Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 101

Thread: Musicality

  1. #81
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    I would also dispute the assumption you both made that this 'breaking the rule' is necessarily a loud or obvious thing. It could be quite subtle, not all rule breaks are 'in yer face' .
    Try rotating the slot in West Coast by ten degrees.
    Good luck.

  2. #82
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Try rotating the slot in West Coast by ten degrees.
    Good luck.
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  3. #83
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    Unfort tho, the rule is breakable, only 1% chance; but thats a 1% chance that rule B might be called into action, in this case no matter whether you follow rule A or rule B, your computer must be prepared to run either. You can't make the darned computer more efficient by dropping all communications related to rule B 'just because it doesn't happen as often'.
    You can't drop all communication related to rule B, but that doesn't mean you can't gain efficiency by knowing it doesn't happen very often. To repeat myself, there are many image compression algorithms that work in exactly this way.

    Note that you still need to be prepared to do the same range of actions, it's just that you've reduced the total amount of communication needed to know what to do.

  4. #84
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Try rotating the slot in West Coast by ten degrees.
    To be honest, I think this is something that supports TA's argument. It's something that you "ought" to be able to do, but is made very difficult by the rules and structure in WCS.

    On the other hand, I can't say I've ever found myself thinking "Y'know, I'd really like to rotate this slot by 10 degrees", so I don't see it as a significant problem.

  5. #85
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Musicality

    Bear with me on this one...

    When I was young, my Dad brought me a guitar and I had a few lessons at a lunchtime club at school. I loved it, I picked it up really quickly and within the group, fast became the best.

    The teacher just taught simple 'chords', and I'd strum away effortlessly. I got to the stage where, I didn't need to look at the music, I knew instinctively what chord to play.

    My Saturday treat was to go to the music shop and order sheet music of the latest chart songs, then I'd spend hours strumming and singing away. And impress all my mates.

    I got asked to be in a school band, I was 2 years younger than all the rest and the only girl. I LOVED IT!

    Then one day my Dad (with all the best intentions) said, if you want to be any good, your going to have to learn how to read music 'properly' and found a private teacher.

    Lucky me, you might say?

    Pete (the guitar teacher) basically rubbished my efforts.

    He started to introduce classical music. Chords were a NO NO. I was given 'exercises' to do... 'Scales' I had to learn individual notes and how to read them.

    Basically, I went back to stage one and the music I was producing sounded terrible

    I HATED IT!

    I begged my Dad to let me stop. I told him I was hating it but he said I'd thank him in the end.
    The school teacher and Pete had told him, that I had great potential but that I needed to 'apply' myself and practice practice practice

    It took every bit of pleasure out of my much loved hobby and I ended up upsetting everyone by announcing that I was giving up!

    Of course, there's no doubt, that to be a 'great and individual musician' you have to work hard!!! The more you learn, understand and practice, the more skilled you become and in turn, more possibilities open up.
    You then have the 'choice' as to whether you apply those things to your repertoire.

    The simple thing is... I wasn't ready.

    Maybe, if I'd been left alone, I'd have got bored with the limitations I'd set myself and my thirst for knowledge would have grown?

    The point I'm trying to make here is...

    ... we all have our own level where we're comfortable and that should be respected.

    Some people will be happy after 3 months of Ceroc lessons. They'll know enough to have a dance and think they're great, cos they're better than their mate who can't dance a step and they're totally happy with that.

    But at the same time, as much as I respect them, I'd think they were being silly and 'ignorant' if they tried to argue, that what they did, was as good as J & T.
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  6. #86
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    Jeez, what am I still doing up?

    Does this answer your question?

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by straycat264 View Post
    Does this answer your question?
    Ha Ha. You wish !

    More the aching legs due to excessive dancing and lack of body upgrade availability stopping the possibility of sleep

    Wish I'd spend more time on the Internet rather than raiding the fridge now tho !!!

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    You can't drop all communication related to rule B, but that doesn't mean you can't gain efficiency by knowing it doesn't happen very often. To repeat myself, there are many image compression algorithms that work in exactly this way.

    Note that you still need to be prepared to do the same range of actions, it's just that you've reduced the total amount of communication needed to know what to do.
    It doesn't matter what the frequency is surely ? You can't compress any differently for rule/data A or B unless your willing to accept degradation.

