TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
Great Article: What's wrong with American Idol (no spoilers)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Turtleboy
I'm not sure how there could be spoilers as it's a live show. . .
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/led...21302175220.xml
What's wrong with 'American Idol'?
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
BY ALAN SEPINWALL AND MATT ZOLLER SEITZ
Star-Ledger Staff
All idols have one thing in common: Sooner or later you figure out they're false.
Take "American Idol" (please), the ridiculously popular talent show that was a guilty pleasure in its first season, a pleasure in its second season and now seems merely guilty.
Guilty of what? Pull up a chair; this could take a while.
-- Encouraging the worst tendencies in singers: The "Idol" judges don't reward good singing; they punish it. Performers with pitch, rhythm and a sense of simplicity are treated as second-class citizens. Performers who warble, screech, bellow and caterwaul are rewarded with lavish praise and predictions of greatness.
Look no further than LaToya London, who was the top vote-getter in the third semi-final round after a rendition of "All By Myself" in which she held three off-key glory notes for roughly a half-hour and failed to sing more than 10 percent of the lyrics. She received a standing ovation from judges Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul, while the ever-harsh Simon Cowell suggested that everyone else was now competing for second place.
-- Bad planning: At this point in season two, Ruben Studdard and Clay Aiken already seemed like stars in the making. This year, the only contestant people are talking about is William Hung, a kitsch mascot who didn't make it past the audition round after a historically awful rendition of Ricky Martin's "She Bangs."
That speaks to the blandness of the new singers, but also to the fact that Hung has gotten more screen time than some of the finalists. In the audition and Hollywood "workshop" episodes, taped months ago, the producers gave too much attention to contestants they knew wouldn't make the semifinals, while LaToya didn't appear until "Idol" had been on for weeks.
Those semifinal groups were so ineptly structured that even charitable viewers had to suspect they were trying to favor certain singers by contrasting them with people who weren't real competition. How else do you explain that the first and third groups featured five or six singers who were decent or better, while most of the people in the second and fourth groups were lethally bad?
Speaking of conspiracy theories...
-- The blatant agenda: The winner of this year's contest will either be an R&B diva or a teen pop starlet. How do we know this? 1) More than half of the finalists fit one category or the other. 2) The producers arranged for the aforementioned divas and starlets to perform near the start or finish of each episode (the two spots most likely to affect voters); and 3) Because the judges have practically kissed the feet of the singers in those two categories.
Lisa Leuschner, who missed the cut in group two and didn't even get to sing in the wild card round, was in trouble the minute the judges compared her to original "Idol" champ Kelly Clarkson. Why? Because the "Idol" producers already have a Kelly Clarkson and don't need another.
While the producers already have a Kelly, a Ruben and a Clay, they could probably use a LaToya, or 16-year-old Hilary Duff type Diana DeGarmo.
-- Humiliations galore: As "Idol" advances into its third season, a key part of the show's strategy has become depressingly clear: Only two kinds of singers get to audition on camera, the gifted and the horrible. If you're a competent, simple singer unwilling, in some sense, to make a spectacle of yourself, you may as well stay home.
Nobody comes in, sings a song and just does "okay." According to Simon and company, they're either the next Whitney or they're an embarrassment to the human race.
This is simply heartless. The bad singers who got far enough to be eviscerated were led to believe they were actually good -- a delusion that is systematically stripped away by the judges' insults and averted eyes.
And the ritualized hazing didn't stop with the auditions this year. During last Tuesday's wild card show, 12 singers who were eliminated during the semifinals were brought back, but only eight were allowed to perform. There was plenty of time for the other four to sing, hear judges' comments, and even answer audience questions from dim host Ryan Seacrest.
Instead, nearly a half-hour was wasted as all 12 were marched on-stage, one by one, and told their fate in a contrived ritual that suggested a medieval tribunal.
There are so many opportunities for contestants to go down in flames on their own that there was no need for producers to pour kerosene on people whose only sin was showing up and believing in themselves.
-- The wit and wisdom of Cowell and Seacrest: Simon Cowell at times sports the wickedest wit on television, best exemplified by his comment to semifinalist John Preator that he belonged in an ice-dancing musical. But for some reason, whenever he starts squabbling with Seacrest, they turn into sixth graders.
