Home
Oa2

When I'm tooling around on the internet, I inevitably stumble across a thread like this, and someone says something like

Truth is there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" music. What's "good" and "bad" is subjective and is entirely down to one's own opinion.

I have never heard someone that listens to good music say this. This mindset is exclusively held by people who listen to Duran Duran, Maroon 5, and Adam Lambert, or worse. It is amazing how regularly pop aficionados ignore that music is, in fact, a form of art.

"Truth is," there are very clear definitions of good and bad music. What is subjective is simply what kind of music one prefers to listen to – one may indeed enjoy bad music, and that doesn't make it good. To demonstrate the difference, I have created a simple assignment. Acquire a piano (or use this website), then play – with a steady rhythm – G, D, E, C. After you're comfortable with that, starting playing the D key one octave up while you play each note in the sequence. Amazingly enough, you have just written a pop song. In fact, if it weren't for the supposedly creative decision by the music industry to try some different notes, you would have just written every pop song. And while the song you wrote sounds nice, it is clearly not "good music". That would be like claiming drawing a line on a piece of paper is good art.

It's not good music, because anyone can (and does) do it. Good music is something that involved some manner of artistic decision-making, and required some intelligence to create. From the technical proficiency of jazz musicians to the musical frontier explored by avant-garde, there is little to quality music than can be described as "basic" or "boring". Even when an artist is taking a familiar chord progression such as the one used above, they will take liberties with it, and make it their own. The application of creativity is what bad music lacks, and good music lives on.

The last point I'd like to make, if the theory and mathematics of quality music is not concrete enough, is the role of emotion in good music. Art exists to express emotion, and there does not exist good music that fails at this endeavor. I provide a simple example: Ryan Starr's cover of Losing My Religion, by R.E.M. The emotion of his performance is palpable. Think about how much better mainstream music could be if artists actually felt what they were producing. Billboard's best is this. (Hey Bruno, if you're trying to write a serious song about unrequited love, you may want to lose the upbeat drums and the boy-band background vocals)

Once someone begins to appreciate the value of artistic merit in music, it's unlikely they'll mistake taste for quality again.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Quality is Objective

  1. drawing a line on a piece of paper is good art, so long as it achieves the artist’s intended purpose and conveys the right message, ideas and emotions to his audience.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinimalismOne could say that the single line represents simplicity in nature and that the smallest detail can have the grandest impact. I see no difference between one line on a piece of paper compared to a thousand lines on a piece of paper. So long as that is what the artist intended the art to portray.http://scoop.simplyexcited.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/minimalism.jpg

    Like

  2. I can appreciate minimalism, but if you ask me, the reason that your picture seems so pleasing to the eye is not just the simple lines that the guy drew, but how they work with the geometry of the building and the sidewalk. If he had only drawn one line, it would’ve looked like a mistake more than anything.That said, I don’t think anyone is going to make an argument to me that pop music is elegant in its simplicity.

