|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:01 am 
sukieinthe_g wrote: Posted a bit about the Ft Worth show which has a few videos I found on youtube. http://www.hornsplus.net/2012/06/fort-anthropologie.html I was one of the horn players (and the one who did the brass for the record).
It was a good show! Did anyone on here get out to it? I'm hoping Boyd gets some pictures up soon. Wow that's so cool a boardie took part in the record and performance! _________________ 
we're really not alone, we have each other |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 | Posts: 2600 | Location: sitting in his nowhere land, TX
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:23 pm
Nowhere Man wrote: sukieinthe_g wrote: Posted a bit about the Ft Worth show which has a few videos I found on youtube. http://www.hornsplus.net/2012/06/fort-anthropologie.html I was one of the horn players (and the one who did the brass for the record).
It was a good show! Did anyone on here get out to it? I'm hoping Boyd gets some pictures up soon. Wow that's so cool a boardie took part in the record and performance! Well, I don't know how cool it is. I haven't been on here in awhile. _________________ My name is actually Sarah. Facebook. Twitter. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 750 | Location: Dallas, TX
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:38 pm
I was pretty sure that was you. Cool. |
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:11 pm
sukieinthe_g wrote: Nowhere Man wrote: sukieinthe_g wrote: Posted a bit about the Ft Worth show which has a few videos I found on youtube. http://www.hornsplus.net/2012/06/fort-anthropologie.html I was one of the horn players (and the one who did the brass for the record).
It was a good show! Did anyone on here get out to it? I'm hoping Boyd gets some pictures up soon. Wow that's so cool a boardie took part in the record and performance! Well, I don't know how cool it is. I haven't been on here in awhile. Still a boardie.  _________________ My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers |
|
|
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25184 | Location: East Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:50 am
TheAntrider wrote: sukieinthe_g wrote: Nowhere Man wrote: sukieinthe_g wrote: Posted a bit about the Ft Worth show which has a few videos I found on youtube. http://www.hornsplus.net/2012/06/fort-anthropologie.html I was one of the horn players (and the one who did the brass for the record).
It was a good show! Did anyone on here get out to it? I'm hoping Boyd gets some pictures up soon. Wow that's so cool a boardie took part in the record and performance! Well, I don't know how cool it is. I haven't been on here in awhile. Still a boardie. Does all this mean I need to start posting again? _________________ My name is actually Sarah. Facebook. Twitter. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 750 | Location: Dallas, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:59 am
Definitely. |
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:14 am
My vinyl arrived today!!!!!  Ordered it on July 8, 2012. Got to download a digital copy right after I placed my order...  _________________ "Commit to the Lord whatever you do and your plans will succeed." prov 16:3 |
|
|
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 | Posts: 1907 | Location: cypress, texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:16 am
http://jeremylarsonmusic.com/plugins-outboard/#idc-container this was an interesting read. i'm assuming jeremy is talking about an unreleased sucre song at the end? _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:17 pm
So according to Instagram sucre is working on something =D _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:57 pm
I'm still dumbfounded how this was not at least reviewed by some minor major music review sites or blogs. It really should make some Best of 2012 Albums lists imo. _________________ I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Nov 2002 | Posts: 6826 | Location: Gilmer, Tejas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:13 pm
bigideas wrote: I'm still dumbfounded how this was not at least reviewed by some minor major music review sites or blogs.
