Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

No Balanchine on NYCB opening night


Recommended Posts

But... where there's a will, there's a way.... I'll not name names, but someone else I know, recently learning the Bugaku role, did seek out Allegra's coaching.

In the documentary Dancing for Mr. B, there's a scene in which Kent is coaching Darci Kistler (with Ib Andersen) on the final scene of La Sonnambula, which I believe postdates Heather Watts' debut in Bugaku. From the quote, it sounds as if the Ballet Mistress disapproved and Watts chose that side. Other dancers have made different choices over the years.

I just came across a quote of John Taras, dancer and one of Balanchine's (and post-Balanchine) most important ballet masters: "So often in Balanchine's ballets, I find that the dancer the work was made on is what the ballet is about. When the cast changes, the work survives, but it's not the same; it becomes diluted."

I don't, for example, find Farrell's interpretations of roles made for Adams and Tallchief diluted. I don't think the intermediate or current generations should have said, "I'm not Toumanova, I think I'll go home now." I guess I just disagree with Mr. Taras.

Link to comment

But for me that is the whole appeal of the Balanchine ballets - well, of any ballet for that matter: seeing different dancers in familiar roles. The last thing I want to see is cookie-cutter reproductions of someone else's interpretation.

I've heard some pretty amusing stories about ballerinas coaching their old roles; it isn't always about Mr. B...

Link to comment

For those who could not access the jillana interview, here's another attempt at the link to the same article:

Jillana interview, 2002

The interview raises a number of issues that have also been raised in this thread.

QUOTE: “I was in the Company during its golden years, definitely. I think it's a little tarnished now. It can't be the same without Mr. Balanchine. He was a genius and no one will ever take his place. Ever, ever, ever. Peter Martins is doing what needs to be done, but it is a different Company.

"People have to realize that it's a different Company now. And, they shouldn't try to compare it to the way it was. It will not ever be the same ever again. But I wonder why the people who are still around like me and Suzanne Farrell and Allegra Kent, who remember and who know how it should be danced; why aren't we being used to coach? Maybe Martins doesn't want it to be danced that way and that's ok, it's his Company.”

---------

In addition to her comments about the use of dancers to transmit the "original" intent of the choreography, Jillana is critical of some of what is now being taught at the School of American Ballet.:

QUOTE:

"We discussed the School of American Ballet and Jillana said that “it's not good.” She explained, “I don't think that the people who are teaching there remember what Mr. Balanchine taught. They think they do, but they are teaching now with such exaggerations. I know that he NEVER said don't put your heels down in demi-plié after a jump. NEVER. I went up to him myself and asked him 'what's this about not putting your heels down in plié?' And he told me we do put them down.” She then elaborated on her thoughts about what is being taught at SAB. “In addition, I don't ever remember not putting my heels down in grand plié in second position either. Now they are teaching not to put the heels down in second position grand plié.

“And,” she went on, “all this tendu stuff where they do a tendu into a demi-plié and then put their heels down. Never, never did we do that. We brought our heels down as soon as possible.” To be sure I understood her correctly I asked her again, “Now it is being taught to bring the foot into fifth position and then put the heel down?” She repeated, “Yes, that's what they are teaching now. Everything is very exaggerated. Almost like a caricature.”

Link to comment

One of the threads running through the interviews with many retired dancers is: They’re-not-doing-it-the-way-we-did-it and Everyone-looks-alike-now-we-had individuality. I don’t say that they’re wrong, of course. (And I’m sure that body types, for example, may well be more uniform because of changes in nutrition, training, the talent pool, etc.)

If I recall correctly, the quote from Taras is related to other comments he was making about the special qualities of Marie-Jeanne, and how Ballet Imperial and Concerto Barocco are, in addition to many other things, essays about the unique gifts of one particular dancer, and when Marie-Jeanne left those roles they weren’t quite the same. He wasn’t saying, don’t ever do the ballet again because she’s not here, or that no one else could perform the ballets well – only that they were different with her. (He did say that he felt that if you never saw Ballet Imperial, I think it was, with Marie-Jeanne, you’d never really seen it, but he's hardly the first longtime observer to make remarks in that vein about M-J or other dancers who created roles.)

I do remember reading that the shots of Kent coaching Kistler in “Dancing for Mr. B” were staged for the film, but I’m not sure how accurate that is?

