-= Frank Black Forum =-
-= Frank Black Forum =-
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Frank Black Chat
 Planet of Sound - Pixies News Items
 compression
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

matto
= Cult of Ray =

USA
897 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  00:55:52  Show Profile  Visit matto's Homepage  Reply with Quote
have at it

--------
baby poop, curry

Discoking
= Cult of Ray =

Belgium
694 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  01:06:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
zip or rar?


it's educational
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  01:20:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Everything about compression has been said in the Head Carrier topic. I don't get why this is considered a taboo topic that has to be forked from the actual album thread.

Anyway, forget it. The war is lost anyway. All records will sound like shit in the future, public isn't allowed to complain, and if you criticize, you're considered an "audiophile". Case closed. Pathetic.

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

sdon
= Cult of Ray =

France
526 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:06:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm with you picpic

BF's talk about not being interested in who produces the record (and how) diminishes my endearment to his approach as an artist
A movie director not interested in the cast?
A chef not interested in the ingredients?
An indie-band cult leader not interested in how it SOUNDS?

I understand he has a life and other interests (money, family, painting...) but I feel he lacks ambition and respect towards the audience

--
"Aristophanes! (gong sounds)"
Go to Top of Page

pot
* Dog in the Sand *

United Kingdom
2319 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:11:13  Show Profile  Visit pot's Homepage  Reply with Quote
ok
Go to Top of Page

pot
* Dog in the Sand *

United Kingdom
2319 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:13:12  Show Profile  Visit pot's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Part of the reason he went solo was because he wanted to get away from over produced albums for something more organic, right?
Go to Top of Page

Bedbug
= Cult of Ray =

320 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:18:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't suppose anybody *wants* to be talking about compression. I didn't even know what it was until I read about it here. But if HC is full of compression, you're probably going to have to talk about it.

Anyway, this sound that everybody hates is the new form of rock n roll, meaning the new way to offend everyone's ears, just like the actual rock music used to do decades ago. In this case Charles and the 2.0's are really embodying that rock and roll spirit. What's more punk than offending all the fans of 1.0 by sounding generic and compressed? The man is brilliant. Dylan goes electric.
Go to Top of Page

pot
* Dog in the Sand *

United Kingdom
2319 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:22:16  Show Profile  Visit pot's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Yes if anyone can explain to me what compression actually is in terms of producing albums I'd appreciate it thanks.
Go to Top of Page

pot
* Dog in the Sand *

United Kingdom
2319 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:24:12  Show Profile  Visit pot's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Perhaps then I agree that compression has no place in rock music, especially shoegaze or noise pop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression
Go to Top of Page

pot
* Dog in the Sand *

United Kingdom
2319 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:25:34  Show Profile  Visit pot's Homepage  Reply with Quote
This band don't use compression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d0btl8OFno
Go to Top of Page

Bedbug
= Cult of Ray =

320 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:29:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Picpic

I asked on the HC thread (apologies to Nate101, no hard feelings), when did we first hear Charles' music with this compression? Someone suggested NSE. How far back do you say it goes? Is there none on TOTY or the sacred five?

Thanks
Go to Top of Page

Discoking
= Cult of Ray =

Belgium
694 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  02:55:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
lol @ picpic getting all offended because there now is a separate thread to talk about compression.

maybe we should have another thread to talk about skipping records.


it's educational
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  04:09:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug

Picpic

I asked on the HC thread (apologies to Nate101, no hard feelings), when did we first hear Charles' music with this compression? Someone suggested NSE. How far back do you say it goes? Is there none on TOTY or the sacred five?

Thanks


I'm not an expert of Frank Black solo records, but most of what I've heard sound good (ie. not brickwalled/superloud/limited/shitty-sounding-produced tracks). Not in terms of quality or "audiophile"-grade considerations (I don't care about that), but these are just good recordings, where you can actually hear the instruments & enjoy the music.

Anyway, most of pre-loudness war rock records were not especially produced with "audiophile" or "hi-fi" quality in mind. Engineers just used the dynamic range in a normal way. And the records sounded good most of the time.

Loudness wars detractors are not especially audiophiles. This is a misconception. Audiophilia is a myth invented to sell overpriced speaker stands & gold-plated cables. Loudness wars detractors just want to hear good, non-deteriorated/destroyed music. You can make agressive/punk/whatever sounding records without using those techniques. Those techniques are just intended to sell more records, which is not punk at all IMO...

