OK, you may think this is a relatively easy target for an alternative music loving website. Let's face it, we don't champion the careers of boybands such as Westlife, A1, manufactured groups like Allstars and solo stars like Robbie Williams that often (if at all). Looking back on the Stock, Aitken and Waterman era of the eighties, you wish someone in their teens or something had told you about The Smiths, or told you to pay more attention to New Order, instead of remembering Kylie, Jason, Rick Astley, Mel and Kim, and I could go on.
So Pop Idol would be something that I would be cringing about for an eternity, right? Not necessarily so. I think the people that have put in the effort to produce the vocal displays on show have done an outstanding job given the time taken to get the participants from first audition to now. In this case, I mean the contestants and the coaches, who took timid sounding voices and progressed them further, ironing out wrinkles along the way. I also have sympathies for the pressure put on the contestants, particularly at this critical stage; up to Darius leaving tonight, I think that Will, Gareth, and Darius had coped extremely well with the pressure being put on them by the voting procedure, the influence of the judges, and the desire to win the competition.
The main source of my annoyance is with the following: The Judges.
Firstly, I understand that constructive criticism has to come from the judges, but diplomacy has certainly taken a vacation when words have left the mouths of Simon Cowell. And these are people who have been learning the professional trade for 20+ weeks. How long have Messrs Campbell, Waterman, and Cowell been in the business? around 15-20 years I would imagine. They criticise the performances saying one wasn't as good as the previous one. I understand that, but the manner in which they voice their opinions smacks of arrogance. Do I really need to ask how long it took Cowell to get where he is today? Do I need to point out the failures on Peter Waterman's record career (Reynolds girls, anyone?). It concerns me that the judges appear to think that the remaining contestants need to be the finished article before they produce a single. And
But it does worry me that the Music industry is swaying to the industry rather than the music. For instance, I would expect had this been a guitar band getting a record deal, they would be looking for someone like Gil Norton, Stephen Street, Steve Osbourne, Nigel Godrich, Arthur Baker etc to produce, as these have worked with some of the best bands around, and produced their best albums.
Secondly, I was irritated at times when the judges included certain contestants in, and then at a later date told them they were not suitable for this format.
Case 1. Rik Waller The proverbial "Rocky" underdog, having the voice, but not have the image to be perceived as a pop idol, he gets to the last ten or something, is forced to pull out, but is ridiculed later in the series for his appearance. Hold on, if there was no intention anyway of him getting that far, why allow him to get his hopes up by letting him continue? It appears to be a double-standard in place, and it's all in the name of entertainment.
Case 2. Will's friend Andrew Again, another confliction with image. But they only spotted midway through the competition. Firstly, Anyone but Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder would have spotted the distinctive gothic appearance, and the clash with their 'wholesome, just seventeen poster face' requirements.
I know you're not supposed to discriminate, but if they are never going to get that far, why mess with someone's dreams that way? On the upside, Small Faces appeared on TOTP2 on the same night; if anyone wishes to look at bright young things who grafted for years - look no further.
Craig Aston.
Alas, for those of us who choose to live in indie-ville, the last three or four years have been pretty odd times. Though few like to admit it, Britpop died in ’98 (and spent most of ’97 in intensive care) and since then you’ve either had to put up with the decline of your favourite bands (Oasis, Suede, Catatonia, Supergrass), or been forced to look out for up n’ coming bands that inevitably split up or get dropped by their record label after just one album.
Throughout this time, the NME’s still championed the scene, inventing and supporting various movements like Stool-rock, N.A.M., nu-metal and nu-pyschedelia. But now, just when alternative music has finally found it’s footing again, now that established bands like Pulp, Divine Comedy,
Now I’ve got nothing against dance music. One of my housemates at University decided to learn how to be a DJ during the three years we lived together, and after that kind of force feeding of music you can’t help but like some tracks and tunes, (indeed this is probably true of any genre, bar country of course). But it seems to me that now that dance has gone so mainstream, that so many publications are devoted to covering it, that there’s no need for the NME to cover it as well. That the paper is three years late in picking up on a scene is pretty embarrassing too, and when you see the same artists covered in Smash Hits, well, you know something’s gone terribly, terribly wrong.
