Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked | Page 2 | Let It Be | 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

Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked
17 May 2013
10.40am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Paul raised no objection to Spectors work back in 1970 before release, he might have not given two hoots and been more focused on his own album but still he could have stopped Let It Be at least long enough to change some parts he later hated (TLAWR namely). Instead he bitched about release dates and had a heated arguement with Ringo. None of the beatles are blameless over the whole Get Back/Let It Be debacle hence why we have two albums, neither of which are what were originally mooted at the time of concept creation, and no movie on home release.

John was stoned and didnt give a crap about anything bar Yoko.

George wanted the universe to take him anywhere else and resented both John and Paul for his role in the band. He never wanted to revisit that period afterwards.

Ringo simply went along with it having no opinion but generally was bored and wondering what else he could be doing that would be more interesting. When asked for feedback or opinion on any of the Get Back or Let It Be albums he said nothing.

Paul tried way too hard to lead and motivate 3 folk who really couldnt give a shit and ended up pissing everyone off. 

 

And as for the howling choir and Pauls later objection to the woman on TLAWR it was Paul who dragged in two fans who couldnt even shriek in tune to wail on Across The Universe.

 

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)
17 May 2013
1.42pm
DrBeatle
Boston
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1419
Member Since:
29 November 2012
Offline

Expert Textpert said
Dr. Beatle,

I believe it was later than '72, during the Rock and Roll Sessions, when Spector's behavior became erratic and violent and he stole the tapes.  But he went on to work with Yoko after John's death, I believe in 1986, on two posthumous John Lennon albums.

Also, not all of the John b-sides are weak.  I Am The Walrus, Revolution and Rain are all John b-sides with a Paul a-side.  Of course, Paul didn't get every a-side, and I'm not really counting, but I do think it was a trend.

But, as you say, I have a lot more to read about The Beatles.

Well absolutely I agree with you, John's B-sides during the '67-'68 period were so good those all should really have been double A-sides. But from late '68 onward he was pretty fallow...most of his stuff in 1969 was leftover stuff from the White Album sessions, apart from some really fantastic new gems like Come Together and Don't Let Me Down.

One thing to keep in mind, and this has been acknowledged by everyone, including John himself, is that he went so overboard during 1966-67 with the amount of LSD he took (by all accounts, he was literally tripping 24/7 during that period) and truly did suffer the "ego-death" of a hardcore acid-head, that he was quite lazy and unproductive during that period. Now, unproductive doesn't mean the quality was poor...his stuff during that period was, for the most part, incredible. But he was unprolific and unmotivated and if it weren't for George, Ringo, and especially Paul, it's debatable if he would have been motivated to do anything other than lay on the couch and trip all day and night (which is basically what he did when he wasn't making music).

Getting on to Spector, didn't John get tired of him not showing up for huge chunks during the Imagine album sessions and end up producing a lot of it himself? I can't remember...

 

Finally, sorry if I came across like a jerk or anything, I wasn't trying to be! :-D I just get *REALLY* fired up and excited and protective when it comes to the Beatles (as we all do on here), and I've just read so much and studied them so much (again, as most of us on here have) that I feel an almost reflexive need to correct any misinformation I see (some would call this a sickness...:lol:)

"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"

 

Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist

Twitter: @blackbookblur

 

17 May 2013
1.47pm
DrBeatle
Boston
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1419
Member Since:
29 November 2012
Offline
23

meanmistermustard said
Paul raised no objection to Spectors work back in 1970 before release, he might have not given two hoots and been more focused on his own album but still he could have stopped Let It Be at least long enough to change some parts he later hated (TLAWR namely). Instead he bitched about release dates and had a heated arguement with Ringo. None of the beatles are blameless over the whole Get Back/Let It Be debacle hence why we have two albums, neither of which are what were originally mooted at the time of concept creation, and no movie on home release.

John was stoned and didnt give a crap about anything bar Yoko.

George wanted the universe to take him anywhere else and resented both John and Paul for his role in the band. He never wanted to revisit that period afterwards.

Ringo simply went along with it having no opinion but generally was bored and wondering what else he could be doing that would be more interesting. When asked for feedback or opinion on any of the Get Back or Let It Be albums he said nothing.

Paul tried way too hard to lead and motivate 3 folk who really couldnt give a shit and ended up pissing everyone off. 

