Onze laatste liverecensie.
Onze laatste albumrecensie.
Ons laatste interview.
Onze laatste video.
How is it that a group that's been together for 35 years seems like a new discovery to many music fans? Simple. 1990's indie rock fans have become more and more disillusioned with big business digging its claws deep into artists and labels once held near and dear. Corporate zombie rock is practically all we're left with. To fill the artistic abyss, some people are now expanding their love of music in other adventurous non-rock formats. These sojourns may lead to the post-Slint sounds permeating Chicago, which lead further into noise and drone, as well as an increasing interest in edgy jazz and European avant-garde. Before we know it, the roots have to be heard, and names and music of men born in the teens, 20s and 30s are explored, from Ayler to Sun Ra, and Boulez to Xenakis. Terms like aleatory, serialism, musique concrete, free jazz, and free improv are thrown around with increasing regularity. All the while, cryptic references to a contemporary art ensemble slip on and off the radar screen. The name seems to appear with a sort of hushed reverence and high-level respect. The name of that band, AMM, and the reward for our path to discovery is their music.
Beginning in 1965, AMM continues today with founding members Eddie Prévost on percussion and Keith Rowe on guitar. It also includes pianist John Tilbury, an active member since the early 80s. To prepare the uninitiated for the AMM experience, try to imagine great music that developed on another planet, separate and without earthly influences.
Are there other artists of greater musical significance than AMM? I suppose. But few historical titans actually created a new musical universe, which is exactly what AMM did. Although AMM doesn't have a leader, Eddie Prévost is the business manager for the ensemble, runs their label Matchless, and as you'll see below, is in possession of such eloquence as to disarm and enlighten the most cynical or uninformed social drone. Prévost is also the author of the book No Sound is Innocent: AMM and the Practice of Self-Invention.
With the commodification of alternative rock, there is an ever increasing movement among the more dedicated music fans -- that in the past, explored rock, punk and indie - to now immerse themselves in all types of experimental music and the avant-garde. There's a fresh excitement among these people who are just now discovering everything from Pierre Schaffer to late period John Coltrane to AMM. Do you see or feel, any of this new enthusiasm toward the avant-garde and contemporary art music?
"There are a number of ways of coming at this question. When I think back to when we were young
men in the 1960s - (sorry if this is a boring scenario - many younger readers must get fed up with
hearing such a line!) - there was an albeit naive sense of convergence. People from all walks of life
and sensibilities found themselves (at least temporarily) working together. In our case there were the occasions when we played on the same bill as Pink Floyd (Sid Barrett period). There is also a sense that jazz and classical musicians could work together. But by the early 1970s much of this euphoria faded. Really as soon as the rock groups began to move into big money-making ventures. However, during the past ten years i.e. since the mid 1990s I have been aware of a new convergence. This has come mostly from younger rock musicians seeking new material and trying to escape the old market responses. In particular I worked with Peter Kember aka Sonic Boom (of Space Men Three) and Robert Hampson. Of course I am also aware of the crossover artists like Jim O'Rourke (with whom I recorded a duo CD very early on in his career and have played with occasionally since) and Sonic Youth. There are of course many others. In some respects these musicians are representative of a generation that was more enquiring than earlier ones. And, maybe as you suggest, this is an indication of discontent with previous musics.
The above is one way of looking at it, but there is another possible - and perhaps interconnecting -
scenario. In our (so-called) serious media in the UK we have a very strong critical representation
concerned with what they themselves call 'serious rock'. This, I guess is opposed to the advent of
teeny pop. Girl bands and Boy bands, etc. The critical emphasis is very clearly carved up. Classical
music, jazz (ala Wynton Marsalis et al.) and rock. Very little else exists. There is of course world
music - but as this is becoming more and more indistinguishable from rock it is hard to separate it
in the media fix. Anything else is firmly based in the hinterland. And, not really worth the time and
space that media outlets must devote to profitable 'product.' But one of the knock on effects of this so called serious critique, of what is essentially a market driven 'pop' culture, is that graduates of this new line of thinking are now moving away from idealistic journalizing of their rock idols. They are moving more and more into the 'art world' which had previously been the province of 'history of art' graduates and the like. The success of 'Brit art', has to some extent rubbed off on some of our galleries and concert halls. They now want to present a sonic parallel. But it seems to me that they do not have the musical grounding that you suggest is common to many people who have been weaned away from market 'pop' culture. So contemporary art music is itself in a process of redefinition. And, it seems bent on aping the 'pop' market ideology.