Regarding Kent, I seem to recall reading in Kirkland's first autobiography that she had wanted to be coached by Kent for Sonnambula, but Baryshnikov demurred, saying "She's too kooky" or words to that effect......

Link to comment
Regarding Kent, I seem to recall reading in Kirkland's first autobiography that she had wanted to be coached by Kent for Sonnambula, but Baryshnikov demurred, saying "She's too kooky" or words to that effect......

She is kooky... but Kent also has much to teach. Gelsey is/was pretty kooky too in her way... So is/was Misha... Doesn't mean great artists have forgotten the details and heart/soul of the roles they danced and learned from generations past. What needs encouraging, etc. Nobody owns a role, but there are tremendous guides still available today who have something very valuable to share.

Film is used a lot in this generation for teaching/coaching - saves time/expense - but my gosh film is awfully flat in comparison to the real thing.

Link to comment

Dancers, including former dancers, have their own communication styles and varying abilities to teach. People have their likes and dislikes, including how and how much they like to rehearse, how much they can and want to learn from different types of people, how tolerant they are of idiosyncracy, and how willing they are to expose themselves to strong influences. All of this is fluid and can change over time. It's not unreasonable that dancers would be open to coaching by some and not others, given a choice.

The question is whether the interpretation that has been influenced by the coach will be accepted in the Company. For every thought that rejection is based on insecurity or arbitrariness, there is the possibility that the style doesn't mesh. For example, Francia Russell staged the ballets that were contemporary when she was at NYCB in the style, steps, emphasis, and direction she was given by Balanchine. When Noelani Pantastico and Olivier Wevers performed the second movement of Brahms Schoenberg Quartet with NYCB during the Balanchine Centennial, there was criticism here that the performance was "provincial." Part of the issue (at least) seemed to be in temperament: the sunny interpretation fit into Russell's staging in Seattle, but did not seem to fit into NYCB's performances of the "same" work. Would a dancer coached by Marie Jeanne in Concerto Barocco fit into NYCB's current-day production?

Link to comment

Some words from the NYCB Winter Single Ticket Brochure:

"Major support for new work is provided by The Irene Diamond Fund and members of the New Combinations Fund."

"The revival, refurbishment, and presentation of works by Jerome Robbins, particularly those works that have been absent from the repertory, is made possible in part by a lead gift from The Jerome Robbins Foundation."

"The creation and performance of works by Peter Martins is funded in part by an endowment gift from the Solomon family, given in loving memory of Carolyn B. Solomon"

So according to this, new work, the Robbins ballets, and Martins ballets are being provided for. I just think it's odd that NO mention is made of Balanchine's ballets. That sentence in the Robbins quote "revival, refurbishment and presentation of works..". Why isn't such a thing possible with Balanchine's ballets? It seems to me that instead of "revival, refurbishment and presentation" of Balanchine's ballets, the Balanchine repertory is merely tolerated.

Now you can argue that it is the job of The Balanchine Foundation and Trust to be the "curator" for his work. But I believe NYCB, the company that Balanchine built should have the responsibility too. If you take a look at The Foundation web site, it list all those ballets available to be staged still "in active repertory". Just a few listed include such little seen (at least on the State Theatre stage) gems as Symphonie Concertante, Bourre Fantasque and La Chatte. I just don't understand how you can support " those works that have been absent from the repetory" from the Robbins canon and you don't do the same for the Balanchine ballets. It doesn't make any bloody sense to me.

Link to comment
"The revival, refurbishment, and presentation of works by Jerome Robbins, particularly those works that have been absent from the repertory, is made possible in part by a lead gift from The Jerome Robbins Foundation."

A lead gift? Not a precious metal like platinum or gold even just hard, cold cash, but . . . common lead??? :yahoo::wink:

A few years after Balanchine's death, the stagebill noted a donation opportunity for le$$er givers which was dedicated to Balanchine rep. Its mention vanished almost as quickly as it had appeared, my theory being that it drew too much money from new ballets and other purposes.

Link to comment

>>Would a dancer coached by Marie Jeanne in Concerto Barocco fit >>into NYCB's current-day production?

First, BRAVO to dirac, bart, carbro, perky and Helene...

You're all right on target! Loved Jillana's article too... though it saddens me.

Peter Martins' Ballet Co. (aka NYCB) is his company, and Peter chooses which ballets are important (to him) to rehearse/coach well, and which ones will receive the minimum. It's a very poor reflection on his directorship to see Balanchine's ballets at the bottom of Peter's priorities. Some new ballets are necessary, yes, but why the heck isn't Symphony in C on NYCB's opening night(?!!) not alone Tarantella?!!.... And why are many of the best, new choreographers, out there, not invited to work more often (or at all) with NYCB? Ask Mark Morris!

Problem is who will do something, and what can be done. As long as people show up to mediocre performances, and Peter receives lots of money, he'll continue doing what he does. I don't think thousands of letters protesting would help....

Perhaps critics writing for newspapers and dance sections in magazines ought to speak out about this situation constantly... That ought to affect audience attendance.

As for whether or not Marie Jeanne's coaching of Concerto Barocco is fitting to current-day production -- Nothing ever is word for word, step for step. It's about ideas, experience. Naturally it depends on the dancer, what he/she needs from who and when. However, I don't know anybody, without the wrong type of pressure, who would have turned down any opportunity to learn something from either Marie Jeanne or Gelsey or Suzanne or Tani, etc., etc.... Watching films of their dancing taught me more about roles than any ballet mistress did. Ballet mistresses rarely danced the roles they're now teaching. Ditto Peter Martins of female roles.

Seems the Ballet Trust (Balanchine's) does a better job at providing the best teaching/coaching to other, outside, companies.

Very sad...

Link to comment

I cannot believe, SZ, that you really want people to stop going to NYCB. That is really a very unkind thing to say when all the arts everywhere are struggling to hold onto (to say nothing of expanding) their audience. And this after all of Rhona's efforts to try to keep NYCB alive at SPAC...it's kind of a smack in the face.

Honestly, I do not think there are many people in a NYCB audience on any given night who 1) sit there thinking how awful the Balanchine ballets look and 2) don't find ballets by other choreographers to be interesting/beautiful/meaningful. We have to remember that the same handful of people who chronically complain about the state of things at NYCB here at Ballet Talk are a very tiny percentage of the audience. And really, how often do some of these people actually GO to performances? Those who do attend can see that it is not always the Balanchine pieces on the programme these days that win the audience's most heartfelt response. In fact I would imagine that there are lots of people there on any given night who really don't know who choreographed what or whether it was done in the "appropriate" style with all the necessary attention to detail, etc. I would guess many of them would not really know the difference between a Suzanne Farrell-coached performance or one coached by some lesser personage. Does that mean they are unworthy to be watching the performance?

Sometimes I think the Balanchine-snob thing is just carried too far. He was, of course, a genius and the ballets are wonderous to watch but he knew that they would look different after he was gone and why should we assume to know more than he did about his own works?

I certainly hope we won't have any Mark Morris "ballets" at NYCB...having sat thru many Mark Morris nights at the Pillow, I can't say there was anything memorable about his works. And his recent PLATEE at NYCO was so shallow and gimmicky.

The Balanchine ballets are not paintings but living, breathing works. Performances by identical casts in the same work in the same week can vary greatly and always have, even when Mr. B was alive. And here, at twenty years after Mr. B's death, dozens and dozens of dancers have come and gone and with each shift the ballets are going to look different. Is SERENADE ruined now? Then why do so many people still weep at the end of it?

Note: I had erroneously attributed SZ's remark about getting the critics involved to Helene...my apologies to Helene. It was a mis-reading on my part. Thank you carbro for the alert.

Link to comment

I must have missed Helene's comment.

I was very interested to re-read Jillana's comments on training having recently been told of the same issues (no heels down, putting foot down after closing fifth) occuring during a recent staging of a Balanchine ballet outside of NYCB.

I would think that those attending NYCB do indeed care about whose choreography they are seeing, but I may be too idealistic. I know this is true for me the few times that I am able to see City Ballet each year. I often see them performing ballets that PNB also performs. I tend to prefer PNB but that well could be because I am used to seeing a certain way of moving, a certain way of working on pointe, a use of the leg in arabesque, etc.

I believe it is reasonable to expect City Ballet to be giving high-standard performances of Balanchine ballets and to include many of his works in the repertory. That said, high-standard will mean different things to different audience members.

