Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Have DJs really killed the live scene? (repost)


Recommended Posts

(i posted this on the keyboard forum but thought it would be good on here)

 

After some comments on the post about wedding music.. i was having a think about the whole topic of DJs.. and how they are accused of killing the live music scene.

 

Now before you all shoot me... i am a musician and have been put out of many a job because of DJs....

 

lets have a think about this..

Many venues use DJs cos it is cheaper. I guess its fair enough... money is tight.. they are running a business...

 

But what about the other reasons we hear;

bands dont sound as good...

they are harder to work with...

DJs have more songs...

the crowd likes th dj....

the vibe is better with a dj...

we make more money with the dj....

etc etc...

 

So... what if the bands had become better at playing all the favourite songs?... and built a rapor with the crowd, and sounded tight and clear, and were a pleasure to work with... and brought a killer vibe and hundreds of paying customers...? I wonder if it would still be the same situation?

 

I play a lot of venues that have both... Band and the time between sets is a dj and for 3 hours after the band.

 

Any comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think DJ's and bands are suited to different crowds. People want to see bands for the experience of the music and performance. People want to groove to music DJ's are smackin' around. Why DJ's may be more popular... accessibility perhaps. Maybe said bands aren't tried and true in the community yet and the venues don't want to take too much of a chance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I've lost anything to a DJ other that one that was a comp'd freebie anyway for tips and drinks.

 

I have worked several split gigs with DJs and these gigs were split three ways with the DJ, my friend's band, Somebody's Son, who play Southern Rock and Blues, and me a solo acoustic act.

The only issue I saw was the volume level for the DJ was insane each time. Somebody's Son is pretty loud but the DJs were so loud it gave everyone a headache.

The musical diversity seemed to go over very well with the crowds.

One of these was a very large motorcycle club weekend rally and they dug the hell out of the way the entertainment went. Next to no dead-air time.

 

Our Joint

 

"When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a shot at this one - in having had a few friends that were DJ's in the past to reflect on.

 

Here are a few things that I can think of right off the top of my head.

 

Set up time - Unless we are talking about a house band that leaves their equipment staged from day to day; there is far less set up time and disruption to the club environment when using a one man DJ system. The PA and spin table/CD/DVD player are the only things required for a DJ, whereas a Band requires a lot more set up time for moving equipment in and out, sound checks, and etc. A DJ does not have to tune to other instruments or adjust instrument levels to other players. Clubs like the fact that there is entertainment while having less distraction. If a DJ is good with crowd interaction, s/he can actually be considered as LIVE entertainment, although s/he is just playing other peoples' tunes.

 

Space provided - a DJ can easily operate in a space as small as a 6' square. Bands need room to spread out in order to accommodate all of their equipment and band members. Less space used by the entertainers means more room for the patrons of the club to occupy.

 

DJ's are consistant and there is no fret as to whether or not they KNOW the songs that they will be playing.

 

Unless a DJ is just really inexperienced or has poor equipment and bad sounding discs, there's not nearly as much room for error as what there is with a live band.

 

We won't compare the differences when bands are allowed to drink..... I think it would be easier to play CD's if a DJ were to get drunk than it would for a band member to go flying off into a no man's land solo or play/sing off pitch.....

 

Of course, a reputation will follow any band or DJ and clubs should use scrutiny when selecting their entertainment.

 

I think a lot of it lays more in the expense, set-up time, and space than the latter of what I said though.

You can take the man away from his music, but you can't take the music out of the man.

 

Books by Craig Anderton through Amazon

 

Sweetwater: Bruce Swedien\'s "Make Mine Music"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Keysking:

So... what if the bands had become better at playing all the favourite songs?... and built a rapor with the crowd, and sounded tight and clear, and were a pleasure to work with... and brought a killer vibe and hundreds of paying customers...? I wonder if it would still be the same situation?