Midway through last season, the running gag where each suggested that the other was gay became so crude and played out that the producers ordered them to stop. But the gay jokes are back, along with a queasy racist undertone. On last Wednesday's show, when Cowell and Seacrest collaborated to make the African-American Huff grovel before Simon and call him "Big Daddy," "Idol" became the best TV show of 1861.
-- Blatantly wasting the audience's time: Okay, this one's not new. But after two and a half seasons, those Wednesday results shows have mutated from an irritating indulgence to a flagrant display of contempt for the viewers.
Tonight's show is two hours, which even with 12 performances is at least a half-hour too long. Tomorrow's results will be stretched out over an hour. For the sake of your own sanity, record them both and watch them later with a thumb on the fast-forward button.
******************
All of these flaws have been present in past seasons, but they never seemed this pronounced. Or maybe the best singers are so dull this time that it's easier to fixate on everything around them.
Either way, the audience has caught on and may be plotting a rebellion.
This season, several finalists were voted through over the judges' objections, not because they're musical geniuses, but because they dare to be individuals -- which, on "Idol," amounts to a radical act. And the public has stopped buying everything the judges are selling.
Sixteen-year-old crooner John Stevens can't hit the high notes. But viewers ate up his unironic renditions of Frank, Dean-o and even Billy Joel, while ignoring the judges' excessive hype for Leah LaBelle (nee Vladowski), the 18-year-old heiress to alleged Bulgarian pop royalty. (LaBelle is in the finals thanks to a wild card vote from Abdul, but don't expect her to last.)
But the surest sign of a peasant uprising is the audience's embrace of wild card winner Jon Peter Lewis.
Lewis, nicknamed "Pen Boy" after Cowell said he dressed like a pen salesman at his audition, obviously didn't get the memo on what makes an "Idol" winner. He has an odd voice that sounds like a cross between Aaron Neville, Louis Armstrong and Fozzie Bear, doesn't seem to wash his hair much, and needles Seacrest during the live telecasts.
Yet he's developed a large fanbase who can't wait to see what deranged stunt he'll pull next. His wild card performance of "A Little Less Conversation," complete with chicken-on-a-hot-plate dance moves, was either a spectacular act of hubris or a major put-on.
After the audience voted him through, the show ended with a triumphantly spastic Lewis showing the other finalists how to dance. A worried Cowell buried his face in his hands, clearly convinced the audience had been seduced by a freak who doesn't deserve to be the next "Idol."
We'll be the judge of that.
Alan Sepinwall and Matt Zoller
Posted by: DougF
The biggest thing wrong with AI this year is that Katie didn't make it through to the finals. Those legs deserve to be on TV! :)
Posted by: jsmeeker
quote:
Originally posted by Frozen Solid
The biggest thing wrong with AI this year is that Katie didn't make it through to the finals. Those legs deserve to be on TV! :)
Preach on, my brother.. Preach on.
;)
:D
Posted by: Turtleboy
You guys missed the whole point. :)
They should have put Lisa Luchner through the wildcard competition instead of the eye candy.
Posted by: lambertman
The show is so ridiculously bloated every week, I can't even watch it on TiVo. I record it on the DVD-R machine in the other room so I can play every non-singing-minute back at 1.3-times-normal speed.
EDIT: And tonight, we got through the blasted thing in 64 minutes.
Posted by: jsmeeker
quote:
Originally posted by Turtleboy
You guys missed the whole point. :)
They should have put Lisa Luchner through the wildcard competition instead of the eye candy.
What I miss is Katie Webber.
;)
:D
Posted by: DougF
quote:
Originally posted by jsmeeker
What I miss is Katie Webber.
;)
:D
Preach on, my brother.. Preach on.
:D
Posted by: TonyD79
The article lost me when it trashed Latoya London's performance which was sensational.
Music knowledgeable they are not.
Posted by: themango
quote:
...doesn't seem to wash his hair much, and needles Seacrest during the live telecasts.
What does it mean to needle? :confused:
Posted by: newsposter
Bring back LISA!!!!!
Posted by: LeVich34
quote:
Alan Sepinwall
Wow... I went to Hebrew School with the author of this article! Might be the first time we ever agreed on anything. Preach on, Alan!
Posted by: scubagal
I actually liked Katie and I thought the song she did pre-wild card show was great.... but personally- I like Camille- she is my favorite- has potential, if she can quit being so shakey.....
Posted by: Smiles
quote:
Originally posted by themango
What does it mean to needle? :confused:
To goad, provoke, or tease.
Posted by: ThomasDrew
Loved tonight's performances and thought the group as a whole, was really, REALLY good.
Leah Labelle and John Stevens looked like rank amateurs amongst a cast of seasoned professionals. I was particularly blown away by the maturity of young Jasmine Trias...although I like Jon Peter Lewis, Jasmine seems like more of a legitimate dark horse possibility.
Camile Velasco still holds way too much back and just appears timid. I don't quite get the references to Lauryn Hill...I think Randy's going a little overboard, but I do think she's unique.....It will be interesting to see how well she can navigate the different genres of music in the upcoming weeks.
The judges were dead-on in their assessment of Amy Adams. "Safe"...I compare it to a figure skater that comes out and plays it too conservatively and is beaten by the girl that just goes for it. Amy looked like she was singing to stay in it instead of winning it. I still believe bigger and better things are in store for Amy.
Matt Rogers? Whatever. Matt comes off as a classic overachiever...Clearly his personality and passion outweigh his questionable talents at this point. Like Josh the Marine from season two, I think his days are numbered.
Leah Labelle was, in a word, dreadful....and what's with the stage name? Labelle? Honey, in your dreams, in your dreams.....I did like her look tonight though.
Latoya London was fabulous. She one of four or five people that have GENUINE singing ability and I see her as one of the top five, if not the winner or runner up. My only concern is how she (as well as some of the other R&B divas) will differentiate herself as the competition progresses. Like Simon said tonight (and I happen to agree) "It all starts to sound the same after awhile"
Fantasia Barrino....A very colorful character..almost TOO quirky. The one thing she possesses (besides an excellent and UNIQUE voice) is a not-so quiet confidence and a HUNGER to be a star. I think she WANTS this title more than anyone on that stage and it shows. I just wish I could take some of Fantasia's confidence and give it to Camile who, in turn should give lessons to Fantasia in being humble and gracious.
Jennifer Hudson (see Latoya London). Finally the girl with the wonderful voice and the woeful fashion sense puts it together and she comes out looking great! I suspect that wasn't very difficult since she looked comically bad in her prior appearances. There was nowhere to go but up!!
All in all, a fun show and enjoyable to watch. We'll see what America thinks when the results come in....
Posted by: David Platt
quote:
Originally posted by ThomasDrew
Loved tonight's performances and thought the group as a whole, was really, REALLY good.
<snip>
Hey, thanks for all the spoilers!! :down: :down:
Posted by: Steveknj
I don't watch the show, but to me, it seems like after awhile, it would become the "same old, same old" Kind of like "Millionaire".
Can't argue with the ratings though, so appearantly, people are still watching. The question is, will they continue to watch.
Posted by: NJChris
That article is way too cynical about a tv show like this....nobody is forcing anyone to watch it.
Posted by: Demandred
quote:
Originally posted by David Platt
Hey, thanks for all the spoilers!! :down: :down:
I hope you were kidding. There is no plot to American Idol, so how can there be spoilers? Everything he posted was an opinion...and even if you'd rather not hear someone else's opinion before you watch the show, you could tell by the seventh word of the second paragraph that the rest of the post was all opinion about how the singers did last night.
Posted by: dthmj
I sometimes read all the opinions before I watch the show - that way I can be on the look out for things - otherwise, when I go back and read through the comments I think "I didn't see that..."
Last night though, my daughter and I watched it live (and paused during commercials to make supper, take phone calls) so we were slightly behind, but done by 10 minutes after the show. My daughter really wanted to vote for folks last night.... AI is her favorite show...
Posted by: Redleg
quote:
Originally posted by TonyD79
The article lost me when it trashed Latoya London's performance which was sensational.
Music knowledgeable they are not.
We don't have perfect pitch or anything, but my wife and I are both musicians and don't like Latoya's singing because it's out of tune as accused. Every year there's been a singer or two like her that sing a semi-tone off-key yet the judges love them.