It really should make some Best of 2012 Albums lists imo. it really should... _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:44 am
Not being a fanboy here, but the more time passes post Warner, the more obvious it becomes to me that Eisley really was an Indie band on a major label. They seem to only get covered by key music press that were the first to latch on to them back in the day. All the major outlets I bother to look into, and the micro-major blogazines just ignore them altogether. It's as if they got blackballed somehow? That's just kind of the perception I get. I guess you can blame the "Christian Rock" stigma that happens to secular bands made of people who are or have been active in the church in their personal lives: 1. Band forms, plays at places with PA's and supportive audiences, family and neighbors etc. 2. Band starts playing shows at venues that support those type of activities, be they battle of the bands, youth concerts etc. Typically places that want to attractive the young and active crowd. If the band is also young, this means playing fewer clubs and bars, and skewing towards youth activities which are more typical of Schools an Church groups. 3. Band starts trying to tour, ends up playing places like the environments they played at in their hometown and region. 4. People start writing about the band, those of whom are in the religious community try and justify the band's presence at activities there by referencing their religious practices in their personal lives, regardless if it's a component of the music, so long as the music is inoffensive. 5. Connotation of the band as a band of religious people takes hold, allowing for better bookings in youth oriented events regionally and nationally within the greater religious community, but also bigger draws in non-affiliated venues. That in turn, draws more press, secular and religious alike. And here's where it breaks down: 6a. Religious press see popularity of the band, and the litmus test of content serving some sort of ministry becomes an issue to certain standard bearers. If the band fails this test, they are generally hung out to dry as far as further opportunities to advance in the religious music community. Successes in this category: Switchfoot, POD, Jars of Clay, Flyleaf (we'll see how things go long term post Lacey) Cautionary tales: Acceptance, 12 Stones, Pedro the Lion 6b. Conventional music press sees the popularity of the band, but recognizes the presence of the religious community in the band's audience, and in some cases, lifestyle and choices, which is contrary to the marketed image of most bands. If the band can overcome the stigma of being straight-laced and religious by "rock and roll" standards by making music that goes mainstream, they stand a chance to get accepted on some level, but the acceptance is tenuous at best, as it seems the longer band members stick to their guns in their personal lives, the less interesting the machinery of the conventional music industry they become. Once the hit records taper of said bands receive scant press in the mainstream. The easy solution is to adhere to Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll and watch the money roll in or your life implode. Success in this Category: U2, Kanye (Jesus Walks was his breakthrough hit, seriously) Lifehouse (up until this last album), Anberlin (didn't see it coming, but they're pulling a Muse as far as mid career uptick in popularity), Evanescence, Cautionary Tales: Michelle Branch, the Calling, Sunny Day Real Estate (it broke up the band for a few years), King's X (lost most a big chunk of their early audience), Vedera, Paramore(it's all good until half you band leaves), Kings of Leon (if they can come back then they're a success) 7. Everyone learns to deal with it and moves on. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB         
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:41 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:58 am
I don't think this particular album has any of Eisley's past attached to it much at all really. I was most puzzled that Absolute Punk never reviewed it to my knowledge. They had News items and have a close association with the Eisley clan from what I understand, but that's as far as it went. Sucre' has elements musically that I associate with Bjork or Sigur Ros, so I figured they would have at least won over one of the critics or sites that at least covers one or both of those. It was on a small enough scale that I don't expect the Average Joe/Jane to know about Sucre', but I did expect at least a few of the professional types that get paid to review and report music to at least be aware of them and weigh in on what they thought. I'm thinking most of them must not have had the chance to hear it, because I think most any semi-serious music fan would find some worth in the album. _________________ I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Nov 2002 | Posts: 6826 | Location: Gilmer, Tejas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:34 pm
I think the album stands alone from Eisley musically and is great, but I am a harsh critic of Music Journalism and the machinery of the media industry and its biases. This is the lens through which I view the issue: I only know about the album because the former Stacy Dupree is the vocalist in the band with her husband. I was a casual fan of MUTEMATH but I wouldn't have been able to tell you who their drummer was, until he got involved with Stacy Dupree and it was discussed here on the LC. I have enjoyed everything I've heard from Jeremy Larson, but I didn't know about him as an artist at all until he worked on a cover of Silver Springs with Stacy Dupree and her husband. At this point MUTEMATH has notoriety that Eisley, I think that's fair to say, but as great as they are, they are a band, and I think of them as a band more than individuals. That being the case, the wider appeal of Sucre' really does reside squarely on the draw of Stacy King as the vocalist/ Front person of the band, much like Nina Persson in A Camp, known and loved for her work in the Cardigans, who then recorded an album with her husband Nathan Larson, himself a respected guitarist/songwriter/film composer formerly of Shudder to Think, and Mark Linkous (RIP) of Sparklehorse producing. The reality was, Nina was the draw. Stacy is the draw. The album cover, the video, they feature Stacy because her voice is the signature appeal of Sucre' above all others as it stands. It was the known quantity more so than what the instrumentation and arrangements backing it would be. I think because of that, Eisley is the primary through point by which people would ever get to