Link to comment

This is largely a response to Oberon's last post...Strangely enough I have always found ballet to be an art form where even relatively inexperienced spectators often can and do tell the difference between carefully prepared and ideally cast performances and less carefully prepared and ideally cast performances. They may not know enough to say "well, x step was fudged and she left out z and when Suzanne did it...blah, blah, blah" but (in my experience) they are slightly bored by (for example) a horribly undercast and underprepared Concerto Barocco yet absolutely sit up straight in their seats and express awe when they see a scrupulously performed Monumentum Pro Gesualdo--hardly a more "accessible" ballet than Barocco. (I am referring to an actual example of a non-ballet goer experiencing NYCB in my company and having these reactions.)

So, I don't think it's true that all these issues we are discussing only make a difference to a tiny percentage of ballet-goers. It may not make a spectacular difference to a great many people, but I don't think it's a non-issue by any means. In a way, the result can be even more depressing, though, because with little dance experience to draw on...some audience members may come to the conclusion that "Barocco" just IS a boring ballet as yet another friend of mine once did.

Like Oberon, however, I don't agree that Martins just lets all the Balanchine ballets languish--I would say, the quality varies. A few seem to have been done very well pretty consistently under Martins (say, A Midsummer's Night's Dream)--at least in my somewhat limited experience. And, by very well, I don't necesssarily mean they look the way they looked twenty five years ago (for one thing, I don't have that good a memory!), but they look vivid, alive, powerful --and, of course, recognizably continuous with Balanchine's vision insofar as I (or others) do remember it.

Still, even though I'm often closer in my opinions to the defenders of the company than those who are entirely disheartened, I do take strong exception to the idea that caring about the state of the Balanchine repertory and the losses it is suffering is merely a matter of snobbery. And I also strongly question the implication--perhaps not intended--that if everyone is having a good time at the ballet, the more critical voices should muffle themselves, because they have nothing substantive to offer the discussion.

Great art inspires intense attention. Those who love it and know about it attend to subtleties that may even be unrecognized by others --and they should do so. How disrespectful it would be to ballet to think otherwise. Ballet Alert is a forum for amateurs and fans (like myself) as well as for professionals and scholars who come together because of a commitment to the seriousness of the art form. As a serious art form, it merits attention and concern for its traditions, not just cheerleading. (And, there are plenty of other places in the world where any interest in the arts at all is considered snobbery.)

Ironically, as I noted above, I give Martins credit for doing a lot of things right. So, for example, his openness to Wheeldon who regularly gets better reviews than Martins himself, shows a lack of pettiness when it comes to a younger classical choreographer that one might not necessarily have anticipated--and it has been good for the company. His closed door policy to modern dance choreographers such as Mark Morris is, at any rate, largely consistent with the company's history (Episodes being a notable exception) and something I myself support.

We also tend in our minds to compare NYCB to the best it can be, and forget just how bad it might have gotten in the wake of Balanchine's death. Nonetheless, I strongly believe that the discussion itself and the passionately felt concerns of those who are disappointed with Martins' leadership is not merely the product of snobbery. Moreover, though I begrudge no-one a good time, I would draw no long-term comfort AT ALL for the fate of NYCB from the sound of cheering audiences as the curtain falls on fabulous, performances--such as the company often gives--of mediocre works...I do want to see the best ballets danced the best--and, as I began this rather long message by saying, when that happens, when the best works are danced the best, I believe that even the most uninformed audiences immediately know the difference.

Link to comment

My impression, in going frequently over 30 years and very frequently in the last seven years, is that the audience enjoys the ballets of both Balanchine and others as much as they ever did. And that there were lacklustre performances during Balanchine's lifetime just as there are today. From my perspective it is not how bad the ballets look now, but how good they still look and - on many nights - we can still find new facets in the music & choregraphy.

Link to comment

Very interesting posts. On the whole, I agree with elements of just about everything posted so far.

To me, it is definitely true that that (a) Balanchine ballets are for the most part not danced as they were when Balanchine was alive, or as they can be when coached by dances trained in the original performance style, and that this is sad,

But I also think that this is quite compatible with the opinion that (b) NYCB is a wonderful company, pleasing large audiences (in a huge hall) in a difficult (not surface crowd-pleasing) repertoire, and fostering stunning dancing.

Believing (a) does NOT mean that you disagree with (b). Differences do not equate to opposites.

Link to comment

>when the best works are danced the best, I believe

> that even the most uninformed audiences immediately

> know the difference.

Of course.

I think part of the reason there are such passionate voices out there regarding Peter Martins' Ballet Co., and how Peter is handling the majority of Balanchine ballets, is that it is still, without debate, absolutely possible for his company to do better.

There are plenty of ex principals, soloists available who learned Balanchine's ballets from Balanchine. There are plenty of such Balanchine dancers who can and want to coach/teach. Years and years from now that will not be.

As someone wrote earlier on this post... in many ways most NYCB dancers are better technically today; they just aren't, for the most part, as interesting, individual, committed.

Yes, NYCB still attracts many fine dancers, and they are eagerly watched by audiences. Under Peter, the men do seem inspired, better than ever. Now they need better inspiration for the females, as well as better care of Mr. B's choreography. There is no good reason, yet, that Balanchine's ballets shouldn't be danced as well as they were 20-25 years ago.

And the story about not putting heels down in plies. Balanchine taught us that a piece of paper should slide under our heels in plies. In other words, don't put your weight so down on your heels that a piece of paper wouldn't slide beneath.

Link to comment

I'm intimidated to write here, because I don't have so much knowledge. But I wanted to add something to the discussion.

I seem to remember Allegra Kent talking about how little preparation time was given to the dancers under the reign of Balanchine .

Doesn't Ms.Farrell also take a very "hand-off" approach to coaching her own company, preferring to let the individual dancers find thier "voice" and interpretation of roles?

Didn't Gelsey Kirland need to seek out additional coaching on her own during her time in NYCB because she was frustrated bythe lack of it within the organization?

Perhaps Peter Marins really IS carrying the torch in the way that Mr.Balanchine would have liked. It seems like this is the way that NYCB has always operated.

I know nothing about the organization except from what I've gleaned from autobiographies and such. And I haven't been attending the ballet for many years (only three). But from an "outsider" perspective...if I compare tapes from the 70s compared with the performances I see now, I think the re's been an obvious "technical" progression.

I can see a subtle difference in the way the dancers motivate thier movement. There's less kinetic quality or something...it's hard to quantify. It's almost like the dancers now ARE so technically "good", that something gets lost. It looks more comfortable. Can it be something as simple as the fact that the dancers are just more capable now, it *appears* like there's less daring or something? The technique becomes more transparent?

I disagree that the dancers are less interesting or individual now. Whelan, Kowroski, Ansanelli, Bouder? They're all so different. The firsttime I saw Wendy Whelan dance, I sat with my mouth gaping open. I had no idea that ballet could look like that. She's a big reason why I'm trying to become a professional dancer.

I'm always thrilled at the ballet. I want to see more Balanchine, as well. It's his choreography that I'm interested in seeing when I buy a ticket.

Link to comment

I really appreciate your insight, lampwick, especially this point ...

I can see a subtle difference in the way the dancers motivate thier movement. There's less kinetic quality or something...it's hard to quantify. It's almost like the dancers now ARE so technically "good", that something gets lost. It looks more comfortable. Can it be something as simple as the fact that the dancers are just more capable now, it *appears* like there's less daring or something? The technique becomes more transparent?

Balanchine clearly encouraged individuality and risk-taking. Perhaps one difference today is, as lampwick suggests, partly due to the fact that the impression of ease of performance is simply less interesting than the impression of difficulty that has been overcome.

P.S. Lampwick, more posting please!

Link to comment
Great art inspires intense attention. Those who love it and know about it attend to subtleties that may even be unrecognized by others --and they should do so. How disrespectful it would be to ballet to think otherwise. Ballet Alert is a forum for amateurs and fans (like myself) as well as for professionals and scholars who come together because of a commitment to the seriousness of the art form. As a serious art form, it merits attention and concern for its traditions, not just cheerleading. (And, there are plenty of other places in the world where any interest in the arts at all is considered snobbery.)

Very well put, Drew, thank you. We need both the “snobs” and the “cheerleaders” -- not that I endorse either of those terms – or there’s no discussion.

And that there were lacklustre performances during Balanchine's lifetime just as there are today.

I wasn’t around then, but it’s clear from the reviews of the time that what oberon says is absolutely true. The difference, I suppose, is that back then Balanchine (and Robbins) were around and now they’re not. As long as the originators were keeping an eye on things, people might shake their heads and mutter, What is he thinking? from time to time but there was a basic confidence in the Men in Charge. It’s a different situation when they’re gone and people fret more. From the vantage point of an outsider who follows the debate from afar, I’m inclined to side cautiously with the defenders, but people who disapprove can’t be told to put up or shut up; they need to be heard – and listened to.

I add my thanks to bart's, lampwick. By all means, contribute your two cents! :)

Link to comment
The difference, I suppose, is that back then Balanchine (and Robbins) were around and now they’re not.  As long as the originators were keeping an eye on things, people might shake their heads and mutter, What is he thinking? from time to time but there was a basic confidence in the Men in Charge.  It’s a different situation when they’re gone and people fret more. 

I think this is one of two key issues in the debate: If during a given period during Balanchine's time there was inexplicable casting, sloppy and uninspired performances, the beginning of Apollo chopped off, etc., ballet goers might expect that the situation would abate and the downcycle would reverse itself because he was there to make it happen. The second is one that kfw raised much earlier in the thread: the issue of ballet being an oral, living tradition where the ballets need to be performed in order to survive and thrive. With Martins in charge, there isn't always the same optimism and confidence that if things are going in the "wrong" direction, the direction will reverse; it's seen as irreparable damage to the core rep, and damage that can't be fixed. On the flip side, some see the rep as resilient and growing through the beautiful dancers that SAB and NYCB keep producing. And some of us see both in the same performances.

Drew makes a crucial point: it is very important to debate the issue. I am grateful to the people who have posted on this thread, particularly in how the tone has been kept respectful while debating one of the most critical issues in ballet of the last two decades.

Link to comment
the issue of ballet being an oral, living tradition where the ballets need to be performed in order to survive and thrive.  With Martins in charge, there isn't always the same optimism and confidence that if things are going in the "wrong" direction, the direction will reverse; it's seen as irreparable damage to the core rep, and damage that can't be fixed. 

With Martins not inviting -- not allowing, it comes to the same thing-- the input of a goodly number of Balanchine's own dancers who would gladly teach, invaluable memories are not being tapped, invaluable instructions are being lost. The inspiration in its particulars and specifics is not being passed down.

Martins is known as a good fundraiser. A good and wise fundraiser might have touched Irene Diamond or some such patron to fund work along the lines The Balanchine Foundation is doing with The Interpreters Archive, i.e. taping Balanchine veterans as they coach contemporary dancers.

Link to comment
With Martins not inviting -- not allowing, it comes to the same thing-- the input of a goodly number of Balanchine's own dancers who would gladly teach, invaluable memories are not being tapped, invaluable instructions are being lost. The inspiration in its particulars and specifics is not being passed down....

... to fund work along the lines The Balanchine Foundation is doing with The Interpreters Archive, i.e. taping Balanchine veterans as they coach contemporary dancers.

kfw, could you tell us something more about this work by the Balanchine Foundation? In particular, is it well-funded, and if not, could you tell how those of us concerned about this matter might contribute?

Link to comment
With Martins not inviting -- not allowing, it comes to the same thing-- the input of a goodly number of Balanchine's own dancers who would gladly teach, invaluable memories are not being tapped, invaluable instructions are being lost. The inspiration in its particulars and specifics is not being passed down.

My first college roommate made me a plant from cutting off a flourishing plant that had been given to her by a very close friend. I was charged with bringing her plant home over holiday break. I killed her plant accidentally. Luckily, I still had the cutting.

I think it's a really, really good thing that so many former Balanchine dancers have companies of their own and/or are staging Balanchine ballets through the Balanchine Foundation. Those companies are like the cuttings from the Mother Plant, and the entire Balanchine legacy isn't dependent on a single company.

Link to comment

drb, here's most of what I know. The George Balanchine Foundation

I have to run, but there are people here who can tell you a lot more. If you download the Foundation's pdf newsletter, you'll find a form with which to mail in a contribution. Also, the quarterly print magazine DanceView, edited by this site's founder Alexandra Tomalonis, has published articles on several coaching sessions. To subscribe, look for the link DanceView on the top right of this page.

the danceviewtimes

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...