    Like

  3. Hmmm I dont expect to either. I suppose what it really boils down to really is whether Quality is objective or subjective. I’ve thought about it quite a bit and in some cases I agree with you. In other cases I do not. The hard thing about it is that I agree with you the pop music at the moment is bad. But whether that is purely based on my own perception and taste or whether pop music as an artform is of poor quality or not to be considered an artform at all I find debatable. Read up on quality on Wikipedia and it said and I quote:”Quality is, like beauty, held in the eye of the beholder, the subject. Quality is a subjective phenomenon that is the emergent emotion resulting from the combination of perception and expectation. The feeling of high quality occurs when perception exceeds expectation; the feeling of low quality occurs when perception does not meet expectation. When perception and expectation match the sensation is satisfaction which represents neutral quality.” Now I am not the type that take wikipedia’s word as God. And I will admit in some cases instances I am inclined to disagree with that comment. we are objective with quality all the time. We will frequently say thats objects are poorly designed. For instance, A chair with 3 legs can be considered a poorly designed chair and the response can also be considered to be universal. So in that way an object can be objectively considered to be of poor quality.However then I thought to myself, why do i consider it to be of poor quality? The answer to that is that as a chair, it does’nt serve its purpose. The purpose of a chair is allow me to sit down comfortably and take the weight off of my legs and support my back. How well it achieves that can be considered on a scale of its quality. However, while it might not make a decent chair, it could make a decent footrest. If we consider the purpose of a foot stool to comfortably take the weight off of my legs then it may be considered a higher in terms of its quality as a footstool as opposed to a chair.So if quality can be considered in terms of how well something achieves its purpose of design, we hit a bit of a problem. What is the purpose of music? And since music is as art form, I ask you, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ART? Now again according to wikipedia:”Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.”Now wikipedia has a whole bunch of definitions as to what the purpose of art is… but personally I have always believed that the purpose of art IS to influence and affect one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. Anything can be art. Food is art. People are art. Music is art. But how do we qualitatively assess this influence? Even stuff which you would call ‘bad art’ still achieves this purpose. For good or for bad… its still affecting you in one or more ways. In that sense I consider Pop music to be an art form. Now the question of whether it is a good or a bad artform. As I have already mentioned there is no real way to qualitatively access an artform. There is no good art or bad art. But I will agree that we can qualitatively access it in terms of how well the art form meets certain values that the artist intended for it to possess. There are many different types of artform. Many different types of music. I myself will frequently say “thats a bad rock song” or “thats a bad hip hop song”. The reason why is because I dont believe that the song matches by preconceived expectations and perception as to what the purpose of rock or hiphop is supposed to be. For example, I believe Rock is supposed to have certain qualities that make me want to get up and get motivated. For this reason I dont like indie music and consider it ‘bad rock’ because it doesnt meet my expectations of how I perceive rock music to be. Do i consider indie music to be bad art though?Its not for me to say. The answer to that I believe is based on the virtue of the producer. If the artist intended it to be the exact opposite of my expectations, then thats ok, he has still produced good art. But if the artist intended to meet my expectations and failed then I would say that ‘objectively’ it is bad art. EVEN IF other people were able to enjoy it… if it didnt meet the artists original purpose… I consider it bad art.Since that is a very,very hard question to answer (we touched on this before with Linkin Park and what their motives were behind their latest release). Only they as artists know.So in conclusion, I dont intend to ever convert you into considering pop music to be good music anymore then you could ever convert me into liking death metal. Not gonna happen. But the thing I do want you to consider more deeply is the question of whether the art can be qualitatively assessed in terms of being art.I also understand from your other post that you don’t really go to clubs or dance so you tend to judge all music in terms of its listenability. I agree that listenability is an extremely important aspect of music.. but it is in no way the only way in which music affects us. I agree with 100% of what you say in terms of listenability… but I would strongly suggest you go to some clubs, go see some DJ’s play and see how quickly your perception of good and bad music changes on the night.

    Like

  4. Your argument seems to best apply to music that we’d all consider “good,” though. For example, when you bring up food: people may have preferences about what is their favorite food, and food is an art, but when you take a step back, McDonalds is not art. They are making the cheapest food that everyone can eat. Mainstream music is exactly the same way. It just ceases to be both art and “quality.”Why do people like it? They’re simple… it’s simple… I don’t know. When I was in a music production class, it was always obvious when someone made bad music, because they were trying to make something that sounded good, and they couldn’t even keep to a key or a tempo. When an experimental artist creates the same “rubbish” in the name of art, am I going to sit back and say “yeah, that was pretty good, people could enjoy this.” Probably not.Mainstream music doesn’t impress me for reasons I repeat a lot: they’re putting nothing into it and getting nothing out. It’s gimmicky, it’s cheap, it’s uninspired. And I have to say again that the people who always make the biggest deal about not wanting to be judged are the ones who listen to the “worst” music.When it comes down to an electronic guy arguing with a metal guy, at least they are on a similar page about their respective genre being a respectable artform. It just isn’t there with pop. You might argue that it once was, there are times that I think it never was. Looking back at what I said originally, the reason I’m not going to take any sass from a Lady Gaga fan is that their playlist is just “Minaj, Perry, Gaga, Kesha,” and they clearly put zero thought into what they listen to. They definitely aren’t considering it art, and if they do, I have to ask “why.” How is it art if they’re all trying to do exactly what the other is doing. The only thing artistic I see about any of the contemporary pop divas is how much work goes into their music videos, or their outfits for awards shows. And as someone who is exclusively after the music, I don’t care.I actually wouldn’t hold it against an artist if he failed to meet his own expectations. I would expect that a lot of music that I like did not meet the par that the people who created it had hoped for, but it is still good, and there is a lot more in it, and BEHIND IT, than equally underwhelming pop.Minimalist music, for example, may be repetitive and may be simple, but the person behind it was trying to do something, and it wasn’t “make money.” Minimalist music gets in your head, and it’s not the unpleasant way that pop infects people. You seem to give all music artists a lot of credit, but I’m just not willing to give it when I feel like I am being fed crap. If Kesha spontaneously released some avant-garde album, I would be stunned, but I would give it a chance.It is 1:08 in the morning, so this was a bit of a dazed rant, but hopefully you see exactly why I cannot accept standard mainstream music as “quality,” even if there are people out there that think it is. I honestly believe they’re wrong, and need to listen to better music until they respect the difference.

    Like

  5. You’ve highlighted some good counter arguments so I will try to address each paragraph individually. I disagree that McDonalds is not art. Too much thought and creativity has been poured into it not to be. And I dont believe it could have become such a successful brand without it. If we ignore the colors, characters and marketing behind McDonalds and just focus on the food – someone has sat down and designed the big mac, designed the McFlurry, designed the mcMuffin and so forth. Now I personally prefer a whopper from Burger King so I would say that the whopper is a better designed burger than the Big Mac, but some people think the opposite. Either way someone has put some thought into that burger. If he had blatantly plagiarised the burger then I would say it is not art. I will touch more on that.I’m not going to dwell to much on the fact you dont like mainstream music coz the fact is I hate most of it too (unless Im DJing in which I have to form an appreciation for it). I agree the majority of it is gimmicky, cheap and uninspired. And I also agree that their are certain genre’s of music that do allow for more creativity and therefore more artistic license. Pop music is always going to be more restricting and it does tend to focus more on the other aspects of music.

    Like

  6. Now on your comment ‘How is it art if they’re all trying to do exactly what the other is doing’. Ok yes there are many pop artists out there that are just trying to copy someone else just for fame but those types usually end up becoming one-hit wonders and fading pretty quickly. I would say however that in the pop industry there is LESS copying then in other industries.

    Like

  7. Purely for the fact that it is such a competitive genre to get into and pop artists are constantly having to strive to be unique while still being popular. I do agree however that if there is blatant plagiarism then it is not art. But I can tell you now that the four pop artists you just mentioned can not be MORE different from one another. In fact, I would say that there is more difference between them then any random post-grunge bands you could pick. The reason I believe it sounds the same to you is because you dont listen to alot of it in the same way that all death metal sounds the same to me.

    Like

  8. If a person wants to have just those four artists in their playlist then so be it. In the majority of case you will find its just teenage girls who have some maturing to do. However I dont see all that much difference between the person that solely listens to commercial music and the person who listens solely to underground music. Both are limiting themselves musically. Dont forget that whilst so many commercial artists strive to be popular and to sound mainstream, the flip side is that so many underground artist strive to sound different that it still ends up coming across as contrived. Thats why Hipsters are made fun of nowadays, because they are conforming to non-conformity and it still comes off just as trashy as pop music. I still honestly believe all of that boils down to the virtue of the artist, are they purposely trying to sound the mainstream so they can make heaps of money, or are they solely trying to sound different from everyone so they can gain indie cred. Hard to say, and only we as the consumer are able to make that decision.

    Like

  9. But noone can tell me that I have bad taste in music just because I choose to listen to Kesha or Brostep. The fact is I personally listen to everything. Everything from the most abstract forms of minimilism, the most obscure forms of post-rock to the most mainstream forms of music in the same way that I derive the same amount of pleasure from watching a foreign film as I do from watching a mainstream blockbuster.If Kesha released an avante-garde album it would be no more artistic then if she were to make an electro-house album. The only thing that would change is her choice of producers, but honestly she would still put exactly the same amount of effort into it. I suppose your thinking “Yeah but she wouldn’t make as much money”. True, but that has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with intent. And even then whats so wrong with wanting to make money from your music? The problem is when you make compromises on your own artistic direction for the sake of big bucks. But again those types usually get ratted out fairly quickly.

    Like

  10. Oh and anyone who tells you they dont copy anyone and are purely original is a LIAR. Everybody has their own influences and will incorporate some of that into their music. Its the blatant ripoffs that fail to be artistic. And finally this statement “The only thing artistic I see about any of the contemporary pop divas is how much work goes into their music videos, or their outfits for awards shows. And as someone who is exclusively after the music, I don’t care.” Thats like saying I dont care how food looks, how it smells, the texture of it, the colors, the presentation. I only care how it tastes. But few people would enjoy eating a brown smelly piece of slop regardless of how good it tastes. Music is a multi-sensory experience. We hear it, we feel it, we see it. we experience it in so many different ways and how you experience it is not going to be the same as how some else experiences it. Its clear to me that you only judge music on how enjoyable you personally find it to listen to on your ipod or in your car. And thats fine. Im obviously in the wrong blog then because I experience music in more ways then that. And with regard to your comment ‘And I have to say again that the people who always make the biggest deal about not wanting to be judged are the ones who listen to the “worst” music’. Its not being judged that I am concerned about – I feel I have a fairly broad knowledge of music and have had the chance to immerse myself in all aspects of it.

    Like

  11. I’ll tell you what my real peeve is. I despise Hipsterism more than ANYTHING in the musical world. I despise the people who brand a band a sell-out and soon as they become popular or change their sound. I despise the people who think their taste in music is better then someone elses and look down their noses at other people. I despise the people who rate someones intelligence based on the music they listen to. I despise the people who say that ‘techno’ isnt real music. I despise the people who say ‘rock’ music degrades society. I despise the people who say anything with emotion is emo. The people who say any music that is simple and happy is gimmicky or whitewash. I despise those who critisize the mainstream and those who critisize the underground. And I despise those who tell me what I should and shouldn’t listen to. To me its bigotry and communistic in its nature.

    Like

  12. I was pretty amused for a second when the comment feed implied that you typed all of this within two minutes.Without keeping this argument going forever, I have to say that it still seems like you are mistaking where I am giving credit to pop artists and where I’m not. Quite simply, I don’t believe art is made in an office building by a team of people putting two and two together. You clearly disagree, and I can understand that.To revisit the McDonalds analogy, since I like it, just because people put thousands of dollars and years of their lives into crafting the McDonalds Burger isn’t going to make it good food – and the dedication to pop isn’t going to make it good music.I’m still thinking of what to write/complain about next on this blog. Kind of too bad we covered just about everything I might have said up to this point on pure taste in music. I’m probably going to have to see some terribly ignorant thread on last.fm to spur me into action.

    Like

  13. Wow. Just type “Can art be judged objectively” into Google and you’ll see that a myriad of people have already had exactly the same argument as we have.I read this forum: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=107495Its funny because one of the stipulations was:”The following example was offered in order to push this line of thought to it’s absurd limits:a) I set my guitar down on the floor, drop my pants and proceed to defecate upon the guitar which produces soundb) I take my guitar and proceed to play “Dust In The Wind”Is each song just as good as the other?”I thought about it for a moment. Now obviously I personally would consider b) to be a “better song” then a). And I think the feeling would be universal amongst humans. So in that way one could argue that song a) is objectively bad. But then my mind began to stray to the absurd. What if aliens existed whose sole means of producing music existed through defecation on stringed instruments? Would then these aliens consider song a) to be superior to song b)? In this way art once again become subjective to the listener.

    Like

  14. Anyways I agree that we should probably stop the argument because it does seem to be going nowhere. I think we as humans make rules and standards so that we CAN judge things objectively. Without it we wouldn’t have things like morals. But as the creator of this music blog I respect that you judge music according to your own rules and standards of what is good and bad, and probably according to the rules and standards of most music aficionados and purists. And as someone who listens to a great deal of music on a daily basis I would say that your views on music are probably more objective then most.While I stand by my original argument that art as a whole is a subjective experience and that you cannot simply denounce an entire genre of music as being inherently bad – I am forced to consider that pop is not actually a genre of music but rather a collection of songs of varying genres and styles popular at the time which do well commercially speaking. In that context the Beatles are considered pop. And most would hardly consider them to be bad music.

