Advanced Meta Tag Generator

Monday, July 03, 2006

The saga continues: Pitchfork/Sound Team IV

To recap: I wrote a long letter to a Pitchfork Media writer about a review I was disappointed about. He wrote back briefly, and promised to be more thorough later. He continued his letter this morning. As much as I dislike the guy's writing, I have to admit that he's been really friendly and likeable through all this.

One good point that he made in his response was that I didn't identify myself as a journalist/blogger when contacting him, which, as he correctly points out, is Journalism 101. It wasn't my intention to post this originally, but it was unprofessional of me not to do that. He OK'd the publishing of our dialogue, which I thank him for.

Here's the letter (annotated by me in bold):
Hi Chris,

Here I am again, sooner than expected. I was forgetting that I had to be online today to do some work for my day job.

First thing: I've come across your blog, which seems very well done and which I fully respect. You might be surprised to learn that before joining Pitchfork, I was one of its biggest critics (I was even quoted as a Pitchfork-hater in an article by the Ryerson Journalism Review), so I completely understand where you're coming from.
What parts of Pitchfork did he hate, and why then, does he seem to conform to what many people are recognizing as typical Pitchfork style?

However, if you work at a small newspaper, you probably know something about journalism. One of the basics: If you're going to quote somebody, you identify yourself as a journalist (or a blogger) and you tell them that you're planning to post their message on your blog. Otherwise, you're in a pretty flimsy position to criticize *their* journalistic ethics and credibility. That's Journalism 101.
As I said, he's right about this. It was unfair of me.

It's OK, though; I know you didn't mean any harm and I will still take your thoughtful, reasoned questions seriously. The key point to me in your note is the Murakami reference. Indeed, if I'd noticed it, I would definitely have included it in my review, because I think it actually underscores my argument that this album is all about coming across as too smart and hip to criticize, via a "rote reiteration of reference points," rather than about being actually enjoyable. What *difference* does it make what book title someone is quoting in the chorus of a song? Does that really make it a better song? Obviously, we disagree at the basic level of enjoyment, but I'm pretty sure you don't decide which albums you enjoy based on how many critic-approved bands (or authors!) they namedrop, and neither do I. That's not what makes a song great. (But it does make a work of art critic-proof; one can always say that anybody who dislikes it just doesn't "get it," right?) Nor do an artist's intentions go into it; that's one of the oldest critical fallacies in the book.
This is an important point, since it's the basis for the whole review. "This album is all about coming across as too smart and hip to criticize . . . rather than about being actually enjoyable." To say that it was written with the intention to defy critics is an interesting take, but one I think is way off the mark. I agree that name-dropping doesn't make a song good, and that's not what this album is about. My point was that if you're going to bash the album for that, the reviewer should get the facts right.

Sound Team's influences have been a major part of the discussion about the group (as is the case with a lot of bands these days), but I haven't seen anyone attribute their songwriting so heavily to copycatting as the Pitchfork review did. The review, which also does some name-dropping of its own, notes: "Most bands that sound like a chopped and blended soup of influences fail because they have no songwriting skills or nothing of their own to contribute, but Sound Team succeed because they have large amounts of both of those things." It's OK to not like an album, but it's irresponsible to readers and the album to bash it without really saying why. Finally, the point about intentions is well made, but isn't really in contrast to anything that's been said.

I went into this album with my usual, open mindset. I *wanted* to enjoy it. I always hope I'm going to like albums I review. I write for Pitchfork because I love music! If anything, the positive blog buzz had me biased positively toward this album: It would have been easier and more fun and probably professionally more beneficial to try to make these guys the next Tapes 'n Tapes, to get quoted in newspaper articles as the writer who helped popularize Sound Team, etc. But I listened, critically, for hours upon hours, and I went from apathy to disappointment to the disdain evidenced in the review.

I feel like I was being rather generous giving this a 3.7, because after repeated listens I realized I did not enjoy a single moment on this album. "Vague melodies that leave you humming the video" was a slam, not a compliment, akin to musical theater critics saying that Andrew Lloyd Webber fanatics walk out "humming the chandeliers." The reason I "left out" facts that support the album is because those are your opinions, and mine differed. I'm sure Sound Team are nice people who worked really hard, but that's irrelevant to criticism.
Yes, Sound Team are really nice people who worked really hard, and yes, that's irrelevant. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm trying to understand what's different about the way you heard this than the way that everyone else hears it--I never got that. I got cleverish writing and biting insults, and that's about it.