    E.G. You could use some kind of lossy algorithms for rule/data B simply because it is more infrequent and increase efficiency, but that is exactly my point, the lossy algorithm will result in a degraded end product. So you have to treat rule A and B the same, use the same compression, and be equally prepared for both.
    Last edited by TA Guy; 28th-May-2008 at 11:04 AM.

  9. #89
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    It doesn't matter what the frequency is surely?
    Actually, the frequency of needing to break the rules is very important to how well the scheme works.

    You can't compress any differently for rule/data A or B unless your willing to accept degradation.

    E.G. You could use some kind of lossy algorithms for rule/data B simply because it is more infrequent and increase efficiency, but that is exactly my point, the lossy algorithm will result in a degraded end product. So you have to treat rule A and B the same and be equally prepared for both.
    No, you can have lossless compression while treating A and B differently. It's quite a common thing to do.

    As a concrete example, if you look at a photograph, you find the colours don't usually change abruptly. So although in principle the change from pixel to pixel could be anything from -255 to 255, in practice it is usually between -6 and 6 (this isn't terribly accurate, but I'm trying to keep things simple).

    So a possible compression scheme is to assume the change will be between -6 and 6, in which case we only need half as much space to send the change than we'd need without compression.

    So what happens when that assumption is false? Suppose the change is actually 250? What we do is "break" our compression rule (that every change is between -6 and 6) by sending a change of 7, and then we send the actual change, which is 250. The result is that we still know exactly what the change is, it just required a slightly more complicated route. The practical cost of this is that it actually needs one-and-a-half times as much space as without compression.

    So whether this is a good scheme depends on how frequently we need to 'break' the rules. If we need to break the rules 5% of the time, we only use 55% of the space needed without compression and it works well. If we need to break the rules 95% of the time, we use 145% of the space needed without compression and it works badly.

  10. #90
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    Actually, the frequency of needing to break the rules is very important to how well the scheme works.

    No, you can have lossless compression while treating A and B differently. It's quite a common thing to do.
    I don't have any problem with your theory, but I think it's too micro a level to really give an insight into how the connection works. For a start, the connection is a concurrent data channel, as well as physical touch, there is sight. Other things effect it as well, like existing momentum, current weight shift status etc. None of these things can be represented in your theory because it is such a low level

    Rules are a macro level thing. Rules can include weight shift information, direction information etc. I can't represent them in the micro level world of compression Sorry.


    So...
    Whatever the method of data transmission, an instruction is sent to the receiver.
    There are two relevent options here, either it is the first instruction of a common move, or the first instruction of a rule breaker move.
    But the dancer at this point doesn't know. It might be a straightforward step forward instruction, but later instructions could turn this into a common Sugar Push, or later instructions might turn this into a rule breaker, say a Cresent Sugar Push with increased tension in the exit arms that rotates the slot 10 degrees (or whatever )

    It is my contention that a good dancer will not use the slot rule to assume it's a normal sugar push.
    I feel any half-decent dancer takes into account all possibilities. The possibilitity that although the instruction was simply to step forward, the follow would not assume or anticipate. They would wait to see if the move was indeed a common one, or an unusual rule breaker.


    This is the crux of my whole argument against NZ Monkey's idea that rules enable a more efficient connection. They do, but only if you assume the rule will be followed, and since we know the rules can be broken, that's anticipation by another name, and we all know that anticipation is not a good thing in dance.

  11. #91
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: Musicality

    This thread is a masterclass lesson in how to take something joyious like dancing and sink the twin fangs of science and logic into it and suck out every atom of fun it contains.

    Is lossless compression the opposite of lossless leverage?

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    This is the crux of my whole argument against NZ Monkey's idea that rules enable a more efficient connection. They do, but only if you assume the rule will be followed, and since we know the rules can be broken, that's anticipation by another name, and we all know that anticipation is not a good thing in dance.
    well that argument would be valid if we relied solely on general rules to follow. Thanksfully, there's also someone who's leading us and communicating the general rule breaking (from the dance style 'general' set fo rules, i.e a slot, an anchor to resolve a pattern, etc) in a way that follows connection rules (and those aren't breakable if you're doing lead and follow): i.e. for a half-moon sugar push (i.e. one that goes off the slot), I would feel exactly when I need to that there is a shift to the right, i.e. off-slot, to be made.
    If we're going off slot at any other point in time, again something in the connection will tell me that I can't resolve the pattern in the slot I started with. Ignoring that is bad following (or doing your own thing, if on purpose).