I have a friend with perfect pitch; I've half a mind to record this song and let her hear it to see if it's off. But I'm glad at least one other person, these writers, heard it too. ;)
Posted by: scubagal
quote:
Camile Velasco still holds way too much back and just appears timid. I don't quite get the references to Lauryn Hill...I think Randy's going a little overboard, but I do think she's unique.....It will be interesting to see how well she can navigate the different genres of music in the upcoming weeks.
I think that all stemmed from her audition- and that song, while she was practically an earthquake waiting to happen in shaky nerves, she did have a little LH vibe... but I haven't heard it since.
She is still my favorite- she kind of seems the most grateful for what this really means- the once in a lifetime exposure... I like that kind of appreciation... because this kind of chance, most people will never have.
She definetly needs to lose the nerves or she will vote herself right off..... I never watched the first one, but last season I remember not being that impressed with them early on... but then to see how much better they get as the show progresses.... I think she will get better.
Hate that damn wristband she wears though- but at least night it kinda matched.
Posted by: Micky
As you will soon know by my question, I’m no musician.
So, what is “pitch?” What does it mean to be “pitchy?” How can you tell the difference between “on pitch” and “off pitch?”
My limited thinking about it makes me think you could only judge each note’s quality by knowing what note the singer was trying to sing, which we don’t know.
It seems the best we could do is compare to another version we’ve heard of the song.
Since the judges are constantly telling contestants to “make a song your own,” isn’t it reasonable to assume they are not necessarily trying to sing the note we are expecting to hear?
Does “off pitch” often just equate to “not the way so-and-so sang it?”
Posted by: David Platt
quote:
Originally posted by Demandred
I hope you were kidding. There is no plot to American Idol, so how can there be spoilers? Everything he posted was an opinion...and even if you'd rather not hear someone else's opinion before you watch the show, you could tell by the seventh word of the second paragraph that the rest of the post was all opinion about how the singers did last night.
Ah, I see. I guess it would be okay to write something about a sporting event that aired last night because it doesn't have a plot either.
A spoiler is revealing information about a show, period. The guidelines for this forum state that any information like that should either be enclosed in spoiler tags or be in a thread clearly labeled spoilers.
Posted by: Falconeer999
quote:
Originally posted by Micky
[B]As you will soon know by my question, I’m no musician.
So, what is “pitch?” What does it mean to be “pitchy?” How can you tell the difference between “on pitch” and “off pitch?”
In a nutshell, "pitch" is what harmonic frequency a note should be. A middle B is always a middle B, a middle B flat is always a B flat, etc. It is possible for a note sung to end up between a middle B and a middle B flat - the note is a little off.
At the same time, all music is also in a certain "key" and each key follows a certain musical progression (always 3 full steps, a half step, 3 full steps, a half step, I believe, been a while). Ie: the key of C is always C D E F G A B C, the key of G is always G A B CSharp D E FSharp G. When you're singing a song within a certain key, you have to stick with notes within that key for it to sound musically pleasing. If you're singing in G and hit a Bflat, it's, most of the time (depending on the notes surrounding it), not going to sound right and you get a sound that sometimes is called "pitchy".
Posted by: Turtleboy
quote:
Originally posted by Demandred
I hope you were kidding. There is no plot to American Idol, so how can there be spoilers? Everything he posted was an opinion...and even if you'd rather not hear someone else's opinion before you watch the show, you could tell by the seventh word of the second paragraph that the rest of the post was all opinion about how the singers did last night.
I posted a thread to discuss an article about the show, before the show happened. I put "no spoilers" in the subject area. I assumed that if people wanted to talk about the show, they would start a new thread, and not put spoilers in mine.
I agree with David.
PS -- It's the sled.
Posted by: MikeLaw
quote:
Originally posted by Micky
So, what is “pitch?” What does it mean to be “pitchy?” How can you tell the difference between “on pitch” and “off pitch?”
Pitch refers to intonation or tune. A singer who is pitchy is one who has difficulty hitting the precise note that the song calls for at that point. Although there is exactly one perfect middle C on the piano keyboard and one full note from that is D, the human voice is capable of an infinite range of tones in between. If they intended to hit the D, they would be flat (or lower in tone than the target note), if they intended to hit the C they would be sharp (or higher in tone than the target note).