know about Sucre', with Jeremy Larson being the secondary one. I think Sucre' is such a departure from MUTEMATH that is the least likely way someone might get into Sucre'. Unfortunately, with Eisley being the starting point for the fans, it will be the starting point for the press. I'm confident that the album was probably distributed for reviews to some degree, and with such a distribution comes a press release. Most are pretty matter of fact (this comes directly from my time handling inventory and buying for a Record Store and DJing & programming (the radio kind, not computer coding) for college radio): This is a cd by: This is who is they are: (so and so of XYZ is typical when applicable) This is what they sound like: This is why you should listen: (positive review from where ever) This is why you should promote this at your: (radio station, record store) A clever promotions dept. would through in some sort of memorable trinket. The best we ever got was a small bottle of cologne that smell like absolute Feces. It came in a little white box, and was to promote the Single DAMN!!! by the Alkoholiks. Inside that little white box with the unlabeled bottle of Funk was a note that said, "DAMN!!!, cologne, it gets you every time." I never forgot because it got me, and all my friends, that's exactly what we said whenever our friend handed us the bottle and out of the box and we unsuspectingly took a whiff. Anyway, my point is that Stacy being the literal face of Sucre, I mean, we all know that cover shot is wonderful as does Apple, means that the natural reaction most people should have is, "Who's that girl/woman?" If the answer does not in someway result in: Eisley/Family Band/etc. then I have just woken up in an alternate universe. To the jaded and biased people in music promotion and journalism (of which there are so many, in all levels of the industry, local and national, and I am speaking from personal experience having done my time writing for our local rag and interviewing artists with the intention of not being a typical interviewer) Sucre' gets run through all the same filters they associate with Eisley before they even give it a listen. If they give it a listen, that might be a good thing because it will highlight the distinction between the craft executed by the creators in each band. But believe you me, there are those who would see the cover and go, "Oh, pretty picture. Oh, that's the one girl from Eisley???" and be satisfied with moving on from there. I personally think that sucks, and it's why I specifically wrote my review of the Eisley show that hit STL in 08'. The nonchalantly dismissive way they were written about, if they were written about at all, was frustrating to no end. Remember when they finally went back to Cornerstone? When it was announced it was "sort of a big deal" because they were over the stigma. There is a stigma, a big stigma. Being perceived as a Christian band in mainstream music media is still a commercial detraction. That stigma follows the artists, even apart from their bands because it's a personal characteristic, not a band characteristic. It falls on the individual to distinguish them self as "other than the band" like Adam Clayton from U2. It's a very Eye for and Eye thing because it's judgmental to disregard music because of the personal cultural values of the artist if those values are not a limiting and overt crux of their artistic message. Conversely there are going to be people who argue that Christianity is judgmental towards non-Christians, so it's far to express disinterest or apathy towards artists who are affiliated with Christianity in any recognizable way. Seriously, by simply not using profanity, ever, artists can lose credibility by the simple fact that other artists gain credibility for using it because it's perceived as more honest, more real. Ultimately, it's along the lines of the Chic-fil-a phenomena, and predates it. Even the biggest legends in modern rock and roll songwriting had a go over the subject, which in part influences my level of admiration for either. Bob Dylan vs. John Lennon {explicit lyrics} I couldn't find the interview, but here's a breakdown of the back story on the feud for those who don't know the scoop: http://www.williesimpson.com/bob-dylan-john-lennon-gotta-serve-somebod y-vs-serve-yourself So yeah, the stigma is real, and it was established in the earliest days of mass media with the Church music/ Secular Music split that separated Gospel music from everything else, but nature of lyrical content at the barest of minimums. I think it was reinforced or at least validated in part by these two standard bearers for modern Rock and Roll rebelliousness and artistic integrity. Mainstreaming "Christian Rock" went about as far then as it did with Dylan's catalog, and as a result the stigma grew exponentially because the songwriter's songwriter wasn't enough to legitimize it, or in turn didn't think it was legitimate enough to pursue further. Implicitly all that cultural historical baggage falls on any artist brave enough to be honest about that aspect of their personal lives, because music can be such a personal experience of identification. I mean, I really enjoy the New Trust, and they aren't shy about expressing their beliefs, which are the antipathy of mine, and I totally understand where they were coming from on Don't Even Get Me Started On Jebus Their position is more the norm than not in "the industry", and amongst what often feels like the majority of people I know personally around my age. By virtue of Stacy being the face of the band, and also Jeremy being in the band and a vocal about the band in his own media presence (web-wise) and about aspects of his faith in his music and them both being associated with other perceived Christian artists, she having worked with Jon Foreman and Sleeping at Last, and Jeremy working with the latter. All these things can overshadow the music in the eyes of the industry. All because of a stigma that by the rhetoric of our ever growing pluralistic civil libertarian culture, should not exist. Everyone should be free to be who or what they are and not punished, unless it's considered unfashionable or wrong by a significant number of influential people. So again, the record stands apart from Eisley, I whole-heartedly agree, but I don't think it supersedes the perception of the band members as affiliates of Eisley, and inheritors of the associated industry baggage. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:04 pm
wilsmith wrote: I think the album stands alone from Eisley musically and is great, but I am a harsh critic of Music Journalism and the machinery of the media industry and its biases.