Well, there ARE a lot of bands who have responded to the DJ craze by becoming "human jukeboxes" - doing a fairly rigid playlist of very popular songs, and doing them quite well. Giving the people what they want, so to speak. Many of them have their own sound systems so the sound doesn't suck. And many of them are doing quite well, money wise.

 

However that doesn't leave much room for creativity, and it leaves almost NO room for original bands or even cover bands who play stuff that's off the beaten path. The fact of the matter is audiences used to be open to hearing new music and now for the most part they aren't. They've been pandered to by radio, record labels, DJ's and cover bands who are using a "focus group" approach to decide what to play. IMO, this is not a good thing at all. The corporate approach simply doesn't work for art, yet that is what is prevailing at the moment. Audiences have now been trained to get what they want or expect, and nothing more.

 

I don't think DJ's specifically are to blame for this, they are just a natural response to the current climate which is really stacked against live music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

However that doesn't leave much room for creativity, and it leaves almost NO room for original bands or even cover bands who play stuff that's off the beaten path.

 

I don't think DJ's specifically are to blame for this, they are just a natural response to the current climate which is really stacked against live music.

Perhaps listeners have simply become more sophisticated and demanding.

 

We're bombarded with options: FM, Satellite radio, iPod programming, CDs, copies of other people's CDs, downloaded MP3 files, internet radio, cable-TV music stations... not to mention music DVDs, movies at the theater, movie DVDs, etc.

 

There is so much to choose from today regarding our entertainment options, why should we listen to schlock? Of course, I'm not saying that all original bands or cover bands who play stuff that's off the beaten path are all crap. Not in the least.

 

However, with all the options at our disposal, it simply causes us to be much more specific about how we spend our time and the music we choose to listen to.

 

If an band playing original music doesn't make the grade, then it would be foolish to waste time listening to them when there are thousands of other easily accessible options that are going to make us happy.

 

There's plenty of room for good bands that play original music and cover bands that play stuff that's off the beaten path. The fact is that with so many options, not-so-good bands are simply not worth our time. We now have more and better choices than we've ever had.

 

I'll also add that I don't agree that "the current climate... is really stacked against live music." People who enjoy listening to live music simply have more options and have become more critical. If the quality isn't there, the audience will move on to something else. That's just the way it is.

 

Tom

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that having so many more options has made it tougher for a band to find an audience. But I don't agree that audiences have become more sophisticated. If anything they have simply become less willing to take chances on hearing anything new. I agree that if you go to see an original band and it sucks, then there's no reason to keep listening. But the number of people who are actually willing to even go HEAR an original band that they haven't heard before has shrunk dramatically. There are a lot of reasons for this... but the fact remains that unless a band became established 10 years ago or more and people already know what they sound like, most people won't go and check out a new band. As a result most of the newer bands (some of whom are really good) are playing for tiny audiences. Those few people may love what they hear but there aren't enough of them to keep a bar open, and there's no real way for the bands to build a following if they can't be exposed to anyone new.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most live bands are predictable IMHO. The blues craze has ran itself full circle. Actually, it is refreshing to hear a band playing all original material. Having lived in New Orleans for years, having actually played in the bars and knowing how horrible the pay is, in this city, it is mainly a paid rehearsal and the musicians must love what they do...because 15 bucks a cat per set just don't cut it.

 

Of course, some musicians really get paid well.

Bill Roberts Precision Mastering

-----------Since 1975-----------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I agree that having so many more options has made it tougher for a band to find an audience. But I don't agree that audiences have become more sophisticated. If anything they have simply become less willing to take chances on hearing anything new. I agree that if you go to see an original band and it sucks, then there's no reason to keep listening. But the number of people who are actually willing to even go HEAR an original band that they haven't heard before has shrunk dramatically. There are a lot of reasons for this... but the fact remains that unless a band became established 10 years ago or more and people already know what they sound like, most people won't go and check out a new band. As a result most of the newer bands (some of whom are really good) are playing for tiny audiences. Those few people may love what they hear but there aren't enough of them to keep a bar open, and there's no real way for the bands to build a following if they can't be exposed to anyone new.

My thoughts exactly :thu:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Audiences have become the opposite of more sophisticated. They've become artistically challenged. A soceity bereft of art. Unappreciative of the creative impulse. And many creative people have given up due to apathy and the constant uphill struggle.

 

It's an instant gratification culture whose disease spreads like a virus; a fast spreading ebola to every unsuspecting orifice.

 

Can't blame to club owner. He's a business man. It's more cost effective to hire a DJ. Blame the audience. That'll do good. They don't know any better. They just wanna dance, have fun and get laid. Gotta blame the artist for not stepping up to the plate. There's no art? Make more art. Make so much they can't turn it off.

 

Don't find out what the audience wants and try to provide it. They don't know any better. That's Madison Avenue. They aren't the artists. Give them what they don't know. The artist is the visionary - not the audience; not the club owner; not the record exec.

All the best,

 

Henry Robinett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think music is more pigeonholed than it was in the past be it Oldies,dance,top 40 etc. Each genre has it's safe songlists that the majority of people want to hear and the majority of bands or dj's play.

 

I'm 45 and have but I have no interest in seeing an oldies band or a dj playing the same songs that have been beaten to death for the last 25 years even though I grew up with and was influenced by a lot of those bands. I would be more interested in hearing a more ecletic song selection but I know I'm in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Those few people may love what they hear but there aren't enough of them to keep a bar open, and there's no real way for the bands to build a following if they can't be exposed to anyone new.

Lee, there was a newspaper article just this week about how local radio is changing to try to retain audience share in this expanding market that has so much to choose from. One of those ways was to involve local folks to come on the radio and discuss events that are taking place in the area.

 

If bands with original music, or bands playing 'B' side tunes that you don't hear as often could find a way to get their names and music out, this has got to help.

 

I know that you are active in the Atlanta music scene and I believe that you know what you are talking about - it's right there in front of you.

 

The public needs to be comfortable taking a risk and making the effort to come out to hear bands playing new music. In my mind, this can only happen if they are introduced to a taste, a smattering, a demo, whatever via local outlets (TV, radio, posters, ipod programming, internet radio, college stations, etc.)

 

I think that people really want to hear new music - if it's something that they can readily like. The effort must be in persuading them to try it, right?

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/images/xtq_photos/2005-1/xtq_20050517-images/main-899042-547706.jpg

 

HERE\'S A LINK to the newspaper article I am referring to. Perhaps it will shed some light on the topic.

 

Take care Lee,

 

Tom

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Audiences have become the opposite of more sophisticated. They've become artistically challenged. A soceity bereft of art. Unappreciative of the creative impulse. And many creative people have given up due to apathy and the constant uphill struggle.

 

It's an instant gratification culture whose disease spreads like a virus; a fast spreading ebola to every unsuspecting orifice.

 

Can't blame to club owner. He's a business man. It's more cost effective to hire a DJ. Blame the audience. That'll do good. They don't know any better. They just wanna dance, have fun and get laid. Gotta blame the artist for not stepping up to the plate. There's no art? Make more art. Make so much they can't turn it off.

 

Don't find out what the audience wants and try to provide it. They don't know any better. That's Madison Avenue. They aren't the artists. Give them what they don't know. The artist is the visionary - not the audience; not the club owner; not the record exec.

37 thumbs up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

The public needs to be comfortable taking a risk and making the effort to come out to hear bands playing new music. In my mind, this can only happen if they are introduced to a taste, a smattering, a demo, whatever via local outlets (TV, radio, posters, ipod programming, internet radio, college stations, etc.)

 

I think that people really want to hear new music - if it's something that they can readily like. The effort must be in persuading them to try it, right?

Yes, most definitely! And radio doesn't usually help. Their local music shows are anywhere from nonexistent to just giving it lip service.

 

Part of the problem is that it seems it's either one extreme or the other in terms of radio programmers and club owners. Either they are extremely strict about what they will play and promote, and it has to follow "corporate guidelines," or they believe in a "democratic" approach, in other words "everyone deserves to be heard maaaan." You know, like a lot of the college stations. I love being exposed to new music but frankly I can't stomach listening to a college station for more than 20 minutes because a good deal of the stuff they play just plain sucks. Same thing with going to a local club because they have so many clueless booking people that after awhile people just stop going. I've seen this happen to several once-great clubs recently.

 

I think Henry's post is spot on except that I think his attitude applies to club bookers, radio programmers/DJ's, and record labels as well: NONE of these people are artists anymore! You can't entirely blame the audience for staying away in droves and only wanting to see what's predictable, even though they have their share of the blame. But you also have to blame the corporate culture and the de-personification of the business people involved in music. Managers, producers, label execs, radio programmers and DJ's, and club owners used to be real personalities whose personal judgement played a huge role in deciding what was worthy of promoting... now they are as uncaring about the art as anybody else. Club owners don't even care about putting together bills that make sense. The days of people going out to clubs just to "hang out" and see whoever's there, because chances are they won't suck, are mostly gone.

 

There are no modern day Bill Grahams, John Hammond Jr's, Alan Freeds, Ahmet Erteguns, Miles Copelands. The business people are too busy pandering to the focus group mentality just like everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First... people said the same thing about jukeboxes. And they had just as good a reason to, too.

 

Our own is hardly the first era when (some) musicians have railed against the DJ. The original 60's discoteque era... the disco revival in the early 70s and then the huge breakout disco re-revival in the late 70s when Hollywood came on board...

 

It's a complex equation. Sometimes there are economic issues involved, of course.

 

It's expensive to hire a good wedding or event band.

 

And, depending on the event, there's always the possibility of the band overwhelming the event and becoming the centerpiece of the day, instead of whatever the focus of the celebration really is. (Of course, you can make that statement about the wet bar, too.)

 

And then there's an underlying issue that a lot of musicians don't seem to like to think about or even sometimes acknowledge: a lot of times folks prefer a DJ over bands for a number of reasons. DJ's can be very responsive to the 'vibe,' often playing the crowd with more flexibility and responsiveness than a band can reasonably be expected to deliver.

 

And, in the broader picture, it ought to be acknowledged that musicians are a bit like a fleet of battleships. It's hard to turn them around in the cultural waters in a timely manner, sometimes.

 

It's always been my feeling that those periods of "dj supremacy" when it looks like club music will finally knock out live music for the count are, at least in part, a cultural response to moribund pop music styles. When bands are not responding to a restless music consumer base, as they didn't in the early 60's (the twin bursts of discoteque music and the DIY folk explosion which was, predominately outsider musicians well outside the pop/club band milieu), the 70s (the disco resurgence and the DIY punk/new music explosion), and the late 80s/early 90s with the rave/club scene, and to some extent the grunge scene. (Unfortunately, it seems to me, grunge was not allowed to develop to maturity as a DIY movement, since it was coopted so quickly -- and so thoroughly -- by a desperate record industry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Give them what they don't know. The artist is the visionary - not the audience; not the club owner; not the record exec.

I agree.

 

Art and business are two fields that must come together, but must also remain separated.

 

The artist is the visionary. Of course!

 

The businessman needs to find a way to help the artist succeed without stepping on his creative toes.

 

It's an unusual marriage that is oh-so difficult to get right. However, when it DOES work, it's beautiful.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree with what Lee and Henry are saying - we're out of balance. And frankly, I think we're not doing anyone a lot of good by spinning our wheels trying to put the blame on someone or something in particular.

 

Focus groups are good - up to a point. They are not the total solution, however.

 

Artists making lots and lots of art is good - up to a point. After a while throwing mud up against the wall and hoping some of it sticks gets awfully frustrating though.

 

There must be a happy medium that actually works. As musicians, it is up to us to figure out how we can do our part - make the music, while listening to what the businessman says and giving it some consideration. The businessman, in and of himself, is not a villian. Neither is the audience; sophisticated or not. And who can blame them for wanting to go out on the town, hearing good music, having a drink or two, and trying to get laid. It's the American way (and the European way, for that matter).

 

The bottom line is that we have to think smart. We can't put the blame on somebody else forever. As musicians, we need to pull ourselves out of this rut and move forward.

 

With the internet and new technologies, things change at a very fast pace. We need to figure out how to work these changes in our favor. We need to make it so people enjoy taking a chance with new live music again. It's up to us to figure out what will become our future.

 

Remember, the suits can't do it by themselves. Music comes from the heart and the soul.

 

Sorry if I seem to ramble. But the opinions expressed in this thread are a good start. What else can we do to make it happen and get us out of this rut we seem to have fallen into?

 

Tom

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only thing we can do is to create more art and get it to people by any ethical means necessary. The more people do this the better. This whole discussion is moot without the music. Capture your imagination. That's where it all begins. Then all of us need to support live music and take others and talk it up. Make the scene. The lamest thing we can do is to sit around and complain. Or cast blame somewhere else.

All the best,

 

Henry Robinett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the public doesn't know the difference and still pay to hang out in a building with complete strangers and way too expensive drinks, musicians are screwed! :)

 

If there are like minded listeners there'll always be cool bands to fill the void. I'd like to think there are alot more enlightened folks with a clue than the DJ/Karoake bar scene depicts.

Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to what it usually comes down to: MONEY.

 

People don`t know if a band is better or worse than a DJ, they just know what they are used to so I don`t think that excuse is valid.

 

Insurances weighs heavily as well for recpetion halls and clubs. More people setting up and hauling gear, means more likely the chance that someone get injured or something gets damaged.

 

I think its pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully DJs provide an alternative to bands insofar as an audience is concerned.

 

And I don't know about audiences becoming more sophisticated or less sophisticated. There's more variety of music than ever, and to me, things have become more splintered (segregated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

I think the only thing we can do is to create more art and get it to people by any ethical means necessary. The more people do this the better. This whole discussion is moot without the music. Capture your imagination. That's where it all begins. Then all of us need to support live music and take others and talk it up. Make the scene. The lamest thing we can do is to sit around and complain. Or cast blame somewhere else.

Well one could get the impression because we don't see each other in real life that all we do is complain. We tend to come to these forums to vent with other like minded people, and that's OK. That doesn't mean we aren't ALSO trying to do something. Acting and complaining are not mutually exclusive. :D

 

I'm extremely supportive of live music. When I'm not gigging I go to see as many local bands as I can which I think might interest me. And some of them are great... but very few of them have very many people at their shows. :( When you feel you're working your ass off and there is plenty of great music out there and you support it, and it doesn't do any good, it becomes hard not to complain. It's discouraging. And anyhow sometimes complaining can lead to more new ideas to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I wasn't pointing fingers at others 'do nothing but complain-ingness.' I was pointing the finger at myself. I go out an play but rarely go out and listen. Time. Kids, studio, wife, etc.. By 10 I'm thinking about bed. So I'm complaining. How lame can I get?

 

But you're right Lee. Venting can create ideas.

All the best,

 

Henry Robinett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you're being lame, Henry. You're right to speak up because it's wrong and it sucks, and a lot of younger people probably don't remember a time when it was any different. And you ARE doing something about it to the extent you can - making music that does serve art and not the bottom line, and doing your best to promote it. That counts for a lot!

 

Musicians don't operate in a vacuum though, we need other people who care about music - club owners, label owners, radio programmers, etc. who can help create an environment where music is welcome and important, and that audiences can trust to bring quality stuff to the table. There just are not many of those left, and they do get their share of blame. It's noble to try and take everything into our own hands but I don't think that approach really brings the best results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee and Henry,

 

Thank you for your insight.

 

Your ideas help to make this forum a better place.

 

I appreciate that.

 

Tom

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that we need to support those who are making music: performing songwriters & bands! This means going out to see them, buying their music, telling others about artists we discovered and enjoy.

 

This is taking the topic off a little but...

 

I feel that unfortunately, in the last 20 years music has become a soundtrack to our lives instead of something to turn to for pure enjoyment.

 

Even I fall into this trap, I`ll put music on when I need to clean the house.

 

Music is no longer something we stop, sit down and listen to. Yes, musicians do this but for the everyday person, its about what can I put on to avoid the silence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ernest Buckley:

Music is no longer something we stop, sit down and listen to. Yes, musicians do this but for the everyday person, its about what can I put on to avoid the silence.

Music is, in many cultures, something that people gather around to do. They don't have this trip about "not being talented" or whatever. They just do it. That's something I'd love to have more of in this country.

 

And I think for the "everyday person" (whoever that is), many are actually hearing music more and more if they can afford things like iPod. They're "soundtracking" their life even more than before. And many of the people purchasing iPods are young - music is very important to them.

 

And finally, I come in contact with a lot of young people. And you'd be surprised at what they are listening to. I think a lot "older people" think that they are not aware of music that doesn't use loops or isn't coming from a DJ, but a lot of people in high school are listening to Led Zeppelin and AC/DC and Hendrix and The Who and other classic rock stuff. They're aware of it and like it. Sabbath is a huge group among younger kids. You'd really be surprised at how much they listen to that isn't electronica or hip-hop (although that's popular too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I have noticed over the past several years is the fact that there is very little to absolutely no HYPE to promote live music shows. Back in the day where live bands were more popular, you used hear radio promotions, see posters placed about, see flyers passed out, and sometimes billboards and TV commercials depending on the size of the event. Knowledge of an event can make a HUGE difference in attendence.

 

As far as why club owners book basically "Top 40" bands; I suppose it's because of the crowds' familiarity and response to the materials. To me, I "LIKE" hearing original bands play... especially if they are talented musicians and put on a good show; I prefer quality originals to the Top 40 and Oldies garbage ANYDAY. That's just me, though. I like "creators", not "immitators."

 

Perhaps listeners have simply become more sophisticated and demanding.
I don't think that sophistication has anything to do with club patrons and what they respond to.

You can take the man away from his music, but you can't take the music out of the man.

 

Books by Craig Anderton through Amazon

 

Sweetwater: Bruce Swedien\'s "Make Mine Music"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I've noticed that too Ken. A lot of young people will even shell out big bucks to hear an old band that's touring again, or a tribute band.

 

Trouble is, there are still NEW bands who are playing that type of stuff - that has good musicianship, melodies, song structure etc. like the classic rock stuff did - but hardly anyone knows they exist. Everyone thinks the only choices in live music are between the "old" classic rock (including the cover bands, tribute bands etc.) and the "new rock"/indie rock/nu metal/postpunk, and hip hop. Lots of people still don't know about IPO for instance, even if they live in L.A. and are fans of that type of music.

 

Bottom line you have to invest a lot of time in wading through all the indie releases to find stuff you like... and a lot of people don't have that kind of time or passion for doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the younger bands have more difficulty, although if you are into The Killers and Yeah Yeah Yeahs and some of the younger bands coming up that were influenced by early '80s stuff, you'd never know it. The KROQ Weenie Roast and Coachella sell tens of thousands of tickets in minutes every year and feature quite a lot of live bands. Same with OzzFest. Hardcore, metal, and punk scenes still have fans that are notoriously loyal. I'm not trying to discount the discussion here, but merely to point out that 1.) many young people are quite aware of live music, and 2.) to show that it's not all dismal! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the last OzzFest was cancelled due to lack of ticket sales? I know the last Lollpalooza was.

 

And I agree, many young people are aware of live music, I just don't know that there are as many of them or that they place the same importance on it as the last couple of generations... due to all the other stuff competing for their time among other things, and also the fact that the scene has become so fragmented that it's tough to decide who to support.

 

I think that will probably change eventually but it's hard to predict when and how. Glad to hear that the KROQ events are gathering big crowds... it seems like similar stuff here doesn't do very well anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...