 

And as for the howling choir and Pauls later objection to the woman on TLAWR it was Paul who dragged in two fans who couldnt even shriek in tune to wail on Across The Universe.

 

All completely valid and true points. And also referring to what mjaetc said on the previous page, yes John, George, and Ringo did feel that Spector saved the Get Back tapes. What's always confused me is indeed why Paul signed off on the final Let it Be album acetate and then raised objections to it. One thing I've read is that Spector added some stuff *after* Paul approved it. I have also read that he was very angry that Phil was bringing outside people in to do all of these overdubs and leaving in bum parts (like John's atrocious bass playing in Long and Winding Road) instead of calling Paul in to fix them, when he literally lived a 5-minute walk away from the studio.

Also, to be fair to Paul (again, I'm disclosing that I'm a huge Paul fan, but this is simply fact), wasn't Let it Be initially slated to be released even later after McCartney, but was moved up to conflict with McCartney because the film premiere date was changed and they wanted to release the album at the same time?

But as meanmistermustard said, NO ONE came out of the Get Back sessions looking good. That they were able to regroup and write and record the joyous masterpiece that is Abbey Road mere months later is the supreme fucking testament to their bond and talent.

"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"

 

Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist

Twitter: @blackbookblur

 

17 May 2013
3.32pm
Expert Textpert
In bed.
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1145
Member Since:
18 April 2013
Offline
24

 

And as you know, Dr. Beatle, I'm a huge John fan...and I can personally identify with his inclination to get stoned and sleep all day much more than I can with Paul's extroversion, cheerfulness and professionalism.  I can't watch Let It Be without disliking Paul by the end of it.  But I'm not trying to single him out (as you say, no one was blameless), that's just my reaction.  There is one scene which is very funny to me..it's the one where we see Paul talking from the back of his head and the camera is focused on John's face, who is sitting in front of him...Paul is just going on and on with self-importance about something that isn't interesting in the slightest, and John isn't even looking at him and just nodding in agreement, obviously not even listening to him. I think that's pretty telling of the "Let it Be" dynamic.

"This Beatles talk bores me to death." --John Lennon

17 May 2013
4.10pm
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2931
Member Since:
3 May 2012
Offline
25

ExText, I don't think I have anything new to add, really (should have checked back here last night after posting). I respect your opinion of LIBN although I still believe that it was made more into the album that was originally intended. Yes, Paul's presence is heavier than on the original album. Is that because he made it like that though, or because Spector wasn't too much of a fan of Paul, and much preferred John's work?

As others have also said, Paul isn't the ego-maniac that he's often painted out to be. He was trying to keep the band afloat because no one else really gave a toss anymore. He always was a good PR man though. Did he use the whole ''The Beatles are no more'' thing to his advantage? Maybe. It's also true though that John didn't really want to do it, although very quick he was to criticize Paul and, in a way, try and turn people against him because he was at this particular period.

I can't comment on the film as I haven't been able to see it. I can only imagine how Paul looks in it though. I feel sorry for him, he's often made out to be the bad one, and it's simply not true.

I love all four men, and all four men had their good parts just as much as they had their bad parts.

''We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count.''

17 May 2013
4.21pm
Expert Textpert
In bed.
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1145
Member Since:
18 April 2013
Offline

I like all of them, but I'm Paul-challenged.

For the longest time I disliked The Beatles, and the reason was silly songs by Paul such as Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. I just would not listen to The Beatles because I thought they were silly people's music.

I'm grateful to a friend for giving me every Beatles album so that I could hear the whole catalogue.  And now I'm a Beatles fanatic.  I was mainly interested in John and George, whose songwriting instantly appealed to me, but especially John. 

After a while, those silly songs began to sound a little better to my ears, but when I began to learn more about The Beatles, I found some of Paul's personality traits annoying, and professed that I disliked Paul.

Then I discovered that a few of my favorite Beatles songs were written by Paul.

Then I decided to give Paul's music a chance and bought a couple of albums, and loved them.

Now I've bought quite a few of Paul's albums, and I'm excited when I get a new one.

But I am still a little bit Paul-challenged.

Sorry!

"This Beatles talk bores me to death." --John Lennon

17 May 2013
4.40pm
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2931
Member Since:
3 May 2012
Offline
27

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8No problem, not everyone is mad on all four of them. I just thought that some of your above comments and reasons for disliking him were faulty, that's all.

