Of all the readings, we've read thus far in class. I have been most intrigued by the ones regarding the Tibetans in exile in Dharamsala, India. The Tibetans seem to have a rather different viewpoint on their culture and how it can evolve amid other cultures in the modern world. From our previous class readings, we've learned about music-making being either presentational, participatory, high fidelity or studio audio art. Additionally, we've learned about how different symbolisms, icons, and indices are found in music in order to relate and speak to the listeners experiences and background. All these relations to music have been utilized in various ways. Some of them in religious or celebratory festivals, political movements and/or everyday life.
The Tibetans from my personal point of view don't really seem to fit the molds of what we've discussed in regards to music. It seems as though they solely are fixated on the fact that they have been exiled and their country placed under Chinese control. The traditional dances and music making discussed in the book provided no insight into whether it was primarily presentational or participatory. From what I could gather, I would assume it is primarily presentational. The author only talked about traditional dances or music being performed primarily by the TIPA (Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts). There were some instances of participatory dance and music-making in the beginning chapters of the book with the revival of the chang ma at weddings and other festivals. Aside from this one discussion, I didn't feel that music making was highly involved in their lives.
They sought desperately to gain as much attention as possible to their cause to regain Tibet. They were able to do that through music to some extent, but most of the attention they received was a result of famous individuals outside of Tibet such as the Beastie Boys and Richard Gere learning of Tibetan culture and doing their own promotions of the cause. From the readings, if one was to talk to Tibetans in Dharamsala, you would hear mixed reviews on their own culture and the cultures surrounding them in Dharamsala. The disparity exists primarily between the youth and older generations of Tibetans in exile as well as newly exiled individuals from Tibet.
The youth feel stifled by older generations because according to them, allowing Western music or Hindi songs to accompany traditional Tibetan music is blasphemous. I feel, the youth see Western styles and Hindi music as a better means of relating and expressing their feelings of disparity than traditional music. It is hard for me to understand how literally the Tibetans have exiled themselves in Dharamsala. Despite even the Dalai Lama being receptive of broadening artistic expression, Tibetans cause an uproar whenever changes are proposed, and they quickly shoot the ideas down. It's almost as if they want to remain "isolated in the mountains" forever. As a result, Tibetans over the years have spread out from Dharamsala to other parts of India and other countries where they can more openly express their interest in other music types.
It's saddening to see those that have tried to incorporate rock 'n' roll and other music types into the Tibetan culture be met with such resistance. Audiences boo and ridicule those that try to make a name for themselves through music. According to most people, exuberant amounts of money should not be gained from the Tibetan cause. The Yak Band is a perfect example of the hardships that accompany being a non-Traditional musician in Tibet. The Yak Band traveled some for shows and even released a recording but sadly never made it big. The one glimmer of hope that I found in this book was the Yak Band performance that took place for the Dalai Lama's sixtieth birthday celebration. The audience was receptive to the rock 'n' roll song "Knocking on Heaven's Door" unlike other times when Western music is played in their presence. It makes me hopeful that one day Tibetans in exile will allow their music to be modernized. I would hope that the Tibetans would learn from history and the changes that can result from using music in a proactive manner. I'm fearful that if Tibetans don't become more open-minded, their fear of losing their cultural identity will actually come true.
Showing posts with label Journal Entry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journal Entry. Show all posts
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Music & Political Movements
I really enjoyed the chapter in Thomas Turnio's Music as Social Life regarding music and political movements. We've talked so much about the various types of music-making as well as the different symbolism, indices, and icons that come forth in music as well. I felt this chapter in particular summarized everything that we had been reading about. I've always had an idea that music was a channel for change, but once you start delving into the history books, you really begin to gain a sense of the extent in which music has been used to cause change.
Looking further back than the Nazi regime (WWII) and the Civil Rights movement that we read about in the book, one can find many other examples of music being utilized as a conduit for change. In order to gain a thorough scope of the number of civilizations and cultures that have used music for change, I will briefly discuss the instances in which music was utilized for change and discuss how such events occur.
After the time of the Greeks, music still played a prevalent role in the lives of various people looking for change. Prior to Turino's mention of the Civil Rights movement and music, American slaves in the South, centuries ago, used music to pass time in the fields and to voice their opinions of servitude and freedom. The songs that were sung in the fields resonated were known by slaves located states away. Despite this separation, there was a calming, uniting effect knowing so many others felt exactly as you did. These same songs from the slave days carried over to the Civil Rights movement, and just as Plato mentioned, they ushered in a drastic change in this nation.
Additionally, in the 1970s, rock 'n' roll was used to protest the Vietnam War. Those that were opposed to it voiced their opinions through song lyrics. Hundreds of protests occurred across the nation during the Vietnam War, and music was a focal point of these gatherings. It was an efficient way of uniting individuals to the same cause. More recently, in the 1980s, rap artists used music as a social movement to raise awareness about the poverty and violence plaguing low socioeconomic neighborhoods in major cities.
An interesting aspect about music is that it is much more than instruments creating a beat and random words making lyrics. The music speaks to not only the individuals directly involved in the cause but those who may have compassion towards the particular efforts. The music evokes a sense of duty to the individuals who listen to it. Music alone is not what causes change; it just initiates it. The actions that result from the music is what drives the meaning home. Even though music and political movements have been studied, the relationship between music and people is still unclear. It could be a biological process for survival that makes music such a relevant force for change, or it could merely be a social part of our culture used to bind individuals together. Music for many years has been regarded as "the universal language." No matter one's language or ethnicity, music will speak to you. And I think that this is the reason music has been so successful in bringing about change in the world. Individuals, who have the ability to harness music for various causes, can be quite powerful. From readings and history, music has played a vital role in supporting or opposing the following movements: Jewish genocide, slavery, Vietnam War, violence, drugs and freedom. I don't foresee the elimination of music in political and social movements of the future. If anything, they may become more widespread since many more individuals have access to technology, which helps propagate its power and reach.
Looking further back than the Nazi regime (WWII) and the Civil Rights movement that we read about in the book, one can find many other examples of music being utilized as a conduit for change. In order to gain a thorough scope of the number of civilizations and cultures that have used music for change, I will briefly discuss the instances in which music was utilized for change and discuss how such events occur.
The Greeks were among the first known civilizations to realize the true potential of music. They realized it could be used to unite a people to rebel against their government. Plato was even quoted as saying, "Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited. When the modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state change with them." Plato had a lot of foresight in this quote, unknowingly or not. I wonder what he would think today knowing the number of instances that music and politics have wandered hand-in-hand.
After the time of the Greeks, music still played a prevalent role in the lives of various people looking for change. Prior to Turino's mention of the Civil Rights movement and music, American slaves in the South, centuries ago, used music to pass time in the fields and to voice their opinions of servitude and freedom. The songs that were sung in the fields resonated were known by slaves located states away. Despite this separation, there was a calming, uniting effect knowing so many others felt exactly as you did. These same songs from the slave days carried over to the Civil Rights movement, and just as Plato mentioned, they ushered in a drastic change in this nation.
Additionally, in the 1970s, rock 'n' roll was used to protest the Vietnam War. Those that were opposed to it voiced their opinions through song lyrics. Hundreds of protests occurred across the nation during the Vietnam War, and music was a focal point of these gatherings. It was an efficient way of uniting individuals to the same cause. More recently, in the 1980s, rap artists used music as a social movement to raise awareness about the poverty and violence plaguing low socioeconomic neighborhoods in major cities.
An interesting aspect about music is that it is much more than instruments creating a beat and random words making lyrics. The music speaks to not only the individuals directly involved in the cause but those who may have compassion towards the particular efforts. The music evokes a sense of duty to the individuals who listen to it. Music alone is not what causes change; it just initiates it. The actions that result from the music is what drives the meaning home. Even though music and political movements have been studied, the relationship between music and people is still unclear. It could be a biological process for survival that makes music such a relevant force for change, or it could merely be a social part of our culture used to bind individuals together. Music for many years has been regarded as "the universal language." No matter one's language or ethnicity, music will speak to you. And I think that this is the reason music has been so successful in bringing about change in the world. Individuals, who have the ability to harness music for various causes, can be quite powerful. From readings and history, music has played a vital role in supporting or opposing the following movements: Jewish genocide, slavery, Vietnam War, violence, drugs and freedom. I don't foresee the elimination of music in political and social movements of the future. If anything, they may become more widespread since many more individuals have access to technology, which helps propagate its power and reach.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Blue Man Group Performance
On September 26, 2013, I had the opportunity to attend the Blue Man Group performance at McCain Auditorium in Manhattan, KS. It was an incredible experience. It was unlike any other performance I had been to! I was really glad to be taking Ethnomusicology when I saw this performance because it touched on material we had discussed in class. We read in Thomas Turino's book, Music As Social Life, that there are four types of music-making: participatory, presentational, high fidelity, and studio audio art. The reason the Blue Man Group, in my opinion, is unlike any performance you will ever see is because it encompasses all the music-making types!
It is evident to the audience that the Blue Man Group would be classified as a presentational performance. It is highly rehearsed, showcases individual artist's abilities and promotes innovation. As a part of the audience, I thought that was all I was going to experience--a presentational performance. I was quite surprised to find it was the opposite. I wasn't the only one who was surprised. At the beginning of the performance, the audience was supposed to recited words that came across the screen. Initially, only a portion of the audience participated, but after a few recitations, the majority joined in. In today's society, we are used to attending performances that are solely presentational. The audience doesn't generally participate in any fashion.
In addition to having to recite lines, if we did not actively respond or participate in the performance, the performers would often stand still. This part reminded me a little of the commedia dell'arte. In commedia dell'arte, it was the duty of the performers to keep the attention of the audience. If they were losing it, they had to improvise their performance a bit to gain it back. The Blue Man Group did this often. When we'd go silent or have long pauses between reactions, they would stop what they were doing or do something rather extravagant to regain our attention. Some may consider that odd or a negative of attending such a performance, but it was a nice change. We, as the audience, had some say in how the performance went.
Not very often does an audience experience high fidelity and studio audio art at the same time. The Blue Man Group was able to do that! The sounds and quality of music-making were representational of a presentational performance. Even though I was at a performance, what I was hearing sounded like something I would hear off a CD (minus the audience noises). Additionally, there were many sounds that I don't typically hear in other music-making types. The Blue Man Group had a lot of studio audio art music-making. To me, it was almost galactic! There were lots of weird sounds being made either through computer generation or intensive manipulation. Much of the studio audio art that I've heard I have not been a fan of, but I really enjoyed the Blue Man Group's take on it. It didn't seem out of place in their production.
I really loved this performance. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to go! It was so amazing that the Blue Man Group was able to intertwine participatory, presentational, high fidelity and studio audio art into their production. The best part was not only were the able to complete such a feat, but they provided the audience with a live dance party at the end involving huge light-up balls, disco lights, and flailing air tubes.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Participatory vs. Presentational Performances
Until reading Thomas Turino's Music As Social Life, I was unaware that there was a classification for music-making other than genres. The book talked about participatory, presentation, high fidelity, and studio audio art music-making. I found the contrast between presentation and participatory to be the most interesting as well as the two types I associate with most.
Participatory music-making is my favorite, hands down. I'm a very visual and active learner. I've always been drawn towards music, dancing, and singing. This may have come from my siblings and me having dance parties in our kitchen growing up. It was not an uncommon occurrence for me to join along in song and dance with the radio, a band, or another group of people dancing/singing. For me, (almost) all types of music-making are participatory.
The thing that I found the most interesting yet sad was more cosmopolitan areas/countries don't emphasize participatory music. In areas of the world such as South America and Africa, participatory music is an integral part of their culture and celebrations. Those cosmopolitan areas prefer presentational performances; they solely want to be entertained. Although I do enjoy presentational music-making, I still manage to make it participatory for myself. Either I know the production or group that is performing and I start participating in my own way. Of course, I don't become obnoxious with my participation because I'm still restricted by the social norms of presentational performances.
I find it disheartening that we've lost the desire to favor participatory music. In some areas you can find it, but for the vast majority of the U.S. you won't. I know that many people do not like participatory performances because they're unrehearsed, impromptu times of music-making that "stifle" the progression and ingenuity of artists. Even though this may be true in some cases, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would speak negatively of their participatory performance music-making. This is because participatory music-making is designed to welcome all levels of talent yet still provide a simple, challenging engagement for everyone.
Presentational performances do the opposite. Yes, an individual or group can better express their musical talents, but the pressure and expectations of presentational performances are much greater than participatory. Many artists never make the transition to presentational performances for this reason. As a presentational performer, you are subject to critiques and feedback from your audience. I've performed on numerous occasions with my choir in high school as well as the band. Even though I was in a large group, the expectation to do well was high. Our shows were exclusively presentational. The weeks leading up to a concert were always filled with lots of rehearsing and tweaking to ensure our performance would be "perfect." It was nice to showcase our work to the community, but I found this type of performing to be my least favorite. Shows were always successful; I just preferred to let loose, be myself, and enjoy the music, which I couldn't do in presentational performances.
I can't rightfully say presentational is better than participatory or vice versa. Each person has their own music-making preferences. I gravitate towards participatory performances yet I enjoy attending presentational performances. It could be suggested that a blending of the two would be beneficial, but I don't think that it would be. It just adds further confusion to the audience as to what they should be doing. Do I just listen or do I need to get up and move? I've been to numerous performances that are of this type--participatory and presentational. I do enjoy the participatory sections; however, they are sometimes distracting. It's also evident in many of the audiences' faces that they were not expecting such a turn of events. The two music-making styles should continue to be somewhat separated. I just hope (wish) that participatory music-making becomes a larger component of our society.
Participatory music-making is my favorite, hands down. I'm a very visual and active learner. I've always been drawn towards music, dancing, and singing. This may have come from my siblings and me having dance parties in our kitchen growing up. It was not an uncommon occurrence for me to join along in song and dance with the radio, a band, or another group of people dancing/singing. For me, (almost) all types of music-making are participatory.
The thing that I found the most interesting yet sad was more cosmopolitan areas/countries don't emphasize participatory music. In areas of the world such as South America and Africa, participatory music is an integral part of their culture and celebrations. Those cosmopolitan areas prefer presentational performances; they solely want to be entertained. Although I do enjoy presentational music-making, I still manage to make it participatory for myself. Either I know the production or group that is performing and I start participating in my own way. Of course, I don't become obnoxious with my participation because I'm still restricted by the social norms of presentational performances.
I find it disheartening that we've lost the desire to favor participatory music. In some areas you can find it, but for the vast majority of the U.S. you won't. I know that many people do not like participatory performances because they're unrehearsed, impromptu times of music-making that "stifle" the progression and ingenuity of artists. Even though this may be true in some cases, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would speak negatively of their participatory performance music-making. This is because participatory music-making is designed to welcome all levels of talent yet still provide a simple, challenging engagement for everyone.
Presentational performances do the opposite. Yes, an individual or group can better express their musical talents, but the pressure and expectations of presentational performances are much greater than participatory. Many artists never make the transition to presentational performances for this reason. As a presentational performer, you are subject to critiques and feedback from your audience. I've performed on numerous occasions with my choir in high school as well as the band. Even though I was in a large group, the expectation to do well was high. Our shows were exclusively presentational. The weeks leading up to a concert were always filled with lots of rehearsing and tweaking to ensure our performance would be "perfect." It was nice to showcase our work to the community, but I found this type of performing to be my least favorite. Shows were always successful; I just preferred to let loose, be myself, and enjoy the music, which I couldn't do in presentational performances.
I can't rightfully say presentational is better than participatory or vice versa. Each person has their own music-making preferences. I gravitate towards participatory performances yet I enjoy attending presentational performances. It could be suggested that a blending of the two would be beneficial, but I don't think that it would be. It just adds further confusion to the audience as to what they should be doing. Do I just listen or do I need to get up and move? I've been to numerous performances that are of this type--participatory and presentational. I do enjoy the participatory sections; however, they are sometimes distracting. It's also evident in many of the audiences' faces that they were not expecting such a turn of events. The two music-making styles should continue to be somewhat separated. I just hope (wish) that participatory music-making becomes a larger component of our society.
Revolution of Afro-Reggae
In class, we watched a majority of the film Favela Rising. The movie was about the Afro-Reggae movement that took hold in the Vigario Geral favela in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rio has numerous favelas on the outskirts of the city, and they are all overridden with violence and drug gangs. Many people in the favelas are fearful to say anything or stand up to the drug lords that run the streets. A group of young men, who had chose to escape the drug life, began to change that through music.
Afro-Reggae came about as a means of bringing awareness to the favelas about the dangerous life of being a drug lord. Anderson was the main character we heard from in the film. I was really taken aback by his courage and willingness to do anything to help the people in Vigario Geral. His vivacity was contagious, and you could see why he was one of the leaders of the movement. His song lyrics talked of the tragedy that was being caused by youth dying so young at the hands of drugs. Despite his presence in the favela, many people still refused to listen his message. One of the most interesting scenes in the movie for me was when he was talking to the group of young boys. One in particular was not keen on talking to Anderson; he wouldn't even tell him his real name. The boy kept saying how he wanted to become a drug leader. Anderson kept telling him that was no life to live. That you never saw old drug leaders, and that was because they had died young as a result of their work.
This was not the only opposition that Anderson and his crew had to face. I, honestly, was surprised that there wasn't more than the one person we learned about in the video whose life was taken in connection with Afro-Reggae. I was very fearful when Anderson began telling us of the instance where a neighboring favela drug gang came to attack him. I was amazed that his fellow Afro-Reggae members were willing to die with him. The most shocking part occurred when the drug leader allowed Anderson to talk. This happened because he had heard of Anderson and what he was doing. Even though many people may have not agreed with the messages Afro-Reggae was dispersing, some drug lords were giving them respect. This is what saved Anderson and his friends that day.
I always knew that Rio had a troubled life for those that live in the favelas yet I was not aware that is was as terrible as we saw in the film. There are more people being massacred in Brazil than in the Middle East, which is a place that we associate with high levels of violence. I feel that this movie really points to the power and influence of music. For the youth and many others that lived in Vigario Geral, Afro-Reggae became their alternative to drug life. It provided them with an escape. For the Afro-Reggae leaders, their voices were finally heard, and they were able to get a record deal to promote their message to the world. I feel this is an ideal example of how something as simple as music can change the world or in this case a favela.
Afro-Reggae came about as a means of bringing awareness to the favelas about the dangerous life of being a drug lord. Anderson was the main character we heard from in the film. I was really taken aback by his courage and willingness to do anything to help the people in Vigario Geral. His vivacity was contagious, and you could see why he was one of the leaders of the movement. His song lyrics talked of the tragedy that was being caused by youth dying so young at the hands of drugs. Despite his presence in the favela, many people still refused to listen his message. One of the most interesting scenes in the movie for me was when he was talking to the group of young boys. One in particular was not keen on talking to Anderson; he wouldn't even tell him his real name. The boy kept saying how he wanted to become a drug leader. Anderson kept telling him that was no life to live. That you never saw old drug leaders, and that was because they had died young as a result of their work.
This was not the only opposition that Anderson and his crew had to face. I, honestly, was surprised that there wasn't more than the one person we learned about in the video whose life was taken in connection with Afro-Reggae. I was very fearful when Anderson began telling us of the instance where a neighboring favela drug gang came to attack him. I was amazed that his fellow Afro-Reggae members were willing to die with him. The most shocking part occurred when the drug leader allowed Anderson to talk. This happened because he had heard of Anderson and what he was doing. Even though many people may have not agreed with the messages Afro-Reggae was dispersing, some drug lords were giving them respect. This is what saved Anderson and his friends that day.
I always knew that Rio had a troubled life for those that live in the favelas yet I was not aware that is was as terrible as we saw in the film. There are more people being massacred in Brazil than in the Middle East, which is a place that we associate with high levels of violence. I feel that this movie really points to the power and influence of music. For the youth and many others that lived in Vigario Geral, Afro-Reggae became their alternative to drug life. It provided them with an escape. For the Afro-Reggae leaders, their voices were finally heard, and they were able to get a record deal to promote their message to the world. I feel this is an ideal example of how something as simple as music can change the world or in this case a favela.
Is Musical Ability Innate?
At the end of class several weeks ago, we were left with the lingering question: "Is musical ability innate?" I found this question rather compelling and felt it required further discussion. It's natural for us to assume a famous artist or composer is naturally talented. They just began playing or signing as if it were an everyday task like eating or walking. But is that really the case? Were they born with the natural ability to play an instrument or sing beautifully or even compose lengthy sonatas?
For years, the war has raged between Nature vs. Nurture. Depending on the sources you consult, one might say we are born with certain natural abilities, and that determines who we are and what we're able and not able to do. Others will say that who we are and what we can accomplish stems from the environment we were raised in. I believe that both cases are true. Each person is likely born with some inclination toward a certain activity, musical or not; however, the nurturing of that tendency will determine whether it becomes a natural habit or not.
I am the youngest of six children, and we all have varying degrees of musical ability. Neither of my parents is musically inclined. In our case, one might argue that whatever musical tendencies we have are a result of nurturing. I would have to agree and disagree. My mother and father, although not musical themselves, grew up in families that enjoyed music and dancing. They from a young age had been influenced by music, and it played a large role in their lives even if they themselves did not sing or play instruments. With the history of music on both sides of the family, it is quite possible that we all received some natural inclination towards music but not the same level of nurturing. I, of all my siblings, am the most musically accomplished. This may have resulted from me being the youngest; more resources were at my disposal to pursue my musical interests. I took piano lessons for 9 years and also learned how to play the trombone and clarinet. Throughout my years of lessons and youth, I constantly sang. I performed in a large and small select choir for several years. I also competed in both vocal and instrumental competitions growing up. As a result, music became a natural habit for me. I'm even currently learning how the play the guitar. Having nurtured my musical ability growing up, I'm able to quickly pick up on instruments and can easily read music when it's placed in front of me. I would say that I do have a natural musical talent but had I not been given the opportunity to develop it, it wouldn't come as 'naturally' as it does. I would have likely followed the road of my siblings and been limited in what I could do musically.
I find this debate fascinating. Most other cultures don't concern themselves with this idea. Music is such an integral part of their culture that everyone participates no matter what. It's in more developed nations that musical ability really must be subject to Nature vs. Nurture. Many people would not boldly say they're a 'musician.' They may play an instrument or sing nicely, but they'd say they're not musical. For us, musical = professional. We associate a person's musical ability to their level of stardom. We only assume that they're where they are because they have that natural talent; there was no nurturing involved.
For me, musical ability will never be one-sided. It is always comprised of both nurturing and nature.
For years, the war has raged between Nature vs. Nurture. Depending on the sources you consult, one might say we are born with certain natural abilities, and that determines who we are and what we're able and not able to do. Others will say that who we are and what we can accomplish stems from the environment we were raised in. I believe that both cases are true. Each person is likely born with some inclination toward a certain activity, musical or not; however, the nurturing of that tendency will determine whether it becomes a natural habit or not.
I am the youngest of six children, and we all have varying degrees of musical ability. Neither of my parents is musically inclined. In our case, one might argue that whatever musical tendencies we have are a result of nurturing. I would have to agree and disagree. My mother and father, although not musical themselves, grew up in families that enjoyed music and dancing. They from a young age had been influenced by music, and it played a large role in their lives even if they themselves did not sing or play instruments. With the history of music on both sides of the family, it is quite possible that we all received some natural inclination towards music but not the same level of nurturing. I, of all my siblings, am the most musically accomplished. This may have resulted from me being the youngest; more resources were at my disposal to pursue my musical interests. I took piano lessons for 9 years and also learned how to play the trombone and clarinet. Throughout my years of lessons and youth, I constantly sang. I performed in a large and small select choir for several years. I also competed in both vocal and instrumental competitions growing up. As a result, music became a natural habit for me. I'm even currently learning how the play the guitar. Having nurtured my musical ability growing up, I'm able to quickly pick up on instruments and can easily read music when it's placed in front of me. I would say that I do have a natural musical talent but had I not been given the opportunity to develop it, it wouldn't come as 'naturally' as it does. I would have likely followed the road of my siblings and been limited in what I could do musically.
I find this debate fascinating. Most other cultures don't concern themselves with this idea. Music is such an integral part of their culture that everyone participates no matter what. It's in more developed nations that musical ability really must be subject to Nature vs. Nurture. Many people would not boldly say they're a 'musician.' They may play an instrument or sing nicely, but they'd say they're not musical. For us, musical = professional. We associate a person's musical ability to their level of stardom. We only assume that they're where they are because they have that natural talent; there was no nurturing involved.
For me, musical ability will never be one-sided. It is always comprised of both nurturing and nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)