This is the lens through which I view the issue: I only know about the album because the former Stacy Dupree is the vocalist in the band with her husband. I was a casual fan of MUTEMATH but I wouldn't have been able to tell you who their drummer was, until he got involved with Stacy Dupree and it was discussed here on the LC. I have enjoyed everything I've heard from Jeremy Larson, but I didn't know about him as an artist at all until he worked on a cover of Silver Springs with Stacy Dupree and her husband. At this point MUTEMATH has notoriety that Eisley, I think that's fair to say, but as great as they are, they are a band, and I think of them as a band more than individuals. That being the case, the wider appeal of Sucre' really does reside squarely on the draw of Stacy King as the vocalist/ Front person of the band, much like Nina Persson in A Camp, known and loved for her work in the Cardigans, who then recorded an album with her husband Nathan Larson, himself a respected guitarist/songwriter/film composer formerly of Shudder to Think, and Mark Linkous (RIP) of Sparklehorse producing. The reality was, Nina was the draw. Stacy is the draw. The album cover, the video, they feature Stacy because her voice is the signature appeal of Sucre' above all others as it stands. It was the known quantity more so than what the instrumentation and arrangements backing it would be. I think because of that, Eisley is the primary through point by which people would ever get to know about Sucre', with Jeremy Larson being the secondary one. I think Sucre' is such a departure from MUTEMATH that is the least likely way someone might get into Sucre'. Unfortunately, with Eisley being the starting point for the fans, it will be the starting point for the press. I'm confident that the album was probably distributed for reviews to some degree, and with such a distribution comes a press release. Most are pretty matter of fact (this comes directly from my time handling inventory and buying for a Record Store and DJing & programming (the radio kind, not computer coding) for college radio): This is a cd by: This is who is they are: (so and so of XYZ is typical when applicable) This is what they sound like: This is why you should listen: (positive review from where ever) This is why you should promote this at your: (radio station, record store) A clever promotions dept. would through in some sort of memorable trinket. The best we ever got was a small bottle of cologne that smell like absolute Feces. It came in a little white box, and was to promote the Single DAMN!!! by the Alkoholiks. Inside that little white box with the unlabeled bottle of Funk was a note that said, "DAMN!!!, cologne, it gets you every time." I never forgot because it got me, and all my friends, that's exactly what we said whenever our friend handed us the bottle and out of the box and we unsuspectingly took a whiff. Anyway, my point is that Stacy being the literal face of Sucre, I mean, we all know that cover shot is wonderful as does Apple, means that the natural reaction most people should have is, "Who's that girl/woman?" If the answer does not in someway result in: Eisley/Family Band/etc. then I have just woken up in an alternate universe. To the jaded and biased people in music promotion and journalism (of which there are so many, in all levels of the industry, local and national, and I am speaking from personal experience having done my time writing for our local rag and interviewing artists with the intention of not being a typical interviewer) Sucre' gets run through all the same filters they associate with Eisley before they even give it a listen. If they give it a listen, that might be a good thing because it will highlight the distinction between the craft executed by the creators in each band. But believe you me, there are those who would see the cover and go, "Oh, pretty picture. Oh, that's the one girl from Eisley???" and be satisfied with moving on from there. I personally think that sucks, and it's why I specifically wrote my review of the Eisley show that hit STL in 08'. The nonchalantly dismissive way they were written about, if they were written about at all, was frustrating to no end. Remember when they finally went back to Cornerstone? When it was announced it was "sort of a big deal" because they were over the stigma. There is a stigma, a big stigma. Being perceived as a Christian band in mainstream music media is still a commercial detraction. That stigma follows the artists, even apart from their bands because it's a personal characteristic, not a band characteristic. It falls on the individual to distinguish them self as "other than the band" like Adam Clayton from U2. It's a very Eye for and Eye thing because it's judgmental to disregard music because of the personal cultural values of the artist if those values are not a limiting and overt crux of their artistic message. Conversely there are going to be people who argue that Christianity is judgmental towards non-Christians, so it's far to express disinterest or apathy towards artists who are affiliated with Christianity in any recognizable way. Seriously, by simply not using profanity, ever, artists can lose credibility by the simple fact that other artists gain credibility for using it because it's perceived as more honest, more real. Ultimately, it's along the lines of the Chic-fil-a phenomena, and predates it. Even the biggest legends in modern rock and roll songwriting had a go over the subject, which in part influences my level of admiration for either. Bob Dylan vs. John Lennon {explicit lyrics} I couldn't find the interview, but here's a breakdown of the back story on the feud for those who don't know the scoop: http://www.williesimpson.com/bob-dylan-john-lennon-gotta-serve-somebod y-vs-serve-yourself So yeah, the stigma is real, and it was established in the earliest days of mass media with the Church music/ Secular Music split that separated Gospel music from everything else, but nature of lyrical content at the barest of minimums. I think it was reinforced or at least validated in part by these two standard bearers for modern Rock and Roll rebelliousness and artistic integrity. Mainstreaming "Christian Rock" went about as far then as it did with Dylan's catalog, and as a result the stigma grew exponentially because the songwriter's songwriter wasn't enough to legitimize it, or in turn didn't think it was legitimate enough to pursue further. Implicitly all that cultural historical baggage falls on any artist brave enough to be honest about that aspect of their personal lives, because music can be such a personal experience of identification. I mean, I really enjoy the New Trust, and they aren't shy about expressing their beliefs, which are the antipathy of mine, and I totally understand where they were coming from on Don't Even Get Me Started On Jebus Their position is more the norm than not in "the industry", and amongst what often feels like the majority of people I know personally around my age. By virtue of Stacy being the face of the band, and also Jeremy being in the band and a vocal about the band in his own media presence (web-wise) and about aspects of his faith in his music and them both being associated with other perceived Christian artists, she having worked with Jon Foreman and Sleeping at Last, and Jeremy working with the latter. All these things can overshadow the music in the eyes of the industry. All because of a stigma that by the rhetoric of our ever growing pluralistic civil libertarian culture, should not exist. Everyone should be free to be who or what they are and not punished, unless it's considered unfashionable or wrong by a significant number of influential people. So again, the record stands apart from Eisley, I whole-heartedly agree, but I don't think it supersedes the perception of the band members as affiliates of Eisley, and inheritors of the associated industry baggage. tl;dr almost but jk but I think this contains both overanalysis and overstatement that could have been executed in far fewer words, especially without mention of our so-called ever-growing pluralistic civil libertarian culture. For one, I think it depends on what a local level you're talking about/what region. Being on the east coast, I don't think most music journalists here have heard/paid enough attention to Eisley to conflate the two acts, especially since the barest glancing listen to A Minor Bird or any song therein will reveal that as much as they have in common, the two are really very different. And they certainly wouldn't recognize Stacy's face, or know enough to know about the band's association with Christianity which they have steadily been moving away from, image-wise, which I think you recognize. I think you're unkind to critics too; I'd say most, music journalists are pretty passionate about listening to music and reporting on it accurately, though of course associated acts hold connotations. I'm very aware of the press procedures and deal with it quite a lot. If anything, seeing a name I recognize makes my ears perk up even more, regardless of how I felt about their previous work. The recognition alone, if it's there, begs my attention. The industry, bah, it's an industry because everything's an industry. The industry is necessary to have a national level of production of anything, so you might as well thank your stars for the industry while you bemoan its pitfalls. That doesn't mean it's a terrible place, or everyone (let alone most people) in it are machines. There are multiple entrances into Sucre: through Eisley, Mutemath, or Jeremy Larson--or any of the music blogs who posted material for listeners who have heard none of the above. Furthermore, there are tons of artists who don't use profanity for reasons either related or totally unrelated to religion. It just doesn't fit with some people's style, and I wouldn't call it a noticeable difference. I couldn't tell you how many of the songs I listened to today had some cussin in them, nor do I really care so long as the music's good. I don't think there's any conspiracy against Eisley for being a band which has christian members in it. Once again, I could not tell you how many of the songs I listened to today were by Christians...nor do I really care. Sucre really very much stands on its own for me. It wouldn't so much if it were released by Equal vision, but we've seen it's very much an independent musical project and fairly free of any "baggage" from Eisley. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 | Posts: 803 | Location: wherever
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> sucre
Page 50 of 51 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