But it’s not just that it covers a type of music that I’m not that interested in. The main problem is that nowadays it’s trying to be everything to everyone. From R n’ B, nu metal, indie, manufactured pop, and dance, and all the various hybrids of these genres, there’s no type of music the paper now doesn’t cover. Which is all very admirable, but with so many subjects to include, inevitably each genre only has a certain amount of space, and too often recently only the most commercial and / or hyped bands get the chance to appear in their hallowed pages. Thus a ridiculous amount of music fails to get the coverage that it deserves too, and the matter is made far worse as shite such as Cast or Shed Seven still receive full page interviews and live reviews.
It’s also far too self-congratulatory at the moment, despite the ridiculous amount of criticism that has been received from readers and printed in the letters page (which normally receive just a snide insult). In the last month we’ve seen the paper slap itself on the back after The White Stripes received generous praise from tabloids and even the broadsheets after an NME feature, whilst they also claimed that they alone are responsible for moving The Strokes from the Evening Session Stage to the Main Stage at Reading. Which may even be plausibly true, but there’s no need to devote a whole page to the story.
It wouldn’t be so bad, but alas Melody Maker closed down last year, so there is no longer any alternative. If the NME ever decided to stop covering alternative music, then there’d no longer be any printed publications covering it at all – and don’t suggest Q as that’s mainly just old music for old people. If the NME was not around to champion up and coming bands, then a lot of fantastic music would not get the publicity that it so desperately needs at the moment.
Okay, so in the last few weeks, what with festival season and all, the paper has returned to a more alternative and rockier side, but even then in the Reading/Leeds special edition it was Eminem on the front cover, despite the fact that he was pretty much the only dance act on the main stage the entire weekend. And it’s not as if he was even the act of the weekend either, receiving mostly negative reviews across the board, including in the NME. Clearly the choice was made for financial reasons, and financial reasons alone.
So what should the future be? Well, once again it comes down to profit, and so if dance sells, expect indie coverage to flounder. But if the world is to start making sense, either the paper should revert to it’s old ways and cover innovative and exciting music again, and not whatever is popular in that particular week, or expand, add an extra sixty or so pages (and an extra pound to the cover price if need be), and incorporate as many different genre’s, and artists, as possible.
Because if it doesn’t do something soon, I cant imagine anyone staying with a publication that just doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be, and doesn’t mind offending it’s readership whilst it makes it’s mind up. And it better do something soon, as there’s now so many alternatives arriving on the net, people may start to no longer care, and it would be a real loss if the paper was ever to close.
Alex Finch.
Agree / disagree with this article? Or any of the others on this page? Then tell us on our message board.
I buy a lot of books. Everybody does. More or less. Mostly paperback. obviously, at five or six quid. The odd hardback as well, when the fifteen to twenty nicker is burning a whole on my pocket. It's not that I resent paying out. Obviously on the odd occasion I make a mistake and end up with something unbearable but usually I get my money's worth.
You see, even if it's a really wonderful novel I'm never going to read it again. Sure, maybe in 25 years, but even then I'd have to be pretty bored before I went back over old ground.
Most people feel exactly the same way. There's always going to be the odd Rabbit-lover desperate to go through Watership Down fourteen times a year every year, but generally we crave new sensation rather than comfortable familiarity.
Therefore, why do we clog up our living space with shelves and shelves of dust-gathering "C & A" tomes (so called because they are closed forever)? Are we mad? Well, speaking as an unqualified non-psychologist, the answer is yes, we are!
It's time to act now! Together we can defeat the WHSmith-inspired quarter of rip-off Britain. There are several strategies the non-purchaser can adopt to continue their love of literature. The best is the old "stealing" gambit. This is fine if you are congenitally dishonest, but for those of us who balk at shoving things down our trousers in Waterstones - let's face it, we're in the majority - all is not lost.
Second-hand and charity book shops are another alternative to buying new, but you need to be a bit careful as you can get a bit carried away in these places and end up the proud owner of both volumes of Goethes' Faust (as I am). We want to keep our homes free from things we've only read once, but not at the expense of stuffing them to bursting with volumes we'll never read ever.
No, in the final analysis the message to all reasoned, thinking Britons (and citizens of similarly fortunate nations) couldn't be clearer: Support your local library!
Chris Denton.
It’s slowly driving me mad. If I see one more all dancing, all singing, all patronising advert I think I’m going to stop watching tv altogether and actually do something with my life.
Well, okay, so that’d obviously be just crazy but it is driving me to the point of despair. And it’s been slowly getting worse. Maybe ten or twelve years ago it wasn’t so noticeable, with only two channels actually showing them, but now with the advent of digital tv sometimes they’re impossible to avoid. Sky shows 16 minutes per hour on Sky One, E4 a similar amount, whilst Play UK have done the seemingly impossible and made a 24 minute episode of The Larry Sanders show into 35 minutes.
If you were unlucky, you could easily spend an hour watching adverts whilst flipping around channels looking for something interesting to watch (especially on a Sunday). And don’t even get me started on those channels who cut programmes just so they can fit more ads in to an hour. Oh no. Whilst I know that channels have to fund themselves somehow, but this is no reason to be subjected to so much nonsense, which often lasts so long that your concentration and enjoyment on the rare occasions that something good is on is often spoilt.
Okay, there have been some fairly amusing effective or interesting over the years (various Heineken, the current Egg adverts, last christmas’ gory-tastic drink driving warnings), but in the majority of cases, it’s all too obvious how the advert makers are trying to sell us these products too. Despite god knows how many thousands of new adverts that are produced each year, there are only about six different types of advert: Beauty – scenery or people (car, holiday, healthy products); Comedy – hilarious sketches which normally have nothing to do with said product, or even worse, end on a terrible pun (within reason any product, but especially alcohol); Envy, ie. happy families in beautiful homes using a certain product (air fresheners, loans, children’s toys); Friendly (Banks, Coffee, Supermarkets); Greed – you just have to have this product (Boys toys in general). Confusion - what the fuck is this all about? (newspapers, websites). It’s all so repetitive now that something has just got to be done.
If we controlled the world (and one day, my friends, one day) we’d enforce the following ten point guide on how to stop the country’s sanity degrading from this tedious rubbish. 1). Advert breaks of only eight minutes per hour. 2). No advert can be repeated on one channel within three hours. 3). No more cute animals selling products. 4). No, not even the PG Tips monkeys. 5). No more celebrity endorsements. Give even more out of work ‘shit actors’ a chance to earn at least something. At least it would be more amusing. 6). More shocking but unintentionally hilarious drink driving / ambulance / police service adverts please. 7). More adverts for local businesses. Like the Curry Shop, down the high street. 8). No adverts for things we already know about and have no choice but use – the royal mail, water, public transport etc. 9). No adverts for any film which is ‘direct to video’. 10). And no adverts for any manufactured teen pop either for that matter.
After all, if something isn't done soon, just low long will it be before all programmes are only two minutes long, and hosted by animated washing powder boxes, eh? eh?
The Trouble With Search Engines
Is that they clearly aren’t working. People are constantly typing in certain phrases, looking for particular information, and not finding it. And how do we know this? Well, because recently Geocities has updated it’s site statistics page, so we’ve been able to find out just how you people find this website via search engines.
We’d expected the ususal keywords such as tv, film, music, magazine, etc., to come up, but we were surprised when a fair few other bizarre keywords and phrases often were more popular than the those. And as the results scared us so much that we thought we’d just have to share them with you.
“Marry and eminem"” and "Tv+Spanking" - Index page
“Stephenson+Geoff+Shit", "couples fuck out doors in london" and "Nick Leeson interview" - Audience Participation
“Noel Gallagher Naked” - Wish it were true interview No.1
“Coco Shunter” and “Vanessa Feltz Pictures” - Classic TV: Brasseye
"anne robinson's worst moment on television" and "self hypnosis transvestite" - Tv Comment
"drunken girls caught on camera" - Faking You've Been Framed
“adam ricket+nude+pics" and "free pics bart simpson having sex with lisa simpson" - Tv News
"calista flockhart toes pictures", "david icke is a cunt" and "princess anne naked" - Wish it were true? news
“Big Spanners” - Big Bob’s Page
"corey haim and corey feldman commit suicide" - Wish it were true? movie news
"Eminemn Nude Pics" and "nude vanessa feltz" - The Trouble With...
"top 10 dog poos" - The Top 10 Best And Worst Bands In 2000.
"medical examining of vagina" - Romance Film Review
And whilst we can help out with a couple of these, the majority have, perhaps sadly, nothing to do with the site. Still, we haven’t a clue what can be done. And to be honest, if people are going to type in such bizarre nonsense, at least we benefit from the links...
Sure, okay, he’s been very funny at times. His constant harassment of his parents and co-host’s lives has been sickeningly inventive and occasionally extremely offensive (at least to those involved).
He’s pushed back a lot of tv boundaries, broken a lot of taboos, and his Cancer special was truly shocking but classic tv, in which few can deny the very effective message put across.
I’m slowly having more sympathy with Tom’s victims then Tom himself (though that also may come from slight jealousy re: Drew Barrymore, but I digress). His recent acting attempts in mainstream cinema (Road Trip and Charlie’s Angel’s ) have been a little weak, playing an all too familiar persona, and I can’t really imagine a successful move in to film.
So where can he go from here? Well, keeping it vaguely original and taboo breaking would be fun. But it dosn't seem likely, especially after his recent advert appearances, and a trip down the Richard Pryor career road seems somewhat inevitable, sadly.
Sigh. I know a million different critics have bemoaned the Hollywood tradition of remaking perfectly good films and turning them shit, but normally there's some (poor) reason for the remake. Like it's in a different language and American's can't cope with subtitles. Or (shock horror) it was originally made in black and white, and so clearly a colour version will be much, much better. Just like Psycho was, infact. Oh, and The Birdcage too – wasn’t that so much funnier for having Robin Williams in it?
But now things have become ridiculous. Because soon the remake of Mike Hodges’ classic seventies drama Get Carter hits these shores. Get Carter. The classic British film with an outstanding performance from Micheal Caine. A film of it's time, of it's class, and perhaps most importantly of it's context. And its even in colour. And in English (though of course are northern accents do confuse the yanks some times). And Sylvester Stallone is going to star. And Caine has a small role in the movie.
The five page rant I originally wrote in disbelief in the world has been cut down to the following three words. For Fuck’s Sake.
There is just NO NEED for this film. For any of these films. There is no need to update this movie to America. To the current day. To replace an amazing Oscar winning actor with one of the worst offenders in motion picture history (sure, Rocky may be fine, but what about Oscar? Or Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot?).
There was no need to update Psycho, Meet Joe Black or Les Diaboliques – but Studio heads with a spare fifty million just lying are prepared to spend the money, as there’s always a lot of guaranteed free press and general ‘awareness of the product’ attached to the project.
Sigh. There's no point in all this. Many more films will be remade. All of them will fail to improve on the original. So the answer is to simply not go and see them. See the original. And when in thirty or so year’s time your kids want to see the remake of Babe or American Beauty, refuse point blank to take them…..
The Trouble With MTV2
Is that it’s all a bit of a mess. Sometimes very good, but often surprisingly poor. I know that they have a commitment to broadcast to a wide variety of tastes, but this is no excuse for the amount of poor soft American Punk Rock and Nu- Metal songs that they play. If I see the Foo Fighters, the Offspring or the Bloodhound Gang on the channel one more time I’m going to scream or kill someone. Or at the very least write some sort of article moaning a lot. Hey….now there’s an idea.
Rather annoyingly, now that it's not regularly charting, indie and alternative music doesn’t get much coverage on tv anymore. The BBC’s Glastonbury highlights were made up of the most popular bands, but by no means the best, and the camera’s didn’t even bother to visit the new bands’ tent. Jools Holland is tediously mainstream, TFI just tedious, MTV loves Britney to death and rarely shows anything interesting (unless it’s a huge hit),and obviously MTV Extra, Dance, VH1, VH1 Classic and The Box don’t cater to my choice in music (which, is, obviously, fair enough).
But I had high hopes for MTV2. I thought that it’d save me a lot of money buying dodgy singles just because a journalist at the NME or Melody Maker recommended the band, or claimed that they were the new best live band in Britain etc, etc. Or at the very least play some classic tunes from the now much criticised Britpop era. But it’s, sadly, surprisingly mainstream.
Due to the fact that I’m working shifts at the moment I tend to find myself watching music television at strange times during the day and/or night. So I found myself still awake last night, at about 1am, and was treated us to what was supposedly the best new tunes and classic favourites. But what we actually got was a fair bit of Korn, Bloodhound Gang, Slipknot, Foo Fighters, other tedious sports punk and nu-metal bands. What was even more annoying was the fact that at night, for some unexplained reason, they don’t even inform you what the song is, or who its by (though they do by day….).
When compared to the ‘alt rock radio station’, on Sky Digital (Channel 852) which plays some extremely cool and diverse alternative music, MTV2 already looks embarrassingly dated. Alt.Rock Radio displays the title of the song (against a blue screen backdrop), artist, album, and record company details, throughout each track, which as you may imagine, comes in handy a fair amount. Last night they played Mogwai, Black Box Recorder, Boom Boom Satellite, Blur, Dark Star, Justin Lewis Orchestra, Smog, Maxim and Skin, King Biscuit Time and Sigur Ros, amongst others. A fair few of which I’m now going to go out and buy singles by (especially Sigur Ros and Smog).
Now I’m not saying that all of it was superb, or to my tastes, but at least it was varied. Interesting. So if you’re ever bored, I’d highly recommend you visit this channel. It’s just a shame that they can’t play the video’s as well, because, rather obviously, a major point of listening to music on tv is, of course, that you can see the video too. And sometimes you don’t want to just watch a blue screen….
But we’re not ones to just sit and moan, with no intention of attempting to change things (albeit incredibly slightly). Y’see, MTV2’s greatest asset is it’s viewers choice programme. By logging on to the website, www.mtv2.co.uk, you can choose an hour of music television. And that is when, the channel, inevitably is at it’s best. Last night Danny Stacey’s choice resembled a Shine album (including Blur, Radiohead, Supergrass, Fun Lovin’ Criminals, as well as REM, Nirvana) but was still pretty good. And far better, this morning they played someone called ‘Squiffy’s choice, which included video’s by Soulwax, Placebo, Gomez, Kent, My Vitriol, Mansun and a fair few other cool bands.
So today I logged on to their incredibly slow but very pretty web site, until I found the option to create my own hour of MTV2. (The easiest and quickest way is to go to the Create option, choose Artist search and then select the tracks you’d like to see). And thus chose an hour of my favourite tunes from the mid to late nineties and a few more recent tracks. Fourteen tracks in total. And whilst the selection available isn’t absolute by any means, it is pretty good (though no My Life Story, Ooberman, Laptop, Clint Boon Experience, or Bellatrix, sadly). It took about an hour, but was reasonably fun, like making a ‘High Fidelity’-esque visual compilation tape.
And finally, after making a few changes (alas David Devant and His Spirt Wife and Elliot Smith were cut from the list), I settled on the following: Coldplay – Yellow; Supergrass – Caught By the Fuzz; The Divine Comedy – Everybody Knows; Hefner – The Sweetness Lies Within; JJ72 – Long Way South; Pulp- Babies; Muse – Unintended; Ultrasound – I’ll Show You Mine; Tindersticks – Rented Rooms, Lampchop – Up With The People; Arab Strap – Here We Go; Travis – Happy; Radiohead – Fake Plastic Trees; Mercury Rev – Opus 40. (It should be noted that this list is a couple of years out of date now - Ed.)
Now I’m sure that there are some people out there who will absolutely hate my selection. Or laugh at some of it (and yes, I know, Happy by Travis is no classic, but its just one of those songs that brings back fond memories). But, I think that should be the point of MTV2. It gives anyone the chance to subject the nation to their favourite songs. You can stop the channel from just showing shite music that you don’t like all the time. So, if you want to see some decent music on tv, log on now, and do something about it.
The Trouble With The BARB TV Ratings System.
Whilst reading through The Sun this morning, (I was looking for Big Brother reviews, honest) I noticed the BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board Limited) Tv Ratings – and was mildly surprised by how low the figures are these days.
I used to pay a fair amount of attention to the ratings about ten years ago or so, mostly thanks to Teletext, and the top programmes (usually the soaps or a cop drama even back then) would regularly take in well over 20 million viewers, and a programme wouldn’t make the top 10 with less than 15 million or so. Channel Four and BBC2 never ever got a look in – though obviously they still struggle to do so these days too.
And sure, I’d known that the ratings had been dropping slowly over the years, what with Satellite, Cable and now Digital TV on offer, but I hadn’t noticed how low they’d got. Or how bad the majority of the programmes were, too. Eastenders ‘entertained’ only just over 14 million (14.02m to be precise) viewers this week (ending 22nd July), Coronation Street came second with 13 and a half million, and the third show, the dire Emmerdale, failed to even get ten million (receiving 9.99 million amusingly). At the lower end of the charts a few decent shows made the list, with Fawlty Towers at no. 9 with 8.33 million and Dalziel and Pascoe receiving a disappointing 7.78 million at No. 10.
The ridiculous thing though, is that the above figures are a complete load of utter bollocks. Absolute rubbish. Infact only 4,485 households in the United Kingdom are monitored, with each member of the house with their own handset to indicate when they are watching tv. So lets say, with a (guess) average of four people per household, that’s just under Eighteen Thousand People. Twenty Thousand people tops. Which, as a result, makes it very possible that ten to twenty million people could watch a programme that wouldn’t even make the ratings top 50. Oh, and I should point out that Digital Television is only monitored in 148 households, so that’s just six hundred people’s tastes in digital television represented.
Okay, it’s going to be obvious when a show is a big hit, ala ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire’ when millions phone up a hotline number or access a website, but what about certain one off showings of dramas, sporting events, documentary’s or films? Simply put, the BARB television ratings can never be truly representational of what the country is actually watching.
To be a little fairer, I should point out that BARB’s website (http://www.barb.co.uk) is a little more informative than The Sun’s brief Top 10 listing, listing Top 30’s for each terrestrial channel, Top10’s for almost every Satellite, Cable and Digital channel, details of breakfast viewing, and lists of hours of Viewing and Share of Audience percentages, and other various figures and percentages that fill your mind with interesting information. For example, did you know that ITV2 was watched for 3 minutes by every person this week? Or that Sky One tops the Cable and Satellite list with just over an hour a week (Buffy presumably(!)) and UK Gold comes second with just 34 minutes? Well you do now thanks to the Average Weekly Viewing Per Person Per Channel Survey.
All of which fails to detract from the basic truth that the figures are only based on the viewing tastes of twenty thousand odd people.
So what’s the solution – a device in all Digital Televisions that constantly monitors what we are watching – so that ‘they’ know exactly what you are watching all the time? But that throws up a whole load of questions, especially if the results were published on the net, beginning with the obvious ‘isn’t it all a bit George Orwell?’ Do we really want people to know what we are watching 24/7? Would you want your tv viewing habits to be public domain? Would you stop watching You’ve Been Framed or Blind Date because of the obvious embarrassment factor? I’m sure Channel Four would suffer in the late night ratings as bored teenagers would become too worried to check for porn just incase their parents were able to find out. Or am I simply being a bit too paranoid about all of this?
Anyway, this is all getting away a little from the main point of the article, which is to state that the BARB tv ratings system is clearly failing to represent what the viewing public are actually watching, that some decent programmes are most likely failing in getting the recognition they deserve, and that something should be done to change the system.
Or of course you could simply ignore the figures all together, and just watch what you like. But do you really want to live in a world where people in the future will look back and laugh at us for liking Emmerdale so much?
The Trouble With The Music Charts
Is that we expect the top forty to be packed with musical gems. But when have sales every indicated quality? The top grossing films of all time are hardly a list of the best films of all time, after all. Ditto Literature, Theatre (in which Andrew Lloyd Webber is considered a god (!)), and pretty much any type of art.
And this is nothing new or surprising. I can only think that the rise of indie music in the mid-nineties (the britpop era) was a bit of a fluke, a happy coincidence as it were, and anyone who thought that cheap, tacky, manufactured music wouldn’t rise once again to the top must have taken more drugs than the Happy Mondays.
The Trouble With Oasis
Is that they’re a band that clearly aren’t that talented. Sure, everyone was impressed with the first two albums that updated Beatles tracks for the nineties, but the last two, which have been reasonably identical to the first two, have suffered such a critical mauling for the simple reason that we nowadays expect our favourite music artists to evolve (ala Blur, Primal Scream, Radiohead) rather than trot out the same old stuff.
Basically put, I don’t think the Gallagher brothers are a) that musically talented, and b) able and brave enough to be successfully experimental. And who can really respect a band when their lead song writer admits that his work is pretty shoddy just a few months after the release of the album? Well, not me, that’s for sure.
Alex Finch.
Contact Us - About Us - Recommended Links - More Links - Forums - Search This Site