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

Bedbug
= Cult of Ray =

320 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  05:09:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks picpic
Go to Top of Page

Arm Arm Arm
= Cult of Ray =

998 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  09:26:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think this is definitely worthy of its own thread, and appreciate your insights on it, picpic.

Why are albums mastered anyway? If the songs are done, shouldn't they be pressed to vinyl, burned to cd, etc. as is?
Go to Top of Page

peter radiator
= Cult of Ray =

USA
543 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  09:44:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Mastering is an art.

It is the final stage of the engineering and production process.

It is required in order to make records which have a cohesive, polished sound to them.

By that I do not mean "polished" in terms of "slick," but in terms of helping the manufacturing and playback process to work properly.

Mastering USED to be where mostly minute sonic tweaks and alterations in terms of track sequencing and spacing between songs took place.

However, over the past couple of decades, it has increasingly been used as a stage at which much more sweeping and overbearing types of EQ such as compression and limiting are being applied to entire finished mixes.

This is being done primarily in an effort to "sound contemporary" in terms of shifts in volume levels which are prevalent on today's modern digital playback gear and/or internet streaming, satellite radio etc...

Back in the analog days of standard terrestrial radio, vinyl jukeboxes and cassette tapes (and even the early days of the compact disc) consistency of volume and "presence" during playback was not as much of a concern. Many different types of music were routinely given many different types of mastering jobs and/or volume levels and dynamic ranges that corresponded to what was deemed best for that particular record and/or type of music.

However, these days, the omnipresence of all manner of shitty, LOW-FI file compression codecs (such as MP3) have contributed to terrible sounding end products for consumers. many active record listeners (and ideally customers) out there are simply too young to know anything different, and those of us who are old enough to recall it, are, with each passing day, being beaten into submission by the new sound order.

Many artists and engineers are attempting to counteract the shittiness of how music is being broadcast and played back through aggressive mastering techniques. Techniques which to many of us make things sound even worse, but which tend to "fix" some of the more obvious sonic problems which are primarily of concern to and noticed by folks who listen to the crappiest quality digital files on poor quality equipment, earbuds, laptop speakers, etc...

Does this make sense?

Mastering is a MUST for professional recorded releases. Without it, you lose all manner of options for either improving or simply maintaining the original sound quality that you captured during recording.

However, all it takes is a couple of heavy-handed nudges on a knob or slider in the mastering stage to ruin the whole thing by squashing all the dynamic range of a nuanced, densely-layered recording and instantly trading a net positive for a huge negative.

The problem is many folks who are currently considered "professional mastering engineers" are just people who have purchased modern mastering software and outboard gear, but do not have the "golden ears" that the legendary mastering engineers of yore used to possess.

Furthermore, they are more concerned with making the recordings they work on "complementary" to the flavor of the month in terms of what the kids are listening to, rather than treading carefully for the ages.

Then again, there are plenty of artists and labels that either can't hear the difference or don't care or - yikes! - can hear the difference and simply prefer that approach.

--

"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder

Edited by - peter radiator on 09/08/2016 09:52:18
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  10:08:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Peter !

I'd like to think that they don't care/bother that much, and delegate the technical job to producers/engineers.

I just don't want to believe that rock musicians, which are often music fans themselves and grew up listening to legendary, great-sounding records could be attracted by the brickwalling approach.

That said, I remember this guy from Metallica saying that their album "Death Magnetic" (which was one of the most crazy-ass compressed piece of junk ever) was actually sounding great, and that he didn't get what the problem was, really.

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

pot
* Dog in the Sand *

United Kingdom
2319 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  10:18:19  Show Profile  Visit pot's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I didn't like the sound of the Led Zepellin remasters, compared to the originals. I find that a lot with remasters, they just sound too clean.
Go to Top of Page

McDutchie
- FB Fan -

Netherlands
209 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  10:19:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
No audiophile here either. I've been listening to the HC songs using the "less bass" setting on my equaliser. This actually helps a bit. For me it makes it more listenable anyway, and I discern more details.
Go to Top of Page

peter radiator
= Cult of Ray =

USA
543 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  10:56:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by picpic

Thanks Peter !
That said, I remember this guy from Metallica saying that their album "Death Magnetic" (which was one of the most crazy-ass compressed piece of junk ever) was actually sounding great, and that he didn't get what the problem was, really.



I think it is extremely likely that all of the members of Metallica suffer from extreme hearing loss, and have no idea what their band or its albums actually sound like anymore.

--

"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder
Go to Top of Page

thierry512
- FB Fan -

France
11 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  20:10:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2016 :  21:53:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr?artist=pixies

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-

USA
5127 Posts

Posted - 09/09/2016 :  03:30:21  Show Profile  Visit Broken Face's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I think that the compression is a big problem in modern music, but what is equally at fault is the way that most of us (myself included) listen to music. I don't have a big hifi set up in my living room like I did in college - I have a computer and some speakers. I can't simply go turn up the bass/down the mid/whatever to adjust the sound.

To be fair, I wish I still had such a setup but with two kids and limited real estate in the house, it doesn't really make sense at the moment. I think that a lot of records (like the new Wilco, for example) manage to still sound real and not overly loud, but that takes a dedicated effort to ensure. If you leave it up to the labels/most 'modern' producers, it's gonna sound like trash.

Re: Charles's comments about 'not caring' about production. There's a quote in - I think - the Doolittle 33 1/3 book about Leonard Cohen's I'M YOUR MAN. And he describes the production as a picture frame, and how you have to look through the frame to see the picture. I think for someone who has been making records since the mid 80s, he's seen a lot of modern trends come and go and, since he likes to work fast and efficiently (both financially and take wise), he has had to be subject to a variety of trends or circumstances that led to records that didn't always sound perfect. As much as I love the latter-era FB&TCs records, they don't sound half as good as DOG IN THE SAND, because they were recorded on a mobile unit in non-traditional studio spaces.

So, I think for him, the song is what matters, and the production is considerably secondary, or even tertiary, in the grand scheme of things. Charles is such a prolific songwriter (even if his output has lessened post-NONSTOPEROTIK), and he's focused on writing/crafting the song, and chooses to put his energy there, as opposed to in production.

The difference is that Kim Deal (not to go down this rabbit hole) insists on analog production and really is a stickler for quality sounds that, if she had been involved with the new Pixies releases, they'd sound a hell of a lot better, from a sonics perspective. To me, that's, perhaps, the biggest loss the band took from having her depart.

- Brian
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/09/2016 :  04:41:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't think you need an expensive setup to enjoy uncompressed tracks. Even on my phone with earpods, uncompressed music sounds 100 times better than brickwalled music.

And the bonus is: if you have a good setup, then you can enjoy un-brickwalled music even more. Brickwalled music will sound bad on large speakers.

I really think the loudness war is just about raising the volume to the max and nothing else. Listen to Tenement Song on the Youtube Pixies page, with the volume on 2 on my Macbook with headphones, it's already too loud.

BY the way, most streaming music services are apparently using built-in compression to "enhance" the sound... ***sigh***.

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/09/2016 :  09:47:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK... I just made a comparison, using Audacity and the limiter effect.

I used the track Brick is Red. Great track, great dynamics. Drums sound great on the original record.

I adjusted the volume so both tracks are more or less the same.

Here's the original Brick is Red:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=09224619441281134884

Here's Brick is Red if it was... brickwalled... or mastered by the latest Pixies producer...
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=50649182669182673651

No copyright infringement intended... please, listen to both tracks and tell me: do you hear a difference ? Yes ? OK. This is called brickwalling. This is called compression. And that's why I hate most of modern rock records sound. Pixies included.

Now imagine hearing Indie Cindy or Head Carrier without brickwalling. Wouldn't they sound 10x better ? You'll be the judge...

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

OLDMANOTY
= Cult of Ray =

United Kingdom
442 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  11:13:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Would I be right in assuming our evil compression overlords didn't tamper with 'Women Of War'? I think it was recorded quickly, almost off the cuff for Record Store Day wasn't it? All I can say is I just wish they'd carried on recording that way.

Listening to Talent & Tenement Song immediately before WOW on headphones really brought the whole issue home. Despite the relatively 'primitive' production WOW sounded full, airy and easier on the ears with tons of atmosphere & dynamics. The new songs sounded much glossier of course but overbearingly bassy & with a much narrower soundscape (if that's the right word). WOW just sounds better on pretty much every level to me. Ironic considering how much more time & effort presumably went into recording these new songs.

Oh well, as has been said compression is here to say so I suppose there's no point in moaning about it.
Go to Top of Page

OLDMANOTY
= Cult of Ray =

United Kingdom
442 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  11:15:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by OLDMANOTY

Would I be right in assuming our evil compression overlords didn't tamper with 'Women Of War'? I think it was recorded quickly, almost off the cuff for Record Store Day wasn't it? All I can say is I just wish they'd carried on recording that way.

Listening to Talent & Tenement Song immediately before WOW on headphones really brought the whole issue home. Despite the relatively 'primitive' production WOW sounded full, airy and easier on the ears with tons of atmosphere & dynamics. The new songs sounded much glossier of course but overbearingly bassy & with a much narrower soundscape (if that's the right word). WOW just sounds better on pretty much every level to me. Ironic considering how much more time & effort presumably went into recording these new songs.

Oh well, as has been said compression is here to stay so I suppose there's no point in moaning about it.

Go to Top of Page

OLDMANOTY
= Cult of Ray =

United Kingdom
442 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  11:16:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
^^Oops, sorry tried to edit cos of a typo & I seem to have quoted myself instead.
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  11:34:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Woman of war sounds compressed, but the effect is a bit softer than the 3 Head Carrier tracks.

You can tell a song is compressed by hearing the snare drum most of the time. This is the first thing to be destroyed by using a limiter. If a song sound loud as hell, with a terrible muffled drum sound, this is a brickwalled track for sure. Just compare the 3 new songs from Head Carrier with any pre-loudness war track, you'll spot the difference immediately.

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

johnnyribcage
= Cult of Ray =

USA
771 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  12:44:34  Show Profile  Visit johnnyribcage's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Heeeeyyyyyyy Compression Thread! Where have you been all our lives?

This topic is like 3 years old (and I've been a major contributor) and it finally got a thread of it's very own! Kinda funny, I've created several objectively unthreadworthy threads through the years here, but I never bothered to throw one out on this.

That said... I've pretty much said all I have to say on this topic elsewhere on the board and basically I got nothing else. It's like "Back in Black." I got this theory that AC/DC spent their whole career trying to write Back in Black, and when they finally wrote it, they spent the rest of their career trying to write it again. They should've dropped the mic.

ahem...

Sorry. Kind of went off the rails there.



My density has popped me to you.

Edited by - johnnyribcage on 09/10/2016 12:47:09
Go to Top of Page

Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-

USA
5127 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  17:13:32  Show Profile  Visit Broken Face's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by picpic

OK... I just made a comparison, using Audacity and the limiter effect.

I used the track Brick is Red. Great track, great dynamics. Drums sound great on the original record.

I adjusted the volume so both tracks are more or less the same.

Here's the original Brick is Red:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=09224619441281134884

Here's Brick is Red if it was... brickwalled... or mastered by the latest Pixies producer...
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=50649182669182673651

No copyright infringement intended... please, listen to both tracks and tell me: do you hear a difference ? Yes ? OK. This is called brickwalling. This is called compression. And that's why I hate most of modern rock records sound. Pixies included.

Now imagine hearing Indie Cindy or Head Carrier without brickwalling. Wouldn't they sound 10x better ? You'll be the judge...

___
"Service Unavailable"



There's obviously a huge difference there, but there is also a huge difference between your brickwalling example (apt as it might be), and what the new Pixies records actually sound like. I know what you were going for it, but IC (the one I can test on better speakers at the moment) don't bury the bass/drums nearly as extremely as your mix did.

But again, I know what you were going for, and your illustration worked.

(Not that I think anyone here is arguing with your initial assessment)

- Brian
Go to Top of Page

picpic
* Dog in the Sand *

Belgium
1145 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2016 :  21:25:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
That's called an example.

Tenement Song chorus is not far from being as ridiculously compressed as my example...listen to the snare drum. Or what's left of it.

And, YES, the real problem is that 95% of the audience don't care about those issues, don't hear the difference or are even annoyed by people pointing the problem.

___
"Service Unavailable"
Go to Top of Page

Stevio10
= Cult of Ray =

United Kingdom
638 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2016 :  02:30:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Can modern compression be attributed or influenced by Phil Spector's 'Wall of Sound' techniques?
Go to Top of Page

pixie punk
* Dog in the Sand *

2461 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2016 :  03:02:20  Show Profile  Visit pixie punk's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Compression's got a hold of me.
Compression, I gotta break free.
Compression's got a hold on me.
Compression's gonna kill me.-"FrankBlackFlag" :)


PUERTO RICO PIXIE
Go to Top of Page

johnnyribcage
= Cult of Ray =

USA
771 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2016 :  04:46:17  Show Profile  Visit johnnyribcage's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I've listened to all Charles' released stuff countless times, but I also listen to a ton of music other than FB, and in many cases, just as often. Also an amateur (emphasis on the amateur) musician, engineer, and producer of about 20 years experience. I've read a ton on how to record and make good recordings, I listen a lot, and I hear a lot. That doesn't make me an expert, that just makes me some guy on the internet with a random opinion. Here's my opinion on all this.

The compression (and dynamic limiting - don't forget it takes 2 to tango in the land of lofi loud music) to this extent didn't start until IC. HOWEVER! Bluefinger is more compressed / limited than everything that came before it.

I'm not an "audiophile" in that they basically listen to gear and not music. But, they would poop themselves with indignant rage if they heard any hint of the compression and dynamic limiting that we're complaining about pumping through their gear. I don't know any of these people, but I've read enough about them and by them to get the gist.

That said I do have a decent home stereo, a Marantz 2275 from the mid 70's, a really nice turntable (basic direct drive Technics 1200MK2 - if it's good enough for decades of DJ's, it's good enough for me), a heavy duty active sub, and a nice set of the lowest-end Monitor Audio Bookshelf speakers. I've had this setup forever, haven't upgraded it in years other than a new stylus once in awhile. It's just good enough to squeak out all the ins and outs and awesomeness of a great recording, and after that, IMO, you're just splitting hairs. So although I'm not an "audiophile," I definitely know the diff between a Bose and a real stereo with a real set of speakers, and I'm all about jamming the fuck out on whatever I happen to be listening to without shitty sound getting in the way.

Okay here's the deal - compression alone isn't the problem. Combine it with equally poor application of dynamic limiting, and now we got a problem. Believe me, I've experimented for years and destroyed many many recordings doing it wrong. It's alchemy. There is a hell of a lot more to it other than those two inputs, (mixing, recording levels, source audio, etc.), but generally these days those are the two worst offenders of a whole bunch of studio sins.

A few people can produce gold - that holy grail of both super loud and super responsive to all but the most discerning ear. That would be today's holy grail I mean. There are literally millions of well recorded, mixed, and albums and tracks going all the way back to the earliest days of when we started nailing it (50'sish). It's not THAT hard.

But there is a goal today of perfectly loud and perfectly listenable and representative of whatever the OG mix was. Like I said, a couple people can more or less hit that, but everyone else is sort of fucking it up. And the worst part is, most of them don't care. I'm one of those people that fuck it up but care, and I fuck it up due to ignorance and lack of skill. Whoever has been mastering all the new Pixies releases is in the same boat as me, in my opinion.

However... it can be done fairly well, still be brick-walled and all that happy shit, but still sound more or less passable. Unfortunately, way too many releases this day were done by someone that just doesn't give a shit. I'm not talking about the musicians or the engineers or (usually) the producers here. I'm talking about the post production shine that whoever is in charge of the music industry decides to slap on in mastering.

As we've mentioned before, many engineers and producers are putting compression and limiting on individual tracks or mixdowns. When a heavy handed masterer (is that a word?) gets on top of it then, there is no saving it.

DISCLAIMER:

I'm loving loving loving the new Pixies stuff. I don't give a shit if it sounds like a 16 year old stoner recorded it on his fucking iphone, it's new Pixies, it's new Charles Thompson music, and that's good enough for me. Would it be personally more enjoyable if it wasn't Superman III-junkyard-magnet-slammed into Mastering Oblivion? Yeah, sure. But it is what is is and I'm just going to listen past that until an "unmaster" comes out.

Besides. I've been hearing overmastered rock and pop for so long now that I can listen past it. It is what it is.... But it takes a lot of tweaking on the old stereo to get it sounding palatable.




My density has popped me to you.

Edited by - johnnyribcage on 09/11/2016 05:28:08
Go to Top of Page

johnnyribcage
= Cult of Ray =

USA
771 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2016 :  04:53:26  Show Profile  Visit johnnyribcage's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Great example btw picpic - brick walling brick is red! lol. Your 'bricked' example made me want to stab myself in the ears with lawn darts.



My density has popped me to you.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
-= Frank Black Forum =- © 2002-2016 Frank Black Fans, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000