    Take an other example: replace the anchor by a rock-and-go: it's exactly the same, if I want to anchor I would have to consciously ignore the connection that is taking me forward, and hence telling me that no anchor is to be made.

    So I guess what I'm saying is that there are two different levels of rules: a set of the dance general rules, and connection rules that are used to communicate any change to the general rules.
    Never thought of it that way before though... :scratch head:

  13. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London & environs'
    Posts
    3,938
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post

    When I was young, my Dad brought me a guitar.
    My Dad was given a second hand piano.

    First it was in the garage. Then they noticed I could play it and moved it into my bedroom.

    Then a piano tuner turned up!
    Then one day my Dad (with all the best intentions) said, if you want to be any good, your going to have to learn how to read music 'properly' and found a private teacher.

    Lucky me, you might say?

    Pete (the guitar teacher) basically rubbished my efforts.

    He started to introduce classical music. Chords were a NO NO. I was given 'exercises' to do... 'Scales' I had to learn individual notes and how to read them.


    I HATED IT!

    I begged my Dad to let me stop. I told him I was hating it but he said I'd thank him in the end.
    Same thing happened to me, Lory.

    I hated to practice homework after school, I wanted to be out with my mates.

    One day, hearing no keys tinkling, Dad came in and slammed 2 candlesticks down on the top of the piano! I was non plussed?
    He told me later it's what Liberace has.
    The simple thing is... I wasn't ready.

    Maybe, if I'd been left alone, I'd have got bored with the limitations I'd set myself and my thirst for knowledge would have grown?
    I hadn't thought of that.

    Anyway it was that Liberace day, he finally admitted defeat. i didn't have to go to lessons and get rapped on the knuckles, and the piano eventually disapeared.
    Last edited by Astro; 28th-May-2008 at 07:35 PM.

  14. #94
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    The connection is a concurrent data channel, as well as physical touch, there is sight. Other things effect it as well, like existing momentum, current weight shift status etc. None of these things can be represented in your theory because it is such a low level
    Note that I only went so "low level" in order to provide an easily understood counterexample to what you were saying about lossless compression.

    A more realistic example would include such things as optimizing with the assumption that something that happened recently is likely to happen again (c.f. LZW compression and Robert Royston's concept of 'mapping' in dance) and also optimizing based on a level of prediction of what's the likely continuation of the current situation (in an image, if the red component is increasing, it is likely to continue doing so, in dance, if I'm leading you forwards strongly, I am likely to continue doing so).

    Anyhow, although I find there are several interesting parallels, the 'compression' thing is supposed to be an analogy, not an exact equivalence. (In practical terms, a big difference I see is 'cognitive load'. A computer doesn't care if you have 200 rules with each requiring radically different approaches, and within reason, it doesn't care about having to process 1000000 alternatives to work out what was meant. A human being most definitely does).

    Whatever the method of data transmission, an instruction is sent to the receiver.
    There are two relevent options here, either it is the first instruction of a common move, or the first instruction of a rule breaker move.
    I suspect it's not intentional, but the above is sounding very much like "dancing with signals" to indicate which move you mean. And that's really not what I'm talking about at all.

    If I start a lead "down the slot", the rules of WCS tell the follower they are supposed to be travelling straight down the slot. Even if my lead is 10 degrees 'off slot', the normal assumption would be "inaccurate lead, but I'll still go down the slot". Which is kind of bad, because it makes it harder to lead someone off slot, but it's also kind of good, because it means I can lead turns and styling without having to go worry about making sure the directional information is always perfectly directed.

    It is my contention that a good dancer will not use the slot rule to assume it's a normal sugar push.
    Depends what you mean. They shouldn't assume it's a normal sugar push if there are indications otherwise. But if they're lead down the slot, and the man's in their way, then they're going to need to push against something. So you're probably going to end up with some form of sugar-push.

