I think we should concentrate on a single instrument. Although I think people can easily adapt to another instrument in the same group such as fiddle to mandolin or flute to whistle or great highland pipes to smallpipes. It's better to be really good at one instrument rather than half-arsed at many. But then again you get people like Phil Cunningham and Mike Whelans who are amazing on their primary instrument and yet still very good on the others they play.
In a session it possibly disrupts the flow, people have certain posts that they take up for example if a guitarist was the only accompanyist in a session and half way through pulls out his whistle and starts playing when there are already plenty of meoldy players there, the session loses something.
I think the secret is "to master"(if there's such a thing) your first instrument before moving on to the next. All the good multi-instrumentalists would have done it this way.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the "half ar-sed" variety. Mind you, those I play are closely related.
I don't think it's a good idea to take loads of them into a session and, especially not, to keep changing them mid stream. Normally, I'll just bring a mandolin and fiddle though, sometimes, I'll take others to a more local session.
I'll admit that I'd probably be a much better fiddler today, if I didn't tend to "fall back" on the mandolin for certain tunes and vice versa.
Still, there's many worse culprits than me for this sort of thing.
Is multi-instrumentalism a good idea? Of course it is, my little 'wiggly a's friend'! No question. You just have to think of musicians like Seamus Egan! ......Need I go on...............?
It really depends on what you want to acomplish. There are virtuoso-likes, who learn their skills from their very first years. They play just one isntrumentm, but with pure quality. I don't even dream of getting near them with my sorry abilities. But there are people who play for the true joy of it. They sometimes even started not so long ago. If it makes you feel better play as many instruments as you like.
I play flute, and recently I got myself a box. It's not that I plan to be a top player- but pushing those buttons makes me enjoy life more...
I would say its a good thing. Not necessarily so as you can wheech through them at your session, but for your playing ability on all and general musical understanding. For example, your guitar playing willl be (i would guess) a lot more sympathetic to the tunes if you play a whistle already. However i would say mastering one before learning the next isn't the best method, it takes decade(s) to master an instrument so give it a while till you can scrape then start practicing the rest too. Think you either have to be a child or retired to master loads of instruments though, if you work you just dinnae have the time.
Sorry Multi-ptarmigans. I've just noticed there are two of you.
Mike, what do you know about work?
Come along to The Pleasance on Saturday. We've got a great young fiddler playing there and his sister is brilliant on keyboards too.
How do you get that little accent on the "a" ?
Are these two people related in any way ? They seem to live close to one another.
Personally I keep hopping between instruments - the guitar is still the fall-back instrument of choice, but for sessions the 'zouk is first, and I bring along bodrhan and sometimes an english concertna for a slow tune or two. The b thing tends to get passed around the session a bit, to anyone who can't join in a tune any other way, as we don't have a resident specialist in thumping the goat.
If you can play by ear and have the gift for picking instruments up, as long as you have mastered the technique, there is no difference in playing it on one instrument or another. You just play what you are thinking (or however you work it out).
With the proviso that you are always learning so never completely "master" it.
It is true though, that multi-instrumentalists may have less time to practise on individual instruments, but it is also true that many musicians practise consists solely of playing in sessions.
As I play different tunes/traditions on different instruments, I get a wider spread of tunes than I would just playing one.
I mostly play guitar, but sometimes I like to play the melody. So when another accompanist is there, I will play a melody instrument when I know the tune. However, I would only rarely change instruments in the middle of a set--that gets a little too disruptive.
I play mandolin, octave mandolin and bouzouki and would recommend other bodhran players take up other instruments. It helps in understanding the non bodhran players in a session and their perspective. For example, trying to play a tune you have been practicing on mandolin with friends to showcase, and then a bodhran novice with a pizza box and eggy thangies walks in joins the session and drowns you out.
I should also mention that it is a hell of alot of fun, the real reason for taking up other instruments.