Where this leaves the genuinely enquiring mind I do not know. It is like coming into town and finding that all the street signs have been changed. In England the Contemporary Music Network touring scheme has become a platform for an increasing looser diet of "so-called" contemporary music, which includes the more accessible forms of jazz and at times even embraces various elements of rap and turntable. The emphasis is upon 'success' - defined as big audiences - which ironically they rarely get. And, on being 'hip' which I guess is what makes pop
music journalists feel that something is going on that they ought to write about. I paint a complicated picture. But I think it is even more complex than I have time to go into. The real answer your question is that: I am not sure what the new contemporary art music scene is."
As much as I appreciate the interesting sounds in the work I've heard from John Cage -- like Fontana Mix and Variations II and IV -- I wanted to hear more human intuitive control over the music. With AMM, where improv is the fundamental element, you took aletory music to a logical new level. At the time did the members of AMM know you were breaking important ground?
"I would never underestimate the immense value we have all derived from the new sound worlds that were emerging from John Cage and Sun Ra, in particular. In a sense those two American new music exponents represent different emphases. As you say Cage's attitude was abstract and perhaps placed a neutral perspective on sound, his desire was, apparently, to remove human meaning in the process of making music. Whereas on the other hand a big part of Sun Ra's music was perhaps impossible to perform without the clear sense of brotherhood that kept the Arkestra
alive and blowing.
AMM was alive and kicking before I knew who John Cage was and I had only heard of Sun Ra. I had still yet to hear any of the music - which then was hard to come by and not of interest to the broadcasting media. Obviously, Cardew brought insights and information. But it worked both ways. He, after all, joined AMM. We did not join him! As young men we were trying to create our own individual and collective voices. We were trying to move away from emulative creative responses. We were trying to leave the other 'voices' behind, or at least relegate them in importance. The creative impetus for the group was not necessarily unified then. And, maybe even now there are broad differences of emphasis. I certainly was never an admirer of Cage's lack of social/artistic agenda. He was, after all, still a composer. And the biggest thrust of our music was for self-definition or perhaps self-invention. Such ideas would not endear you to Cage. As for our perception of our work at the time; we were too busy doing it."
In turn, it seems that other artists and groups are taking AMM's foundation of radical improvisation into a new area where electro-acoustic computer manipulation is applied to that foundation. The most impressive examples are Kieth Rowe's own MIMEO and Evan Parker's Electro-Acoustic Ensemble (of course Rowe is a member of AMM, and Parker is a close friend of the AMM). Will AMM go further in this electronic or digital direction? Or will this aspect be explored through other projects as individual interests dictate?
"I think the electro acoustic examples you mention i.e. Keith's MIMEO and Evan Parker's electro-acoustic project probably have different aesthetic objectives for their respective initiators. But from where I stand, Evan uses these new resources to give his music a different context. Whereas for Keith it is an extension of his own individual pre-occupations outside of the broader context of improvising with non-electronic sources, i.e. and in particular, John Tilbury on piano and me on percussion. You can never say never, but it is unlikely that John Tilbury or I will go far into the electro-acoustic world, although we already occasionally participate with these musicians. And, John has recently been experimenting with some computer aided materials. To my mind though we are talking about a new branch of instrumentarium. The advantage here over the earlier 'musique concrete' equipment and even Keith's own work is the ease with which these resources can now be commanded. They can be tucked under the arm. Although Lawrence Casserley seems to move a lot of gear about! In the end it depends how well the instrument is played. At the moment there is a sense of novelty. I do not think we have yet found secure criteria for judging the state of play in that department yet. But I am sure it is here to stay. I welcome it."
AMM recognizes that it isn't breaking new ground anymore, but just like past artists who were ahead of their time - who later on received belated respect -- you must be flattered with all the people AMM have influenced? The previously mentioned electro-acoustic artists, VHF, and Kevin Drumm, come to mind, and these artists are incorporating much of the cultural, aesthetic and social significance of AMM, as opposed to merely adopting some of its novelty value. Do you feel like the coming years will bring even wider recognition to AMM?
