Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Cremonese verus the rest


Recommended Posts

It occurred to me while reading the thread on arching and the

comments about Cremonese violins and their superiority over more

modern instruments, that I've never come across any objective

evidence for this.

It would be a fairly easy study to perform. Have a good player play

a range of instruments including Strads, del Gesus and a selection

of instruments from the 19th and 20th centuries. The player would

be blindfolded or the instruments disguised so that the player

didn't know what violin he/she was playing and play behind a screen

so that a panel of experts wouldn't know what violin was being

played. The player would  play exactly the same piece/pieces

on each violin and the panel would score each instrument for

quality of sound. It is essential that the study design is

double-blind (i.e. the player and the listeners don't know which

violin is which while it is being played).

It would only be through such a study that one could unequivocally

state that a Cremonese violin was better (or not) than more modern

instruments. Without such a study then I believe any claims to

superiority of tone is merely opinion. Does anybody here know of

such a reputable study which has been written up and able to

provide a reference? I think I read of such a study some years ago

which showed that listeners couldn’t tell the difference

between Strads and good modern violins but I'm not sure whether its

an apocryphal story. I'm a relative beginner in this field, but as

a professional scientist I am interested in objective evidence and

how it is gathered.

I suspect that too many people have an interest in maintaining the

current price differential between Cremonese and later instruments

to facilitate such a study for risk that these old Italian violins

may be shown to be no better than the best makers since then.

I also suspect that although Stradivari, the Guaneris and the

Amatis were radical innovators and people since then have largely

copied their instruments, I find it very difficult to believe that

there has been no maker since then who has not equalled or even

surpassed their work.

Discuss?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There have been many, many tests of the kind you suggest.

They usually prove inconclusive.

There was a memorable test discussed on this forum a year or so ago broadcast on BBC radio in the UK.

Amongst the panel of experts was Charles Beare and I think he was the only one to be able to identify the makers from the playing.

But this is only half the story. Itzak Perlman was able to make even cheap fiddles sounds wonderful to a panel of judges. So it isn't just about the violin; it is about the interaction between the instrument and the player.

If this were a simple issue, it would have been clarified years ago by exactly the tests you suggest.

Glenn

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one's been done to death, including supposedly blind tests. I've never heard of a test that could be considered valid: most are like, as I heard it said, "the double-deaf leading the double-blind". First, you have to pick people who have shown they can tell one violin from another, which has never been done, and is a quality that about 1% of violinists actually have, as is amply demonstrated in sales rooms around the world every day. Then you'd have to design a valid test around that.

In general, though, the qualities of Cremonese violins are pretty obvious to those who've been around them, even if they're less clear to people with no experience. I believe it was Solti who told the Chicago Symphony that what they did on the stage they did for their own enjoyment, since hardly anyone in the audience was qualified to appreciate it, and you might say the same about good violins.

I don't think Cremonese violins are in any danger at this point of being consistently (a key word: there are lots of exceptional modern violins, and lots of Strads that aren't functioning near their potential because of adjustment issues) displaced by a modern maker. And that's not even considering the fact that players' styles interact in huge ways with violins to the point where just putting a bunch of violins in front of one person, no matter how skilled he is, will tell you much less about the violins than about the player's style vs the particular violins in the room. If you search this forum you'll find a number of discussions about this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"--Does anybody here know of such a reputable study which has been written up and able to provide a reference?--"

You can find the thread for a series of movies about stradivari violins, and in one of them there was a smilar test between a real strad violin and a couple of modern ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine two possible reasons for the *supposed* superiority of Cremonese (and other classical Italian) instruments:

1. The test of time (preference of superior players spanning several centuries);

2. A monumental conspiracy of dealers which would make the Illuminati look like a bunch of soccer moms.

One's choice could be influenced by some knowledge of lutherie/violins/music, or a propensity for lapping up conspiracy theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Argon55

It occurred to me while reading the thread on arching and the

comments about Cremonese violins and their superiority over more

modern instruments, that I've never come across any objective

evidence for this.

