Kenny G plays another 45-minute-long note

R.I.P. Smooth Jazz, 1985-2008?

[17 April 2008]

With two of the US' major "smooth jazz" radio stations defunct to the fickleness of format change, the time to mourn the cheesy sub-genre is now. But what made Smooth Jazz not really jazz at all?

By Will Layman

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

I come to bury smooth jazz, not to praise it. The evil that radio formats do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their gimmicky call letters. So let it be with smooth jazz.
In recent months, the continual format shuffle that is inevitable in corporate-controlled radio cast a shadow over a previously successful corner of the “jazz” world. In February and March of 2008, “smooth jazz” stations in New York and Washington, DC shifted formats to rock, leaving two of the nation’s largest radio markets free of Kenny G, Chris Botti, Dave Koz, and Spyro Gyra.
Dentists in the two most powerful cities in America are panicking.
Of course, I am supposed to hate Smooth Jazz—I’m a real jazz critic. But I will be first to acknowledge two facts about the format: (1) Many of its practitioners don’t even consider it jazz, thus preserving a certain dignity for them; and (2) It likely served to bring some listeners to the real thing, giving them the courage to like Miles Davis or Sonny Rollins. That said, I still feel its ongoing demise is a hopeful sign for our civilization. Smooth jazz is dead—long live Kenny G’s Michael Bolton-esque curls.
What Was Smooth Jazz, Anyway?
Getting into a definitional discussion about jazz is always a tricky matter. But to mourn the “smooth” variety, we have to ask—what the heck is Smooth Jazz? And, then, what made Smooth Jazz not really jazz at all? Goodness, it contained saxophones, right?
Smooth Jazz is probably best understood as a kind of easy-listening contemporary R&B without vocals. Technically, you can say this: it rarely used swing rhythms, instead favoring a lite funk groove; the music was usually made by electric instruments or even sequenced synths in the rhythm section, while the leader (usually sax players or guitarists) played basic pentatonic melodies and improvised solos somewhat in the manner of jazz musicians, but highly conventional—using blues elements in the most basic way; and there would often be background vocals—as if the Raylettes made a gig without Brother Ray.
But aside from these semi-musicological guidelines, there was an overriding aesthetic of cheesiness that even the most soulful Smooth Jazz could never shake. The music was consciously in love with the kind of electric piano that was used on those ‘80s Whitney Houston records (the Yamaha DX-7), with candy-apple sweet saxophone vibrato, with looped drums drained of punch and edge, with the kind of pussy-footed noodling that gives improvised music a bad name. The height of Smooth Jazz preening would have to be the schtick favored by Kenny Gorelick (the million-selling Mr. G) in which, by circular breathing, he holds a single note for minutes on end, sometimes even shaking hands with audience members while tooting his soprano. The audience shrieks at the spectacle but—let’s be honest—it’s the equivalent of a basketball player shooting a free throw blindfolded and backwards from half-court. What’s the point?

In this and other spaces, the origins of the smoothiverse (thanks for that coinage, Ben Ratliff!) have been discussed. Creed Taylor’s production of guitarist Wes Montgomery covering pop hits in the 1960s (A Day in the Life, 1967) provided a blueprint of sorts: slickly played instrumental melody accompanied by the pop sounds of the day. “The Hustle” by Van McCoy (1975) was a seed of disco but, with its simple flute line and background vocals, was not un-smooth. While straight-up jazz fusion was at first far from smooth (The Mahavishnu Orchestra, Bitches Brew, Weather Report), the watered-down stuff produced on Creed Taylor’s CTI label was a mainline source—Bob James and Grover Washington, Jr. come to mind. Chuck Mangione’s huge 1977 hit “Feels So Good” was proto-smooth jazz most certainly. And then the GRP record label—founded by producer Larry Rosen and keyboardist and soundtrack composer Dave Grusin (how can you take issue with Grusin when he wrote the Good Times theme song?)—was founded in 1978 and ushered in a long era of mushy fusion from bands like the Yellowjackets, Spyro Gyra, and the Rippingtons; melodic guitarists like Earl Klugh, George Benson, and Lee Ritenour; buttery pop saxophonists like Mindi Abair; keyboard noodlers such as David Benoit and Bernard Wright; and schmaltzy trumpeters like Arturo Sandoval and Tom Browne.
GRP is as good a place as any to locate the odd nexus between “smooth” and “real” jazz. The label plainly generated a model for most simplistic of jazz formats, but it also was home to some fine albums by genuine jazz masters: Dizzy Gillespie, Chick Corea (and not just the electric Chick), and Gary Burton, for example. The label even put together a GRP All-Star Big Band in 1992 that featured a slew of talented players who were fusion or “smooth” players playing in a relatively traditional big-band format doing genuine jazz standards—Rollins’ “Airegin”, Lee Morgan’s “The Sidewinder”, and Monk’s “Round Midnight”, among others. The musicians on these records, at least, could be legitimate jazz players. But that didn’t make their own GRP records examples of the genre, and as Grusin and Rosen would surely be the first to tell you, it was the “less jazzy” records that sold in greater volume.
At some point, however, this pleasant variant on jazz became something else entirely.

Smooth Jazz Ripens Into a Marketing Ploy
To really get to the bottom of the Smooth Jazz phenomenon, focusing on music is a waste of time. The story is in radio.

Between the mid-‘60s and the late ‘70s, there was a full-time commercial radio station in New York, WRVR, with origins as a serious, non-commercial jazz station that featured the smartest show in the history of jazz broadcasting (“Just Jazz with Ed Beach”). In 1976, RVR was suddenly purchased by Sonderling Broadcasting, and the station went to a system of playlists promoting a different, more accessible kind of jazz. Not long after this, the programmer Frank Cody started something called “The Wave” in Los Angeles (KTWV), San Diego (KIFM), and San Francisco (KKSF), and a format was taking shape. At first, though, it wasn’t called Smooth Jazz.

George Winston

George Winston

For a time, the notion of inoffensive instrumental “wallpaper music” was given the mystical title “New Age”. The music embraced as New Age was not the same music that would become Smooth Jazz, but it had a similar, if tenuous, relationship to jazz. Pianist George Winston, who favored acoustic solo recitals that were Keith Jarrett Lite and preferred playing barefoot, and acoustic guitarist Michael Hedges, who was discovered playing in a Palo Alto cafe, were the heroes of this genre and were leading sellers for the New Age label Windham Hill. Radio programmers recognized New Age as a new “category”, with WNUA in Chicago and KNUA in Seattle reflecting the term in their call letters, and the new Grammy category appeared in 1987. In the end, though, New Age music was more a reflection of the aesthetics of folk music, acoustic “world music”, and ambient music, and its viability as a commercial blockbuster was obviously limited. Although jazz musicians would dabble in New Age (reed player Yusef Lateef won the second New Age Grammy in 1988), it is far removed from the light funkiness that came to define Smooth Jazz.

It was through market research conducted by Cody for WNUA that the phrase “smooth jazz” was coined—it apparently came from the mouth of a focus group participant. Thus is was that some stations that had been tagged as New Age began focusing on the likes of the GRP Records crowd and, eventually, the true Smooth Jazz heavyweights such as Dave Koz and Kenny G.

It’s worth noting that the new Smooth Jazz stations were, from early on, associated with the new manner of recording music—digital recording and the new (in the mid-‘80s) digital compact disc format. GRP Records, in fact, was the first record label to release all of its material on CD, and Mountain Dance by Dave Grusin was the first album to be recorded digitally outside of classical music. When New York got a Smooth Jazz station, it was dubbed “CD101” and given the call letters WQCD at 101.9 FM.
Smooth Jazz, then, can be understood as an embrace of clean edges, a rejection of the analog sensibility that sits at the root of all the great American music, whether Delta blues, improvised jazz, or rebellious rock ‘n’ roll. Smooth Jazz sought to be pleasant and shining and sweet and easy. Like soul music without the sex, like jazz without a pulse of urgency, like rock without the essential roll, Smooth Jazz was an answer without a question.

What Was So Horrible About Smooth Jazz?
The case against Smooth Jazz can’t just be that it is not as good as “real” jazz. That kind of purist argument is easy to make but finally counterproductive. Sure, it’s not the “real” or traditional style of jazz, but what it’s not doesn’t make it bad.

The key to understanding the bankruptcy of Smooth Jazz is in noting that it was always a retreat—and not just away from jazz but also away from soul music and rock music and even its New Age precursor. Each step of retreat was a thinning out of what gave the original music its texture and interest. The woman in the focus group who called the music “smooth” was right—it had its surface polished to satin. Proof of this backward motion is easy to see relative to jazz because there were so many adventurous jazz players who took the same tools used in Smooth Jazz and constructed music that was more rather than less bold. A backbeat did not ruin jazz—Ronald Shannon Jackson and Bobby Previte used backbeats to make the music grow in interest and fire.

But it’s equally crucial to see how Smooth Jazz was a retreat away from its other influences. Replace Al Green with an alto saxophone on “Let’s Stay Together” and what have you got? Take the analog grit out of the instrumental backing on the same song, too—replace it with digital keyboards and looped drums. In short, cut back on the “soul” part of soul music, and what is left?

Rock ‘n’ roll can be pretty aggressive and biting. But what if you bleach the guitars of distortion or twang? Take the crack out of the beat, and substitute a fancy fill. Shine it up with digital piano like it was Steely Dan, but please no sardonic lyrics or nasal singing, just soprano saxophone.

New Age music, quiet and contemplative as it is, maintained a simplicity and folk directness that was true to its purpose. The Paul Winter Consort may sound featherweight, but it has a purposefully spare aesthetic. Smooth Jazz was perpetually unable to skimp on the gaudy, the plastic, or the convenient—it was full of trills and glissandi and fancy-sounding chords. It always sounded like the music for a Cadillac commercial rather than a hiking trip out West.

No matter the comparison, Smooth Jazz coated its area of influence with powdered sugar, making music a treacley dessert without an ounce of protein. And that should be no surprise—though some fine musicians starting making pleasant instrumental pop in the mid-‘70s, a decade later the inspiration for making Smooth Jazz was explicitly economic. The radio stations had a format that had to be filled out, and so Smooth Jazz became exactly that, a product, an assembly line of Twinkies. Easy to eat, hard to digest.

Why Did Smooth Jazz Lose Its Popularity?
Having posited from the start of this essay that Smooth Jazz was both very popular and artistically bankrupt, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the public is more than happy to listen to crap. To analyze why the public likes pablum—in music, in food, in movies, in just about anything—is a matter wildly beyond the scope of this essay. But maybe the more interesting question is this: Why is the public losing its taste for Smooth Jazz now?

There are plenty of theories about public taste in the arts—short hemlines when the market is up, long when the market is down—but it’s not clear what those theories might say about bland instrumental R&B. If societal trends are your thing, then you might link the rise in Smooth Jazz to the twin fantasies of Reagan’s “Morning in America” and Clinton’s Dow Jones Skyrocket of technological change and US global dominance. Today, reality (the economy, the war, the government) makes it that much tougher to groove to work on a snappy guitar lick.

More likely, though, the death of Smooth Jazz is the product of generational shift and technological change. If the genre was ever really “cool”, then it was cool with a group of yuppie consumers who came of age at least 20 years ago—the gang who loved both CDs and CD101, the folks who went to law school, bought a mini-van and aren’t so sure about that rap music the kids all like so much today.

The folks driving the music market today are YouTubers and GarageBanders—folks who are comfortable with a do-it-yourself, download-it-for-free ethic that is informed by hip-hop and an easygoing post-modern irony. An easy-to-listen-to record is less likely to be monochromatic sax noodling and more likely to be an eclectic bit of folky hip-hop like Feist. The new taste in pop, even bland pop, is for music with the look of credibility or the feel of homemadeness. “Cred” matters, and Smooth Jazz sounds like it was stamped out of a mold.

There is still an appetite for schmaltz out there, but it is the schmaltz of American Idol, where good-looking 20-somethings with outsized personalities try to find new ways of delivering songs by Lennon and McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Dolly Parton, and Neil Diamond. Say what you want about the crass commercialism and questionable artistic pedigree of American Idol, but who would ever want to “cover” a song by Dave Koz? And if someone did, who would ever make a toll call to vote for such a thing?

Now That Smooth Jazz Is Gone…
Smooth Jazz, in 2008, is finally nothing more than the aural air freshener it has always been. It lingers in the air, absolutely, but it can’t last. It will, predictably, vanish into thin air.

Last week, I was talking to a friend who is just four years out of college—a guy with an extensive interest in music and a good sense of history—and I explained that I learned the melodies to many of the Tin Pan Alley standards because my parents always played the Easy Listening station in our house. “What was ‘Easy Listening’ music?” he asked me.  I tried explain that these stations featured bland version of old and some newer pop songs, interpreted by the likes of Paul Muriat, the 101 Strings, the Ray Coniff Singers, Percy Faith, and pianists Ferrante & Teisher.

The guy stared at me as if I was making this up.

“No, really,” I said. “There used to be scores of these groups—you’d hear ‘Georgia on My Mind’ done by an orchestra with no saxophones, then you’d hear a vocal by Engelbert Humperdinck or Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme.”

“You are making this up, right? Why wouldn’t the station just play Ray Charles’ ‘Georgia on My Mind’? And—was there really a singer named Engelbert Humperdinck?”

Cross my heart and hope to die.  And just such an oblivion awaits Smooth Jazz.

In the end, the fears of jazz purists that Smooth Jazz was a cancer on the music were unfounded. Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue will always be around, and it will always be a better way of chilling out to jazz than Chris Botti. Other forms of mellow music of one kind or another will rise up to soothe the savage office worker or the keyed-up commuter. With Smooth Jazz stations falling off the air, some station will play more Norah Jones or maybe that great Allison Krauss & Robert Plant album. Relaxation will still be achievable, even without a soprano saxophone note held for 45 minutes. Dentists will still make you wait too long for your appointment, and the magazines will still be a few months old.

Life without Smooth Jazz will go, mercifully, on.

Rest—how else?—in peace.

The Rippingtons - Tourist in Paradise (Live)
 
Bookmark and Share

Will Layman is a writer, teacher and musician living in the Washington, DC area.  He is a contributor to National Public Radio and frequently appears as a guest on WNYC’s “Soundcheck” as a jazz critic.  He is a regular contributor to YankeePotRoast.org, McSweeney’s Internet Tendency and several other web publications.

Jazz Today

Is there Virtue in Virtuosity?

By Will Layman

22.Oct.09

Two recent releases by leading saxophonists Chris Potter and James Carter raise the question of the utility—or the misuses—of virtuosity in jazz.

Jazz Cellist Peggy Lee’s ‘Fever’

By Will Layman

16.Sep.09

Peggy Lee—the cellist, not the late singer—is nevertheless all about singing of a sort. She talks to PopMatters about creativity and collaboration in the beautiful city of Vancouver.

Hip-notized by a Male Billie Holiday

By Will Layman

20.Aug.09

Discovering the first collection of duets between popular singer Tony Bennett and jazz pianist Bill Evans popped my top and buttered my bread.

 
 
Comments

So ‘Smooth Jazz’ sucks huh? Hmm, now where have I heard a similar downpour of fire and brimstone like that before? I have a problem with anyone who tries to tear down any musical form of expression. Respectfully, I happen to like many of the artists you so cynically denigrated, Mr Layman. What’s next? Should everyone to bring a Dave Koz or Yellowjackets CD to Comiskey Park for a public burning?

Comment by Johnson Volpe — April 17, 2008 @ 3:39 am

“Should everyone to bring a Dave Koz or Yellowjackets CD to Comiskey Park for a public burning?”

That would be a convenient way to roundup all the “smoothers” for exile to muzakland! Talk about a win-win situation.

Not a fan of smooth jazz but I know some who are, they are not friends mind you more like acquaintances but they do exist. So listen to whatever you like as long as I don’t have to hear it in my home I am cool. That said, I am not sad to see smooth jazz go away. At least unitl it becomes retro/cool in 20 years!

Comment by Haywood Jay — April 17, 2008 @ 7:36 am

I’m still waiting for the death of heavy metal and gangsta rap. I’d much rather listen to the the muzak-y sounds of a Najee or Kirk Whalum than the clashing cacophony of a Black Sabbath or Judas Priest!

Comment by Charlie Raymer from Philadelphia — April 17, 2008 @ 9:59 am

Great essay. I really enjoyed reading it, particularly because the focus wasn’t so much on engaging in the obligatory “smooth-jazz-sucks” line of thinking but actually historicizing a phenomenon that I’ve never quite understood. Having said that, it would have been cool to have explored the fine line between Steely Dan and smooth jazz. For many casual music listeners, there’s hardly any difference. But to most Steely Dan fans, the Dan is genius, and smooth jazz is the enemy. Maybe Steely Dan’s true genius was to dress up obscure lyrics and complicated chord progressions in the veneer of muzak. Sometimes they succeeded too well, i.e., the muzak coating was too strong to let the cleverness out.

Comment by joy from New York — April 17, 2008 @ 11:29 am

Terrific article….I always called it elevator music.George Winston was my idea of the Emperor’s New Pianist and most people truly don’t hear the difference.Will’s tracing the roots of this “genre” were very informative.I’m forwarding the article to all my “real” jazz friends.What a pleasure it will be to never hear those droning ,unchanging,drumbeats !!!!!! Amen to that !!!
P.S.I’m a jazz singer

Comment by Jane Scheckter from Longmeadow,MA.01106 — May 4, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Enjoyed your great article. I think Smooth Jazz got it’s popularity mainly because it can be used as background music…it sounds “Cool”. The music itself does not take a tremendous amount of thought to understand so the average person can grasp it with no or very little contemplation. On a positive note though, without musicians like Kenny G there would be a lot less saxophone and trumpet players getting work these days. Before he became popular there were not very many horn players you could here on an average radio station. Now we have hundreds. There may be a chance that someone listening to Kenny G or Chris Botti may take the chance and Check out John Coltrane, Miles Davis Ben Webster, Lee Konitz, Ornette Coleman or some other Jazz player.

Comment by Bill Payne from Las Vegas, NV — May 21, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

If you don’t like the music, fine. Don’t listen to it. No one’s twisting your arm. It’s so boring to see some jealous, frustrated “muscician” bitching about the success of others & celebrating with glee at the decline of said success. It always makes that critic look far less intelligent than he’d like to appear. The same is true of his “admirers”.
Like it or not, SJ will be back on other stations, as many people will demand its return once it’s gone.
Don’t like it? Change the station.
If something that has absolutely nothing to do with you (such as another person’s choice of musical entertainment) bothers you that much, it may be time to seek professional help…or, at the very least, stop being such a jerk about it.
You always wind up making a complete fool of yourself.

Comment by John Maxwell from Hartford, Connecticut — August 7, 2008 @ 11:28 am

Well Im just going to give my opinion.IM only 26 eyars old but was lucky that my dad had a huge vynil collection so I listened to Jhon Coltraine before riding my first bike and also learned piano.I remember how as I grew up in the late 80s I was maybe 8 years old and my dad started to buy some of those nu jazz albums like earl klugh.I must admit there were easier to digest for anybody not being a jazz musician or classic jacc fantatic. But at the same time it had lack of soul.Even the early 80s funky had more soul than those records. But yes the production was great so was the digital mastered sound and easy melodies.I think smooth jazz had its place and times.Sometimes I look at smooth jazz like an attempt from musicians to keep making great music but in a way to be accpeted for teh general public. Like cahnge to survive.Lets be honest with teh new digital era and synths and drum programing it was imposible to make anybody listen to real drums in the early 90s.Now its really cool and retro,with neo soul,live perforamnces back,the unplugged wave etc…but back then it wasnt that easy to sell acoustic music.So yes I think they opened doors to dsicover the old great staff,they innovated by mixing some music generes with better or worst result.But I dont think we should make a party about smooth jazz being dead(wich I dont think).Maybe the problem was walking too far from the roots.Sometimes they tried to catch young audiences with a hiphop beat and a sax,other times was a bossa beat…so it ended up beaing well produced cheap music with lack of creativity.But I dont think it shoould disapear,it has a place.Its relaxing,smooth good quality music(I mean recorded engineerd)played by good musicians.And like you say no matter if smooth jazz disapears or stay it will never come close to the great old jazz.So why hate on smooth jazz? its good music to chill.I spent the night with a girl few weeks ago.we had dinner and I just tuned a online smooth jazz chanell on the laptop.there were some light(you would say cheazy)funk tunes,then some all time classics like end of the road Boys II men with that alto sax that you hate.well the girl really enjoyed it.So I think theres a place for smooth jazz and its always a better choise than “Umbrella” for any good music lover.
P.S:IM recording my second album called Funk Temple and it will have 2 ballads smooth R&B with jazz arrangements cause I love that touc of jazz in my music.Its not everything black or white theres space for everything

Comment by Fede4real from Spain — January 25, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

For me, music is a language that must be spoken so that others may understand and even feel its meaning. I was born and raised in the Caribbean listening to Reggae, Calypso, Salsa, R&B, Soul, Instrumental, & Soft Rock music. I came to understand and appreciate the language of these genres and was very fond of many of the artists who spoke those languages. But unfortunately, I wasn’t exposed to what you refer to as “real jazz” until later on (in my late teens or so). So, I could never grasp what these artists were trying to say (until I heard the likes of Oscar Peterson, Herbie Hancock, George Duke, Beegie Adair, and a few others).

I am a musician. My love and appreciation for music is rooted—not just in the skill of a flurried, swinging thirty-second note run—but also in the emotional connection that a well played quarter or eighth note melody brings. I love a powerfully communicated melody whether it is set to lyric or not. But when I listen to some “real jazz” artists (whose skill I otherwise appreciate) there is no emotional connection because I don’t understand what they are trying to say.

Most “real jazz” musicians have forgotten that music is about communicating something in a language that is supposed to be universal. Instead of sharing something with others, they show off years of training (or jamming) and for lack of a better term, they “speak in tongues” rather than communicate with their audiences.

I am one of those musicians who became very frustrated with the dilution that Smooth Jazz had become. I was angered by the “machine” that forced talented musicians to limit their performances just to qualify for increased airplay. But to mock the demise of an entire language because you prefer a “purer” version of that language tells me that you have no understanding of what music is. Yes, may JAZZ rest in peace—not just Smooth Jazz. Because as I scan radio stations looking for music I can relate to and understand, I from time to time come across some “real jazz” stations; and although I’ve been exposed to that art form for some 30 years now, I still sometimes have try to figure out what the heck some of these guys are trying to say.

Smooth Jazz appealed to a certain type of listener because for some of us, it was the first time we got a sense of what Jazz was saying. It was smooth—without edge, substance, culture, etc. but at least we could relate to the melodies, follow the improvisation, and connect with what the artists meant. For many, it took us back to the days of instrumental music (Barry White, AWB, etc.) If “real jazz” is going to return to the forefront of instrumental music, someone needs to remind these incredibly virtuoso musicians that people are listening. So say something we understand. And stop hating!!!

Comment by Hartley B. Ramsey, Sr. from Montgomery, Alabama — June 8, 2009 @ 6:31 am

Mr. Layman,

You truly live up to your last name in writing this piece.  You probably fancy yourself a Jazz elitist/purist, but in reality, you are a music snob, an “I have class and you don’t” wannabe.

What got me to your article was the demise of my favorite Smooth Jazz station in Salt Lake City, UT - KBZN 97.9 FM, “The Breeze.”  Yes, SJ stations around the country sold out to commercial pop crap formats to put more money in their coffers.  It had NOTHING to do with Smooth Jazz as a genre or art form, but was only about money.  The pop rock played on the station now is “cheesier” (as you put it) than the SJ that was on it for 18 years.  In short, the station owner sold out.

That’s OK, because SJ is NOT dead, but lives on.  My iPhone has a half dozen SJ stations programmed on it.  Pandora also allows me to listen to a lot of great SJ on my iPhone too.  And, as far as “Jazz” goes, or classical jazz, as you might call it, it fairly sucks!  Jazz musicians tend to ramble on in nonsensical never-ending riffs and solos that have no rhythmic pattern or clarity.  They are all over the map.

By the way, the link below from today’s USA Today shows a “Smooth Adult Contemporary” (or Smooth Jazz) chart along with all its others.  So, SJ is definitely not dead.  People are still buying it and enjoying it.  So, your prediction (or “rumor” as Mark Twain would put it) of the genre’s death is premature or greatly exaggerated…

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/airplay-charts.htm#smooth

Comment by Chris Degn from San Antonio, TX — November 1, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?