A precise critic would only use pitchy to refer to one who was inconsitantly both sharp and flat -- singers who are constantly off in one direction should be properly be called sharp or flat, but American Idol does not bother with that.
Once you are used to it, when one sings a note that is out of tune with the backing instruments it sounds like the note warbles or vibrates oddly, like someone running a wet finger along the top of a glass. Musicians (if they are any good) should hear it immediately and jarringly.
Singers often adjust the notes of the song to match their voice. The may take a song that should have say a one octave range from middle C to high C and crank it down from A to A. Selecting what range to sing the song in is referred to as selecting the key. Many singers will select a lower key than the song was originally performed in to better fit their voice. However, a song that covers a wide range of notes can not be handled so well in that way. If the song covers two octaves (or three), your voice will have to do that same range in any key.
Bad singers will "cheat" and pick another note or run of notes to avoid particularly high spots. Good (or perhaps more accurately showy) singers will sometimes take a song and raise things up an octave at the end to show off their range.
"Making it their own" in AI-speak appears to refer inventing one's own words, melody or more to change the song to something the singers finds more pleasing or more reflective of their talents or interests. Some people find that highly disturbing, like when someone mangles the Star Spangled Banner while some think it is an art, like jazz.
Posted by: dslunceford
quote:
Originally posted by Turtleboy
PS -- It's the sled.
Damn you! I have yet to watch that!!! ;);)
Posted by: Falconeer999
quote:
Originally posted by MikeLaw
Once you are used to it, when one sings a note that is out of tune with the backing instruments it sounds like the note warbles or vibrates oddly, like someone running a wet finger along the top of a glass. Musicians (if they are any good) should hear it immediately and jarringly.
Playing saxophone/being in a band for 15+ years, I think is what causes me to cringe at some (sometimes a lot of) points during the shows. The way it sounds to me, the best I can describe, is when you take a quarter or a hubcap and it spins down to the ground, right before it hits the ground. When a voice is really "off pitch" it is like the quarter is spinning fast, you hear a fast wop wop wop wop wop, as they get closer in tune, it's like the quarter is almost to the table and going slower it's a longer wooooop wooooop woooop the closer in tune ("in pitch") they get, the longer the woooooops and the less likely you are to hear them.
A lot of singers in AI, I've noticed , when they know they aren't as good or can't hit a note straight on do the "run" which is to me a cop out, or they try to hide the wooops by putting vibrato in their voice (you'll see their chin quivering) this is an attempt to alter their voice to match the wooops. They probably don't even realize their doing it to match the "woops", it's just reflexive (if you'll recall, one of the singers in the previous round (I always forget her name I think it's Jennifer, the one who wore the pepto bismal dress last week) made a comment during rehearsals that the voice coach told her to stop doing it and it was very difficult for her to do so).
Anyway, back on topic - I have to agree with this article almost 100%. I started watching last night's show at 8:50 and ended at around 10:10 - that's almost an entire hour worth of commercials. Way too drawn out.
Posted by: Micky
Falconeer999 & MikeLaw,
Thanks,
Both great answers – very informative.
I understand the concept.
Three additional questions:
1) Referencing this quote:
quote:
Although there is exactly one perfect middle C on the piano keyboard and one full note from that is D, the human voice is capable of an infinite range of tones in between. If they intended to hit the D, they would be flat (or lower in tone than the target note), if they intended to hit the C they would be sharp (or higher in tone than the target note).
Do singers every intentionally try to hit “between” notes? Like you say it gives them more options than the instrument player.
2) When someone uses the phrase “He has perfect pitch,” do they mean he has the ability to sing in perfect pitch or to hear and recognize when someone else is?
3) Is Being able to hear when someone is “off pitch” an “inherited” talent or “learned”
Posted by: Falconeer999
quote:
Originally posted by Micky
1) Do singers every intentionally try to hit “between” notes? Like you say it gives them more options than the instrument player.
2) When someone uses the phrase “He has perfect pitch,” do they mean he has the ability to sing in perfect pitch or to hear and recognize when someone else is?
3) Is Being able to hear when someone is “off pitch” an “inherited” talent or “learned”
1) I'm not a singer, but I would imagine that sometimes they would try to hit those "in between" notes to get a desired effect, but I'm just not sure how often. How it would sound would depend on the notes that come before and after it.
2) When they say "has perfect pitch", I guess it really depends on how it's being used. I have close to perfect pitch in hearing (usually was in charge of making sure the band was in tune), but vocally I can't even come close to hitting anything.
3) A lot of it is genetics - are you physically capable of hear the differences. To a certain degree however, it can be learned. A lot of time spent sitting and comparing one sound to another (kind of like visiting the eye doctor, "This one, or this one?") Rarely is it as good to those who are just born being able to tell.
Posted by: Redleg
quote:
Originally posted by Micky
Three additional questions:
1) Do singers every intentionally try to hit “between” notes? Like you say it gives them more options than the instrument player.
2) When someone uses the phrase “He has perfect pitch,” do they mean he has the ability to sing in perfect pitch or to hear and recognize when someone else is?
3) Is Being able to hear when someone is “off pitch” an “inherited” talent or “learned”
1. In Western music, the 13-tone chromatic scale is virtually universal. The tones named A through G and their "half-steps" above and below make up all standard musical combinations and chords. Traditional Eastern and Middle Eastern music however use different scales, and many musicians do experiment with semi-tones and off-tunings at times. It's pretty rare in pop music, and on shows like this it's obvious when they are simply missing the note.
2. Of the couple of people I've known, perfect pitch means they can hear and identify a note correctly similar to how most of us can see and identify primary colors. We know red, and we know purplish red and orangish red. When they hear a note played they know what note it is and if it's sharp or flat.
3. Like all musical skills, probably both.
Posted by: devdogaz
quote:
Originally posted by micky
1) Do singers every intentionally try to hit “between” notes? Like you say it gives them more options than the instrument player.
2) When someone uses the phrase “He has perfect pitch,” do they mean he has the ability to sing in perfect pitch or to hear and recognize when someone else is?
3) Is Being able to hear when someone is “off pitch” an “inherited” talent or “learned”
I will try and tackle these as best I can.
1) As mentioned earlier, every song is written in a certain key. There are only seven notes in any given key, without going sharp or flat. A song can be sung in any key, or even be in an "in between" key but the notes still need to be a certain distance apart. The trained ear can hear a note that "belongs" in a song, even if the singer has altered the original melody and by the same token, a note that doesn't "belong" is also easily spotted. Many times you will hear singers "slide" to the right note. It's very common in country music and I think it's even regarded as an acceptable style. However, to me, it just sounds like they can't hit the note straight on and need to search for it.
2) This term can be used in both ways. However, I feel it means the ability to hear the correct note. Being able to hear the correct note and being able to sing the correct note are completely different skills. A person who can hear "perfect pitch" can't necessarily sing it. And just because a person can hear and sing "perfect pitch" doesn't mean they'll never hit a wrong note. For this reason, I use it to refer to being able to hear "perfect pitch."
3) Like Falconeer said, I think it can be learned, but most of the time it is an inherent talent. Those who can do it naturally are going to be better at it than those who have to work at it.
Posted by: Micky
Falconeer999, Redleg, devdogaz,
Thanks all – very interesting discussion.
I’ve learned new things today – always a positive!
:)
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by Falconeer999
In a nutshell, "pitch" is what harmonic frequency a note should be. A middle B is always a middle B, a middle B flat is always a B flat, etc. It is possible for a note sung to end up between a middle B and a middle B flat - the note is a little off.
At the same time, all music is also in a certain "key" and each key follows a certain musical progression (always 3 full steps, a half step, 3 full steps, a half step, I believe, been a while). Ie: the key of C is always C D E F G A B C, the key of G is always G A B CSharp D E FSharp G. When you're singing a song within a certain key, you have to stick with notes within that key for it to sound musically pleasing. If you're singing in G and hit a Bflat, it's, most of the time (depending on the notes surrounding it), not going to sound right and you get a sound that sometimes is called "pitchy".
The 'C' is natural in the key of G. Does this mean the band was a bit pitchy on occassion? ;)
Posted by: Falconeer999
quote:
Originally posted by Dafaso
The 'C' is natural in the key of G. Does this mean the band was a bit pitchy on occassion? ;)
Like I said, it has been a while :) Basic concept is still there though!
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray