in the creative process of stanger because the band were pretty much incapable of functioning in any regard. Even then, he didn't tell Lars to take off the snare Metallica have never, ever deviated far from the demos that James and Lars make. That's what they're aiming for and, while a producer might tweak the sound, no Metallica producer has ever been able to steer them too far away from the pre-concieved notion of how each song should sound which the boys have before they meet the producer and enter the studio. The new Metallica album has a lot of the same features of the last one. Different producer, same basic end result.
You've got me there, i can't disagree with that.Guns 'N' Roses will never top Appetite For Destruction. Boston never topped their debut. AC/DC will never again reach the standard of Back In Black. Def Leppard won't better Hysteria no matter how hard they try. When a band makes a great album which sells big, it will always overshadow the rest of their work. Bob Rock had was involved in quite a few of the great rock albums of the late 80's and early 90's. It wasn't just the bands he worked with who suffered a drastic decline in popularity in the 90's, ask Extreme, Poison, Cinderella, Warrant, etc etc etc. Hard rock was like audio leprosy, nobody wanted to know. That, also, is not Bob Rock's fault.
I thought AC/DC came pretty close with The Razor's Edge to be fair. That was a milestone, as was the tour for it. And for it to come out at the same time grunge was kicking off and still for it to garner some success, one has to give credit where it's due. It also kept the familiarity of the Brian Johnson era as well. And that's where Metallica failed by alienating a lot of its older fans. Fair enough, there's gonna be the Bon Scott disciples who will have a hard time accepting Angus Young, that can be their cross to bare. But you hear of a new AC/DC album and people get excited, you hear of a new Metallica, and it's like "meh, come back when we get a time machine that works".
Extreme received it's highest popularity in the early 1990s, moreso than they did in the 80s too, for the record.Look, Metallica do their own thing, it's what has made them brilliant and tragic in equal measure, no producer is going to drastically change what they're trying to do at any given time. Metallica went where they went in the 90's because that's what they wanted to do. Bob Rock didn't push them there, nor did he keep them there. Bob Rock didn't make Metallica do medleys of the AJFA material live because they disliked it so much 10 years ago. If you want to make a great, heavy album with a superb, fat sound, then he's the man to talk to, his list of credits is testament to that. However, Metallica, not Bob Rock, chose not to.
I agree with most of this. Bob Rock is not a metal producer though, he's an amazing producer of rock albums, but he is in way shape or form a metal producer. But again, it's a two way street, As i tried to imply earlier in the thread, Rock, as well as he produces albums, i think sometimes sets the bar too high as far as production goes, to the point where the next guy can't even compete. Which does more damage to a band in the long run.0 -
He produced three out of four albums for The Cult. That's not sparingly. It's not like Metallica were in the studio with him every summer either.ShawnRaven wrote: »Again, my point wasn't so much Rock's fault for sending them in that direction, my gripe with Bob was keeping them in that said direction for 13 years. The difference between Metallica and The Cult, is that the latter only worked with Bob Rock sparingly so albums sounded different. Metallica continued album after album, that by the time Reload was released, a lot of people basically gave up. It was a two way street.
As I said, the self titled album is my favourite Cult album. It may not have sold much but, musically, it can't be faulted. It's not the typical huge Bob Rock sound either, he created a sound to suit the music. Again, Bob Rock didn't write the songs for the Cult and he didn't write the songs on Load and ReLoad either. If you believe there's a quality issue with those Metallica albums you need to start with the songwriters. The Cult had great songs to bring to Electric, they had slop to bring to Ceremony (with the exception of the ass kicking Wild Hearted Son) and, while Zito didn't really do a great job, the song quality wasn't really there for anyone to turn that album into a silk purse. I'd say the same about stanger and Death Megnetic too.ShawnRaven wrote: »BGAE was a great sound considering the disaster Rock had produced in 1995. Plus not a lot of people were expecting a comeback so soon after they had initially split. It's horses for courses though, some bands change their sound for the better (Something, i believe The Cult did with Rick Rubin in 86-87, and it stood to them). I honestly don't believe Metallica pulled that off in the same fashion as far as album quality is concerned, and Rock does take some of the blame for that.
Yes, that famous 80's hard rock band the Eagles, good call :pac:ShawnRaven wrote: »Gladly! The Eagles made their biggest comeback in the mid 90s when Grunge was still going (albiet dying on it's knees) and the britpop scene was in full swing. Sorry, i don't buy that one for a second.
I think this thread proves it's anything but meh. W'll agree to differ on the Razor's Edge, three or four good singles doesn't make a classic album to meShawnRaven wrote: »I thought AC/DC came pretty close with The Razor's Edge to be fair. That was a milestone, as was the tour for it. And for it to come out at the same time grunge was kicking off and still for it to garner some success, one has to give credit where it's due. It also kept the familiarity of the Brian Johnson era as well. And that's where Metallica failed by alienating a lot of its older fans. Fair enough, there's gonna be the Bon Scott disciples who will have a hard time accepting Angus Young, that can be their cross to bare. But you hear of a new AC/DC album and people get excited, you hear of a new Metallica, and it's like "meh, come back when we get a time machine that works".
Apologies, let me replace 80's and 90's with pre-grunge/post-grunge as the point in time stadium filling hard rock, the likes of which was quite popular in the 80's, **** itself and died.ShawnRaven wrote: »Extreme received it's highest popularity in the early 1990s, moreso than they did in the 80s too, for the record.ShawnRaven wrote: »I agree with most of this. Bob Rock is not a metal producer though, he's an amazing producer of rock albums, but he is in way shape or form a metal producer. But again, it's a two way street, As i tried to imply earlier in the thread, Rock, as well as he produces albums, i think sometimes sets the bar too high as far as production goes, to the point where the next guy can't even compete. Which does more damage to a band in the long run.
So you're saying bands shouldn't put out such good albums in case they can't repeat the feat in the future? Aim low?
You're exactly right, Bob Rock is not a Metal producer, he's a fantastic, probably the best there has been for a long time rock producer. The sound of his albums is, stanger and that ****e Skid Row album excepted (but they were another band without a clue what they were doing at that time) pretty much bang on. Thos Jovi albums still sound amazing 20 years later, even if you dislike the tunes. Same goes for Sonic Temple, same goes for Dr. Feelgood, same for the black album. If Metallica wanted to be a Metal band they'd have hired a Metal producer. They didn't, they hired Bob Rock and that says as much about their intentions at that time as needs to be said. That's not Bob Rock's fault 0 -
Advertisement
-
He produced three out of four albums for The Cult. That's not sparingly. It's not like Metallica were in the studio with him every summer either.
The Cult only had four albums? That's news to me! Three out of eight is what you're looking for there. I'd call THAT sparingly. He did two of those in a row, and there was a breakup in between the two.As I said, the self titled album is my favourite Cult album. It may not have sold much but, musically, it can't be faulted. It's not the typical huge Bob Rock sound either, he created a sound to suit the music. Again, Bob Rock didn't write the songs for the Cult and he didn't write the songs on Load and ReLoad either. If you believe there's a quality issue with those Metallica albums you need to start with the songwriters. The Cult had great songs to bring to Electric, they had slop to bring to Ceremony (with the exception of the ass kicking Wild Hearted Son) and, while Zito didn't really do a great job, the song quality wasn't really there for anyone to turn that album into a silk purse. I'd say the same about stanger and Death Megnetic too.
I'd disagree with Ceremony. If you can get your mits on the stuff from Ceremony demos, or even the Sonic Temple demos, they were fairly solid. The problem laid at the feet of both Ian Astbury (as Duffy has taken a step back, just like Ian had done with ST), and Richie Zito. With the Self Titled album, that was a farce, because Rock took over from Rubin, who'd started producing it. Rock took that over rather than start from scratch.Yes, that famous 80's hard rock band the Eagles, good call :pac:
Alright, i was a little off the mark, my point was that you can't blame the grunge movement for the production of crap albums.So you're saying bands shouldn't put out such good albums in case they can't repeat the feat in the future? Aim low?
Not strictly speaking, but definitely don't throw all your eggs in one basket!You're exactly right, Bob Rock is not a Metal producer, he's a fantastic, probably the best there has been for a long time rock producer. The sound of his albums is, stanger and that ****e Skid Row album excepted (but they were another band without a clue what they were doing at that time) pretty much bang on. Thos Jovi albums still sound amazing 20 years later, even if you dislike the tunes. Same goes for Sonic Temple, same goes for Dr. Feelgood, same for the black album. If Metallica wanted to be a Metal band they'd have hired a Metal producer. They didn't, they hired Bob Rock and that says as much about their intentions at that time as needs to be said. That's not Bob Rock's fault
Rock only produced one Jovi album if I recall correctly, Keep The Faith. Fairbairn did SWW and NJ. They aged well. KTF i have to say didn't, i loved it at the time and aged well for the first five or so years, but listening to it now, save for three or four songs, it's horribly dated. However Rock did do what he intended to do, and that was produce a big comeback album after Jon and Richie came back from their solo projects. Sonic Temple i won't disagree with, it's a timeless classic and given the Ceremony demos, i wonder what would have become of those had Rock not been busy with Metallica to produce Ceremony.
Yeah, i think you should start a Bob Rock is ok petition! 0
Advertisement