''We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count.''

17 May 2013
6.35pm
DrBeatle
Boston
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1419
Member Since:
29 November 2012
Offline
28

Expert Textpert said
 

And as you know, Dr. Beatle, I'm a huge John fan...and I can personally identify with his inclination to get stoned and sleep all day much more than I can with Paul's extroversion, cheerfulness and professionalism.  I can't watch Let It Be without disliking Paul by the end of it.  But I'm not trying to single him out (as you say, no one was blameless), that's just my reaction.  There is one scene which is very funny to me..it's the one where we see Paul talking from the back of his head and the camera is focused on John's face, who is sitting in front of him...Paul is just going on and on with self-importance about something that isn't interesting in the slightest, and John isn't even looking at him and just nodding in agreement, obviously not even listening to him. I think that's pretty telling of the "Let it Be" dynamic.

Hey, I'm a massive Paul fan and I think that scene is a fucking riot, too :lol: I can't even make it 20 seconds without laughing and the look on John's face, haha, priceless! And Paul keeps prattling on for another 90 seconds or so!

"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"

 

Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist

Twitter: @blackbookblur

 

17 May 2013
6.37pm
DrBeatle
Boston
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1419
Member Since:
29 November 2012
Offline

fabfouremily said
ExText, I don't think I have anything new to add, really (should have checked back here last night after posting). I respect your opinion of LIBN although I still believe that it was made more into the album that was originally intended. Yes, Paul's presence is heavier than on the original album. Is that because he made it like that though, or because Spector wasn't too much of a fan of Paul, and much preferred John's work?

As others have also said, Paul isn't the ego-maniac that he's often painted out to be. He was trying to keep the band afloat because no one else really gave a toss anymore. He always was a good PR man though. Did he use the whole ''The Beatles are no more'' thing to his advantage? Maybe. It's also true though that John didn't really want to do it, although very quick he was to criticize Paul and, in a way, try and turn people against him because he was at this particular period.

I can't comment on the film as I haven't been able to see it. I can only imagine how Paul looks in it though. I feel sorry for him, he's often made out to be the bad one, and it's simply not true.

I love all four men, and all four men had their good parts just as much as they had their bad parts.

Well said. And I will completely acknowledge that Paul comes across as super bossy and domineering in the Let it Be film. As much of a huge fan of his that I am, there are bits in there that make me uncomfortable (like his exchange with George over a guitar part).

I think the final word on it should belong to John, naturally, who right before his death called Paul his "brother" and said "I've only ever worked with 2 people in my life: Paul and Yoko...that ain't bad pickin'!"

Amen John!a-hard-days-night-john-1

 And Expert Texpert, no need to apologize man, we're all here because we share a love of the Beatles and wanna talk about them. I'm sorry if I came across as a dick in any way. The Beatles are just one of things that I am and always have been my entire life extremely passionate about, perhaps to a fault. 8)

"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"

 

Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist

Twitter: @blackbookblur

 

17 May 2013
7.08pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Did Spector make Let It Be more John? Teddy Boy was only axed upon discovering Paul was including it on his own album, Spector even gave it a couple of mixes before it was dropped. Spector also cut down Dig It, mercifully, to under a minute and whilst omitting Dont Let Me Down for whatever reason added Maggie Mae, his biggest crime to the LP. All thats left are the sound bites and, at least for me, they arent a minus on the album - tho it could be argued the placements were detrimental to Pauls Two of Us and Let It Be.

 

As for Johns contributions and b-sides:

Any of his White Album offerings are easily matched and probably surpassed by While My Guitar Gently Weeps, so its George who really lost out on an a-side.

Hey Jude is every bit the equal of Revolution, if not even more commercial due to its ability to relate to so many. John wanted Revolution out as soon as possible and got the compromise of the b-side after re-recording the slow version, ego's were too great for either song to be delayed for a couple of months - a double a-side might have more deserving.

Across The Universe, John hated the way the recording turned out in February 1968 and it was ditched until the charity Wildlife LP and then for Let It Be only due to the rehearsals during Get Back which appeared in the movie.

The Ballad Of John And Yoko was an a-side and one of the few tracks John had any real enthusiasm for - and Paul deserves endless credit for turning up and helping record it when he could easily have told John to wait for George and Ringo as well or even get stuffed.