"Humming the video" is another clever turn of phrase. As a reader, there's nothing worse than feeling patronized.
All that said, again, I really appreciate your polite, intelligent note, and I hope we can agree to disagree. You're perfectly within your rights, as well, to dislike my monster-movie introduction and conclusion, although I thought they provided a perhaps amusing metaphorical framework for my basic problem with this record (which you understood correctly). As always, you're perfectly free to disagree, even encouraged.
The truth is I really hate agreeing to disagree, because that's rarely the correct play, unless you're at a fancy dinner party. There's always more to be understood, more "facts" to know, and usually, one person is more right and one person is more wrong. I'm willing to do it in this case, but I think the fact that 3.7 for "Movie Monster" is being considered "laughable" in more places than one suggests that this review won't have its intended effect. I hope more people speak out against whatever they feel is irresponsible writing. I encourage people to ignore Pitchfork reviews. I will say though, that if and when people write to Pitchfork, or me, or whoever they disagree with, they're as thorough, sane, and personable as Marc Hogan.
To me, Pitchfork is a place where people who are passionate about music can share that passion. I might love an album that you hate, or I might hate an album that you love, but the important thing is that we're communicating about music, and here we are sending e-mails back and forth because we care so much about silly little series of 1's and 0's. I don't ever expect everyone to agree with me, but I'm thrilled and humbled to be able to take part in the discussion.

Sorry to ramble on, and please excuse any typos. Thanks once again for reading the review and taking the time to respond. Best of luck with your blog and all your endeavors, and I hope you have a wonderful Fourth of July. With luck, we'll both love the same album next time.

You see what he does? Even if I hate his writing, you can't help but really respect the guy. Comments are encouraged.


Blogger Cibbuano said...

It's hard for me to comment since I don't really know anything about the music in question.

I'm also of the opinion that a music review can be as freewheeling and personal as the writer wants.

I say this because I reviewed a jazz show once, and I went off on a tangent about how good the food at the bar was. Some fan of the band wrote a letter claiming that I was too ignorant to write the review.

In my defense, if you're making money off your music, it's in the public space as a consumer product, and is subject to the harshest reviews, if needs be.

9:27 PM  
Blogger Christopher Zane said...

Cib, I agree that a music review can be as freewheeling and personal as the writer wants. But I also think that there is a certain level of responsibility involved if the reviewer wants to be good at his job.

For example, I didn't care much for Coldplay's second album. I tried to be witty and clever, but I also thought it was important to say why I didn't like it. It's not that music shouldn't be subject to the harshest reviews, it's that the job of the reviewer is to offer a critical opinion of it, not to be a clever jerk.

It's especially important because what reviewers write really does make a difference in the minds of listeners.

"Oh, random Canadian jazz trio? I heard the snacks were better than the music. Forget you, random Canadian jazz trio." That kind of stuff.

I haven't read your review, so I don't know if the guy's criticism was valid. If you thought they weren't that great, then you're within your rights to say that. My main issue is that if a reviewer is going to call something shit, the burden of proof is on the reviewer.

10:11 PM  
Anonymous other said...

11:16 PM  
Blogger Eric Grubbs said...

I've never heard of what Hogan describes as "Journalism 101." This is like saying something is "common sense." I argue there's nothing "common" about common sense.

10:20 AM  
Blogger Christopher Zane said...

You may be right about "common sense," Eric. In any journalism class or at any publication, however, the well-known rule is that you identify yourself if you plan on publishing someone's words.

Your blog is great, by the way. Do you mind if I link you?

11:30 AM  
Blogger Eric Grubbs said...

Your blog is great, by the way. Do you mind if I link you?

Not a problem. Be on the lookout for a blog post on this topic soon.

11:59 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. If you do not understand his reference to "humming the video", he is patronising the reader, whereas if he does not understand your references to "Kafka on the Shore" or William Volman, he is unqualified to comment on your music, yes? How does that work out, exactly?