    Like

  15. The difference is the Beatles wrote and performed all of their songs. I suppose if we compared them to the Kesha of today we would see alot of differences. Namely that Kesha does not produce her own music. She does not write her own lyrics and in most cases her voice is so auto-tuned so as to make her original voice unrecognizable. I suppose in that sense it may be more of a ‘sum of the parts’ issue. Whilst all the various components that go into making making a Kesha record can be taking in artistic terms (and in some cases good art), the sum of the parts which is to market the music as ‘Kesha’ being the artist is just plain bad! In that sense I can understand your argument.But where does the distinction lie with you? I mean what makes the Beatles and Linkin Park different from Lady Gaga and Kesha when they are all considered pop music? What is the difference between Usher and Justin Timberlake? What is the difference between Usher and an unsigned RnB singer who sounds very similar? At what point did the music Lady Gaga make become pop music and therefore become bad? Was it bad to begin with? Is it the style of music? If Lady Gaga had of joined a rock band instead would you consider her good? If it is the style of music then what is the difference between David Guetta and an unsigned house artist? Is house music inherently bad? I could keep going… but I think you can see why I am confused when you say that pop music is bad.And one last question:Which song is better and why (objectively speaking)?:www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSeNSzJ2-Jw&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=G15l5jTW8Xgwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah0EpHOlTAEwww.youtube.com/watch?v=vxce4QF3C1gIm going to leave it here. Just want to here your answer to this post an then I am done.

    Like

  16. Hahaaah, very clever. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME SONG. In all honesty, I liked the metal cover the most. The guy was able to get a djent vibe out of Skrillex’s song that I’ve always been a fan of. The acoustic one sounded like a completely different song. I also like how the piano one betrayed how much dubstep “ruins” a given song with all the wobbles. When you take that away, and are left with just the melody, it’s not so bad at all.Well, I’d say it’s because a McDonald’s burger isn’t even mostly real meat. It’s some synthetic compound that comes in a 32-pack that they empty out onto the grill and “assemble”. I don’t think there is anyone who argues that a “homemade” (whatever that means in the chain of killing the cow -> turning it into a burger) burger tastes richer than a McDonald’s one. It just costs more, though.

    Like

  17. But would you not agree that someone who disliked metal and distortion music would say exactly the same thing about the metal cover? That it was ruined by all the heavy power chords, riffs and squeals? How are the distorted growling bass synths and stuttered electro jabs any different to music created from an electric guitar? Both are distorted beyond recognition. The only difference is that one receives an analog signal whilst the other receives a digital signal. Granted one may sound better to you than the other, but objectively speaking, why are wobbles bad and power chords good?

    Like

  18. Again with the McDonalds burger, you’ve judged it against your own standards of what good food is. I agree that nothing beats a homemade burger – and you do pay more for good reason. Society recognizes that by most standards a homemade burger is better burger than a McDonalds burger. Its healthier, tastier and meatier. Imagine this example though. We ask both a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian to rate a veggie patty burger against a homemade meat burger. As you can imagine you would get completely different responses. This is because both parties have judged the burger according to their own standards.The other thing I will point out is that my original question was what makes a McDonalds burger bad ‘food’ objectively speaking, not a bad ‘burger’. McDonalds is granted edible and still quite tasty and well presented. And nutritionally speaking is better ‘food’ than a chocolate mud cake. (Notice how I said ‘nutritionally speaking’ instead of just saying its better food).Comparing two burgers would be like comparing two types of Dubstep music. Even if you hate dubstep altogether, you will still agree that that there are good and bad dubstep song within the relative genre. But to say Dubstep is bad ‘music’ would require you to compare it to all music – and you would need a good reason to justify why (objectively speaking) music from genres such as rock, metal, drum n bass, etc is better ‘music’.

    Like

  19. It’s hard to make the distinction when we’re talking about the metal cover of Skrillex’s song because the guy is trying his best to copy what Skrillex was doing. Still, the difference is that while both are very heavily distorted, dubstep is clearly moreso – it’s clipped to the point of being 8-bit-like audio. It feels more synthetic than practically any genre of electronic music that I can think of, because it loses all its depth. Dubstep gets to a point where it honestly feels like listening to howler monkeys, and I don’t think anyone finds that appealing.Also, we know I get around the “good and bad dubstep” situation by taking all the “brostep” and labeling IT specifically dubstep, and taking eveything else and playing the darkstep/chillstep/future garage/downtempo card on it. If we called it all dubstep, then it WOULD be much harder to say “all dubstep is obnoxious”.

    Like

  20. Hmmm.Again you failed to answer my question. I know you what you do and don’t like, and thats cool. We’re all entitled to our own tastes and you don’t have to justify why you like one over the other.I just wanted to know why OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING power chords are better than wobbles. Everything you said is still subjective to your own personal tastes.You don’t like music that sounds heavily clipped and overly synthetic because you believe it loses depth and comes across sounding like howler monkeys. However that is SUBJECTIVE to you as a listener. Again I dont think there is anything wrong with that criticism and I’m sure many people will agree with you – but to say “I don’t think anyone finds that appealing” – on what do you base that on? Your own subjective tastes? If I found it appealing would that break your argument? Or would you just say I have bad tastes? But if I have bad tastes then how can appreciate most of music you enjoy as well?OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING This tree is taller than this tree.SUBJECTIVELY SPEAKING This tree is more beautiful than that tree.The reason I ask is because I don’t believe you can answer my question objectively speaking. At best you can subjectively judge that wobbles are worse than power chords based on commonly held values. But by all means prove me wrong. The title of your article is “Quality is Objective”. To make such a statement requires you to defend it.

    Like

  21. And despite the fact that Ryan Starr is from a manufactured super-group – yes he gave a good performance and I felt it. But how is Bruno’s song any less emotional? And what is wrong with the upbeat drums and boy-band background vocals? To me it just sounds like RnB. I believe you are biased to rock music. Watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiHbqKnRhEAIts just as emotional. He’s written his own lyrics instead of pinching a song off REM. And to be perfectly honest I subjectively think he’s a better singer based on the fact that he hits the notes closer than Ryan Starr.To quote “It’s not good music, because anyone can (and does) do it.” I believe any half decent singer can do a cover of REM losing my religion, add a crescendo and get the audience to go wild. Hell, even I’ve gotten the same response to singing Sinatra’s My Way at a karaoke bar. But what I DONT believe is that just anyone can write their own songs and lyrics, hit the top of the charts and become a successful musician. Its not simply a matter of playing a few chords on a piano on and bam! you’ve got a pop song. Thats like saying put a few bricks down and you’ve got a house.

    Like

  22. I will concede with the point that I made this article because it pisses me off when someone says quality is subjective, and literally the only music they listen to is Kesha and Taylor Swift. The implication they’re making is that I can’t tell them what they’re listening to is bad, but also that I can’t suggest that what I’m listening to is “better,” EVEN WHEN IT “OUGHT” TO BE.That said, I can’t really refute your points. There is a philosophical difference in how we see music. Maybe there will be a round 2 to this the next time I get mad.

    Like

  23. The first link you posted in this article said “there is no such thing as bad music, only ignorant people” and thats pretty much the stance I take. The mistake those Taylor/Kesha girls make is not in the music they choose to listen to but in the music they choose NOT to listen to. I see no difference between them and someone who chooses purely to listen to avante-garde. Both are restraining themselves in a world full of music. I would not say u necessarily listen to better music then them or that you have better taste even though u think u ought to have. But objectively speaking I will say that you have a far better musical vocabulary then they do, and are far more qualified to judge music than they are purely based on the fact that you have listened to much more types of music then them. So in that respect I would objectively speaking your opinions on music carry more precedence then theres do. Whilst music may be subjective, we still try to judge it objectively and the only way we can do that is by comparing it to other songs. If you have only ever listened to Kesha and Taylor then it hardly gives you grounds to say you have good tastes does it?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s