I make no apologies for being a multi-instrumentalist. Being able to play both rhythm and melody instruments enables me, I feel, to experience more of the music, perhaps even to understand it better. Obviously, there are rhythm players who can grasp all the dimensions of playing melody, just as there are melody players who -- even if they can't play a guitar or piano -- can elucidate all the elements of rhythm. That's fine. Me, I know what I know, and I do what I can.
It's interesting to find multi-instrumentalists who compartmentalize their playing of a particular instrument depending on the situation. A few years ago, I got to know a fantastic guitar player at a session I attended regularly. Then I saw him in concert with his band, and he hardly played any guitar -- instead, he opted for flute and banjo, and he was terrific on both. Later on, I asked him why he didn't bring either of those instruments to the session, and he just kind of shrugged and said, "They really just want me here as a guitar player. There's plenty of other chances when I get to play flute or banjo."
I play a couple different instruments, self taught (and it’s true that the self-taught have by definition incompetent instructors) but never got further than maybe an intermediate level of skill. Was a bit like a puppy in a field of butterflies. Finally decided to get “serious” and concentrate on one instrument, find a teacher, and buckle down with the one instrument that I felt best expresses the music that I love. Of course, then I really started listening to the pipes. Now, THAT’s the heart of the Music. And flute, box, whistle, harp concertina aaahhh! At least I’ve learned one lesson: I‘m sticking with the fiddle. For now.
Multi-instrumentalism is fine and fun if you’ve the capacity but one is plenty for us mortals.
It's just so much fun to learn a new instrument! I've started working on fiddle recently. I have no trouble with my flute anymore, I've got that down pretty well. Pipes I'm doing okay with, getting there. The official piper in my session said something very nice the other day, the banjo player said it would slow me down a little or something like that if I strapped on the pipes, and the piper said, "not really, not really." Now this fiddle is about the hardest thing I've ever played, but I can hear myself improving already. I was playing with my sister(who's played fiddle for 7 or 8 years) last night, and she said I was doing not bad. Normally I wouldn't expect her to admit that, even if she were thinking it. So I choose to believe she meant it. Plus I can just tune it down to Bb and not have to buy a whole new instrument like I did with flute and am planning to do with the pipes when I have the money! Weehoo! I love that.
Well, I for one consider my master instrument the whistle, then flute because they are practically the same. Then the little silver thing with all the keys. Fiddle, hammered dulcimer, keyboard, guitar, spoons..... all the rest sit at a pretty much equal level in the background. I do, however, greatly admire those rare persons who have mastered a number of instruments in very different families.
I am currently trying to get to a good level of competence on flute. At the moment, I wont even play a whistle in a session - I want to push myself to improve as much as possible. But at some point in the future, once I've hit a certain comfort level (Not nearly there yet) I'd love to pick up harp - a fairly versatile instrument in that it can do rhythm and melody. Simultaneously, with a good player. But harp does have a high pain-in-the-butt quotient in terms of price and size vs. volume.
An army of clones is gathering, and it bodes no good for the Republic. A pair of Jedi ambassadors has been dispatched by the senate to investigate the source of the problem... but all is not as it seems.
(The role of Q will now be played by Ewan McGregor)
Good work Q. Your trusty Jedi ambassadors have managed to rid us of two of the imposters - only one to go then!
I've always fancied myself as Obi-wan Kenobi - Can I pleeze? I've got an ideal hooded cloak for the job. It was confiscated by a local Blair-ite 'Bobby'.
>Should we only concentrate on a single instrument, or is it ok to play a variety?
It's up to you, what do you WANT to do?
Does it offer a dynamic enhancement mid session to change instrument, or does it disrupt the flow and established momentum of a session?
From experience I would try to discourage someone from being a session multi-instrumentalist. You have to lug in all yr baggage, find a place to store the cases. Tune all of them, and then yr juggling instruments around so fast you never really get warmed up on any and find yr just playing "at" it.
I rarely ever take more than 2 instruments to a session. Usually the fiddle and something with frets. Mostly because you never know who's gonna show up and the balance can change over the course of the evening. So if we have 15 fiddles and 8 whistles and no backers, I'll strum. If we're melody-lite I'll bow. Agreed that The Music doesn't need accompaniment, but the sad fact is that many museos do. We've also had sessions in rooms so live that you couldn't expect to melodist sto play together without a rhythm.
On the other hand, a band multi-instrumentalist is a very good thing. Changing up the sound refreshes the audience's attention. But you still have to lug in all that baggage, find someplace to store the cases and tune them all.
Sorry about the counter-hijack to all ye Dudes, Druids, Droids, and Droogies.
OK, to answer the original question.
Booh...
Who wants to be an instrument nazi?
I'd bet any money that the box players here would love to be mandolinists as well, the fiddlers here would love to be pipers, the flutists to be harpists, or whatever combo.
Me?
I play flute, but also manage to squeeze out a coupla tunes from the box. Why is it a big problem to jump around and explore other ways of making the sounds that you like? If ye were so dedicated to yer craft of one-instrumentism, WTF are you doing spending time here?
OMG I hate to say this, but I actually find myself having to agree with you there, Danny. Monoinstrumentalism for its own sake is bollox. Just cuz either _you_ can't do it or you've _met someone_ who can't do it, doesn't mean that it's not possible. I bet Danny took up the box so that he could drown everyone else out and saturate sessions with an ear-jarringly wet, musette sound, as if to say, "look at me! I know this tune, and look at all the famous musicians around me! Someone take my picture so I can show all my friends!"
And I hate to say it, but I agree with you as well, Dow. Of course that's why I took up the box. What's even worse is that I can only play a dozen tunes. And even worse than that, I found myself laughing at your post!
You laughed! Danny, this is a cause for celebration - you've finally acquired an ability to laugh at yourself and not take yourself too seriously after all these years. Congratulations!
O what a day!
Eyebrows half raised, eyes wide open, bemusedly smiling, arms akimbo and shaking his head in surprise. Ehh? WhaaaAAt?
Bliddy hell, whatdya mean? Jist call me Mr. Football, the kickings I take on here. (All undeserved of course! :-} ) If I took it all so seriously as you suggest I'd have died years ago. As it is, I am the most respected, profound, clever and witty contributor on this site who knows all the huge megastars on sh@gging terms, that you will ever hope to cross posts with...erm, yeah, dream on......to be honest, I don't give a shining. I just like coming on here and chatting about my hobby. If I get passionate or controversial, well, there ye go. Not exactly WW3 is it?
Multi-instrumentalism
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I think we should concentrate on a single instrument. Although I think people can easily adapt to another instrument in the same group such as fiddle to mandolin or flute to whistle or great highland pipes to smallpipes. It's better to be really good at one instrument rather than half-arsed at many. But then again you get people like Phil Cunningham and Mike Whelans who are amazing on their primary instrument and yet still very good on the others they play.
In a session it possibly disrupts the flow, people have certain posts that they take up for example if a guitarist was the only accompanyist in a session and half way through pulls out his whistle and starts playing when there are already plenty of meoldy players there, the session loses something.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by ecidralla
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I think the secret is "to master"(if there's such a thing) your first instrument before moving on to the next. All the good multi-instrumentalists would have done it this way.
Mind you, those I play are closely related.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the "half ar-sed" variety.
I don't think it's a good idea to take loads of them into a session and, especially not, to keep changing them mid stream. Normally, I'll just bring a mandolin and fiddle though, sometimes, I'll take others to a more local session.
I'll admit that I'd probably be a much better fiddler today, if I didn't tend to "fall back" on the mandolin for certain tunes and vice versa.
Still, there's many worse culprits than me for this sort of thing.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Johannes J
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Is multi-instrumentalism a good idea? Of course it is, my little 'wiggly a's friend'! No question. You just have to think of musicians like Seamus Egan! ......Need I go on...............?
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Come on, Dick. You've answered your own question. Did you know all the time?
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Johannes J
Dear Ptarmigan,
It really depends on what you want to acomplish. There are virtuoso-likes, who learn their skills from their very first years. They play just one isntrumentm, but with pure quality. I don't even dream of getting near them with my sorry abilities. But there are people who play for the true joy of it. They sometimes even started not so long ago. If it makes you feel better play as many instruments as you like.
I play flute, and recently I got myself a box. It's not that I plan to be a top player- but pushing those buttons makes me enjoy life more...
regards,
Kuba
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by kuba
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I would say its a good thing. Not necessarily so as you can wheech through them at your session, but for your playing ability on all and general musical understanding. For example, your guitar playing willl be (i would guess) a lot more sympathetic to the tunes if you play a whistle already. However i would say mastering one before learning the next isn't the best method, it takes decade(s) to master an instrument so give it a while till you can scrape then start practicing the rest too. Think you either have to be a child or retired to master loads of instruments though, if you work you just dinnae have the time.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Mike.Vass
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
and ye just look at seamus eagan/anna massie/ ali hutton etc.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Mike.Vass
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Sorry Multi-ptarmigans. I've just noticed there are two of you.
Mike, what do you know about work?
Come along to The Pleasance on Saturday. We've got a great young fiddler playing there and his sister is brilliant on keyboards too.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Johannes J
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
HA, i didn't include myself in the work category John, I'm still a child - you know that!
I've taken it upon myself to learn the guitar and can nearly (nearly) sit with it in a session and play. A few more years....
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Mike.Vass
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
oh yeh i'll try and make it along on saturday but have been struggling with the gastric flu, hopefully i'll be recovered
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Mike.Vass
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
How do you get that little accent on the "a" ?
Are these two people related in any way ? They seem to live close to one another.
Personally I keep hopping between instruments - the guitar is still the fall-back instrument of choice, but for sessions the 'zouk is first, and I bring along bodrhan and sometimes an english concertna for a slow tune or two. The b thing tends to get passed around the session a bit, to anyone who can't join in a tune any other way, as we don't have a resident specialist in thumping the goat.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Multi-Ptarmiganism
Is it just me or is the multi-Ptarmiganism just too much to cope with?
Sorry if I seem grumpy, but I'm grumpy today.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by showaddydadito
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
If you can play by ear and have the gift for picking instruments up, as long as you have mastered the technique, there is no difference in playing it on one instrument or another. You just play what you are thinking (or however you work it out).
With the proviso that you are always learning so never completely "master" it.
It is true though, that multi-instrumentalists may have less time to practise on individual instruments, but it is also true that many musicians practise consists solely of playing in sessions.
As I play different tunes/traditions on different instruments, I get a wider spread of tunes than I would just playing one.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by geoffwright
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I mostly play guitar, but sometimes I like to play the melody. So when another accompanist is there, I will play a melody instrument when I know the tune. However, I would only rarely change instruments in the middle of a set--that gets a little too disruptive.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by AlBrown
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I play mandolin, octave mandolin and bouzouki and would recommend other bodhran players take up other instruments. It helps in understanding the non bodhran players in a session and their perspective. For example, trying to play a tune you have been practicing on mandolin with friends to showcase, and then a bodhran novice with a pizza box and eggy thangies walks in joins the session and drowns you out.
I should also mention that it is a hell of alot of fun, the real reason for taking up other instruments.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by CeolCairdeas
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I make no apologies for being a multi-instrumentalist. Being able to play both rhythm and melody instruments enables me, I feel, to experience more of the music, perhaps even to understand it better. Obviously, there are rhythm players who can grasp all the dimensions of playing melody, just as there are melody players who -- even if they can't play a guitar or piano -- can elucidate all the elements of rhythm. That's fine. Me, I know what I know, and I do what I can.
It's interesting to find multi-instrumentalists who compartmentalize their playing of a particular instrument depending on the situation. A few years ago, I got to know a fantastic guitar player at a session I attended regularly. Then I saw him in concert with his band, and he hardly played any guitar -- instead, he opted for flute and banjo, and he was terrific on both. Later on, I asked him why he didn't bring either of those instruments to the session, and he just kind of shrugged and said, "They really just want me here as a guitar player. There's plenty of other chances when I get to play flute or banjo."
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by sts
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I play a couple different instruments, self taught (and it’s true that the self-taught have by definition incompetent instructors) but never got further than maybe an intermediate level of skill. Was a bit like a puppy in a field of butterflies. Finally decided to get “serious” and concentrate on one instrument, find a teacher, and buckle down with the one instrument that I felt best expresses the music that I love. Of course, then I really started listening to the pipes. Now, THAT’s the heart of the Music. And flute, box, whistle, harp concertina aaahhh! At least I’ve learned one lesson: I‘m sticking with the fiddle. For now.
Multi-instrumentalism is fine and fun if you’ve the capacity but one is plenty for us mortals.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by fidkid
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
It's just so much fun to learn a new instrument! I've started working on fiddle recently. I have no trouble with my flute anymore, I've got that down pretty well. Pipes I'm doing okay with, getting there. The official piper in my session said something very nice the other day, the banjo player said it would slow me down a little or something like that if I strapped on the pipes, and the piper said, "not really, not really."
Now this fiddle is about the hardest thing I've ever played, but I can hear myself improving already. I was playing with my sister(who's played fiddle for 7 or 8 years) last night, and she said I was doing not bad. Normally I wouldn't expect her to admit that, even if she were thinking it. So I choose to believe she meant it. 
Plus I can just tune it down to Bb and not have to buy a whole new instrument like I did with flute and am planning to do with the pipes when I have the money! Weehoo! I love that.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by seisflutes
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Well, I for one consider my master instrument the whistle, then flute because they are practically the same. Then the little silver thing with all the keys. Fiddle, hammered dulcimer, keyboard, guitar, spoons..... all the rest sit at a pretty much equal level in the background. I do, however, greatly admire those rare persons who have mastered a number of instruments in very different families.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Red Crow
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
I am currently trying to get to a good level of competence on flute. At the moment, I wont even play a whistle in a session - I want to push myself to improve as much as possible. But at some point in the future, once I've hit a certain comfort level (Not nearly there yet) I'd love to pick up harp - a fairly versatile instrument in that it can do rhythm and melody. Simultaneously, with a good player. But harp does have a high pain-in-the-butt quotient in terms of price and size vs. volume.
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by wormdiet
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
christ, a whole flock
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by llig leahcim
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
A covey of ptarmigans? A skulk of lurkers?
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by fidkid
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
don't be fooled by their cute collective nouns.
An army of clones is gathering, and it bodes no good for the Republic. A pair of Jedi ambassadors has been dispatched by the senate to investigate the source of the problem... but all is not as it seems.
(The role of Q will now be played by Ewan McGregor)
"These are not the druids you're looking for"
# Posted on November 8th 2005 by Q
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Good work Q. Your trusty Jedi ambassadors have managed to rid us of two of the imposters - only one to go then!
I've always fancied myself as Obi-wan Kenobi - Can I pleeze? I've got an ideal hooded cloak for the job. It was confiscated by a local Blair-ite 'Bobby'.
Ooops! giving my age away there, I think?
Does anyone actually still call them Bobbies?
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
No.
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by dafydd
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
cops? bobbies? I've heard them called that - and I live in Texas.
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by musicfan
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Sorry Ptarmigan, I'd rather fill that role with Guinness.
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Q
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Aye Q, the best man for the job, I know, but I think you'll find he's a little past his 'sell by' date, by now!
Sure they weren't looking for Dudes?
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
>Is multi-instrumentalism a good idea?
Why do you ask?
>Should we only concentrate on a single instrument, or is it ok to play a variety?
It's up to you, what do you WANT to do?
Does it offer a dynamic enhancement mid session to change instrument, or does it disrupt the flow and established momentum of a session?
From experience I would try to discourage someone from being a session multi-instrumentalist. You have to lug in all yr baggage, find a place to store the cases. Tune all of them, and then yr juggling instruments around so fast you never really get warmed up on any and find yr just playing "at" it.
I rarely ever take more than 2 instruments to a session. Usually the fiddle and something with frets. Mostly because you never know who's gonna show up and the balance can change over the course of the evening. So if we have 15 fiddles and 8 whistles and no backers, I'll strum. If we're melody-lite I'll bow. Agreed that The Music doesn't need accompaniment, but the sad fact is that many museos do. We've also had sessions in rooms so live that you couldn't expect to melodist sto play together without a rhythm.
On the other hand, a band multi-instrumentalist is a very good thing. Changing up the sound refreshes the audience's attention. But you still have to lug in all that baggage, find someplace to store the cases and tune them all.
Sorry about the counter-hijack to all ye Dudes, Druids, Droids, and Droogies.
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Don't forget the "Drudes" (Druid Dudes).
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by CeolCairdeas
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Drude... where's my cauldron?
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Q
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Found it Q - http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/6876/
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Oh there it is. I actually thought I might have left it in an Asterix comic, but there you go.
# Posted on November 9th 2005 by Q
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Is this thread about multi-instrumentalists of multi ways of fighting. Or is that just the pacifist DIV's posts?
# Posted on November 11th 2005 by bodhran bliss
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
HA! Multi-WMDism!!!!
Guilty as Charged
# Posted on November 12th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Agh! Shurrup you lot! Gah, I don't know....where's Zina when we need her anyway?
# Posted on November 12th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
OK, to answer the original question.
Booh...
Who wants to be an instrument nazi?
I'd bet any money that the box players here would love to be mandolinists as well, the fiddlers here would love to be pipers, the flutists to be harpists, or whatever combo.
Me?
I play flute, but also manage to squeeze out a coupla tunes from the box. Why is it a big problem to jump around and explore other ways of making the sounds that you like? If ye were so dedicated to yer craft of one-instrumentism, WTF are you doing spending time here?
# Posted on November 12th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
OMG I hate to say this, but I actually find myself having to agree with you there, Danny. Monoinstrumentalism for its own sake is bollox. Just cuz either _you_ can't do it or you've _met someone_ who can't do it, doesn't mean that it's not possible. I bet Danny took up the box so that he could drown everyone else out and saturate sessions with an ear-jarringly wet, musette sound, as if to say, "look at me! I know this tune, and look at all the famous musicians around me! Someone take my picture so I can show all my friends!"
# Posted on November 12th 2005 by Dow
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
And I hate to say it, but I agree with you as well, Dow. Of course that's why I took up the box. What's even worse is that I can only play a dozen tunes. And even worse than that, I found myself laughing at your post!
:-|}
# Posted on November 12th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
You laughed! Danny, this is a cause for celebration - you've finally acquired an ability to laugh at yourself and not take yourself too seriously after all these years. Congratulations!
O what a day!
# Posted on November 13th 2005 by Dow
Re: Multi-instrumentalism
Eyebrows half raised, eyes wide open, bemusedly smiling, arms akimbo and shaking his head in surprise. Ehh? WhaaaAAt?
Bliddy hell, whatdya mean? Jist call me Mr. Football, the kickings I take on here. (All undeserved of course! :-} ) If I took it all so seriously as you suggest I'd have died years ago. As it is, I am the most respected, profound, clever and witty contributor on this site who knows all the huge megastars on sh@gging terms, that you will ever hope to cross posts with...erm, yeah, dream on......to be honest, I don't give a shining. I just like coming on here and chatting about my hobby. If I get passionate or controversial, well, there ye go. Not exactly WW3 is it?
# Posted on November 13th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad