Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

1376
Banjo Lovers Online


How Many of You Are Involved With the IBMA?

Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Mar 9, 2020 - 7:20 PM
likes this
3268 posts since 4/16/2006

Hey gang,  I heard some chatter recently between a number of bluegrass devotees who are leaving the IBMA.  Some were upset about the perceived redefining of bluegrass music itself while others felt it was becoming too political.  I'm uncertain where I stand on the IBMA.  What say you all?

Mar 9, 2020 - 7:48:14 PM

Bill Rogers (Moderator)

USA

23446 posts since 6/25/2005

I have never been involved with IBMA, even when I was playing bluegrass. Seems to me it’s oriented towards bands, not musicians as indifivuals. Nothing wrong with that, but not an organization that connected with me. “International” though it may be, it seems centered on the southeastern U.S., perhaps to a greater extent than its name suggests.

Mar 9, 2020 - 7:57:10 PM
like this

5557 posts since 10/13/2007

I am not a member or an associate or anything but a hack, BUT, I have long been displeased with the way it has maybe de-defined bluegrass. I don't think it helps preserve or promote anything by letting anything be called it.. if that makes sense. And I am grateful for those that take a stand to preserve our music.
Ken

Edited by - From Greylock to Bean Blossom on 03/09/2020 19:58:17

Mar 10, 2020 - 6:43:10 AM

12830 posts since 10/30/2008

When I played as The Case Brothers - Martin & Gibson, we were Artist members of IBMA. We dropped the membership after a few years. I had a Fan membership for a year or two and dropped that. Having already been "reprimanded" for my social media posts about IBMA by a past President of the organization, I'll not list my reasons here. The last IBMA I attended was the first year in Raleigh (2014?).

I bear them no ill will. They're entitled to do what they want.

Mar 10, 2020 - 7:55:49 AM

2630 posts since 9/12/2016
Online Now

I loved their trade show when they were in a decent driving distance.
I never was a dyed in the wool traditional bluegrasser but that has to be there as a homebase to spring from . If we lose the first generation worship center it will be lost to the individual whims. I never gave much thought to IBMa or Spigma but yes to meet the future a homebase is important .I am not familar with them changing things in their definitions but there is room for all good derivative music under sub headings The sub heading first generation guys that wrote the book would be one subheading . Of course the subheadings would be a lot of one shot names like newgrass,new acoustic,jamgrass ,belch grass etc. My opinion I don't say anyone should agree

Mar 10, 2020 - 9:40:13 AM
like this

3377 posts since 4/27/2004

I was a continuous voting member for 20 years. Then I got out for a few years, then I rejoined for 2 years. I have since let my membership expire. Quite frankly, the organization doesn't represent what I do. The "open umbrella" policy the organization adopted several years ago, has alienated alot of people, including me. The IBMA refuses to define "Bluegrass" because not doing so, leaves the door open for any and all kinds of music that is clearly not Bluegrass. And probably what irks me the most is the practice of including acts that don't even bill themselves as "Bluegrass"!! So, for an organization that refuses to define what "Bluegrass" is, they are quick to call artists "Bluegrass" that don't even want to be called "Bluegrass"!!

Mar 10, 2020 - 9:42:21 AM
like this

4121 posts since 6/15/2005

I'm a professional member as an event producer. Since 2006, I've planned and booked a 5-show bluegrass concert series at the Emelin Theatre in Mamaroneck, NY, a NYC suburb. The series was started in 1982 by my late friend Doug Tuchman, who for many years was pretty much the only promoter of bluegrass in the NY-NJ-CT area. After his death, the Emelin approached me about replacing Doug. I've been doing that, and learning as I go along, ever since.

The IBMA has been a tremendously valuable resource for me. More than a quarter of the bands I've booked since 2006 I saw for the first time showcasing at the IBMA business conference. I've never booked a band I have not seen in person, and the IBMA showcases allow me to do that. The Emelin is a not-for-profit theater, but as a former director of the theater once told me, just because we're not-for-profit doesn't mean we want to lose money, so it's important for me to get a sense of how our audience will respond to a particular band. IBMA allows me to do that easily, as well as to network with artists, agents and other event producers who face the same business issues I do. Venues that consistently present top-flight nationally touring bands are rare in my part of the country, and I like to think that we help the music thrive by doing just that. It would be a harder task, at least for me, without IBMA.

I try to have each season include a range of bluegrass from traditional to contemporary. So for example, our current season ranges from David Davis and the Warrior River Boys to The Lonely Heartstring Band, with Rhonda Vincent, Special Consensus, and Laurie Lewis in between.  
 

Edited by - arnie fleischer on 03/10/2020 09:49:57

Mar 10, 2020 - 11:12:48 AM

685 posts since 8/26/2009

I know that the original poster asked about IBMA.
If they are branching out from the original bluegrass format and are run by professional members only, and decisions are driven by money concerns, maybe they need to listen to the general bluegrass public. I bet that would be an exciting meeting. I've never attended an IBMA event but would like to in the future.

Not wanting to digress from the original post, but I would like to mention that the SPBGMA (Society for the Preservation of Bluegrass Music Association) is inexpensive (I think $15 a year if I remember right) for reg. members and the members vote for all awards such as banjo player of the year, promoter of the year etc. instead of a board. Also the band competition in Nashville is a big event for most members. I need to mention that a professional board under strict rules evaluate the bands with reg. members rooting for their favorites. Strict rules such as all acoustic instruments with basic four to include banjo, mandolin, bass/fiddle, and flat top guitar.

And then there is the only time I saw Earl Scruggs with family and friends on stage with piano, drums, electrical instruments, etc. I still enjoyed it, but didn't think I was watching bluegrass.

Mar 10, 2020 - 11:55:50 AM

187 posts since 2/22/2005

I'm not directly involved in it but I think it's a great organization. I'm really surprised to read the disdain for IBMA in this thread. Have any of you that don't like the organization been to the Raleigh conference/festival? It's bands that are nearly 100% traditional or rooted in traditional bluegrass. I left there almost oversaturated by that side of the genre, which is rare for me. Traditional bluegrass will always be protected and promoted by those that love it, as well as by IBMA. Why should IBMA not protect and promote branches of bluegrass that aren't strictly traditional? What's the argument for them to manufacture some kind of exclusivity - that makes no sense. Traditional bluegrass will eventually cease to be relevant and prominent if new fans aren't exposed to it and there's no better way to expose people than to bring them in from all walks of life and subgenres of the music. It makes everyone stronger and more well established - musicians, bands, fans, festivals, record companies, etc, etc. Did rock and roll go away when people other than the Beatles and the Stones started calling themselves "rock bands? The only reason to argue against inclusivity is fear. Fear of the genre being "diluted" which is really the fear of things you're not familiar with or the fear of people not like you. Trad grass will always be here as long as there are people around to that want to play it and listen to it and it's up to all of us to grow that audience.

Mar 10, 2020 - 12:00:10 PM
like this

Mooooo

USA

7816 posts since 8/20/2016

If the IBMA was more concerned with promoting bluegrass instead of any type of popular string based acoustic music, I might be tempted to care about what they do and say. A larger umbrella does nothing for promoting bluegrass, but it does help gain additional audience members who don't care anything about bluegrass. I would have more respect for them if they change the name to International Acoustic Music Ass. instead of Int'. Bluegrass Music Assn. I am not a member nor plan to be one.

Edited by - Mooooo on 03/10/2020 12:01:17

Mar 10, 2020 - 12:15:54 PM
likes this

187 posts since 2/22/2005

Have you been to the conference? If yes, what makes you say that they promote mostly other kinds of music over bluegrass? It might be due to the fact that the most successful bands on the scene today don't fit the definition of traditional (dusters, billy strings, etc). It may appear that this is who IBMA is promoting when in fact it's who the fans are supporting. They also happen to play killer bluegrass when they want to, just not 100% of the time. In my experience (at the conference) IBMA supports the heck out of the traditional side of the music and there are very few bands hosted there that don't primarily play music rooted in traditional grass. Now, if you don't like the bands, that's a different angle on the conversation. But it doesn't make them "not bluegrass" or not worthy of the support of an organization that is there to promote the genre of music.

Edited by - HighFive on 03/10/2020 12:16:41

Mar 10, 2020 - 12:56:21 PM
like this

3377 posts since 4/27/2004

Once again, I see those folks who support the "Open Umbrella" policy trying to make this debate into a "traditional vs comtemporary" argument. In regards to what the IBMA promotes, that is not my point at all. My disdain with the IBMA and it's direction, arises from the organization including and promoting acts that don't even refer to themselves as "Bluegrass"!! One such group was Della Mae. They were/are a wonderful, all-female OLD-TIME band! In none of their promo material, do/did they describe themselves as "Bluegrass"! Yet, they were invited by the IBMA to showcase on one of the limited number of slots available. In doing so, some other deserving and desiring band that was trying to further their careers, and who actually described themselves as a "Bluegrass" band, lost out on that opportunity! Again, my argument has never been about "traditional vs contemporary". It's about what really is being promoted as "Bluegrass" and what is not. Della Mae WAS NOT a "Bluegrass" band.

Mar 10, 2020 - 2:21:08 PM
like this

5557 posts since 10/13/2007

Mar 10, 2020 - 2:23:12 PM
like this

5557 posts since 10/13/2007

quote:
Originally posted by southerndrifter

Once again, I see those folks who support the "Open Umbrella" policy trying to make this debate into a "traditional vs comtemporary" argument. In regards to what the IBMA promotes, that is not my point at all. My disdain with the IBMA and it's direction, arises from the organization including and promoting acts that don't even refer to themselves as "Bluegrass"!! One such group was Della Mae. They were/are a wonderful, all-female OLD-TIME band! In none of their promo material, do/did they describe themselves as "Bluegrass"! Yet, they were invited by the IBMA to showcase on one of the limited number of slots available. In doing so, some other deserving and desiring band that was trying to further their careers, and who actually described themselves as a "Bluegrass" band, lost out on that opportunity! Again, my argument has never been about "traditional vs contemporary". It's about what really is being promoted as "Bluegrass" and what is not. Della Mae WAS NOT a "Bluegrass" band.


Lynwood,

You have always presented,  represented and stood for "Bluegrass Music" in an exemplarily fashion.

ken

Mar 11, 2020 - 6:00:59 AM
like this

257 posts since 4/26/2007

quote:
Originally posted by HighFive

Have you been to the conference? If yes, what makes you say that they promote mostly other kinds of music over bluegrass? It might be due to the fact that the most successful bands on the scene today don't fit the definition of traditional (dusters, billy strings, etc). It may appear that this is who IBMA is promoting when in fact it's who the fans are supporting. They also happen to play killer bluegrass when they want to, just not 100% of the time. In my experience (at the conference) IBMA supports the heck out of the traditional side of the music and there are very few bands hosted there that don't primarily play music rooted in traditional grass. Now, if you don't like the bands, that's a different angle on the conversation. But it doesn't make them "not bluegrass" or not worthy of the support of an organization that is there to promote the genre of music.


*Raises hand* I've been to the conference. I'm pretty fortunate living in northeast Raleigh. 

The band I play with was lucky enough to be selected as an official showcase artist in 2017. Part of the application process required sending in a studio recording of your group. At the time (and maybe still today) the final selected showcase artists are sent a zip drive with the recordings that each other showcase artist submitted in their initial application. This is a group of about 25 bands = 25 songs and I listened to every one. I think I counted banjo on half of them, and if you took clawhammer away it was even less. And these were the songs that each group thought were the BEST representations of their band's sound. I also believe a number of the showcase artists that year were duets, focusing on nothing but old-time and folk. Great music of course, but not exactly bluegrass: no hints of bluegrass vocal structure, rhythm, or dynamics. And yet they were all selected by the IBMA committee, so there are instances of the promoting of non-bluegrass acts on the IBMA's side of things.

Of course this is only one example from one year, and you'll find plenty of four/five-piece bluegrass bands all around the convention during the week. But you'll also be bombarded with equal amounts of stuff that I'd consider "coffee-house acoustic" (better descriptions are welcome!). It's Americana, folk, old-time, whatever. But not bluegrass. Bluegrass has PLENTY of sub-genres within itself without resorting to those other styles that define a band's overall sound.

Mar 11, 2020 - 11:01:11 AM
like this

3377 posts since 4/27/2004

And, as far as those showcases go, in regards to the "committee" in charge of deciding on who gets to showcase and who doesn't.........the members are secret! Only the board of directors and the committee members themselves, know who these people are!! I have always wondered why these people's indentities are kept secret from the IBMA membership? Personally, from the showcase artists chosen to appear, I have serious doubts about the qualifications of this secret committee!! Just another reason why I am no longer a member of the IBMA.

Mar 11, 2020 - 11:16:49 AM
likes this

5557 posts since 10/13/2007

quote:
Originally posted by southerndrifter

And, as far as those showcases go, in regards to the "committee" in charge of deciding on who gets to showcase and who doesn't.........the members are secret! Only the board of directors and the committee members themselves, know who these people are!! I have always wondered why these people's indentities are kept secret from the IBMA membership? Personally, from the showcase artists chosen to appear, I have serious doubts about the qualifications of this secret committee!! Just another reason why I am no longer a member of the IBMA.


I got into an online debate with an IBMA official about what constituted the nature of bluegrass music. In it, I quoted Neil Rosenberg, Tony Rice, and Peter Rowan. I did not paraphrase but used exact quotes and gave references. He flatly denied the validity of my point and that they had made these statements.  I was trolled excessively on this "bluegrass" website by "musicians" of a similar ilk because of my point of view. I complained to the owner of the site and never heard back from them. My takeaway was that this IMBA official did not know beans about bluegrass. I listened to music that he composed and how it was played and it sure was not bluegrass. He had a vested interest in having bluegrass music mean to include anything that was not rock because there was no other venue where he could find someone with an excuse to play him. Having someone like this as an IBMA official further reduced my respect for IBMA (which is at a very low level).

ken

ken

Edited by - From Greylock to Bean Blossom on 03/11/2020 11:18:59

Mar 11, 2020 - 11:34:32 AM
like this

chuckv97

Canada

49198 posts since 10/5/2013
Online Now

Strange that so many want to use the name branding of “bluegrass” but actually don’t play it.

Mar 11, 2020 - 12:48:19 PM

4121 posts since 6/15/2005

Just to clarify, my earlier reference to bands showcasing at IBMA primarily referred to the much more numerous "unofficial" showcases in various hotel suites and small conference rooms, which are sponsored by regional associations like the Boston Bluegrass Union or the California Bluegrass Association.

Mar 11, 2020 - 1:17:13 PM
Players Union Member

dbrooks

USA

3799 posts since 3/11/2004
Online Now

I'm al old-time player, so you can quit reading here if you want.

I was a volunteer at IBMA in 2004, the last year it was in Louisville. I had a great experience as a volunteer and as an attendee and would recommend it to anyone. I heard a number of great bluegrass groups, including some emerging stars. I played bluegrass and folk in high school and college and was just getting back into music in 2004. The highlights for me included meeting people like Mike Seeger, Dan Levenson, Bob Carlin, the Ebony Hillbillies, and the women in Uncle Earl, especially Abigail Washburn whom I was fortunate to interview for Banjo Newsletter several years later. I enjoyed the vendor area with a wide array of instruments. I attended a session where Dick Kimmel, Mike Seeger and others expressed their concern, if not discomfort, over the rising use of the term "Americana"  to describe their music. They may have felt it was too "big tent," much like the folks in this thread. In this sessionm, there was no resolution or even agreement on how the issue should be defined.

I have not followed the IBMA very much in more recent years, but I'm not surprised that it has been struck by the divisiveness that is so widespread now. I do wonder if there is a risk of defining bluegrass or any other form of music so narrowly that it becomes a narrow niche genre. From the posts here, I can see the value to artists, to vendors and to many lovers of bluegrass music. I also have a better understanding of the complaints that have been voiced. So I have benefited somewhat from that.

David

Mar 11, 2020 - 1:53:53 PM

Westvon

USA

3268 posts since 4/16/2006

quote:
Originally posted by From Greylock to Bean Blossom
quote:
Originally posted by southerndrifter

And, as far as those showcases go, in regards to the "committee" in charge of deciding on who gets to showcase and who doesn't.........the members are secret! Only the board of directors and the committee members themselves, know who these people are!! I have always wondered why these people's indentities are kept secret from the IBMA membership? Personally, from the showcase artists chosen to appear, I have serious doubts about the qualifications of this secret committee!! Just another reason why I am no longer a member of the IBMA.


 

BG music, like some many other genres, can be expected to evolve and shape it other manifestations, yet when it begins to move away from the rhythmic patterns that have defined it from the beginning (Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, Jimmy Martin, etc), one has to question whether or not it has moved beyond the parameters of what we call bluegrass music.  

Lester Flatt and Jimmy Martin, I believe, set the standard for the rhythmic patterns that have helped create what we know and understand to be bluegrass music.  Guys like Clarence White and Tony Rice did kick the rhythmic patterns into a whole new dimension but they gave credit to the likes of Jimmy Martin and Lester Flatt in terms of who influenced their playing styles.

You can hear the influence of Tony Rice in progressive/newgrass bands today and he gladly admits that Jimmy Martin (and Flatt) is the go-to guy if you want to learn bluegrass rhythm. 

All this to say that in order to call something X, then there needs to be a reference point from which X is defined by certain attributes.  In the case for bluegrass music, I believe it centers around foundational rhythmic patterns that stem from founding pioneers of the genre.  Even if it's progressive, you can still hear the rhythmic flavors of guys like Lester and Jimmy.  

The rhythm of Tony and post-Tony guitar players continues to evolve due in large part to the fact that every generation is effected by the music of the age in which they live.  Rock-n-Roll, blues, jazz, Motown, etc. influenced the ears of guys like Tony Rice and Sam Bush (for example) so it's only to be expected that what they play is going to sound more modern than the music of the founding pioneers of BG.  Regardless, you can still hear that great rhythmic shuffle of Jimmy and Lester even to this date.  

I have heard some very talented acoustic bands over the last several years whose members played all the classic bluegrass instruments, yet the rhythmic patterns are often nowhere close to the kind of rhythmic shuffle that bluegrass is typically known for.  I am by no means a music tyrant who stands there and passes judgment on whether bands are playing bluegrass music or not.  What I'm looking for in this discussion is an understanding of musical foundations and why they are necessary for defining the genre. 

What say you?

 

Mar 11, 2020 - 2:36:48 PM
like this

3377 posts since 4/27/2004

In my not so humble opinion, the "big bang", if you will, of "Bluegrass" was the day Earl Scruggs stepped on the Opry stage with Bill Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys! Tut Taylor remembered hearing Earl's first performance and likened it to "a bomb going off!" Until the addition of the 5-string banjo, played in the 3-fingered, syncopated style popularized by Earl Scruggs, the music Bill Monroe played could best be described as "string band". What separated "Bluegrass" from every other music of that period, was the 5-string banjo, played by Earl Scruggs in the aforementioned style. If that, indeed, was the defining moment for "Bluegrass", then common sense dictates that must be the definition! Now, for my personal taste, saying any music that includes the 5-string banjo played in the 3-finger syncopated style, popularized by Earl Scruggs is in fact "Bluegrass", is broading the definition considerably! But I have not heard any other definition that makes better sense.

Mar 11, 2020 - 3:10:47 PM
like this

4121 posts since 6/15/2005

I agree with much of what you say, David, except I'd add Monroe and his push-the-beat timing as one of the foundational, defining, aspects of bluegrass. I'd also add that blues, along with pretty much any form of music he came across, even in a synagogue (ask Gene Lowinger), surely influenced Monroe some 30-40 years before it influenced people like Rice and Bush.

I also think that it's ultimately pointless to argue over what's bluegrass and what's not. Fifty years ago - I'll say it again, fifty years ago - John Duffey wrote an angry rebuttal in Bluegrass Unlimited in response to criticism that the material the Country Gentlemen played and the way they played it was not bluegrass. I heard such critical comments about them well into the late '70s. Today, I think it's fair to say, the Country Gentlemen are universally recognized, even revered, as one of bluegrass music's greatest bands. All forms of music from classical to jazz to bluegrass seem to me to ultimately evolve in whatever directions their most adventurous professional artists decide to explore. It seems to me that the historical trend is for genre definitions to broaden, not narrow or remain static.

If I can discern foundational bluegrass rhythm and timing in a band that calls its music bluegrass, I'm okay with it. Frankly, though, from talking with countless audience members at bluegrass festivals and concerts and IBMA showcases over the years, I can only conclude that these kinds of definitional distinctions and disagreements are meaningless to most of them. They simply want to be entertained and, hopefully, moved by the music.    