    I feel any half-decent dancer takes into account all possibilities.
    Again, it depends on what you mean. In my experience, you can easily lead a few 'standard' possibilities (that generally follow the rules), and even if your lead is a little late or sloppy, it will still work. If you want to lead something non-standard, you need to work a lot harder (you may need to lead earlier, or more firmly, and you certainly can't get away with leading 'late').

    The possibilitity that although the instruction was simply to step forward, the follow would not assume or anticipate. They would wait to see if the move was indeed a common one, or an unusual rule breaker.
    They shouldn't anticipate the entire move, no. But in practice they probably do anticipate "OK, he's either going to do X, or Y, or Z" (although this happens so fast it is largely at a subconscious level). Again, this is what I've been told by followers who have won national competitions.

    Of course, sometimes, he does Q instead, and they're left struggling to adjust. In general, this is due to poor leading, however.

    This is the crux of my whole argument against NZ Monkey's idea that rules enable a more efficient connection. They do, but only if you assume the rule will be followed, and since we know the rules can be broken, that's anticipation by another name, and we all know that anticipation is not a good thing in dance.
    We're arguing in circles now, but I would stand by my earlier comment. You don't have to assume the rules are going to be followed, you just have to assume that the person who's going to break the rules is going to be sensible about it. If they're going to lead completely random movements at random, off-beat times with no warning, you're going to be somewhat stuffed. If they're occasionally going to do something unorthodox, and they can give you warning via the connection to "concentrate, something odd and outside the rules is about to happen", you're no worse off than if you had no rules, while still gaining the advantage the rest of the time.

    It does matter that it only happens occasionally, which is why you want to have rules that make sense and don't need to be broken all the time.

  15. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Smile Science and logic are fun!

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    This thread is a masterclass lesson in how to take something joyous like dancing and sink the twin fangs of science and logic into it and suck out every atom of fun it contains.
    Science and logic are fun!

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    In practical terms, a big difference I see is 'cognitive load'. A computer doesn't care if you have 200 rules with each requiring radically different approaches, and within reason, it doesn't care about having to process 1000000 alternatives to work out what was meant. A human being most definitely does.
    I would expect humans to be better than computers in this case. The pattern-matching and error-tolerance fit our advantages more than theirs. Obviously it's all going to be subconscious in good dancers.

  16. #96
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    P.S. I would also dispute the assumption you both made that this 'breaking the rule' is necessarily a loud or obvious thing. It could be quite subtle, not all rule breaks are 'in yer face'

    Jeez, what am I still doing up?
    In all honesty - I think if you're going to break the rules of a dance for some reason you should do it in an obvious way.

    The reason for that is that if you're doing so deliberately its probably to make a statement musically speaking. At least I hope that's the reason your doing it and not simply because you enjoy making life more difficult for yourself and your follower with no pay-off. The contrast adds something if it's a big deal.

    David Franklin mentioned in another thread that much of what we think we're doing musically on the dance floor is only happening in our own head. Since moving away from London I now live in a city with no experienced WCS teachers. A few of us, luckily including a very nice follower who also learned in London from the same teachers I had are working away on our own.

    This is comparatively hard work, and you need a thick skin and a critical approach to improve yourself without someone who has a mandate to tell you you're wrong watching over you. For one thing, we video ourselves for critique on a regular basis.

    During one of these sessions I performed a body peel with my partner that matched an accent perfectly. I knew I'd nailed it, and my partner smiled suddenly and exclaimed "nice!" as I lead her through it. It felt great. Looking at the video afterwards though the peel was so subtle that visually it added nothing to the dance at all, and I was a little disappointed.

    While there is definitely truth to the maxim "less is more", if you really want to be musical in a manner that others can appreciate you really have to work that balance out. This is why I think if you're deliberately flaunting a rule, you should make the most of it so that it stands out as such. If you're only concerned about yourself and your partner you don't need to bother, but I'm a vain human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin
    You don't have to assume the rules are going to be followed, you just have to assume that the person who's going to break the rules is going to be sensible about it. If they're going to lead completely random movements at random, off-beat times with no warning, you're going to be somewhat stuffed. If they're occasionally going to do something unorthodox, and they can give you warning via the connection to "concentrate, something odd and outside the rules is about to happen", you're no worse off than if you had no rules, while still gaining the advantage the rest of the time.
    , and put more eloquently than I would have.

  17. #97
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    Take an other example: replace the anchor by a rock-and-go: it's exactly the same, if I want to anchor I would have to consciously ignore the connection that is taking me forward, and hence telling me that no anchor is to be made.

    So I guess what I'm saying is that there are two different levels of rules: a set of the dance general rules, and connection rules that are used to communicate any change to the general rules.
    Never thought of it that way before though... :scratch head:
    To be fair though, I've been taught the rock-and-go as a specific method to tack two patterns together without needing to anchour in WCS. I see where you're coming from here, but I wouldn't consider it's use to be breaking the rules of WCS.

    If anything I'd just say that it's just a technique a step above the basics. I concede that in some ways this is just semantics though.

  18. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    To be fair though, I've been taught the rock-and-go as a specific method to tack two patterns together without needing to anchour in WCS. I see where you're coming from here, but I wouldn't consider it's use to be breaking the rules of WCS.

    If anything I'd just say that it's just a technique a step above the basics. I concede that in some ways this is just semantics though.
    Yes it links up 2 patterns removing the anchor between them: surely that's breaking the rule that every pattern resolves in an anchor, even though it's one that is considered so perfectly acceptable that it has become just a variation... Potato, potato

    The way if feels as a follow is pretty much 'you're stealing my anchor here' as the default would be to anchor. That's in fact the metaphore I used lately to explain in what way it was different to making me just rock step (which, again, would be breaking the rule, although that's one broadly considered as unacceptable or old-fashioned...) from an anchor or stationary position (in close usually).

  19. #99
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Back in London
    Posts
    507
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by Caro View Post
    Yes it links up 2 patterns removing the anchor between them: surely that's breaking the rule that every pattern resolves in an anchor, even though it's one that is considered so perfectly acceptable that it has become just a variation... Potato, potato .
    Not really breaking a rule here, The other way to look at it is, the pattern isnt over till youre allowed to Anchor.

    But youre right the Rock 'n' go and/or a rock step (one is leverage the other Compression) is not strictly legal in competition WCS for sure and I have been advised not use them too much outside of California.

    Of the other way to look at it, is that you are just extending the pattern in increments of 2 beats which is legal.

    Now,extend a pattern by an odd number of beats, thats Heresy

  20. #100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Musicality

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    We're arguing in circles now, but I would stand by my earlier comment. You don't have to assume the rules are going to be followed, you just have to assume that the person who's going to break the rules is going to be sensible about it. If they're going to lead completely random movements at random, off-beat times with no warning, you're going to be somewhat stuffed. If they're occasionally going to do something unorthodox, and they can give you warning via the connection to "concentrate, something odd and outside the rules is about to happen", you're no worse off than if you had no rules, while still gaining the advantage the rest of the time.

    It does matter that it only happens occasionally, which is why you want to have rules that make sense and don't need to be broken all the time.
    This is the 'so long as you shout' theory, it can work ?

    I don't disagree with that.
    If you want to do something unusual, then over-emphacizing the lead can help. I use that from time to time
    It's like leading something the follower doesn't get. You may repeat it, but over-emphacize it slightly to help.

    There is nothing wrong with that per se, but for general leading, there are reasons why we don't lead like that (disturbs the flow, loss of subtlety, over emphacized movements look crap etc).

    Hence, it's better not to do that, but yes, it happens.

    IMO you can rate a follower (should you want to do such an ungentlemanly thing!) by how few times this would be necessary. The better you get, the less anticipation takes place rules or no rules, and my experience for what it's worth, is that the really good dancers anticipate the least.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Can you ever have too much musicality?
    By Cornish Pixie in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 4th-January-2008, 01:25 PM
  2. Musicality backwards
    By Ghost in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 21st-October-2007, 12:03 AM
  3. What is musicality to you how did you achieve it?
    By Mr Cool in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 5th-March-2007, 09:45 PM
  4. Musicality - The Difference it Makes
    By Andy McGregor in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 28th-November-2004, 11:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •