Please post reactions to our class on 9/11/07 here.
Here's some brain food to get you started:
In a sentence, what is your definition of 'good music'?
Does it matter how talented a performer is?
Are teachers, by their nature, less "talented" or "skilled" than professional performers?
How does image influence our perceptions of the quality of music?
How does "context" influence our feelings about certain music (meaning, why do I love singing 'Take Me Out to the Ballgame" when I'm at a baseball game, but would never sing it anywhere else?)
How deep do we really have to get on all of this? "I already know what choir music is out there that I like, and that's what I plan on teaching!"
Who says Beethoven is so good? Would you be willing to walk into a rehearsal of the Westminster Choir working the Finale of Beethoven's ninth symphony, and announce to the conductor, "You know, I really don't think this is a very good piece." Or does context play a role here, too?
So what music will you teach? What your students like? What you like? What your students' parents like? What your principal likes? The music Professor Haltmeier tells us to teach?
Do you teach kids the music they like in hopes of eventually leading them to the "really good stuff" which is actually what you like?
Does it matter what your students think is good? If you listen to the choir sing, and you KNOW they sound bad (even though the students think they sound great), should you point out the "badness" or just let them be happy with that they have?
Answer all of these questions "correctly" and you win a free diploma.
Don't be afraid to post what you really think, even if others may challenge it (because I KNOW everyone will challenge "nicely"). It is 'ok' to think something now and end up thinking something completely different by the end of the day/week/month/semester/year/decade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I think if I were to try and answer all of the questions posted this would be an entire essay,so I'm just going to answer a few...
Last night when I had created my spider plot of what my characteristics are for good music, I had definied it as "anything the listener enjoys hearing" or soemthing along those lines, and then gave reasons on why someone might like to listen to a certain type of music. Today in class I found it relatively difficult to decide whether some of the 7 songs were good music or not. I was trying not to let my personal opinion mix in with how I judged the music. I have my personal opinion on what I think is good, and I have music that I prefer to listen to over others, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right opinion or that it's better then what others like. In my mind it is, but who am I to tell other people that the music they listen to is inferior to mine? A persons opinion of good music stems from all sorts of places, where they grew up, their culture, any number of things.
Ever since the question of what kind of music to teach your students came up in class I've been thinking about it. I think that in any casea beginner would need to begin with the basics, such as Mary Had a Little Lamb, Twinkle Twinkle, etc. jsut so they can get down the fundementals of whatever instrument they are playing on tunes that they are familiar with. After that, particularly in places such as elementary and middle schools I think you should teach the children music they like, and are familiar with. I'm not saying teach them the newest Eminem song in choir, but something they would reconize and not consider "dumb" and "boring." It would also be alright though to throw a different style of music into the mix to introduce them to something new from time to time. I believe kids should be allowed to play what the things they want, because I believe that, especially at a young age, you should be trying to foster in them a love for whatever they are playing and inspire them to want to continue learning and growing as a musician so that someday they themselves will want to seek out different styles of music. Forcing classical and other hoity toity types of music down a seven year olds throat is only going to make him resent the music if they aren't enjoying it.
The last thing I have to comment about it the question that was made about "pointing out the badness" of an ensemble. I don't think you should ever, in any circumstance tell a group that they are terrible. For one, it seems almost hypocrical since as the teacher you are supposed to be teaching them how to be better musicians and what not. Also, I don't believe that would really make most people want to work any harder... I think the right thing to do would not be to "point out the badness" but point out the things they can improve on and explain to them how they could do so.
Marie Brodrick
The topic is so open to discuss about and I honestly don't know where to begin.
And I believe you started out with the hardest question in the bunch is "What is good music?" and when I take a glance back and look at the question, I think to myself, "Is that even definable?". There are so many cultures and influences around the world it's hard to determine whether not something is good to the general public as a whole, when everyone has thier own opinion.
Today in class you gave us seven examples of music and I believe you gave us seven broad genres. It's hard to determine which is good and which one isn't, when every single example has it's own ups and downs, in someones opinion. I wrote down that every example was an example of good music, because even if one person latched onto the music and stated it was good, to thier own opinion, than, yes it's good music.
No matter what the genre is, from Bach, to the Teletubbies.
Somehow, someone, must connect with music in order to make it special, and if it's special to all audiences, I believe it's good music.
That's A LOT to think about. I think I'm going to stick with the top few ideas on the list.
I believe that in order for music to be good, it has to make you feel something. It doesn't necessarily have to give you a good feeling. When I'm sad and I just need to cry, I listen to something kind of sad, and then usually I start feeling better. When I'm happy I put on music that I can dance and sing along to. When I'm going to sleep or if I'm stressed out I like to listen to music that will help me wind down and chill out. I usually listen to music that matches the mood that I'm in. This could be the same for some people, but totally different for someone else.
Today in class I thought that all seven songs were examples of 'good music'. I may not have liked all seven of them. The Demon's Sanctuary song made me feel kind of nervous, and scared. It's not something that I would personally listen to, but it did make me feel something , so in my definition it was good music.
I liked part of what Justin said,
"Somehow, someone, must connect with music in order to make it special, and if it's special to all audiences, I believe it's good music."
The part about people connecting with music to make it special, I also believe to be true. The composer was the first to connect to it, and then they shared it with others who also connected with it. These connections make the music special.
But I do not agree with the last part of his statement. I don't believe that it has to be special to all audiences to make it 'good music'. I'll use the Demon's Sanctuary again. This piece of music is not something that is special to me. But I still see it as good music.
The talented performer issue. I didn't realize how hard this issue was until I started writing out how I thought I felt. I started to say, "I really want to say that it doesn't matter how talented a performer is. But I really can't. The truth is, you don't want to pay $150 dollars for a ticket to a concert and then have to listen to someone who has very little talent for an hour or more."
But then I realized that maybe determining talent is a lot like determining what good music is. You could be miserable at that concert that you spent $150 to go see, but the person next to you could think it's the greatest concert of all time.
It's kind of like how parents feel that their child is better than every one else. A little boy could get the solo in the chorus concert and he could get stage fright and sing every single note wrong. But his mother would still be in the audience crying because "It was SO beautiful!!"
So once again, we're back to beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
As for teachers being less "talented" or "skilled" than performers...I think that's crap.
Just because I don't want to be a performer does not mean that I can't be a performer. I love to perform, but teaching music is what I am more passionate about.
Also, if you think about it, performers and teachers aren't very different at all. We are both doing something that we are passionate about; and we both have to connect with an audience to share that passion with others. Performers have many different types people watching them perform. We have students all with different backgrounds and ways of learning.
There's so much to think about, so this is sort of difficult, but in reading the other responses, I see that we are all sort of on the same level.
Who am I to decide what is and what is not good music? I have my personal opinion, obviously, but I don't believe that I have any right to force that opinion on others. When listening to the music in class, I raised my hand and said that I thought every one of the pieces was good music. However, I didn't say that it was good music in my opinion. I only believed that each piece was good music to someone.
So, having that opinion, it brings me to the question of what I will teach my students as a music teacher. I have a love for classical choral music, but I may have a particular class who wants to perform solely Broadway medleys. It's up to me to decide whether I want to make myself happy, or make my students happy.
To change the subject completely, I was struck by one thing in class yesterday. People enjoyed the song "Turn It Up", but when it was revealed that the song was Paris Hilton's, the majority of those people changed their minds. Paris Hilton isn't exactly my thing, but I find it strange that she could change someone's opinion about a song so quickly.
On a completely different note, I heart this class very much and I've never enjoyed having to think this much.
In closing, I think that good music is in the eye of the beholder, and I am in no position to define it.
Alice, thank you for using heart as a verb. It made me smile. I'll do one of these long philosophical posts in a bit.
I don’t think music can generally be defined as either good or bad. So many different cultures and styles of music exist today that it is impossible to generalize music into being either good or bad. Someone could listen to a song that they thought was the worst song they’ve ever heard, but still someone else finds that music beautiful or meaningful. People tend to make such high expectations for the music they listen to rather than taking in the melody, instruments, vocals and emotions portrayed in the song and just listening to the song for what it is instead of what it is compared to. Music cannot be good or bad, it can only be preferred over another kind of music in my opinion.