That said, I'll throw out an observation that may make some posters - whose views I truly respect and understand - less inclined to castigate my opinions. Having played this music for close to 60 years, and having jammed with people from all over the country, east coast, west coast, north, south, midwest, and in  parts of the country from New England to North Carolina to Alaska, I've noticed that the bluegrass jamming repertoire is remarkably similar, and remarkably constant, pretty much everywhere: overwhelmingly first, second, and third generation songs with a handful of Blue Highway originals.

Mar 11, 2020 - 3:51:43 PM

Westvon

USA

3268 posts since 4/16/2006

quote:
Originally posted by arnie fleischer

I agree with much of what you say, David, except I'd add Monroe and his push-the-beat timing as one of the foundational, defining, aspects of bluegrass. I'd also add that blues, along with pretty much any form of music he came across, even in a synagogue (ask Gene Lowinger), surely influenced Monroe some 30-40 years before it influenced people like Rice and Bush.

I also think that it's ultimately pointless to argue over what's bluegrass and what's not. Fifty years ago - I'll say it again, fifty years ago - John Duffey wrote an angry rebuttal in Bluegrass Unlimited in response to criticism that the material the Country Gentlemen played and the way they played it was not bluegrass. I heard such critical comments about them well into the late '70s. Today, I think it's fair to say, the Country Gentlemen are universally recognized, even revered, as one of bluegrass music's greatest bands. All forms of music from classical to jazz to bluegrass seem to me to ultimately evolve in whatever directions their most adventurous professional artists decide to explore. It seems to me that the historical trend is for genre definitions to broaden, not narrow or remain static.

If I can discern foundational bluegrass rhythm and timing in a band that calls its music bluegrass, I'm okay with it. Frankly, though, from talking with countless audience members at bluegrass festivals and concerts and IBMA showcases over the years, I can only conclude that these kinds of definitional distinctions and disagreements are meaningless to most of them. They simply want to be entertained and, hopefully, moved by the music.    

That said, I'll throw out an observation that may make some posters - whose views I truly respect and understand - less inclined to castigate my opinions. Having played this music for close to 60 years, and having jammed with people from all over the country, east coast, west coast, north, south, midwest, and in  parts of the country from New England to North Carolina to Alaska, I've noticed that the bluegrass jamming repertoire is remarkably similar, and remarkably constant, pretty much everywhere: overwhelmingly first, second, and third generation songs with a handful of Blue Highway originals.

 


Great comments as always, Arnie!  I have truly enjoyed reading your insights over the years, thank you!

I made sure to point out in my previous post that I am not a BG tyrant.  No doubt we have a genre of music called bluegrass and given that reality, I've always tried to describe it in terms of some form of identification (rhythmically) , otherwise why does it have a particular name and identification?  You are correct about the audiences not caring about definitions and distinctions, but I would add that the debate has typically been between the musicians who know and understand the music more intimately and not audiences.  

Thanks again for your insights!

Mar 11, 2020 - 4:40:16 PM

4121 posts since 6/15/2005

I really appreciate your comments, David.

As you probably know, Bill Monroe would agree with your describing bluegrass in terms of rhythm. He always insisted, especially when Scruggs and his banjo style started to get so much credit for creating bluegrass as we know it (a point of view that Lynwood relates and that I share to a large extent), that he was playing bluegrass ever since he formed the Blue Grass Boys way before Scruggs joined because the rhythm was always the same.

Mar 11, 2020 - 6:15:47 PM
likes this

3377 posts since 4/27/2004

quote:
Originally posted by arnie fleischer

 that he was playing bluegrass ever since he formed the Blue Grass Boys way before Scruggs joined because the rhythm was always the same.


Eventhough I give Monroe the credit for the vision, I'll have to disagree with his statement that his rhythm was the same, pre-Scruggs. In the recordings Bill made prior to Earl joining, his mandolin rhythm was more like what he was doing on the mandolin with Charlie. To my ear, his distinct "chop" didn't surface until Earl had joined the band. In fact, some of the very first recordings Bill made with Lester and Earl, had Bill still doing little tremolo and lead notes behind the singing. So, I think the addition of Earl and his style of banjo picking, influenced a change in Bill's approach to his mandolin playing! YMMV!

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.3945313