Would All Things Must Pass have been better as a double instead of triple album? | Page 3 | George Harrison | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Would All Things Must Pass have been better as a double instead of triple album?
25 March 2014
12.24am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
41

Inner Light said

Billy Rhythm said

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said
the My Sweet Lord lawsuit/plagerism kind took the joy out of the song for me.

 

The 'He's So Fine' debacle never changed my appreciation for 'My Sweet Lord' at all.  The Publisher of The Chiffons' hit was clearly gold digging and wouldn't have bothered pointing out any similarities at all if the song wasn't so financially successful.  George's response to the claims that he ripped it off were bang on, he said that "a lot of songs sound like a lot of other songs" and he's right.  It's not like 'My Sweet Lord'/'He's So Fine' is as obviously a "rip off" as 'Surfin' U.S.A.'/'Sweet Little Sixteen' is, among many others.  He also made a distinction here that's important, he said that he felt that 'My Sweet Lord' was "a great record" as opposed to being a "great song".  There's really not much to 'My Sweet Lord', or 'He's So Fine' for that matter, pretty basic musically but what made 'My Sweet Lord' so successful wasn't its chord structure or melody, it's the delivery by George and the other musicians who clearly elevated their performance with the song's strong heartfelt message.  It's like when a gospel choir gets up on their feet and puts their songsheets down and uses their hands to clap instead, there's a "feeling" to that record that's undeniable and what ultimately undoubtedly sold it, and The Chiffons' Publishers shouldn't have had any claim to that which they weren't a part of.  How many people would even know of 'He's So Fine' had it not been for George Harrison, George should get a share of their royalties too...:-)

Very well put!!

Well actually He's So Fine, was number 1 on the billboard hot 100 for 4 weeks in 1963....So it was a very well known song and sold very well. Listen to them one after the other. Lol its the same melody. When I listen to my Sweet Lord I hear He's so Fine, well because he stole the melody and was found to have stole the melody in court. It has different instruments and arrangements but its the same and Ia m sorry but all I hear is He's So Fine in my Sweet Lord well because it is in My Sweet Lord. Its really embarrassing how bad he copied the melody. But that song was very well known, and George stole the melody which made his song a chart topper. John also mentioned that George new what he was doing, and should of changed it up more so it was identical to He's So Fine. So they had a bone to pick with him rightfully so and one. ***Brushes Shoulder off*** 

25 March 2014
12.39am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
42

Also I am pretty sure that he said it was subconsciously plagiarized. So he admitted that they are musically the same, but copped out by saying it was subconscious. I wish he didn't plagiarize it or that they were different enough that I don't hear He's So Fine but its almost impossible not to hear because they are so similar. Also the delivery of the instruments and playing didn't make the record. You listen to a songs melody and chord progression which is the musical back bone. Adding an instrument to a great melody or progression doesn't make a song in my opinion. Fundamentally the instruments you mention compliment the melody and progression. But the progression, melody are a songs backbone which is what he copied. Also, he lost in court and admitted that he copied it but copped out buy saying it was subconscious. I am intrigued by Johns statements that he knew what he was doing. Wonder if he really new that he copied there song, but thought the arrangement and different instrumentation would cover it up. But I mean listen to them they are the same. So sorry that I do not enjoy the song. But its only my opinion. I like originality, not plagiarism. Theres just to much of He's so Fine in My Sweet Lord.  

25 March 2014
1.16am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 472
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
43

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said

Inner Light said

Billy Rhythm said

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said
the My Sweet Lord lawsuit/plagerism kind took the joy out of the song for me.

 

The 'He's So Fine' debacle never changed my appreciation for 'My Sweet Lord' at all.  The Publisher of The Chiffons' hit was clearly gold digging and wouldn't have bothered pointing out any similarities at all if the song wasn't so financially successful.  George's response to the claims that he ripped it off were bang on, he said that "a lot of songs sound like a lot of other songs" and he's right.  It's not like 'My Sweet Lord'/'He's So Fine' is as obviously a "rip off" as 'Surfin' U.S.A.'/'Sweet Little Sixteen' is, among many others.  He also made a distinction here that's important, he said that he felt that 'My Sweet Lord' was "a great record" as opposed to being a "great song".  There's really not much to 'My Sweet Lord', or 'He's So Fine' for that matter, pretty basic musically but what made 'My Sweet Lord' so successful wasn't its chord structure or melody, it's the delivery by George and the other musicians who clearly elevated their performance with the song's strong heartfelt message.  It's like when a gospel choir gets up on their feet and puts their songsheets down and uses their hands to clap instead, there's a "feeling" to that record that's undeniable and what ultimately undoubtedly sold it, and The Chiffons' Publishers shouldn't have had any claim to that which they weren't a part of.  How many people would even know of 'He's So Fine' had it not been for George Harrison, George should get a share of their royalties too...:-)

Very well put!!

Well actually He's So Fine, was number 1 on the billboard hot 100 for 4 weeks in 1963....So it was a very well known song and sold very well. Listen to them one after the other. Lol its the same melody. When I listen to my Sweet Lord I hear He's so Fine, well because he stole the melody and was found to have stole the melody in court. It has different instruments and arrangements but its the same and Ia m sorry but all I hear is He's So Fine in my Sweet Lord well because it is in My Sweet Lord. Its really embarrassing how bad he copied the melody. But that song was very well known, and George stole the melody which made his song a chart topper. John also mentioned that George new what he was doing, and should of changed it up more so it was identical to He's So Fine. So they had a bone to pick with him rightfully so and one. ***Brushes Shoulder off*** 

 

I personally never heard 'He's So Fine' until after their publishers claimed that it was similar to 'My Sweet Lord' and that was the only reason that I was even interested in hearing it, and to this day I rarely hear it on the radio or other media channels, unlike George's song.

 

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said
I am intrigued by Johns statements that he knew what he was doing.

I've never heard of this quote, do you have a link or source on this?  I'd be just as "intrigued" by it.

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said
Also, he lost in court and admitted that he copied it but copped out buy saying it was subconscious. I am intrigued by Johns statements that he knew what he was doing. Wonder if he really new that he copied there song, but thought the arrangement and different instrumentation would cover it up. But I mean listen to them they are the same.

 

You really believe that George was "conscious" of this song that he allegedly "subconsciously plagiarized"?  Read what you will into the court settlement, but do remember that John Lennon also pleaded "Guilty" to possession of illegal substances in 1968, eventhough the drugs had been planted by a Policeman who'd been well known to target other famous rockstars with these same tactics.  John copped a plea to move on and something tells me that George did the same here, he had enough legal hassles to worry about than to spend anymore time on this farce.  "He's So Fine, Wish He Were Mine" is pretty similar to "My Sweet Lord, Hmmm My Lord" but the similarities are few and far between beyond that.  Does 'He's So Fine' even have a guitar solo?  You yourself claimed that "the My Sweet Lord lawsuit/plagerism (your spelling) took the joy out of the song for me (you)", implying that you used to "enjoy" the song and probably hadn't noticed any similarities to 'He's So Fine' yourself until the "lawsuit", if it was truly "the same" to you, you would've noticed this upon first listen I would think...:-)      

25 March 2014
4.09am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
44

I should of phrased what I said differently I never really actually liked My Sweet Lord or any of George's Solo work, 99% of his work is throw aways in my opinion. Preaching about religion in music makes me want to vomit. Also I had never heard He's So Fine born 35 years after it was released, so it would of been impossible for me to notice Georges theft upon my first listen of My Sweet Lord, because I had never heard He's So Fine making it impossible to recognize dear boy :-) LOL @ trying to use a guitar solo, to try and say they are different. He stole the melody and progression dear boy. Admitted it, lost in court. Once I got through The Beatles catalog I checked out there solo careers. I stumbled upon my Sweet Lord. I am a music history buff and was doing research on there solo careers so I looked up to see how it charted. I was actually surprised it did so well, but apparently at that time religion was charting in music. Saw about the lawsuit and compared the two songs. Once I compared the two it is so obvious that he plagiarized it. Compare the two, its impossible not to hear He's So Fine in the song because it is in the song. I actually like He's So Fine better than My Sweet Lord. So I really never really like the song or Georges solo work, boring man. When I do hear it all I here is He's So Fine, because it is in it. 

Billy Johns drug conviction has nothing to do with our topic poor example. The legal outcome has nothing to do with George going into the studio and stealing music. John pleaded guilty to get them to drop the charges against Yoko. George's outcome was different because it was so obvious he stole melody and progression there was no defense for him. George was a musician and avid fan during the time of the release of He's So Fine, must of heard it. It topped the charts in the US for four weeks in '63 and they were all about hearing what was popular in the U.S. He might of even been in the U.S. while it was at the tops I know he visited sometime in 1963, before all them went for the Ed Sullivan show. I guess he thought being 7 years later nobody would notice? 

From John's 1980 Playboy interview dear boy. Bottom of page one of the site I read it on. 

PLAYBOY: "How about George's solo music?"

LENNON: "I think 'All Things Must Pass' was all right. It just went on too long."

PLAYBOY: "How did you feel about the lawsuit George lost that claimed the music to 'My Sweet Lord' is a rip-off of the Shirelles' hit 'He's So Fine?'"

LENNON: "Well, he walked right into it. He knew what he was doing."

 

Also, Billy I misspelled a word, so what it in no means changes the point I was trying to get across. Grow up, buddy. Argue with logic and reasoning not personal attacks. 

Truly, I never really enjoyed any of Georges musics. He's a holly roller who says the same thing over and over. Its very boring and he has no vocal range. Preaching isn't in general my cup of tea, and to talk about it in music just makes me wanna change the track. I am a lyricist and feel you preach because you have no original ideas or nothing to say A.K.A. George Harrisons whole career. Theres enough people preaching and trying to force religion down your throat and to do it in music is just lame. 

25 March 2014
5.48am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 472
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline

So, from "took the joy out of the song for me" to "I never really liked My Sweet Lord"?

And, from "Wonder if he really knew that he copied there (your spelling) song" to "it is so obvious that he plagiarized it"?

 

The "Well, he walked right into it. He knew what he was doing" comment from John appears to me to be more of a response to what the interviewer was specifically asking him about, and that was the "lawsuit", not the song itself.  I take it as a vague "high road" response, in other words, George has dealt with lawyers before and knows the game, if he wanted to avoid the publicity (We are Beatles after all) he could've dealt with it differently.  Is that all he says on the subject?  Hardly a "smoking gun" to "it is so obvious that he plagiarized it", in my opinion.

 

As for there being "enough people preaching and trying to force religion down your throat", I never really got the impression that George was being "forceful" about it.  First of all, he's not affiliated with any "religion" that I'm aware of, but spent much of his life searching for a path to "God" and stressed the importance of searching for that "path", down whatever religion/faith one may choose as their "pathway".  I'll admit that I found the repetitiveness of his endless search being constantly reflected in his music tiresome, I mentioned in an earlier post during this thread that I didn't see much point in the 'Hear Me Lord' track being included on this album for the same reasons, it's the same message as 'My Sweet Lord'.  I think that the high point (or, perhaps "low" would be more suitable here) where George went "over the top", so to speak, is when he altered the lyrics to 'In My Life' during his 1974 Tour and sang "In My Life, I Love God More".  It's one thing to "spread the word" on his own solo recordings, but to alter the lyrics of a Lennon/McCartney classic to get his point across is another....:-)

 

  

 

 

 

 

25 March 2014
12.08pm
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
46

Yeah I should of phrased what I originally said differently. I was trying to take it easy on the song but to be blunt never really liked it. To argue me rephrasing thoughts is pretty pointless....If you don't like my opinion fine, but its a fact he plagiarized it and got caught in court dear boy. Also your not sure what religion he was devoted to lol? Hare Krishna which is sect of Hindu. He was really obsessed with it really. Martin Scorsese did a decent documentary on him a few years ago. Also even sticks one of there Gods in the When We Was Fab music video. 

 

PLAYBOY: "How about George's solo music?"

LENNON: "I think 'All Things Must Pass' was all right. It just went on too long."

PLAYBOY: "How did you feel about the lawsuit George lost that claimed the music to 'My Sweet Lord' is a rip-off of the Shirelles' hit 'He's So Fine?'"

LENNON: "Well, he walked right into it. He knew what he was doing."

PLAYBOY: "Are you saying he consciously plagiarized the song?"

LENNON: "He must have known, you know. He's smarter than that.

: )

 

25 March 2014
4.09pm
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 472
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline

It's not that I "don't like your opinion", I'm just trying to figure out what your opinion here is, the examples that I gave aren't examples of "rephrasing" but of contradictory statements.  George was a high profile supporter of the Hare Krishna movement, but I'd stop short in saying that he was a "devoted" member.  Don't recall George ever shaving his head or giving up alcohol during the 70's (80's for that matter), devotees don't even have sex very often, supposedly only with permission from their spiritual leader!  I think it's safe to say that George didn't ask some Swami's permission to have sex with his wives when he wanted to.  He was very interested in Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita, but didn't appear to adopt it solely as gospel, but more as an aid in his own personal search for "God".

 

As for the Lennon opinion that you've added, it's pretty clear that it's the same view as your own.  It's one thing to point out the similarities of the two songs, but entirely another to suggest that George Harrison consciously ripped off a Chiffon's hit for himself and hoped that nobody would notice 7 years later.  George didn't admit to doing this, had he of it wouldn't have made it as far as the courts.  The Chiffon's publishers were more determined to see it through, fueled by the substantial payday of getting a slice of a George Harrison song that garnered far more royalties than anything they could've ever hoped for from an otherwise forgotten Chiffon's hit.  George has a rare gift for writing great songs and certainly wasn't so desperate for material in 1970 that he needed to stoop to what John Lennon is suggesting here, but of course there will be those who will agree with him regardless...:-) 

25 March 2014
4.41pm
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
48

No Billy are you in my mind? I was being polite before because this a George thread, but really I never really cared for My Sweet Lord. Instead of trying to be polite I should of been blunt in the first place and just said I never enjoyed it which is the truth. You seem to be over looking the whole fact that it was plagiarized. Its proven in court that he stole it so theres really no arguing. Also you can try and ignore Johns statement, you claimed before that he was referring to the lawsuit, I proved he was saying he plagiarized and then you again find someway to discredit his statement. He's only saying it because they are so similar buddy. Its impossible not to hear He's So Fine in it. So my last statement is I don't like My Sweet Lord, mostly because he stole it and I can hear He's So Fine in it, also the lyrical topic isn't my cup of tea. I agree with John they are so exactly the same that theres noway it was a coincidence. He stole it lost in court, end of story. Good day dear boy. 

25 March 2014
4.43pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9961
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
49

For anyone wanting an excellent overview and discussion on the He's So Fine v My Sweet Lord lawsuit check out episode 55 of Fab4Free4All - 'George Harrison: My Sweet Lawsuit', free to download from itunes or their website (where you can also listen to it online). 

The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:

Billy Rhythm
He told us not to get overwhelmed by grief and whatever thoughts we have... to keep them happy, because any thoughts we have of him will travel to him wherever he is. (John Lennon - 27/8/67)
25 March 2014
5.01pm
Inner Light
Friar Park
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 506
Member Since:
20 December 2010
Offline
50

Billy Rhythm said
It's not that I "don't like your opinion", I'm just trying to figure out what your opinion here is, the examples that I gave aren't examples of "rephrasing" but of contradictory statements.  George was a high profile supporter of the Hare Krishna movement, but I'd stop short in saying that he was a "devoted" member.  Don't recall George ever shaving his head or giving up alcohol during the 70's (80's for that matter), devotees don't even have sex very often, supposedly only with permission from their spiritual leader!  I think it's safe to say that George didn't ask some Swami's permission to have sex with his wives when he wanted to.  He was very interested in Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita, but didn't appear to adopt it solely as gospel, but more as an aid in his own personal search for "God".

 

As for the Lennon opinion that you've added, it's pretty clear that it's the same view as your own.  It's one thing to point out the similarities of the two songs, but entirely another to suggest that George Harrison consciously ripped off a Chiffon's hit for himself and hoped that nobody would notice 7 years later.  George didn't admit to doing this, had he of it wouldn't have made it as far as the courts.  The Chiffon's publishers were more determined to see it through, fueled by the substantial payday of getting a slice of a George Harrison song that garnered far more royalties than anything they could've ever hoped for from an otherwise forgotten Chiffon's hit.  George has a rare gift for writing great songs and certainly wasn't so desperate for material in 1970 that he needed to stoop to what John Lennon is suggesting here, but of course there will be those who will agree with him regardless...:-) 

I agree with you. I don't think Harrison intentionally knew he was ripping off 'She's So Fine' at the time he wrote it. A lot of songs sound the same but with just a few chord variations and agree that if 'My Sweet Lord' was not a huge hit, nothing would have happened. I would just move on. Harrison paid and it's now over. Time to get back on topic about the album 'All Things Must Pass'.

The further one travels, the less one knows
25 March 2014
5.32pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2181
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
51

Well, if it wasn't a huge hit, it'd have been played less often on the radio, so the publishers naturally would've had less chance to hear it and less chance to file suit. It's easy enough to believe that George was familiar with "He's So Fine", filed it away in the back of his mind, and accidentally reproduced it years later when writing "My Sweet Lord". (I did the same thing years ago when mentally trying to come up with a guitar riff-melody: found I'd apparently duplicated a tune from an album by Sugar that I owned and didn't even like!) No way could George be stupid enough to just intentionally steal it outright and release it as the first single, not when there were so many better songs on that album. (What a great single "Apple Scruffs" would make!) As for John Lennon's Playboy interview, I have no idea how he could presume to knowing George's mind in proclaiming that George "knew what he was doing" - short of George actually telling John he intended to steal a classic girl-group oldie. John's own adventure in plagiarism (much more ridiculous than George's) involved him knowingly borrowing a lyric as kind of an homage, instead of a tune, so maybe he just automatically assumed that George did the same?

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
25 March 2014
9.47pm
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
52

Hey a little of topic on thread but on discussion with the plagiarism law suits. Why was only John held liable? Since him and Paul shared writing credits on every song, why was it that only John was involved? I am sure if I did research on the case I would be able to figure it out just wondering if anyone knew of the top of their head? Sorry for being off topic was just always very curious how John got tied up in and Paul didn't. Was the suit only filed against John? I feel that since they share writing credits for the song that they would both be held equally responsible. 

25 March 2014
10.28pm
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 472
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
53

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said
Hey a little of topic on thread but on discussion with the plagiarism law suits. Why was only John held liable? Since him and Paul shared writing credits on every song, why was it that only John was involved? I am sure if I did research on the case I would be able to figure it out just wondering if anyone knew of the top of their head? Sorry for being off topic was just always very curious how John got tied up in and Paul didn't. Was the suit only filed against John? I feel that since they share writing credits for the song that they would both be held equally responsible. 

 

If you're referring to the 'Come Together' situation, the link that meanmistermustard posted above touches on the legalities involved and the differences pertaining to George's predicament (including commenting on why John not Paul dealt with it), pretty fascinating stuff and a good listen if you're interested in the plagiarism lawsuits specifically....:-)

25 March 2014
11.21pm
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
54

Obviously referencing Come together. Anyone want to enlighten me? Otherwise I'll give it a listen this weekend. Wanted to know if anyone knew off of the top of their head. 

25 March 2014
11.27pm
Annadog40
I am here you are here we are here and we are all together
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4357
Member Since:
1 November 2013
Offline
55

Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9) said
Obviously referencing Come together. Anyone want to enlighten me? Otherwise I'll give it a listen this weekend. Wanted to know if anyone knew off of the top of their head. 

There was a lawsuit thing going on between Come Together and Chuck Berry's song You Can't Catch Me in 1973 by Big Seven Music Corp. The owner Morris Levy said they sounded sounded similar musically to Berry's original and shared some lyrics. It was settled out of court.

Here is a comparison between the two songs

 

 

Never say never, cause it's never 'never'

If you are like a new thingy than introduction your self in the into place here

If you did that then you win!

26 March 2014
3.50am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
56

Hey I know all about the law suit and songs. I think you missed my original question and only saw my response to Billy. The question was and is above why only John was held liable and not Paul. Since they share writing credits I feel it would make them both liable. But only John had to go to court. I'll watch the video in the link posted above by meanmistermustard this weekend, Billy mentioned it has the answer. I was seeing if anyone could explain quickly. Appreciate the response though.  

26 March 2014
10.31am
Joe
Pepperland
Admin
Forum Posts: 3465
Member Since:
31 March 2008
Offline
57

Very quickly: Big Seven, a company which owned the rights to You Can't Catch Me, sued MacLen Music, Northern Songs and Apple Records for plagiarism. It was settled out of court in 1973, and as part of the settlement Lennon agreed to record three Big Seven-owned songs for his next album.

My guess is only Lennon was affected in the settlement because, during negotiations, it would have been clear that Come Together was his song. Big Seven might have asked for both of them to record some songs but it might have been rejected by the defence (this is all hypothetical - I have no idea what happened behind closed doors).

Please don't spoil my day; I'm miles away

Can buy me love! Please consider using these links to support the Beatles Bible: Amazon | iTunes

26 March 2014
9.06pm
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 221
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
58

Joe said
Very quickly: Big Seven, a company which owned the rights to You Can't Catch Me, sued MacLen Music, Northern Songs and Apple Records for plagiarism. It was settled out of court in 1973, and as part of the settlement Lennon agreed to record three Big Seven-owned songs for his next album.
My guess is only Lennon was affected in the settlement because, during negotiations, it would have been clear that Come Together was his song. Big Seven might have asked for both of them to record some songs but it might have been rejected by the defence (this is all hypothetical - I have no idea what happened behind closed doors).

Hey Joe, thanks very much for the post and information, sorry for derailing thread a tad bit. 

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Sugarplum fairy
55 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 9961

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 5229

Ahhh Girl: 5219

mithveaen: 4651

Annadog40: 4357

Zig: 4223

Mr. Kite: 3856

Ron Nasty: 3106

fabfouremily: 2931

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2642

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3153

Posts: 136442

Newest Members: pocaloc, McBeetles, Lucy in the Sky, btzgibbonclyd, PostNoBills

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5219, meanmistermustard: 9961, Zig: 4223, Joe: 3465

Administrators: Joe: 3465, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: YouKnowMyName, BobGreaves
Upcoming: None