For the most part, it does not matter how talented a performer is. A lot of the music I listen to has beautiful and innovative instrumentals and melodies, but horribly untrained vocalists. The singer doesn’t have to be classically trained for me to feel something when listening to their music. Again, most of the music I listen to, I enjoy because of the lyrics, not because of the quality of the music as a whole. On the other hand, a lot of other people do not share my same beliefs in this. People are very judgemental of other’s musical abilities. But really, who are they to criticize? People stop listening to an artist because they change their style of music, people turn off the radio because the song isn’t upbeat enough and people listen to whatever is said to be popular at the time because a lot of people cannot see past the performer and into the music.
Not at all! Just because a music teacher doesn’t have a multi-million dollar record deal does not mean they are not skilled musicians. So many artists out today are basically having their musical abilities written out for them. Lyrics, beats and melodies are written for them and a lot of the music industry are transformed into robots with no creativity or musicality. Teenage pop sensations are marketed in skimpy clothes and made popular with catchy lyrics and mimicked dance moves. Most of these people haven’t put in as much time or effort or passion as a music teacher has.
I’m just going run down the line;
Good music is stimulating, purposed sound. It doesn’t, and usually won’t appeal to everyone, and even if it does aurally, its message might not be favorable. Talent is vital. They say no one will listen if they can’t understand you; the same is true if you suck. Excellence is the crossroads of talent and passion. This doesn’t discount passion; I find it to be equally important, if not slightly more so. Good and great teachers just have a different passion than performers –that being said, not every teacher is good, and some can’t perform forcing them to teach. This is an unfortunate stereotype, but it does, like more stereotypes hold some water, otherwise it wouldn’t stick. Image has slowly crept into every aspect of music, and life for that matter. The Met has gone (mildly) public that extremely overweight singers will no longer be hired. Is that wrong? No, obesity is a major problem in America and should be attacked from every angle, but I believe we can all agree that is not why the Met has changed its policy. Will the image-conscious destroy music? Probably not, but it is, and will remain into the foreseeable future. Context is huge.
I’m not a big Beethoven fan, but he is the reason tonal music works. He single-handedly proved the rules of music theory. Too bad his music sucks. However he was the most human of the freak composers (i.e. Mozart, Bach) as he did, even in the eyes of the great music critics, write some simply bad music. His works are historically important and therefore bear some “dealing with,” as they are great music, though not my cup of tea.
I’ll teach the greatest hits. Not my greatest hits (though they’ll make an appearance). I don’t want to say the student’s wishes are irrelevant, because keeping their interest is vital, but…
I’ll leave it at that for now.
Not to be completely redundant, but I think the thing that is most interesting about this concept is that "good music" Can't be defined in one sentence, or at all for that matter. To some extent the talent of the performer matters, but certain pieces of music will themselves be good whether the performance of that piece was good or not.
The way I see it, context has a lot to do with the emotional response (or response in general) you're going to have to a piece of music. The company you're with, physical location you are in, or even state of mind you are in can have a lot to do with how you personally evaluate a piece of music. There are some days when I turn on itunes and just think 'ewww, I definitely don't want to listen to that right now' but obviously at some point or another I thought everything on my itunes list was good, otherwise it wouldn't be on the list, right?
As a teacher I think it's important to teach a variety of music, even if not all of it is what the students would consider "good." Music literacy is an important part of learning how to be musical, so it's essential the students get a little bit of everything. In an ideal situation, the variety of music would be such that it would keep everybody (principals, students, teachers, parents, and Professor Haltmeier) happy. I would teach kids music with the goal of getting them to like the things that I like, because then they would just be little duplicates of me, which would probably get pretty boring, as there would only be one set of opinions.
It doesn't matter what my students think is good music, but the quality of whatever they are performing does matter. Whether they are singing a disney medley or something from Mozart's Requiem, I want the performance level to be as high as it can be - a bad performance is never enjoyable for anyone involved.
*phew* That was a lot of thinking.
Although we can label good music with many traits, knowing exactly what makes it good is a mystery. Such a mystery is found in Beethoven's ''Fur Elise'' or a Beatles' hit. This is what makes certain songs timeless! I defined good music as catchy (in all types: melodically, rhythmically, texturely.) Good music must have an agreement amongst people that it is good. Therefore, if more than two people agree music is good then it is good. This does not mean i like all good music.
A great performance involves an assiduous student who has performed and practiced the piece scrupulously. As long as the performer is able to perform it, he has the skills and talents it takes.
Image brings you into the setting of the song. Singing the National anthem before a sporting event brings chills to my bones. It brings satisfaction. The context are patriotic and make me feel proud that I am an American. However to a Zimbabwean, the music might be a bunch a pretty chords. Context and image are relevant to good music. A lot of foriegners may not be able to connect to another country's anthem because they do not understand the meaning of the words.
As far as Beethoven goes, he is good because I say so. He falls under my traits of good music. I do think you can express your reasoning to the conductor and after he is done cursing you out in a foreign language he won't care. If you cannot connect with the image or context of Beethoven's 9th, maybe you won't like it.
I will teach music that will broaden and energize my students minds. Of course some favorites to keep them interested, but after learning a difficult unfamiliar piece you will learn to appreciate it. It is about appreciation NOT always about liking everything you do or thinking it is good music.
Showing kids a virtuosic pianist may influence a child just as much as playing "Twinkle, Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" because it shows a long term goal. It shows hard work and years of practice you can achieve something amazing. Whereas something like an easy piece can show children a quick root to success.
I would criticize my choir when necessary. I would tell them if they did bad or show them the recording and let them deduce a score of the performance.
Ok...one thing that has REALLY been bothering me because I didn't get to say it at the end of Thursday's class is:
In regards to whether a person's (e.g. Pavarotti and Paris) personal life should factor into the public's opinion on their music...Pavarotti's relative "sluttiness" was not reflected in his music whereas Paris rather blatantly begs for sexual favors/solicits them in her music, which is then marketed to young girls. Which, in my opinion, makes her and her music more objectionable. Sorry- had to get that out there.
To head back to more relevant topics...
I started out feeling a little bit jerky in class on Tuesday because I voted that far more songs were "bad music" than the large majority of the class, who voted that everything could be classified at good in its own right. However, the more I thought about it, it does sound very open-minded to say that every kind of music is good, but that will not help me in the least when it comes time for me to decide what to teach my students. I agree with everyone that there is no absolute definition of good music, but to some extent it will always come down to my opinions, so I might as well state them if I have them.
This is not to say that I will never teach music that I don't like, but there is so much music in the world that we'll all need to have a place to start. As a teacher, you are meant to leave an impression on your students, and what better way than to share your music with your students?
Personally, I would never tell children that they sounded bad. That is both unproductive and mean. However, my high school teacher used to tell us that we sounded terrible in the instance that we did sound terrible because we weren't applying ourselves. She only told us we sounded terrible if she knew full well that it was easily in our ability to sound good. She never told the beginner choir (who often did sound terrible - sorry!) that they sounded bad if she knew that was their capacity. I still don't know if I'd ever be able to say that to a choir - we'll see.
As to Beethoven,say what you want (*coughTomCunninghamcough*) but I like him. Also I have to say this for classical and jazz music - so much of todays music is situation specific. Lyrics, albeit great lyrics, describe a certain feeling or situation, and are only really applicable as such. Classical music especially allows you to feel and apply different things to it each time you listen, which I think is important and valuable.
And finally, (sorry this is long - alot of jumbled thoughts!) context is everything. I may hate Paris Hilton's music,(and I do) but in the context of say our orientation lip-sync, it could become hilarious and I might enjoy myself.
And now my brain hurts.
Ok, Tom- I almost cried when you said that Bheethoven's music sucks. Immediately I started thinking of retaliations, how his music has genuine passion and raw energy, despite his occasional lack of a decent melody.
Then I remembered the entire point of our class discussion and how when you get right down to it, only the individual listener can determine what good music is. I'm not going to bother reiterating this point because 10 people before me have already made sufficiently convincing arguments for this concept, and nothing irks me more than people who reiterate points.
So anyway.
I spent a lot of time in High School studying post-modern art, and although I don't think I'm any smarter for it, at the very least I came out of my art class with a firm belief in the fact that all art depends on the audience. In that class, my friends and I had this saying: "If it sucks, it's post-modern." So basically, if we didn't like it, we called it post-modern, because a post-modern view of artwork depends on the viewer's interpretation of the art. Often, post-modern art will re-contextualize a viewer's environment and cause them to re-think the very definition of artwork.
So what does post-modernism have to do with music? Well, everything.
It goes back to the podium/composition/performance art/installation piece we had in class on the first day. Every individual has her own labels that she attaches to what she sees and hears. That's why we all had different opinions on which music was good and which wasn't... For one person to say that his labels are more accurate than someone else's would be absurd, which is why we'll never ever be able to label what good music is.
Sorry, I think I'm probably bantering and repeating myself. Let me just conclude by saying that it's my firm belief that good music can be whatever you say it is, and I don't think that a music teacher is worth her salt if she doesn't consider that when teaching music.
I try to have a unbiased reply to what good music really is. I can't take credit for this, but a friend told me good music is "any sound that reaches a person. anything that no one else could create," which i really liked.
I'm easily pleased and find myself appreciating all types of music for its intention and special aspects. Still, I found it so hard to consider #2 as "good music." There's ways to go out of the box, but...aw...
Good music helps us. To release endorphins, solve a problem, to escape, to understand ourselves. That's why sad music is okay, and "take me out to the ballgame" is part of our lives. Through music we find a sort of child in us that wants to experience comfort or joy or anything at all.
As for whom is performing or composing the work..hmm..people are bound to get severely wrapped up in pop culture, which alters a lot of opinions. It's so hard for me to put this in words..but Beethoven, whether you prefer him or banging on trash cans, is "good music." His music is built on all of what western civilization intended good music to be. Sure, step outside the box. Take advantage of freedom and embrace your passion, but this man knew his stuff.
I still have to figure out my thoughts on talent vs. skill.
What I do know is that music isn't measured by talent. Talent doesn't have a scale. Here at Westminster, we've seen many people perform, all of whom have brought me to tears. Some have beautiful voices, and some show just a genuine soul in their singing, without possessing unbelievable technical talent.
When I'm a teacher, I want my students to eventually look back on what they've accomplished, learning the "classical" way, and say, "wow, I really know a lot about music. I can't believe I did that!" I've always liked the idea of "you need to know the rules before you can break them." Understanding of the basics of musical structure is essential in "music ed." I plan to teach students how to use these "rules" to make something extraordinary, having fun along the way, naturally.
In my choir critiques in high school, I always thanked my choir director for providing us with such a diverse selection of music. Crowd pleasers, great works, pieces both simple and challenging for the group. After all, the objective of music education at a young age is to broaden students' musical knowledge and teach them how to approach different music they'll encounter in the world.
The question about telling the kids if they're bad makes me laugh. Last year I had the opportunity to work with our middle school girls' chorus, which was rediculously fun. Being middle school girls, they had a tendency to do a little Britney Spears-whiney kind of thing, which is cute, but not "correct." I think it's fine to explain to them why we wouldn't do that in "Deux Petites Chansons" and suggest a different, more beautiful approach.
I have to say that this class will be a challenge for me in that I have very few opinions and I have to almost force them out (annnd organized debates make me cry). I'm realizing that I have to figure these things out. Teaching and music raise so many ethical and aesthetic issues that we'll have to face as teachers very soon. Here we go.
Music is so relative to each person that I don't think that "good music" really can be defined at all. I don't really have much to say about the topic because it's like the preference of clothes that we wear, the car we drive, the people we find beautiful/ugly.
We can discuss it for hours and hours at end but we will never really come to a certain conclusion. That though, is what makes it so deep and interesting and endless.
Ryoko Sasaki
It seems the general idea is that it is opinion that defines what is good or bad music. After listening to the different songs in class and writing down what we thought made up good music, it became clear that one person's idea of what made it bad, could easily be turned around to make it good to someone else. I listen to stuff that not too many other people on this campus listen to, and some people would call it annoying, dumb, pointless, boring, bad music, but I like it, it's good music to me. So my reaction to the class is there's no good or bad music, only music.
In a classroom, performing certain types of music gives you a special appreciation for it that you can't get anywhere else, this doesn't mean that the student who plays classical, or play jazz, necessarily will love to listen to those genres of music. Its hard to say what to teach the students when it comes to playing music. I suppose the best thing to do as a music educator is to do just that, educate them to the different types of music. Playing a couple of songs in a genre and explaining the background of them, why they are listened to, and asking the students to just give it a chance could dramatically increase their opinion of what is good music.
It's okay, because Beethoven makes me want to cry too. Just for a different reason.
I had a whole response to this topic but in the process of figuring this whole web site out i lost it. I basically talked on the topic of the teacher skilled verses talented and the music being good or bad. I basically explained how all music is good music depending on individual standards. To me i except all music and its difference which makes it in one way shape or form good music. The lesson was good and i look further to further debate and discussion.
Defining what is good music is hard as we all experience in class. I stand at the position that all music is good we might not appreciate all the different type of music but that dose not give of the right to define it as bad.
Good music is music that has emotion, skill, and is catchy.
It does not matter how talented the person is because you have some people who are not as talented as others when you consider music in its technicality, that make music better even in simple terms.
I feel that image should not matter as long as the music is good.
I believe the most important characteristic of a good music teacher and musician is that they put there heart into it.
As a student if i did not like a music piece i would not have the courage to say i do not like because ultimately it is my instructors choice. Now as an instructor i would be extremely diverse in giving my students what i like, what they like and make sure that all of it is in an appropriate context.
"Good music is in the eye of the beholder" everyone is entitled think a song or type of music is good. as long as they dont try to bash any of my favorite music.
NO! it doesnt matter how talented a performer is all that matters is if they put their all into a performence. Personally i wouldnt mind if the performer was talented but you have different expections for the type of performence you are going to watch if i am going to a marching band show im going to personally grade them to a different magnitude than i would to a division I drum corp.
On the next matter i would sing take me out to the ball game anywhere. ( I want to hear an organ major play it on the organ in Bristol.)
When i become a music teachr in charge of a choir or band of course their are pieces that i have in my mind that i would love to perform. Who doesnt? But i wouldnt be afraid to perform the new age music of the time or anything ive never performed.
For a person who thinks they are the greatest as a teacher it is not your job to "put anyone in their place" but you are responsible to help your students grow as people and artists
Good music is communication. As cliché as that may sound, it is this simplicity that unites musicians all around the world. When a performer or composer chooses to present a piece, they are communicating their thoughts, philosophies, emotions, etc. to the audience. This “communication” idea is the same concept as the influence of the context; you sing ‘Take Me Out’ at a baseball game because you are communicating to the people around you and you would not do elsewhere because what/who are you communicating to?
At Westminster, pianists cannot attain a Pedagogy degree without a Performance degree as well. Think about this logically. How can one claim to be a teacher without first handedly understanding and experiencing what it is that they are teaching? Passion is great, but foundation is more important. Objective > subjective.
Great composers are studied for a reason. They are the foundations that make music what it is today. Teachers/students are entitled to choose whether or not they like a composer/piece. However, the important aspect is that as teachers, we are MATURE enough to remain open-minded and also, to present music history in the most un-biased way possible.
My students learn music from all the “powerhouse” composers in the history of piano literature (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, etc). They learn the basics first. Keep in mind that these composers were not only great musicians, but they were also great teachers. Their compositions are etudes that improve the technique of students. Once the foundation is built, such as technique, then students are logically free to choose their own repertoire.
Good music: what you like... the end.
Yes, it matters how talented a performer is. As performers we put ourselves out there to be judged and no matter how hard one works, if they don't have 'it' not many people are going to patient enough to try and understand how hard someone worked. Sad, but true.
First off, "Those who can do, those who can't teach," not true! Like Justin said, just because we are music ed majors doesn't mean that someone who is a voice performance major can sing better. From our discussion in class we seemed to have two reasons why we were music ed majors. One being that this is our passion. The second consensus was that teaching is a way to make a living while trying to make it in the very harsh music world.
With Pavoratti's death, I think the time of respecting someone for their talent and not their looks died with him. Sadly, the general populous is more concerned with a person's personal life and general appearance than with how talented they are. So image greatly influences the perceptions made about the quality of music because for many, the image is more interesting than the music. Again, sad.
Context for me is sometimes important. The Beatles for instance, Bob Dylan once said that Bealtes songs have no backbone, but god do I love them and I listen to them on a daily bases as have millions over the generations. However, we love songs that are full of passion and soul and that speak to us. So sometimes contxt is important and sometimes we just want to sing.
I say Beethoven is good. I may not listen to recordings of his work but I'm sorry, i don't care who you are, you have to appreciate it. I will teach all types of music so that kids can choose what they like and come to their own conclusions of what good music is.
Post a Comment