It would be a fairly easy study to perform. Have a good player play

a range of instruments including Strads, del Gesus and a selection

of instruments from the 19th and 20th centuries. The player would

be blindfolded or the instruments disguised so that the player

didn't know what violin he/she was playing and play behind a screen

so that a panel of experts wouldn't know what violin was being

played. The player would  play exactly the same piece/pieces

on each violin and the panel would score each instrument for

quality of sound. It is essential that the study design is

double-blind (i.e. the player and the listeners don't know which

violin is which while it is being played).

It would only be through such a study that one could unequivocally

state that a Cremonese violin was better (or not) than more modern

instruments. Without such a study then I believe any claims to

superiority of tone is merely opinion. Does anybody here know of

such a reputable study which has been written up and able to

provide a reference? I think I read of such a study some years ago

which showed that listeners couldn't tell the difference

between Strads and good modern violins but I'm not sure whether its

an apocryphal story. I'm a relative beginner in this field, but as

a professional scientist I am interested in objective evidence and

how it is gathered.

I suspect that too many people have an interest in maintaining the

current price differential between Cremonese and later instruments

to facilitate such a study for risk that these old Italian violins

may be shown to be no better than the best makers since then.

I also suspect that although Stradivari, the Guaneris and the

Amatis were radical innovators and people since then have largely

copied their instruments, I find it very difficult to believe that

there has been no maker since then who has not equalled or even

surpassed their work.


Well, been there... done that. Over a decade ago, I arranged several blind tests that included classic 17th & 18th century instruments, 19th & early 20th century instruments and contemporary instruments. The fiddles were played behind a blind. The player used their own bow. Results varied... and I believe they did so because:

1) The audiences were made up of players, but each varied in exposure and experience... and of course, taste.

2) Players tend to exploit the features of instruments that are similar to their own, and don't always know how to "work" instruments that are quite different than their own "on the spot".

3) The qualities of the instruments varied (they were not a "set" group).

It was not unusual to have a good Italian fiddle and a contemporary or 19th century fiddle share the favorites list.

Now, these events really weren't set up to be scientifically kosher... They were set up to educate and/or entertain the listeners (the audience). They did illustrate the difficulties of conducting a more scientific study quite clearly, however.

I don't think you'll ever remove subjectivity from a trial like this... but if one wanted to set up a bit more sterile test environment, I believe multiple players, varied repertoire (including chamber, solo and solo with orchestra) and a careful cross-section of listeners (maybe a few sets) would be required.... and then, with all this playing going on, the memory of the listening audience might certainly be called into question...

As far as "risk" to the old valuable instruments goes... First I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that more than 300 years of history wouldn't have sorted out things a bit better by now... and even if it hadn't, there are certainly some old master instruments that don't sound well that are still valuable based on what they are. Great players still covet them. Collectors still desire them. Those who can't afford them (and wished they could) either find ways to discredit them, or openly make their desires known.

Also, making something "better" than the original would logically preclude copying it. A great copy of a famous artwork is just that. A great copy. Innovation really hasn't had too much of an effect on violins and usually pertains to modification rather than design.

Conspiracy theories abound when dealing in areas people don't understand. There are a few who have, or do, deal with old fiddles participating on this board. I don't think we're worried much by these theories... actually, they might even add to the mistique.

Anyway, it took me a while to write this, as I was doing so between customers... so sorry if I've overlapped information supplied by others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everybody for your interesting replies and my apologies if

this topic has already been done to death. However, some of you

have taken the trouble to write quite long replies which I suppose

means it's still of interest to people. These replies have prompted

a number of further thoughts:

1. Apart from Jeffrey's personal experience are any of these trials

written up anywhere? I have an interest in experimental design and

methodology. Maybe I should get a life!

2. I suppose if these double -blind trials were inconclusive then

either there really isn't a difference in sound quality or the

design of the study was flawed (which is why its useful to see the

write-up of the design). However if experts can't consistently

conclude one violin is better than another (even though they might

be aware of a difference in sound) then the difference doesn't

exist. And since professional players perform to audiences who are

largely non-expert in assessing violin sound, then it is even more

likely that they can't hear a difference. Arguably, this means that

the violin market is synonymous with the antiques market.

3. I agree completely with Glen that tone is down to the

interaction between a great player and the instrument. However, if

Perlman was able to make a cheap instrument sound great, why spend

a fortune on a Strad when the vast majority of listeners wont hear

the difference?

4. Some of you seem to think that I said there was a conspiracy

amongst dealers to maintain the pre-eminence of old Italian

violins. I don't for one moment think this is the case and the

reality is more boring. Cultures do quite naturally develop a set

of ideas which become normalised as common sense or a set of

commonly held values which are rarely challenged. Against this

background there is a psychological investment by those who are

heavily involved or make their livings by these means to maintain

the status quo. Anybody who challenges this is either attacked or

belittled (this happens in science as well where individuals

challenge a current paradigm). However, it doesn't mean there is a

conscious desire to manipulate prices through some sort of

conspiracy.

5. And finally, one further point about the development of the

violin. If what many people say is correct, then the violin more or

less reached perfection in form in the 16th to early 18th

centuries. Hats off to makers from da Salo onwards. But if the form

is perfect (more or less) then it's not possible to improve it

further (probably) and more modern makers have to be judged by the

sound of the violins produced and I suppose the quality of their

craftsmanship, not because they can't innovate. If the sound is as

good, then they are as good a maker (if not an innovator).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on the second point you've definitely missed something. There could be one best instrument only if everyone played the same, which is not the case. There's a huge difference in violins, depending on how they're played. Usually people evaulate them based on how good they sound when played in the best way. That is one thing that precludes a normal testing situation. I know a del Gesu which sounds good only when played by someone with a particular touch. I've heard it played well three times, each time by a great player, and it was fantastic--better than almost anything else I've ever heard, played by anyone. No one else could make it do a thing. It was owned by one of the most famous violinists of all time. Is that a great violin or a poor one? Just because not every schmoe on the street can play it and every schmoe in the audience doesn't get it, that doesn't detract from the violin--it's just a comment on players and audiences.

Innovation is a funny issue. The first tihng you have to do, in my opinion, is make a violin as good as a normal great violin. Then you have to make it better. I can conceive of ways to make a better violin--it would just have more of the qualities that the greatest several violins have. If a modern maker could do that, that would be important. It ain't happening.

As for the conspiracy thing, common reputations are being challenged all the time in the violin world, and have been for 400 years. People with ears, however, continue to be able to evaluate and recognize the difference, and understand great violins. The people who challenge the issue mostly don't seem to hear what's happening with great violins, and I don't see any reason why they should be permitted to judge the standard. I suspect you are one, otherwise, you wouldn't be making the fuss you are. Perhaps you should consider if possibly YOU are missing something that 400 years of great players understood and valued. Your complaint sounds very much like the fox's regarding the grapes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Argon55, Here's a reply to a couple of your latest points.

'3. I agree completely with Glen that tone is down to the

interaction between a great player and the instrument. However, if

Perlman was able to make a cheap instrument sound great, why spend

a fortune on a Strad when the vast majority of listeners wont hear

the difference?'

The answer here is simple. Great players can make a great sound on

an ordinary instrument because they have amazing technique....but

it takes much more effort  to play like this on an ordinary

instrument compared to a great instrument.

5. And finally, one further point about the development of the

violin. If what many people say is correct, then the violin more or

less reached perfection in form in the 16th to early 18th

centuries. Hats off to makers from da Salo onwards. But if the form

is perfect (more or less) then it's not possible to improve it

further (probably) and more modern makers have to be judged by the

sound of the violins produced and I suppose the quality of their

craftsmanship, not because they can't innovate. If the sound is as

good, then they are as good a maker (if not an innovator).

It would be incorrect to say that modern makers do not innovate.