"The objective was certainly to transcend the prevalent modes to which we were exposed as young people and from which we wished to escape. And actually, reference to AMM in the manner in which you suggest is a relatively recent phenomena. For many years we were ignored. For many years Keith, because of his particular resistance to other forms of music making, would perhaps perform as little as once or twice a year. Now, thankfully, we can witness an entirely different picture. Much of this is because the general aesthetic values we developed are now part of the common mainstream of new music (that's if 'mainstream' in this context is not a contradiction of terms). I have noticed too that whereas there has often been complete incomprehension about what we do, now even serious, non-specialist, listeners now have an appreciation of our work. Maybe the world is catching up."
The members of AMM are in fact well trained in the theory of tonal music, correct? And wasn't jazz a common form for members prior to inventing AMM's paradigm?
"Basically no. And only great musicians the likes of Cornelius Cardew and John Tilbury who were academy trained musicians - can absorb and apparently eschew their musical training in the way they did. Keith Rowe, Lou Gare and myself were largely self-taught musicians who came through a youthful interest in 'otherness' that was expressed (in our youth) as jazz. But the areas of interest were set very widely outside of the concerns of jazz or even of music for that matter. And, it is this open-mindedness and willingness to embrace other contexts and different backgrounds and interests that perhaps marks out our particular development. It was not that we had to learn how to play 'music' before we could go on to make AMM music. We all had to learn to abandon all the responses, attitudes and mechanisms which we brought to the arena of AMM music. If people recognize any artistry at all, it owes nothing to the tradition of any other music. We had to' learn' how to make AMM music."
It's hard enough for most of us to understand how a musician effectively improvises atonal music, but AMM takes this further by often improvising sounds that can't ever be notated. What, if any, musical conventions (as radical as those conventions might be) does AMM use in its music?
" There are no general prescriptions for performing AMM music. Obviously there have developed
unspoken conventions. And individually each may sail very close to the wind in this respect. For
example, I may make a (rare) allusion to some kind of jazz drumming figure or Tilbury might allude
to a piece of classical music. In all of these individual strategies there is a common understanding
that the material must meet the musical needs of the performance. In other words I think it true to
say that we are looking to invent, develop and pursue a language which is essentially unique to our
own music. 'Other voices' i.e. figures from other and past musics are difficult mediums to use. They
take the attention away from the practice and output at hand. So it is the appropriateness of a
figure that is paramount. Not necessarily in terms of acceptability - or comfort - but that it
stimulates creative responses from musician and audience alike. I think this is a difficult area
for discussion and most difficult when one is trying to encourage younger and perhaps less
experienced musicians to let go of all the cliché material they have acquired. One of the
difficult disciplines is to reject, or refuse to continue with, the parts you like best. For
example, in all collective improvising there are moments when you might feel the pull of a musician
to take you in a particular direction. My advice would be to anyone, do not follow unless you feel
confident that it is the authentic voice of the musician you are hearing rather than a reconstituted
mix of ideas and figures acquired from elsewhere. Contrary perhaps to the folklore of improvisation
I am not against clichés per se. But they have to be the musicians' own repertoire (if you
like), rather than a rag bag of second hand ideas taken from all manner of sources. Of course, it is
also possible to transform the ideas of others. But there has to be sufficiently creative distance
between the
original and the developed to justify its presence."
Sometime in the early 80s, AMM's music seems to have taken a turn into a more mature and softer territory. I find those albums to be just as innovative as the earlier ones, and played in my house with greater frequency. Was there a conscious understanding among the members to make these changes at the time and for what reasons?
"There is not and never has been a 'board room' discussion to decide where to take the music next. All these issues have arisen within the music. Although I am not suggesting that there is no discussion. Just that it is rarely of the type to discuss performance strategies. In fact, there is a convention within AMM that if any one individual within the group wishes to use a performance strategy, the others do not wish to know (in advance) what it might be. The point is, that responses are truer and more interesting within the heat of the creative moment. As for the perceptible changes within the AMM output, these are usually evolutionary and relatively slow to unfold. I think that they represent the individual interests of the players, who may be working on new areas of sound or exposition. This all gets incorporated within the general musical picture. AMM in this sense is a test bed for material. Much of which is abandoned along the way. The perception of AMM as initially raw and raucous at its outset and latterly more controlled and meditative, begs a lot of questions. There have been personnel changes. We have matured as musicians and people and of course there is less recorded output available from the earlier periods. I have just been listening to an old performance we gave in 1967 which seems to fall in three distinct sequences. It starts as a meandering drone in which the sound world is most predominantly acoustic. It develops into a wild howl in which percussion and electronics dominate. It finishes on a long meditative note. The middle sequence of this piece is perhaps reminiscent of The Crypt recording. And it is this CD which has set a mark for what early AMM sounded like. But I am reminded often by Victor Schonfield, a long associate of AMM and once its manager, that AMM now rarely uses silence as much as it did in the early days."
It's hard to imagine that any of you guys ever rock out to the Stones, or even put on a Boulez CD for that matter! Give us some examples of what you play in the car, or in your living room?
"Obviously we each have very different preferences. Although I think we share a lot, and get to hear new things by what each offers. Let me answer you by telling you what my last CD purchases were: The Best of Jimi Hendrix and Glenn Gould playing Bach’s Goldberg Variations."
Does the lack of media exposure in comparison to AMM's artistic achievement ever bother you?
"Given the poverty of musical criticism and the kind of so-called cultural material that is clearly preferred by the so-called serious media (heavy irony here!), I suspect that it is best not to be noticed. That world prefers to be impressed. They want style and material success. They want you to prove something to them. Obviously attention from the media might mean that more people come to find out about us. It might also mean that we perform more often and at more prestigious venues. But I think the reader of this can answer can see where all this could so easily lead. The general values of the prevailing culture are not ones we share. So unless there was a sea change of attitudes towards culture, politics and even spirituality (not the religious kind). Then it is dangerous to have but the most tangential relationship with these people. Obviously, we are hoping for a sea change of ideas and attitudes - after all our music is part of such a projected change."
I find, as I'm sure others do, that I often play say "Generative Themes" or "Live in Allentown" to create a general ambience, and that it is the very opposite of "difficult" music. Do you have any preferences for how your music should be perceived or approached by the listener?
"The usual length of our CDs - which are often the record of a performance - means that we potentially are asking listeners to devote a lot of their time and attention when they come to AMM music - in performance as well as in the comfort of their own homes. We do not think that our music is difficult. We are certainly not trying to make it difficult. Personally, I prefer direct and simple musical responses (as opposed to simplistic responses). Although, if the material at hand and the immediate musical objective takes you into complicated and ugly
sound worlds - so be it. What would not be acceptable to me is obfuscation, that is, a deliberate attempt to confuse and confound the audience's expectations. Although I readily accept that it is part of a musician's responsibility to unsettle habitual responses. If there is any point to all this it is to encourage open-mindedness and a sensual
alertness.
"
AMM has gone through some personnel changes, and for a time, the founding members (yourself and Keith Rowe) did not play together. However, over the long-term, AMM has been at it for over 35-years. Did you have any idea in the 60s that this would or could ever last so long? What do you attribute its longevity to?
"We had no idea of the length to which we would be eventually devoting ourselves to this activity when we started. And, of course along the way there were moments of great fragility where - through personal relations and political and aesthetic differences - the whole project might have collapsed. There are a number of possible reasons that it has survived. Ironically, one of the main reasons may be that we have been (until recent times) relatively marginalized - even within the community of improvisation. Now, I think it is true to say, that the AMM aesthetic is more central as a playing strategy than it has ever been before. Somehow the marginalizing created a sense of solidarity. But without the intrinsic creative worth of the relationship any or no activity would not have made much difference. AMM still seems to be well-spring of musical ideas."
Many music fans go through a series of steps to appreciate challenging music; awareness the music exists; intellectual and historical understanding; listening to the music with interest; and then finally really hearing the music with an aesthetic appreciation. It's at this last stage where we can, as individuals, discern which artists and performances we prefer. My point is, some critics who've clearly never gone through any process of appreciation have attacked you beyond a reasonable scale. In a sense, they don't have the right to criticize! Is this a source of frustration?
"As I have already indicated, I do not have any great respect for the general cultural
commentators of our time. They do not realize how compromised they are with the market mechanisms
that use and abuse music. But to be perfectly honest I either do not know of many attacks on AMM or
I have forgotten them. Of course, there are exceptions. But these writers are usually themselves
marginalized like us! Perhaps the most comprehensive positive recent survey of AMM was published in
CODA (Notes on AMM - Entering and Leaving History. Stuart Broomer, Coda Magazine, Issue 290,
Toronto, March/April 2000. ) I think the reason that the non-specialist critics either do not write
about our work, or they attack us when they do, is that they simply do not understand what they are
listening to. To be sympathetic to their plight it could be explained as an 'aesthetic mismatch.'