5:40 AM  
Anonymous karl said...

I actually thought it was a very good review - from reading it I got a clear impression (confirmed by listening to the samples on the band's website) of how they would sound. I think you should probably take a deep breath and accept that (a) he didn't like it (b) reviews are subjective, and there is thus no "burden of proof" - how do you prove an opinion? (c) artists have been upset about negative reviews of their hard work for centuries - the grown-up response is to shrug and carry on producing music for your fans. Your response that his wasn't a "critical opinion", rather he was being a "clever jerk" ... this I would suggest is a far more egregious slander than his views re: Sound Team. Like Dan in the comment above, I smell hypocrisy. There is clearly no honour amongst thieves, or critics.

7:40 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Just to clarify - I'm not calling hypocrisy, just expressing perplexity. I'm a bear of little brain.

However, if this review is so genuinely off the curve as to be seen by the majority of other sources as "laughable" - if it is clear to the discerning audience that this is not just a bad review but a bad review - then it shouldn't make much difference - the aforementioned discerning reader will look elsewhere for their analyis, and the undiscerning reader probably wouldn't get Sound Team anyway.

8:12 AM  
Blogger karl said...

sorry Dan - in most forms of electronic communication, I've found sarcasm to be the default tone applied by the bad.

9:06 AM  
Blogger karl said...

Oh, and also, is there such a thing as a bad review? I always assumed that no matter how objectively wrong an opinion may seem, someone else will agree. Like there's no such thing as bad music - someone will like it, even if it is Phil Collins.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Very good question. I don't think you can point to a review annd say "this review is objectively right/wrong in its assessment of this album's quality", because the quality of music is not a purely objective issue. You can say that a review makes factual errors - for example, if it gets a track title wrong - which might suggest that it was composed with a lack of care. You can also get a review that fails to communicate anything more than the immediate response of the reviewer - like, "OMG! This album rocks!". That doesn't tell me anything about the album except that the reviewer liked it. Or a review that fails to communicate anything worthwhile about the subejct of review might be a bad review.

So, a good review, in the sense of a well-constructed one, I would define as one that provided enough information to put together an idea of where, generically, the album stood and thus gave some idea of what it sounded like (if I am told that a band is clearly influenced by or sounds like a band or bands I like, I am more likely to want to check them out than if they are reported to be influenced by Chaka Demus and Pliers), and which then made clear in a hopefully entertaining way what the reviewer saw as the album's strengths and weaknesses and whether that reviewer liked the product beiing reviewed. Some of that can be objective - you can say whether the bass guitar is out of tune on a track, but you have to concede that it might have been striving for an effect you didn't appreciate - but a lot of it comes down to whether you respect a reviewer's taste and you feel that he or she has succeeded in explaining his reaction well enough for you to see the argument he or she is making for buying or not buying the product.

I think the problem here is that Mr Hogan has made a subjective judgement - that this album is all about coming across as too smart and hip to criticize, via a "rote reiteration of reference points," rather than about being actually enjoyable. Mr Zane, understandably, feels that this judgement is wrong, and that this is not the intention of the album at all. Mr Hogan's best response is probably that, from his point of view, regardless of the intent of the artists, it sounded to him as if the album was all about etc - that was his subjective reaction to the interaction not of band and intention but of record and turntable. Hence the comment about the creator's intent not being important - only the apparent intent.

Without that proviso, there's the option of representing the statement as one of fact rather than taste, which is allowing the wounded artist to see this statement as factually incorrect and on a par with the statement that "Kafka on the Shore" references Franz Kafka rather than Kafka Tamura, and thus that the review is an exercise in irresponsible reporting of facts which are subject to objective verification rather a subjective statement of what the album sounds like to the reviewer.

At least, that's my highly subjective opinion of the process. Without that sense that objective fact is being misrepresented, all you have is the reviewer saying "I do not think that this is a good record, and here is why" and the creator saying "I think you are wrong, and that this is a good record, and here is why".

There's a secondary issue, which is encapsulated by:

I'm willing to do it [agree to disagree] in this case, but I think the fact that 3.7 for "Movie Monster" is being considered "laughable" in more places than one suggests that this review won't have its intended effect.