Cold Turkey had no chance of being Beatlised and released.

Whats The New Mary Jane even less of being released (even John gave up caring about a release twice).

Give Peace A Chance - the chance of being a Beatle song was nil from the outset due to its existance in the hotel room during the Bed-in week.

Come Together was an a-side.

I Want You (She's So Heavy) was way too uncommerical and you can forget the medley tracks he put forward.

Dig It and Dig A Pony are not single material and i doubt Because was tho its a damn good piece of work.

So youre ultimately left with Dont Let Me Down, a b-side and for whatever silly reason only a b-side, and Hey Bulldog, a great missing Beatles song that was ditched until used for Yellow Submarine (cut from the US movie edit), and John agreed for Lady Madonna to get the a-side and The Inner Light the flip. Is that being too harsh?

 

Going back to the albums themselves i agree with many that Spector went overkill on TLANWR but the version on LIBN is every bit as grating as i hate Billy Preston's solo. And why on earth was the great live version of Ive Got A Feeling replaced by an awful botch-up that takes some of the worst sections of both performances before stitching it back together? Or even worse a terrible cut and paste Dont Let Me Down? Everytime i get near Let It Be Naked i remember the shit thats on it and step back. Ive also heard people bitch about the blurb on the back cover of Let It Be and why that makes it false - well sorry but Apple released a one hour radio special about how Naked was as the Beatles intended and back to nature and then gave us the same bullshit when made available for download on itunes.

Apologies if i come off annoyed but Let It Be Naked really pisses me off for a number of reasons. Its revisionism at its fucking worst done badly.

 

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)
17 May 2013
7.44pm
DrBeatle
Boston
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1419
Member Since:
29 November 2012
Offline
31

^what you said about LIBN is exactly how I feel. The frankentracks they created are reason alone why I can never get into it. The only thing I love about it is it's the only place you can hear Across The Universe at its original speed (sped up on the WWF album, slowed down on LIB)

"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"

 

Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist

Twitter: @blackbookblur

 

17 May 2013
9.10pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
32

Regarding Ive Got A Feeling, its one of the few tracks which they released as recorded on the Rooftop, its the Beatles as nature intended live with no overdubs, just blasting it out, and its a true highlight of the Beatles later years, a true Beatles performance not just from the Get Back/Let It Be ruins but from a period when more often than not everything was subjected to overdub after overdub to get it right, countless reduction mixes and frequent editing of takes to complete one final track. Yet on the Naked album they go back and edit two performances into the exact opposite of what the intention was at the start. Its braindead moronic stupidity and utterly pointless.

And its not even as if they did it on One After 909, the one other fabulously rocking live track they recorded on the roof. That they remixed only.

The Naked album is so full of holes rabbits would have a field day.

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)
12 June 2013
10.56pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Not sure what thread to post this in but was listening to the latest episode of Fab4Free4All and i realised why Dont Let Me Down is not on Let It Be, its on Hey Jude which came out a few months before (i'm one of the many who always thinks The Beatles Again (aka Hey Jude) came out after Let It Be not before).

Despite Klein's desire for a fast a buck there is no way the same song by the same artist would appear on 2 different LPs by that artist within three months especially when it has been available for 12 months albeit as a b/side.

[All credit goes to the Fab4Free4All presenters - Mitch, Rob and Tony.]

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)
12 June 2013
11.23pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3092
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
34

I think there's a problem with that as an argument, Hey Jude (The Beatles Again) was a Capitol compilation that - though available in the UK as an import - was not released in the UK until 1979. Therefore, the fact that it had appeared on one of Capitol's money making efforts (and probably their strangest given the track listing - 1964 to 1969), cannot be viewed as a reason to leave it off of the run of the official UK albums. IMO. There might be an argument there had the album been part of the UK official catalogue. But it wasn't. Klein gave it the nod, as a buffer for the US market in the wait for Let It Be, but refused a UK release for it. And we all know that many songs appeared on different official albums within months, sometimes weeks of each other. You need only look at United Artists' A Hard Day's Night and Capitol's Something New.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
13 June 2013
12.03am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

True but Something New and A Hard Days Night werent both on Capitol, it was 2 different labels, The Beatles Again and Let It Be were both Capitol discs. There are no Capitol Beatles albums throughout the 60's which feature the same songs that i can think of. Capitol even omited I Saw Her Standing There from The Early Beatles when it could easily have been included along with the other tracks from Please Please Me (tho that would have taken it above the normal 11 tracks on the US albums).

Plus compiling The Beatles Again and Let It Be, the final tracklisting, would have been been going on at around the same time so a compromise may have been made by the compilers where Get Back would appear on one, admittedly in the end a different edit, and Dont Let Me Down on the other (my own speculation). Spector only being to work on Let It Be in March 1970 after the release of The Beatles Again and Dont Let Me Down was dropped somewhere between Glyn Johns final working (submitted 5th January 1970) and Spector taking over (March 23rd) as he never touched any of its recordings?

Anyone know when The Beatles Again was compiled by Allen Steckler?

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)
13 June 2013
12.59am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3092
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
36

Steckler was instructed by Klein and Apple at, probably, the beginning of January 1970. The album came out 26 February. Steckler chose the songs however, even if Klein had conceived the album to take advantage of the higher royalty rate he had recently negotiated.

I still believe that the salient point was that it was an album for US and overseas release. I find it difficult to conceive of the idea that Don't Let Me Down was left off Let It Be because it had been included on a foreign release that Klein had specifically vetoed a UK release of.

Yes, I agree that, as Spector didn't work on it, it had been dropped by the time he started. I just don't think that that was to do with The Beatles Again. I think Spector had a rough picture of what he wanted, but wasn't completely decided (after all, he did attempt two mixes of Teddy Boy).

Myself, I think Don't Let Me Down was dropped when the Save the Last Dance for Me run-in was dropped. And it was probably Spector who dropped it when he decided he wasn't taking Last Dance forward from the Glyn Johns' versions.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
13 June 2013
10.42am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Was thinking about this after my last post before i read your last post mja. Spector might have heard the 22nd version of Dont Let Me Down, along with Save The Last Dance, and ditched that cause it was too rough and never got around to the single. However he did select alternate performances of other songs that otherwise were not up to release standards (Dig A Pony, Ive Got A Feeling).

Spector must have knew of The Beatles Again being an American and having worked with John on Instant Karma back in February?

Yes im speculating, wondering outloud and getting nowhere but im amusing myself if no-one else. I'd like to know the answer.

Does anyone have a direct line of contact to one Mr Phil Spector, im sure he'd appreciate the call as i doubt he's doing anything in his cell?

 

Ive also just realised that Let It Be has 11 songs on it the same amount as the US albums. No point just an inane pointless comment. I really shouldnt post my minds waywardness.

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)
13 June 2013
11.08am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3092
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
38

There is also the simple fact that more of their single tracks were not included on UK albums than were. In a way, the more unusual decision so far as their catalogue went, was Johns' decision to include it, rather than Spector's decision to not put it in the running.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
13 June 2013
12.46pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9888
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

True but that changed when Klein appeared and sanctioned the single release of Something and Come Together, pulled from the already released Abbey Road, the first time ever for a Beatles single. Cash was much needed at Apple and cash was all that Klein cared about. Im more surprised that Klein vetoed a UK release for The Beatles Again.

And as you said there are b-sides that were included on albums - You Cant Do That being the one that immediately comes to mind. Are there others?

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)
13 June 2013
9.29pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2172
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
40

mja6758 said

I still believe that the salient point was that it was an album for US and overseas release. I find it difficult to conceive of the idea that Don't Let Me Down was left off Let It Be because it had been included on a foreign release that Klein had specifically vetoed a UK release of.

I didn't know that Klein had anything to do with that decision (forbidding a UK release of TBA, I mean.) Was he doing that on specific request by one of the bandmembers, or was it his own idea?

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
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Father McCartney, Ahhh Girl, AbbeyRoadRage, Bongo, Rita Eleanor
39 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 9888

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 5195

Ahhh Girl: 5152

mithveaen: 4651

Annadog40: 4302

Zig: 4203

Mr. Kite: 3800

Ron Nasty: 3092

fabfouremily: 2931

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2629

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3158

Posts: 136008

Newest Members: TheNumberNine, Another Paul, damianosito1984, Bigbeat, edbeatle

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5152, meanmistermustard: 9888, Zig: 4203, Joe: 3463

Administrators: Joe: 3463, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: YouLoseAndIWin