What I mean is, that they judge us by criteria they apply to the other things they are interested
in - and of course it does not square-up. For example we do not display the musical technical prowess
or 'respect' for tradition of Wynton Marsalis, therefore we are not good musicians etc. etc. It is only frustrating because you see them peddling their inadequate and often shabby intellectual wares without a coherent counter position aired also."
AMM's music is about the collective art of the ensemble creating much more than any individual's contributions. Possibly this is one of the primary factors for each of you being as highly regarded as you are for your abilities with your respective instruments. It's clear there is a conscious effort to put the ensemble's creation above one individual's performance, but is there any conscious effort to avoid individual acclaim for any member's abilities as an individual?
"There is always someone who wants to see 'a leader' or create a mystique about a personality. Of course this rarely has much to do with the person spotlighted. It is of course much more to do with the social and aesthetic perceptions of the observer in question. Often our music is attacked as much for the ideas that are attached to it. One reviewer - for the London Times - many years ago rebuked us for having ideas. He said we should just stick to making sounds. Not that he rated our abilities in that department very highly. What, I think, that gentleman disliked was that we affirmed that in practice we found that collective music making was so productive because of the following interesting duality. That:
1. it required creative individual contributions to generate a group
music. Whilst,
2. the individual needed a sympathetic collective environment in which
to develop.
The kind of critics who have been most vociferous about our politics are ones who wish to exult the cult of individualism but cannot (will not?) see that an individual exists and thrives only through a collective. But in a more general sense I do not find it hard to understand that people are intrigued in particular by Keith Rowe's very special contribution to the development of AMM and improvisation in general. But, of course, I know that any real appreciation of our work could not overlook the contributions of John Tilbury, who although playing the traditional instrument has a playing sensibility that adds acres to our overall musical practice and effect."
Having such major musical figure, as Cornelius Cardew, join the group early in AMM's history, seems to have posed some interesting challenges for you as individuals, largely hoisted upon you by the media. For example, misrepresenting AMM as "The Cornelius Cardew Quintet." How did he come to join AMM? Did the band members ever find themselves giving Cardew any tacit leadership or deference just because he was who he was?
"The history of AMM's association with Cardew is that he joined us. AMM existed before Cardew joined. In brief, he found us because he needed creative musicians to help him realize his graphic magnum opus 'Treatise.' It was a small step to him wanting to perform with us. He was always the questing soul. He had not improvised before. It was new to him. You are right to suggest that there were potential tensions given his already significant stature in musical life in England at that time (c. 1966). But as we were already pretty feisty ourselves, there was never going to be any 'take over.' But he was a force to be reckoned with and we learnt much from him. But it was two way. We opened up many new avenues of thought and musical practice to him. And, it is true that he did get away with a few things that we would not have tolerated from anyone else. But we usually managed to deal with any high-handedness. He was hard to ignore. But it was a privilege to work with such a person."
I understand Cardew was killed by a hit and run driver? Did they every catch the perpetrator?
"Yes, sadly, Cornelius was killed in a hit and run road incident. Just how much of an accident it was we will never know. I express the situation in this manner because at the time Cornelius was a very active and well known figure in radical left wing politics and was fiercely anti racist. He lived, at the time of his death, in a very mixed racial area that was subject to racial crime. He died near to his home. Our fears were that his death was not an accident although no one was ever found to answer for the incident."
I know AMM recorded some of this piece, but have you heard the recent recording of Cardew's "Treatse" (hat{now}ART 122)? It has received rave reviews (in the circles that review such work).
"Yes I have listened to the recording in question. I have mixed feelings. I am very pleased that
people other than ourselves are engaging with this work and especially that they are of a younger
generation. However, I look forward to hearing further attempts at this piece. The one in question
should not be considered as definitive simply because it is the first to be released on CD."
Is it possible to have a "definitive" version of a composition comprised entirely of graphic designs serving as visual prompts for the improvisers?