The idea of intention is important here, again - just as Mr Hogan has an idea of the intention of the album, derived from listening to it, which Mr Zane believes is insupportable, Mr Zane has an idea of the intention of the reviewer, derived from reading the review. What that intention is is not clear, but presumably it is assumed to be something along the lines of "to look clever in the accepted Pitchfork way by slating this album" or "to provide a canonical view of Sound Team's album, rather than "to reflect and explain whether and why Mr Hogan enjoyed the album personally, in a manner comprehensible to and accessible by the readers of Pitchfork, to help them reach their own conclusions based on their attitude to Mr. Hogan", say. However, I don't believe personally that an idiosyncratic review is necessarily idiosyncratic with an agenda: nothing out there appeals to everybody, after all, as you say. As such, "the general consensus is that this album deserves more than 3.7" is a perfectly reasonable argument, as is "if you wished to convince public opinion that this album is worth 3.7, the volume off dissenting voices suggests that you will not succeed", "it is objectively wrong to give this album 3.7" probably isn't, since it is a measure of the reviewer's opinion rather than the objective quality of the album.

Phew. Sorry - got a bit wrapped up there.

10:06 AM  
Blogger karl said...

A fair summation. Although I still think that, despite any minor factual inaccuracy or clever language, it is a good review, and doesn't deserve Mr Zane's ire. In lamenting the album's derivative nature it:

provided enough information to put together an idea of where, generically, the album stood and thus gave some idea of what it sounded like

...which worked for me.

I don't know why I really care about any of this - I hadn't heard of Sound Team, and didn't regularly read Pitchfork before today... it's clear though that Mr Zane is a big fan of the band, which is entirely fine by me. At some point I'm sure we have all come across someone who doesn't get something we love and has wanted to grab them by the lapels and shout "CAN'T YOU SEE! IT'S FUCKING BRILLIANT!" That's what seems to be happening here, and I do feel slightly for Mr Hogan, the bemused recipient of the shaking.

10:51 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Oh! I sort of assumed that Mr. Zane was in the band.

This actually makes more sense, in a way. When much younger, I was bewildered by the apparent hostility the music press in the UK felt for some of my favourite bands - as evinced by not giving them the front cover in rotation. If there had been a way to coommunicate that hurt bewilderment immediately and without leaving my chair, I might well have dashed off the odd angry email myself.

11:28 AM  
Blogger Christopher Zane said...

Good dialogue, guys.

From a letter I wrote Mr. Hogan last night:

"Of course it's partly because we disagree about the review. If you had written a review that praised them to high heaven, but did so in a way that I thought inaccurate, I probably would have just shrugged and thought it was weird. Damning someone in an inaccurate review is damaging, praising them inaccurately is not."

I understand that it was his opinion, and I accept that. I don't believe, however, that you can't back up an opinion with reason.

Hogan's problem is that Sound Team is derivative, and that they're derivative in such a way that no one can criticize them. What's a band to do? Pick bad influences? If they do that, they're screwed also. Sound Team made new and original music influenced from the bands they knew and loved growing up, just like every other band does.

I don't expect Hogan or Pitchfork to answer or satisfy me personally, but obviously lots of people feel like it was a bad review, and none of them are satisfied. I don't think it's too out of line to write a reviewer when you think they've written a bad review. Pretend it's a letter to the editor (which Pitchfork doesn't publish, by the way).

11:48 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Damning someone in an inaccurate review is damaging, praising them inaccurately is not.

Well, that's wrong for starters. Inaccurate praise can have all sorts of damaging effects. People can buy albums that they don't enjoy. An album can be purchased over an album which the buyer would actually have preferred... if you assume that there's a correct level of praise for an album, then too much and too little have negative consequences.


Hogan's problem is that Sound Team is derivative, and that they're derivative in such a way that no one can criticize them.

You've said something like this before, and I'm not sure where you're getting it from. He says:

It's also "the summer of Sound Team"-- at least in the words of one media outlet. As blog memes go, praise for the Austin sextet isn't as ubiquitous as your aforementioned forthcoming herpetological thriller, but in Hype Machine circles it's not that far off. As with the new arty fright flicks, Sound Team's first proper full-length Movie Monster tries hard to straddle between blockbuster and cult classic, flashing a dizzying array of instant-cred reference points like so much major-label bling and piling on rube-dazzling special effects. Most popcorn-thriller misfires lack the plot and character to match their sound and fury; Movie Monster's adenoidal overemoting and Wall-of-the-Edge guitars can't hide a shortage of, like, actual decent songs.

You gloss this with:

In the second paragraph you continue: "[P]raise for the Austin sextet isn't as ubiquitous as your aforementioned forthcoming herpetological thriller . . . " I agree that it's important to create context for a band in a movie review, but why not just say "Sound Team's been getting a lot of positive blog press, mainly because they pick the right influences" if that's your opinion?

However, that's pretty clearly not what he is trying to say. He is saying:

a) The Internet popularity of Sound Team bears comparison to that of Snakes on a Plane
b) In both cases, there is a lot of hype surrounding them.
c) Sound Team seek to combine credibility with commercial success, like an "arty fright flick" (this, I think, shows that this metaphor is creaking - he has to switch to talking about what Snakes on a Plane is not).
d) One way Sound Team does this is to show off a large number of culturally credible musical reference points.

The reference points do not forestall criticism, nor are they associated specifically with the blog press. A very easy way to criticise them, not just despite but because of their reference points, is by saying that those reference points are reproduced uncritically and in a way that does not produce interesting music. This is where you and he differ, and I'm not sure how many emails it will take to change his mind.

1:00 PM  
Blogger Christopher Zane said...

Inaccurate praise can have all sorts of damaging effects. People can buy albums that they don't enjoy. An album can be purchased over an album which the buyer would actually have preferred...

That's kind of a stretch, in terms of damage. I suppose any kind of positive language, true or false, can have a negative effect, but that's not what we're talking about. Bad-mouthing an album is directly damaging, and I think most people can agree on that.

You've said something like this before, and I'm not sure where you're getting it from.

I'm getting it from Hogan. In his words, from the posted letter: "[T]his album is all about coming across as too smart and hip to criticize, via a "rote reiteration of reference points . . ."

That seems to fit pretty well to "Hogan's problem is that Sound Team is derivative, and that they're derivative in such a way that no one can criticize them."

Hogan's free to disagree with me, obviously, and he does. I don't think he'll change his mind, and that's not really my goal. My goal was the same as yours was in these comments: to point out what I think are flaws in an argument, and to ask that that he answer for them. He wrote me back, which I respect him for, but I don't think his arguments stick very well. If that's how it's going to end, that's fine.

4:33 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

That seems to fit pretty well to "Hogan's problem is that Sound Team is derivative, and that they're derivative in such a way that no one can criticize them."

Ah - I think I see the problem. If you are a huge fan of Sound Team, it might appear to fit well. Hogan is saying that they are _seeking_ to avert criticism by appearing smart and hip - that is, by ironising the dialogue through constant reference. That's quite different. They are pretty much ipso facto still able to be criticised - their actions are not irreproachable.

5:27 PM  
Blogger sam said...

jesus ... what ever happened to people just listening to an album and liking it w/o having to disect the shit out of it? i put this album on and i really thought each song was better than the last (minus a couple near the end). i had no idea what the hell the singer was saying at times (be it not understanding the mumbling lyrics at times/not giving a shit about literary references) and i still dig it. but i tend to ignore lyrics and just listen to the music for the first few listens.

i think fork-head spent more time w/ his thesaurus than listening to the album. here's an idea fork-man: buy a six pack ... start drinking ... press play. next time write what you think about the tunes rather than how intelligent you'd like people to think you are.

10:41 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

what ever happened to people just listening to an album and liking it w/o having to disect the shit out of it?

Oh, I think that happpens - just generally not when you're being employed to write a review of it, when at least a bit of shit probably needs to be dissected.

7:28 AM  
Anonymous Pinko Punko said...

My problem with P-fork sometimes is that their reviewers may be able to identify the equation of a derivative band's sound, i.e. "they sound like band !+Band 2+band3" but this does not necesarily get the point across if the referenced bands are unknown to the reader, in fact, in the absence of knowing the reference points, would a listener like the song? There are several levels to a review: 1) does the reviewer like it 2) how does the album fit within its genre, and does the reviewer even like that genre and 3) can the album in question be described.

Hogan spent his entire review writing a Master's thesis about how derivative it is, hitting reference points that could possibly be meaningless to the reader. The irony is that he slams the band for musically namedropping, and that is what he did himself, in an all too precious way.

11:49 PM  
Blogger TonyHo said...

The main critique of Mr. Hogan's review is not that his opinion is wrong. Like Karl and Dan have stressed many times over, an opinion cannot be wrong. It's that his review was poorly written. He lists several bands, supposedly to help us understand the sound of SOUND team's songs. But his doing so never seems to come off as anything more than name dropping. He compares SOUND team's "Afterglow Years" to My Bloody Valentine's Loveless when they aren't the least bit similar. Whereas Loveless is orchestrated noise, "Afterglow" is soft and soothing. "Afterglow's" lyric, "I want to write a postcard/To everyone I see/And tell them not to change a thing" sums its mood and texture perfectly.

Later, Mr. Hogan mentions The Arcade Fire, which tells readers absolutely nothing about the music. It's a statement made out of hate, clearly to worsen readers' opinions of SOUND team. By writing "But Win was only returning a favor," Mr. Hogan seems to imply that SOUND team was unworthy of opening for The Arcade Fire, that they shouldn't be in the same vicinity, nay, same hemisphere as The Arcade Fire. It does not imply, however, that any of SOUND teams songs are either similar to or opposite of The Arcade Fire's. This point seems to have been missed by everyone.

And his mention of Elefant also seems questionable. He writes "post-Elefant 1980[']s nostalgia" as if Elefant were much heralded artists of great influence. But they are not. Now, I have no qualms with Elefant (I admit I have yet to listen to them as deeply as I need to) but they are a band that debuted only three years ago. To write about them in such a way as innovators of "1980[']s nostalgia" seems to be so far of a stretch that it damages his credibility as a reviewer. Whether Mr. Hogan meant to throw Elefant into this spotlight is irrelevant because he did throw them in it.

Also damaging to Mr. Hogan's credit is his claim that Oliver "screamo-wails" that "'the movie monster was mechanical'" during the song, "Movie Monster." Does Mr. Hogan listen to music? Calling Oliver's desparate whine "screamo" certainly makes you wonder.

4:40 AM  
Blogger eng sara said...

شركات نظافة بالرياض
شركة تنظيف خزانات المياه بالرياض
شركة تنظيف بالرياض
تنظيف فلل بالرياض
شركة نقل اثاث بالرياض
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
شركة تنظيف موكيت بالرياض
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالدمام
شركة تنظيف شقق بالرياض

6:31 PM  
Blogger chenyingying9539 9539 said...

2015-7- 4 chenyingying9539
oakley sunglass
timberland boots
prada shoes
abercrombie & fitch
christian louboutin shoes
ray ban outlet
christian louboutin outlet
polo ralph lauren home
jordan shoes
jordan 3s
ed hardy clothing
nhl jerseys
ray ban sungalsses
jordan 3
michael kors uk
pandara jewelry
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
copy watches
lebron james shoes
sac longchamp
cheap jerseys
ralph lauren
coach outlet
oakley sunglasses outlet
polo ralph lauren
kevin durant shoes

8:31 PM  
Blogger Xianjun Ranqin said...

qihang0916,christian louboutin uk
coach outlet store online
pandora jewelry
canada goose outlet
fake oakleys
ray ban outlet
longchamp pas cher
burberry sale
swarov ski jewelry
ray bans
true religion outlet
basketball shoes
p90x workouts
louis vuitton
ugg boots
marc jacobs
cheap oakleys
ralph lauren
adidas superstar
michael kors handbags
ed hardy uk
north face
nike roshe runs
longchamp outlet
canada goose uk
cheap oakley sunglasses
nike air force 1
tory burch outlet
football shoes
oakley sunglases cheap
tod's shoes

10:06 PM  
Blogger Hua Cai said...

oakley sunglasses,
cheap nike shoes,
ray ban sunglasses,
jordan shoes,
oakley outlet,
longchamp outlet,
prada outlet,
cheap jordans,
coach outlet,
ed hardy clothing,
juicy couture outlet,
michael kors outlet store,
true religion jeans,
cheap jordans,
michael kors factory outlet,
tiffany and co jewelry,
hermes birkin,
adidas wings,
nike air max shoes,
michael kors outlet,
nike trainers,
oakley sunglasses wholesale,
cheap snapbacks,
christian louboutin uk,
ugg boots,

9:44 PM  
Blogger Nike Free said...

jordans shoes
jordan 11
lebron 12
kd 7
nike air max 2016
nike air max thea
nike store
nike free run
christian louboutin men
red sole shoes
mbt outlet
mbt shoes online
fitflops clearance
fitflops sandals
Kobe 9
Nike Kobe 9
christian louboutin store
christian louboutin 2016
Air Jordan 11 Retro 72 10
jordan 13
Jordan 11 Concord
jordans 2015
online outlet stores
coach outlets stores
Michael Kors Store
michael kors outlet
Michael Kors Sale
michael kors wallets
michael kors tote
michael kors factory outlet

10:27 PM  
Blogger Fangyaya said...

louis vuitton outlet
toms outlet
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet online
gucci outlet
michael kors outlet clearance
michael kors handbags
nike roshe flyknit
cheap oakley sunglasses
gucci bags
christian louboutin sale
air jordan pas cher
michael kors handbags
celine outlet
adidas shoes
michael kors
hermes bags
adidas originals
coach factory outlet
nike roshe flyknit
christian louboutin outlet
hermes birkin handbags
christian louboutin outlet
nike air jordan
coach outlet
louis vuitton
coach outlet
celine handbags
replica watches
gucci handbags
celine outlet
coach outlet online
nike free run
pandora jewelry
michael kors outlet clearance
coach outlet canada
toms shoes
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
jeremy scott shoes

12:18 AM  
Blogger rohit gopal said...

Lifetime Replacement is an element that you rarely find, while you Buy facebook reviews. Merely a handful of great suppliers provide this. buy facebook 5 star rating

6:40 AM  
Blogger roba gad said...

Great article! We are linking to this great article on our site. Keep up the good writing.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Nitin Rathod said...

Buy YouTube Views. That is the popular approach for boosting your Google authority. To grasp more keep reading this web site. buy youtube subscriber

8:18 AM  
Blogger Vishavajit Thakur said...

To find a greater exposure for your facebook account, Persons expend dollars to Buy Facebook Followers to quickly get hype on internet. here you can buy facebook followers

5:38 AM  
Blogger Golu Bankar said...

Searching for genuinely published reviews/ratings for android apps? Forget about the fears, we supply Android App marketing experts with impartially authored reviews with five star rating.
web to buy app reviews

9:18 AM  
Blogger diksha gupta said...

Are you presently worried about being cheated when buying Android App Store reviews/ratings? It’s factual that many people are offering-up incentives for clients just to rate apps. buy android reviews and ratings

6:09 AM  
Blogger John Kerry said...

Much more activities on facebook fan page captures more reputation. To do this, you need to procure facebook video views on day after day. This can create you prosperous. how to increase facebook video views

7:56 AM  
Blogger dipali sharma said...

Numerous folks invest their entire day on acquiring likes and boosting their facebook follower complying with but they can't increase the list of folks without added assistance. buy usa facebook fans

1:33 AM  
Blogger Krystal Barnett said...

Nothing at all is free these days, but insure that you Buy facebook reviews merely from the genuine sources for profitable acceptance on-line. buy 5 star facebook reviews

2:11 PM  
Blogger roba gad said...

Very nice post. I definitely appreciate this site. Stick with it!

8:23 PM  
Blogger GIL BERT said...

saints jerseys
nike air huarache
vikings jerseys
ugg boots
cheap nike shoes
cheap ray bans
adidas yeezy
seattle seahawks jerseys
yeezy boost 350 black
true religion outlet

3:03 AM  
Blogger dipali sharma said...

Now you could lead the entire facebook by including countless likes quickly without any kind of trouble. buy targeted usa facebook likes

2:45 AM  
Blogger roba gad said...

Very nice post. I definitely appreciate this site. Stick with it!

8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home