Making new instruments requires a lot of innovation even when

copying the established designs of the great old Cremonese. These

old instruments distort over time, copying them demands study and

reverse engineering. Then the maker has materials to choose that

always are variable being from natural sources. Even billets of

wood cut from the same tree vary and no two pieces are alike. It is

never so simple as to repeat the success of last time! ...its is a

bit like the saying that 'you never walk across the same river

twice'. And it is the same for players...with humidity temperature

and mood their instrument never plays exactly the same day to

day!....They also innovate in the minutiae of technique. This

innovation required is what gives the magic and provides the

fascination of interpretating long set formulae on a daily basis!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Melving,

Interesting points you make and I do agree about some violins being

more responsive than others. I'd love to have the chance to play a

Strad or a del Gesu though sadly I think the reverse is also

probably true that poor players make a great instrument sound poor!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

you used the phrase "hear what's happening with great violins"...i

realize that the operative word is 'hear,' so maybe it's not

something that can be explained in words, but can you describe at

all what sorts of things are happening with these violins? or is it

like with visual art, you really need to have what you're

discussing in front of the explainer and the explainee, that you

have to listen together and point things out as they come?

can you here this in recording of great soloists, or does it need

to be up close and in person? (that is, are there any recordings i

could listen to that would help me learn this?)

thanks!

cassi  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argon55..I wish you will have the change to play a Strad or del Gesu!....Your questions are all reasonable ones. It is hard to cover this ground in short replies ..I have been quite simplistic and as Michel implies the answers are not always so simple. In some ways the hype is similar to wine!...Hard to believe but in the right conditions from the right bottle we have the rare chance to try just one glass and think WOW!

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Michael Darnton
...The first

tihng you have to do, in my opinion, is make a violin as good as a

normal great violin. Then you have to make it better...

I would assume that, in making this statement, that you don't think

that you have made a violin as "good" as a Cremonese masterpiece.

But, just for the sake of argument, if you did happen to make a

violin that actually matched or even exceeded a Stradivari, how

would you know that you had done so?

It doesn't take a whole lot of insight or courage to exclaim that

Stradivari made brilliant violins, but to proclaim that a

contemporary violin maker was contributing to the greatness that

was previously known only to the Cremonese would indeed take some

chutzpah. Especially considering that a new violin will take some

years to "wake up", and even then, only a master violinist could

tell you what the fiddle was giving back to him as he played.

The Perlman story is interesting - I would make a presumption that,

although the audience heard that he was sounding magnificent even

when playing a cheap factory violin, the sound wasn't satisfactory

to him. He might consider that the music he creates when he is

holding an instrument that is an historically significant work of

art is significantly more inspired than if he were holding any

other instrument. That is something that is very difficult for a

new maker to compete with.

All of the factors discussed here contribute to the sensationally

inflated values of these antique masterpieces. Which is a great

tragedy for young, up-and-coming violin soloists who have no

possibility whatsoever of owning one of these instruments. And

that makes the role of the contemporary violin maker all the

more important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great violins

--respond instantly. Each note starts quickly and cleanly, without any initial noise at all (not even an icy harshness), with almost an initial pop. In quick passages each note stands out individually, not smeared into the others, even in slurred passages. It's difficult or nearly impossible to make a bad attack--what you hear in the audience is an unusual cleanliness to the beginning of each note and separation from the previous one (which stops sounding instantly without lingering into the next note), and that's something that's particularly easy for a listener to catch, once you tune your ear to it. It's also a major contributor to higher playing quality in a player, since he doesn't have to spend energy making sure all his attacks are just right to compensate for the violin's own lack of good temper. When I was selling violins on a daily basis players would use the same several pieces for testing, and I grew accustomed to internally cringing in anticipation of several specific notes in each piece that seemed universally difficult to execute cleanly and beautifully. Not a problem for a great violin, though, which would sail through those notes perfectly. [One of the problems with listening tests is that a good player will automatically compensate for those notes, which are the same ones every time, and you'll never know how bad a violin really is--that's why someone like Kreisler could play on anything and make it sound great.]

--lack dissonance. Every note is clear and clean, internally (the harmonics) in tune and smooth, without anything dirty or extraneous. That's also something listeners can pick up, though it's harder--it's a little like hearing an in-tune piano vs an out-of-tune one (where one of each of the three strings that make a note is slightly out), but much less obvious.

--have presence. This is the hardest thing to hear. It expresses itself in the violin "appearing" to the ear to take up a lot of stage territory, and it can be slightly difficult to pinpoint the exact location of the violin. A side component of this is a particularly enveloping beauty of tone that's very subtle and difficult to characterize. I have heard a lot of nice violins, but I have *never* heard a violin that wasn't Cremonese that did this last thing, and this is also the most difficult aspect to hear.

--can be heard. This is not ear-painful volume, which may or may not carry; it's genuine carrying power: the ability to stand out against a number of other instruments. Generally raw, dissonant, or bright violins may appear to have more volume, but against other instruments, tonal purity and higher output in a particular small band of harmonics around 2500hz wins, even though the violin may see inadequate or even veiled on its own.

I don't much like listening to recordings of violins for the purpose of listening to the violin itself. I rarely get an impression from a recording that's even vaguely similar to the real thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Salieri

quote:


Originally posted by:
Michael Darnton
...The first

tihng you have to do, in my opinion, is make a violin as good as a

normal great violin. Then you have to make it better...

I would assume that, in making this statement, that you don't think

that you have made a violin as "good" as a Cremonese masterpiece.

But, just for the sake of argument, if you did happen to make a

violin that actually matched or even exceeded a Stradivari, how

would you know that you had done so?


I'm pretty sure it would be really apparent to me, IF I had a good Strad there at the moment for comparison. Alone, no. I've felt I've done a pretty nice thing once in a while, but a side-by-side comparison with the real thing is always an abrupt and painful reality check. It's easy to believe you're great if you have no fixed reality to compare with. :-) It's easy to think you're the smartest person in the room when you're the only person in the room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Argon55

3. I agree completely with Glen that tone is down to the

interaction between a great player and the instrument. However, if

Perlman was able to make a cheap instrument sound great, why spend

a fortune on a Strad when the vast majority of listeners wont hear

the difference?

On a great violin, he can get the artistic effect he wants without having to compromise his technique. On a lesser violin he has to work more and make changes in how he plays in order to achieve the effect he wants. What I have heard from players with very fine instruments is that the better the instrument, the less you have to compromise as an artist.

Besides, I'm sure Perlman can hear the difference!

My personal experience is that it takes a long time and a lot of regular exposure to build "ears" for these things. Ten years ago, I could not have distinguished between a Strad and a Matsuda. It's taken me ten years of daily exposure to different instruments to begin to listen and appreciate the differences between instruments, and I'm still very much a novice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Argon55

3. I agree completely with Glen that tone is down to the

interaction between a great player and the instrument. However, if

Perlman was able to make a cheap instrument sound great, why spend

a fortune on a Strad when the vast majority of listeners wont hear

the difference?


Dear Argon55,

I think you tend to oversimplify things a tad. As a capable musician, I can make a cheap instrument sound satisfactory. But it will never sound as good as a great instrument! Why? There are myriads of intricacies involved in sound production that could be easily negotiated on that great instrument without much sacrifices to the end product (music). The standing question is: Does my audience have an acute ear, which was cultivated through the years of critical listening, to appreciate the finest details of my playing on that great instrument? The answer to that is overwhelmingly NO. To a great majority of classical music lovers a Chaconna played on good Hopf would sound about the same as that played on a Stradivarius.

With that said, there are few educated connoisseurs who will be able to pick up the subtleties of a fine instrument, much like a wine lover would with a bottle of 1785 Chateau d'Yquem. Of course, a 2003 Yellow Tail might do the trick for the most, leaving them with the infamous question: why would anyone spend more than $12.99 on a bottle of wine?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the posts I am puzzled a liitle bit, I feel I have to modify all I know from all experiments I did in the last five years.

There is almost no concept such as "poor sounding violin", but poorly played violins are very possible.

I think It is fair to think in the other way that a good strad will sound like a cheap factory violin when played by poor players since the whole issue is a matter of playing.

I believe, cheap violin will still sound(right, could be made satisfactory to certain extend) cheap, any musically sensitive, a little bit trained ear will catch this no matter who ever plays it , and this is valid for any instrument whether It is cremonese or siberian or some where else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Top-level professional violinists, as opposed to students and lower level pros, rarely comment on the overall tone of a violin unless it's grossly off in some obvious way. The thing I've mostly heard from them is something like "I can work with that", meaning, "I can make this violin do all of the things I need it to do."

The things we think of when we think of the tonal quality of a great player are to a very great extent artifacts of the player and his approach to and interaction with the instrument, not the violin itself--good players impose their sound on the instrument (and the flexibility of a violin to allow that is one of the things that makes it possible for a violin to be "worked with".) If a violin is just horrible sounding, and/or unable to play cleanly and purely, both at a decent volume with a wide volume range and easy repsonse at low pressure and volume (something very important that I didn't mention above), with a reasonably quick transient response (though, obviously, players need that to various degrees), that's unworkable. It's usually just the lowest level of player who will say something silly like "I'm looking for a violin with my voice." (A line that makes violin salespeople, and probably the good teachers, too, roll their eyes.) That just means they're still in a spot where the violin is telling them what to do, rather than the other way around, as it should be.

When I have slipped a Strad into the mix of violins that lower-level players and students who seemed confused about what they were looking for were trying, I would say that roughly 100% of them immediately recognized that they had something special in their hands. What they noticed the most and commented about, usually, was how easy it was to play, not how nice it sounded. They didn't notice the tone, because it was fine, however most had never played a violin that was so close to being able to play itself. I used to do that frequently when I worked at Bein and Fush because it was such a great instant lesson in what a violin should and could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor that is rarely given enough consideration is room acoustics. The effect of the room on perceived tone is significant. It would be interesting to duplicate such listening tests with the same violins and players in several rooms/halls and see how the results vary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow Michael, i would think that Strad-swap thing would damage

people for life! how can they ever find an instrument to

satisfy them after that?

also, somehow i thought you had dynamic range in your list, but i

went back and looked, and you didn't! i finally realized it was

because your excellent list got me to thinking about how i approach

a violin, to think more deeply and analytically about playability

rather than just the character of the tone, and dynamic range was

one of the those things that was important to me (i realize a lot

of this is technique, too!)--so your list was so good, even missing

something it led to it anyway!  (if that makes any sense!)

one other question, you mentioned pieces that challenge a violin's

playability...i think i have seen some suggestions by other people

on pieces to play in evaluating a violin (i think on

violinist.com?), but what are the pieces you are talking about?

(not that i could probably currently play them, but for future

reference!)

thanks!

cassi  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selim, seeing ("hearing") is believing.

My daughter's violin teacher presents an annual concert where every student gets to play, regardless of their standard. In a gathering like that there will obviously be a fair variety of instruments, ranging from entry-level Chinese to maker's instruments. It so happens that I get to maintain most of the instruments, and sitting in the audience I'm often amazed at how much - or how little - some of them manage to do with the instruments which I know pretty well.

One time there was a new student - quite talented and advanced - who I've never seen before, and on whose violin I've never worked. I couldn't see what he was playing on, but the tone he produced was to die for. Afterwards I sought him out, because his instrument really sounded special and I wanted to have a closer look.

It was an entry-level Palatino, still with its factory-issue bridge and post (how he got the bridge to stay upright more or less in the right place I'll never know), thin steel strings, and that floppy disposable cherry-wood bow which comes with the outfit. It was the worst violin in the room by some margin - there were other entry-level Palatinos, but they had decent setups and strings, and in some cases a better bow too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It was an entry-level Palatino, still with its factory-issue bridge and post (how he got the bridge to stay upright more or less in the right place I'll never know), thin steel strings, and that floppy disposable cherry-wood bow which comes with the outfit."

Yes, I've seen similar things happen also.

This reminds me of the time I watched a guy on TV play a $0.98 plastic ukulele (with amazing skill) attempting to make a point about music.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...