"Precisely. There can be no definitive version. However, I would not necessarily agree that the
graphic signs are prompts for improvisers. Other musicians who perhaps do not feel themselves to be
improvisers can (and have) used the material from 'Treatise' to develop a musical response to the
score. These approaches are measured, calculated and performed in a way that would not be thought of
as improvised. Hence the blank staves that Cornelius left conveniently positioned at the bottom of
each page. 'Treatise' is not exclusively for improvisation. And some might say that it is not about
improvisation at all."
AMM has recorded portions of "Treatise" over the years, including
some of the piece which is available on "Combine+Laminates+Treatise
'84". Why didn't AMM record a full version of the piece?
"The answer is very complicated. And I feel too tired to go into it in detail. Suffice it to
say that such a project for us would take - for some of the reasons I have alluded to above - a very
long time to complete. In our minds it is not a piece for improvisers. Also, there is a difficult
point of principle regarding intellectual property rights of the composer and the interpreters,
regarding 'Treatise' , that I feel could only have been resolved properly had Cornelius still been
alive."
What was the impetus for Matchless? Who runs it? Has it successfully served the purposes you established it for?
"By and large the creation of Matchless came about through the (obvious!) realization that no
one else would look after our music as well as ourselves. For example, our very first recording
AMMMUSIC put out on Elektra in 1966 was remaindered within months of its release. Other labels
always have agendas to which your music will be subservient. My recommendation to all musicians is
try and keep as close a control over your output as possible. I do the business side of the label.
And, I guess this means I have a great say on what is released. But it is not the autocracy it could
be. There are in the near future a number of new young musicians being featured on our label and we
are currently in a very expansive programme of releases - featuring archival material as well as
newly recorded stuff from AMM and its associate projects - and some not so associate."
How do you, John, and Keith make ends meet? Are you able to survive on your music alone? Has AMM (or its members) ever received any type of endowment subsidy or grant funding?
"More than twenty years ago Matchless did get some assistance from the then Arts Council of Great Britain to assist the release of a few of our earlier output. And there are one or two opportunities for small scale touring funding in the UK open to improvising musicians. However, AMM has never toured the UK. And occasionally The British Council (which is the cultural arm of our Foreign Office) has made small contributions towards our travel costs abroad. However, musicians in the UK are astounded by the kind of grants and endowments which are open to successful creative musicians in the USA. Nothing remotely like it exists in the UK. Evan Parker might be given the 'freedom' of an Italian city who wish to honour his work. The chances are that few people in the higher reaches of the British cultural and academic establishment would stop and give him the time of day. If Evan can't make it what chance do we have? Remuneration from music is perhaps better for us now than it has ever been. This is almost entirely outside of Britain. (I referred earlier to the frequency of playing that Keith now enjoys compared to previous times). John teaches piano, I run Matchless and also do some improvisation workshop activity in addition to playing. We all three have understanding and supportive partners."
What does AMM stand for? Literally, what do the letters A_M_M abbreviate?
"You are right to assume that it is an acronym. But we are not going to tell what it means. John Tilbury (pretends?) to have forgotten. But then he is a relatively new member of the band! My stock answer is that we want the name to come to mean whatever the experience of the music brings to the listener. This has resulted in some interesting and amusing guesses. From 'Afflicted Man's Music', to 'Association of Miserable Musicians' and so on. The best is probably that given by Irving Arditti (Arditti String Quartet ). You may recall that the quartet's cellist Rohan de Saram performed and recorded with AMM. Irving said that 'A.M.M.' must mean 'Aint Much Money'. I think he got it just about right!"
At this point in its long career, is AMM simply "is what it is," or do you have new hopes, directions, and inspiration for AMM?
"Well, 'it is what it is' and has always been so. But I hope we still have an appetite for its creativity continuity. We are currently 'arguing' about the relative merits of a recently recorded work. So there is some life in the old dogs still! I think though, inevitably that much of our thinking, as we reach more advanced years, is towards a future in which we will have no personal place. Collectively and individually we have found enthusiasm and renewed energy from working with younger people. That is a part of our creative life where there are tangible developments. But there is still something quiet indefinable about getting on stage for another AMM concert.
Eddie Prevost -- 2001"
AMM is in the planning stages of an American tour. The beginning of our tour starts:
April 5th in Colorado Springs
April 8th Mills College, Oakland ,CA
April 10th Knitting Factory, LA - possibly
http://www.kindamuzik.net/achtergrond/amm/amm/434/
Meer AMM op KindaMuzik: http://www.kindamuzik.net/artiest/amm
Deel dit artikel: