Jump to content
aberdeen-music

punks unite?


Aaron Gilman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

its true to an extent. I had the misfortune of putting on 4 Past Midnight who claimed to be Scotlands longest running political punk band. Bascially, they were sad old cunts who thought they were superior to us all and were very rude. They even told State of Affairs to fuck off. I also met this geezer in Tayport with a Varukers t-shirt who dismissed everyone there sayin none of us will care bout punk in two years time. For some, maybe thats true but thats still a stupid thing to say when he doesnt know me. Judging because once again he's older.

However there still is old punks that know very much whats goin on. I saw a really good hardcore band called Pilger play in Southampton. Except the singer, the rest of the band must have been in their late 30s to early 40s but it amazed me that all of them still knew what were going on...one of them had a Paint it Black tshirt on and it is through the zine that the drummer makes, that I like bands like Strike Anywhere.

Artcore is another example of a fanzine which is constantly supports young bands like Steel Rules Die, Da Skywalkers etc despite it has been going since 1986, there is promoters like Nigel in Hull who looks out for new young punk bands and prob hasnt missed a punk gig in 'ull in last 5 years. Bands like Blocko and K-Line who despite their age, still insist on playing new creative music so it works both ways. However if we're talking bout Aberdeen, perhaps the problem isnt bout the age at all.

If all goes to plan, both Quik and Engage will be supporting Fireapple Red next month. I'll be interested to see if this attracts a more varied audience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Savant
Me knows that the reference you're looking for' date=' is socal punk :up:[/quote']

But isn't that relating a style to an area? That same style that Mr Lucifer was refering to can be played by bands from anywhere (i.e. Scotland), immediately meaning it isn't SoCal.

I prefer to look at it like this: Bands such as TSOL, Minor Threat & Black Flag play a bunch of music and inspire a bunch of kids. These kids grow up to be The Offspring and Pennywise, but sensibly, they put their own twist on the style (otherwise they'd sound exactly the same as the original bands and get nowhere (and also be harrassed by the old schoolers for ripping off the original bands)).

Then, PW & Offspring inspire a bunch of younger kids, lets say...Quik and Gilman St (or any other young 'punk' band).

You can see how this 'punk' has derived from old school - obviously it has to change somewhat in sound to keep up with modern times and also to avoid becoming stale, but also the lyrical content has changed as different things are affecting the people in the modern bands. Also it'd get stale if everyone sang about the same things/sounded the same, therefore the 1st band to do something 'new' stand out from the rest of the bands. Not a bad thing in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Savant
did Quik not support the Damned last year?

yep - and they said they thought we were good (i know alot of bands say shit like that to be polite and what not...)

did any Damned fan enjoy Quik?

I'm not too sure about that cos everyone was standing at the back of the hall for us... :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that relating a style to an area? That same style that Mr Lucifer was refering to can be played by bands from anywhere (i.e. Scotland)' date=' immediately meaning it isn't SoCal.

I prefer to look at it like this: Bands such as TSOL, Minor Threat & Black Flag play a bunch of music and inspire a bunch of kids. These kids grow up to be The Offspring and Pennywise, but sensibly, they put their own twist on the style (otherwise they'd sound exactly the same as the original bands and get nowhere (and also be harrassed by the old schoolers for ripping off the original bands)).

Then, PW & Offspring inspire a bunch of younger kids, lets say...Quik and Gilman St (or any other young 'punk' band).

You can see how this 'punk' has derived from old school - obviously it has to change somewhat in sound to keep up with modern times and also to avoid becoming stale, but also the lyrical content has changed as different things are affecting the people in the modern bands. Also it'd get stale if everyone sang about the same things/sounded the same, therefore the 1st band to do something 'new' stand out from the rest of the bands. Not a bad thing in my view.[/quote']

I think that sums things up pretty well. If you look at it, its like a family tree the way the generations seperate...one band may take Bad Religions melody and take it in a poppier direction whereas bands like Break the Silence have taken that sound and taken it in a more hardcore direction, others may just take the politics...thats not to say any of these bands are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jake Wifebeater
the stuff that MTV tries to pass off as a punk product is emphatically NOT punk. Punk differs in the sense that politics are as equally important as the music' date=' it is a movement for change as opposed to just another musical subculture.

when you say the "stuff that MTV passes" i'd be right to assume you're talking about green day, the offspring and blink 182 etc? this would seem to be the case that it IS MTV that claims these bands are punk, as i read jasons copy of last weeks kerrang, all of the above mentioned bands pretty much said "when people say we're punk,we say we're not, we just loved punk when we were growing up, it inspired us." that kind of thing.

so is it MTV and all things that commercialise punk that causes hostility between the church and its diciples?

i notice you say that "politics are as equally important as the music." is this personal politics as in how to react in situations or soley towards government etc?

i like this thread, its actually a disscussion, not just ranting for once, thank you.

Yeah, those three bands are the ones that leap to mind, all right. How easy it is to watch MTV, buy their CD's and shirts, spike up your hair and reckon that makes you punk, thus cleverly removing the need to think for yourself for ever. I do feel strongly about the rampant commercialisation and commodification of the punk movement and the way mainstream culture pillages it every few years, signs bands to majors and then fucks off when the cash well dries up. But, on the other hand, it serves as an introduction into the underground for so many people and you have to start somewhere.

For politics, well, I would say that all politics are personal, whether that involves challenging all forms of authoritarianism to the more personal stuff such as how you treat the people you love.

I also enjoy chipping in me tuppenceworth in threads such as these, it's good for the grey matter, thank YOU sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like the family tree analogy, id like to hear more views from those determined to see some branches of the family snapped off the tree.

could modern day punk rock not also be the apple from the tree of original punk rock, where the apple was created by the tree, but like the saying goes- "the apple falls far from the tree"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Craig summed it up pretty well. Punk has evolved and has also spawned some creap rip offs but has also produced and influenced many a great bands. Although alot of what is labeled punk doesnt sound exactly the same as bands 20 years ago, the influence is still there. Alot of genres evolve, its inevitable, doesnt mean they are any less real than they once were.

I am making no sense......need......foood...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allsystemsfail
the stuff that MTV tries to pass off as a punk product is emphatically NOT punk. Punk differs in the sense that politics are as equally important as the music' date=' it is a movement for change as opposed to just another musical subculture.

when you say the "stuff that MTV passes" i'd be right to assume you're talking about green day, the offspring and blink 182 etc? this would seem to be the case that it IS MTV that claims these bands are punk, as i read jasons copy of last weeks kerrang, all of the above mentioned bands pretty much said "when people say we're punk,we say we're not, we just loved punk when we were growing up, it inspired us." that kind of thing.

so is it MTV and all things that commercialise punk that causes hostility between the church and its diciples?

i notice you say that "politics are as equally important as the music." is this personal politics as in how to react in situations or soley towards government etc?

i like this thread, its actually a disscussion, not just ranting for once, thank you.

I'm with Jake on this one. Like him, I despise what punk has largely become - a thing of little meaning, its politics torn from it. Those who have sought to profit from its popularity - MTV, music publications such as Kerrang etc, hold little with the beliefs central to punk. They couldn't give a damn about community, about our scene. Hey, when folks such as Crass were fucking shit up in the 1980s, Kerrang were getting all excited over hair metal outfits such as Bon Jovi and Poison.

When this current interest in punk fades (which it will), are those guys gonna give a shit - those in whose hands punk has become just a product? No. It's gonna be the folks already active in the punk underground - you know, the folks who run distros, produce zines, set up shows... The majors, MTV, Kerrang, and their like? To hell with them. It's our scene, so let's keep it that way.

A lotta younger folks appear to see things a little differently. For instance, many see nothing wrong in a punk outfit jumping to a major. In this move for big bucks - with the success of both Green Day and The Offspring in the mid 1990s, the politics got lost somewhere.

Anyway, I'm not taking a swipe at any of these "kids" who hold with a different view. Just putting my own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Jake on this one. Like him' date=' I despise what punk has largely become - a thing of little meaning, its politics torn from it. Those who have sought to profit from its popularity - MTV, music publications such as Kerrang etc, hold little with the beliefs central to punk. They couldn't give a damn about community, about our scene. Hey, when folks such as Crass were fucking shit up in the 1980s, Kerrang were getting all excited over hair metal outfits such as Bon Jovi and Poison.

When this current interest in punk fades (which it will), are those guys gonna give a shit - those in whose hands punk has become just a product? No. It's gonna be the folks already active in the punk underground - you know, the folks who run distros, produce zines, set up shows... The majors, MTV, Kerrang, and their like? To hell with them. It's our scene, so let's keep it that way.

A lotta younger folks appear to see things a little differently. For instance, many see nothing wrong in a punk outfit jumping to a major. In this move for big bucks - with the success of both Green Day and The Offspring in the mid 1990s, the politics got lost somewhere.

Anyway, I'm not taking a swipe at any of these "kids" who hold with a different view. Just putting my own opinion.[/quote']

MTV is pish- true

Kerrang is pish-agreed (although it is bought prior to train and plane journeys)

however, on the major label issue, this is a bit of a grey area for me, as often people forget about the major label shenanigans of punk bands in the 70's- remember generation x? remember the sex pistols? remember the clash? the ramones? all major label bands

however on the other side of the coin there was an entire cluster of punk bands back then who didnt go onto major labels, for whatever reason.

same thing today,many young bands do share the ethics of old, but some are too ignorant to see past their long shorts and t-shirts.

on a side note, how come no-one ever hasa problem with Bad Religion signing to a major?

(remember they put out a bunch of releases through sony)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like the family tree analogy' date=' id like to hear more views from those determined to see some branches of the family snapped off the tree.

could modern day punk rock not also be the apple from the tree of original punk rock, where the apple was created by the tree, but like the saying goes- "the apple falls far from the tree"[/quote']

I agree with that.

A few points to start with:

I don't think punk can ever be the same creature it was in 1976-78. The social and musical climate just isn't there for that anymore and if there was ever to be another "punk", then it's not going to be basic, distorted rock and roll music.

The idea that old punk is "smart" and new punk is "dumb" is a fallacy. The Undertones sang about masturbation (or atl least, intended to) and The Sex Pistols' image is almost as contrived as Good Charlottes' in my opinion.

I seem to notice that a lot of fans of old punk like a lot of British bands while a large amount of popular punk bands are American (The Libertines and the Ordinary Boys sound more like what punk was in '77 to me than say...Bad Religion do), and I think this is where the difference lies. Punk just seemed to mean something diffrent to the Americans than to the British and a lot of new punk bands seem to be influenced more by American bands than the British ones. I'd even say NOFX have more relevance to a fifteen year old today than the Pistols do with songs about Bush and Vegetarianism as opposed to songs about the Queen and anarchy. This is merely because the world is a diffrent place.

I do think "punk" is now musically stagnant, I'm afraid. British punk's evolution into new wave and post punk like Joy Division or XTC is a lot more musically interesting to me than hardcore (although I LOVE the Dead Kennedys with a passion) but it seems to be left out of these conversations.

What I'm getting at is that I think we're looking at more of a generational gap than a musical one, and the problems of a seventeen year old today appear very difrent from the issues effecting someone of the same age in the late seventies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allsystemsfail
MTV is pish- true

Kerrang is pish-agreed (although it is bought prior to train and plane journeys)

however' date=' on the major label issue, this is a bit of a grey area for me, as often people forget about the major label shenanigans of punk bands in the 70's- remember generation x? remember the sex pistols? remember the clash? the ramones? all major label bands

however on the other side of the coin there was an entire cluster of punk bands back then who didnt go onto major labels, for whatever reason.

same thing today,many young bands do share the ethics of old, but some are too ignorant to see past their long shorts and t-shirts.

on a side note, how come no-one ever hasa problem with Bad Religion signing to a major?

(remember they put out a bunch of releases through sony)?[/quote']

Sure, a lotta the most prominent 70s punk acts were on majors. However, the DIY ethic was then very much in its infancy. It is a dimemna. As as been pointed out, a lotta folks (and I am one) discovered punk via major label acts.

As to Bad Religion - people were enraged by their move to Sony. What I don't understand is how a lotta folks can forgive. For instance, punk acts such as Jawbreaker, Seven Seconds, and Samiam jumped to majors, yet despite this are still highly respected bands. I just don't get it. Yet these same individuals will rail against Green Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allsystemsfail
I agree with that.

A few points to start with:

I don't think punk can ever be the same creature it was in 1976-78. The social and musical climate just isn't there for that anymore and if there was ever to be another "punk"' date=' then it's not going to be basic, distorted rock and roll music.

The idea that old punk is "smart" and new punk is "dumb" is a fallacy. The Undertones sang about masturbation (or atl least, intended to) and The Sex Pistols' image is almost as contrived as Good Charlottes' in my opinion.

I seem to notice that a lot of fans of old punk like a lot of British bands while a large amount of popular punk bands are American (The Libertines and the Ordinary Boys sound more like what punk was in '77 to me than say...Bad Religion do), and I think this is where the difference lies. Punk just seemed to mean something diffrent to the Americans than to the British and a lot of new punk bands seem to be influenced more by American bands than the British ones. I'd even say NOFX have more relevance to a fifteen year old today than the Pistols do with songs about Bush and Vegetarianism as opposed to songs about the Queen and anarchy. This is merely because the world is a diffrent place.

I do think "punk" is now musically stagnant, I'm afraid. British punk's evolution into new wave and post punk like Joy Division or XTC is a lot more musically interesting to me than hardcore (although I LOVE the Dead Kennedys with a passion) but it seems to be left out of these conversations.

What I'm getting at is that I think we're looking at more of a generational gap than a musical one, and the problems of a seventeen year old today appear very difrent from the issues effecting someone of the same age in the late seventies.[/quote']

I think the comparison being made here between old and new (and I may be wrong, so correct me if I am), is between 80s punk and those outfits of today.

Regarding 70s punk - while there was a lotta nonsense back then (The Undertones one such example), most acts were by in large pushing for change - disaffected youth pissed by what they saw in 70s Britain.

The Pistols, while a lot of people believe so, were not a manufactured band. They were not a product of McClarens schemes. Such a belief exists only in his mind. The band were just a buncha disaffected youth who would frequent McClaren's shop Sex. McClaren, having already managed the Dolls, said he'd work with them. And that's all.

British and UK punk? There are a whole host of UK outfits for whom politics is of extreme importance - for whom issues such as US foreign intervention and vegetarianism (for example) are of great concern. Such concern is not exclusive to US acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how a lotta folks can forgive. For instance' date=' punk acts such as Jawbreaker, Seven Seconds, and Samiam jumped to majors, yet despite this are still highly respected bands. I just don't get it. Yet these same individuals will rail against Green Day.[/quote']

did Samiam not get majorly screwed by the majors? and spilt shortly after their contract ended?

is it possible that green day are "railed" against because they have reaped a great amount of success from their signing to a Reprise? this is quite unjust, as Green Day still participate in the "underground" to some extent, what with Billie Joe's "Adeline" label and both Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool joining/promoting bands on independants? i mean Tre cool back in the 90's when Green Day got huge would often be seen in the media wearing T-shirts by essential East Bay bands such as Crimpshrine,Tilt etc.

surely it is ok to make a little bit of cash if some of it is going back to your roots?

or maybe if you've payed your dues to the underground, is it not ok to to make some money?

i thought about this the other day, if the main ethic of punk is to go against authority, and the majority of "old school" acts at least CLAIM to come from the working class, then would it not make more sense (as a rebellion) to make music, and say whatever they wanted, but still make a huge success of their bands therefore becoming wealthy.

they would there fore have risen above their disadvantaged circumstances, giving a metaphorical middle finger to "the establishment".And as long as they didnt forget where they came from, and give a little back to the community, it should all be peaches and cream

although with this in mind, it would mean that kids such as myself would be questioning out enemy from within, i mean lets be honest, most kids in "punk" bands today live in suburban homes, with greed and lack of identity all around us, so is it not equally as big a battle as say unemployment and general strikes that were caused by the same demons we share our col-de-sacs with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did Samiam not get majorly screwed by the majors? and spilt shortly after their contract ended?

is it possible that green day are "railed" against because they have reaped a great amount of success from their signing to a Reprise? this is quite unjust' date=' as Green Day still participate in the "underground" to some extent, what with Billie Joe's "Adeline" label and both Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool joining/promoting bands on independants? i mean Tre cool back in the 90's when Green Day got huge would often be seen in the media wearing T-shirts by essential East Bay bands such as Crimpshrine,Tilt etc.

surely it is ok to make a little bit of cash if some of it is going back to your roots?

or maybe if you've payed your dues to the underground, is it not ok to to make some money?

i thought about this the other day, if the main ethic of punk is to go against authority, and the majority of "old school" acts at least CLAIM to come from the working class, then would it not make more sense (as a rebellion) to make music, and say whatever they wanted, but still make a huge success of their bands therefore becoming wealthy.

they would there fore have risen above their disadvantaged circumstances, giving a metaphorical middle finger to "the establishment".And as long as they didnt forget where they came from, and give a little back to the community, it should all be peaches and cream

although with this in mind, it would mean that kids such as myself would be questioning out enemy from within, i mean lets be honest, most kids in "punk" bands today live in suburban homes, with greed and lack of identity all around us, so is it not equally as big a battle as say unemployment and general strikes that were caused by the same demons we share our col-de-sacs with?[/quote']

good points. specially regarding Green Day. If it wasnt for them then Lookout! Records may not still exist...the first 2 Green Day albums on Lookout are lookouts biggest sellers and because Green Day make enough money from the sales of Dookie, Nimrod etc then they said to Lookout that the label can keep ALL money from the sales of the records for it to be able to survive. If that isnt supporting the underground then what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allsystemsfail
did Samiam not get majorly screwed by the majors? and spilt shortly after their contract ended?

is it possible that green day are "railed" against because they have reaped a great amount of success from their signing to a Reprise? this is quite unjust' date=' as Green Day still participate in the "underground" to some extent, what with Billie Joe's "Adeline" label and both Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool joining/promoting bands on independants? i mean Tre cool back in the 90's when Green Day got huge would often be seen in the media wearing T-shirts by essential East Bay bands such as Crimpshrine,Tilt etc.

surely it is ok to make a little bit of cash if some of it is going back to your roots?

or maybe if you've payed your dues to the underground, is it not ok to to make some money?

i thought about this the other day, if the main ethic of punk is to go against authority, and the majority of "old school" acts at least CLAIM to come from the working class, then would it not make more sense (as a rebellion) to make music, and say whatever they wanted, but still make a huge success of their bands therefore becoming wealthy.

they would there fore have risen above their disadvantaged circumstances, giving a metaphorical middle finger to "the establishment".And as long as they didnt forget where they came from, and give a little back to the community, it should all be peaches and cream

although with this in mind, it would mean that kids such as myself would be questioning out enemy from within, i mean lets be honest, most kids in "punk" bands today live in suburban homes, with greed and lack of identity all around us, so is it not equally as big a battle as say unemployment and general strikes that were caused by the same demons we share our col-de-sacs with?[/quote']

Fair points. However, I gotta disagree. If by reaping rewards such a thing will mean taking action that runs contrary to the the beliefs central to the punk community - to the DIY ethic, then I think it's wrong. Outfits such as Green Day and The Offspring have (in my opinion) used the punk underground as it were a stepping stone to success. Sure, I fully understand and appreciate Billy Joe's efforts in supporting acts on Adeline, but with Green Day, he did indeed (I believe) betray the punk underground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me the whole old skool versus modern punk is a non issue as both are dubious standpoints

as neither is relevent socially or musically anymore - in the way that the people involved in either genre really wish they were

to me, languishing in old skool punk music and ethics only an enjoyable nostalgia trip is ok if thats your bag as the music and spirit was truly exiting, but its hardly relevent in 2004 and cannot actually be re-lived, and therefor it smacks of BACKWARD thinking when people start hailing it as something amazing or superior ....we are in a bad way if the best music of the last 30 years was all made before 1979

but then, claiming some kind of new punk validity in the form of what is classified 'modern punk' is a complete hypocracy, as punk was about CHANGE AND ORIGINALITY not CONFORMITY......and modern punk is CONFORMIST in terms of its DERIVATIVE and PREDICTABLE sounds and WATERED DOWN SOCIAL AGENDAS....it also follows strict CODES and RULES, which is the part that I find most VOMIT inducing (Its about the only music related thing that truly pisses me off...)....punks in 2004 are the new middle class hippies with whom John Lydon had such an issue in 1977....

so, In my opinion Punk has killed itself.....a fair time ago and it was one of those things that was of its time and could NEVER EVER be sustained

PS....all my favorite music is probably the same as all the other posters on this thread so Im not ANTI punk MUSIC at all or ANTI people who choose the punk label for themselves (although labelling yourself punk is actually UN PUNK if you think about it), Im just pointing out that PUNK is now nothing more than a lazy descriptive term used by inarticulate journos to decribe loud fast pop music that may or may not have some political content....J.Lucifer said something like that earlier and I would agree

No point in fighting over NOTHING is there? :up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allsystemsfail
for me the whole old skool versus modern punk is a non issue as both are dubious standpoints

as neither is relevent socially or musically anymore - in the way the way the people involved in either genre really wish they were

to me' date=' languishing in old skool punk music and ethics only an enjoyable nostalgia trip as the music and spirit was truly exiting and very much of its time, but its hardly relevent in 2004 and cannot actually be re-lived, and therefor it smacks of BACKWARD thinking to still be hailing it as something amazing or superior in 2004....we are in a bad way if the best music of the last 30 years was all made before 1979

but then, claiming some kind of new punk validity in the form of what is classified 'modern punk' is a complete hypocracy, as punk was about CHANGE AND ORIGINALITY not CONFORMITY......and modern punk is CONFORMIST in terms of its DERIVATIVE and PREDICTABLE sounds and WATERED DOWN SOCIAL AGENDAS....it also follows strict CODES and RULES, which is the part that I find most VOMIT inducing (Its about the only music related thing that truly pisses me off...)....punks in 2004 are the new middle class hippies with whom John Lydon had such an issue in 1977....

so, In my opinion Punk has killed itself.....a fair time ago and it was one of those things that was of its time and could NEVER EVER be sustained

PS....all my favorite music is probably the same as all the other posters on this thread so Im not ANTI punk MUSIC at all or ANTI people who choose the punk label for themselves (although labelling yourself punk is actually UN PUNK if you think about it), Im just pointing out that PUNK is now nothing more than a lazy descriptive term used by inarticulate journos to decribe loud fast pop music that may or may not have some political content....J.Lucifer said something like that earlier and I would agree

No point in fighting over NOTHING is there? :up:[/quote']

Cries for social justice not relevant? You believe compassion and concern of no value? Also, it is a fact that many thousands of people (like myself) have become active politically as a result of their involvement in the punk community.

Derivative and predictable sounds? Then I guess you never caught The Ex, Submission Hold, Recusant, or Guts Pie Earshot?

Rules? It is a fact that leftist/anti-authoritarian politics have always been an important facet of punk. Without such "rules" punk would be entirely meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned (and was this not the reason punk started as a movement) is the first rule of punk is that there are no rules.

It's fucking ridiculous that every band is categorised. Like what the hell you like and don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks.

That's real punk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allsystemsfail
As far as I am concerned (and was this not the reason punk started as a movement) is the first rule of punk is that there are no rules.

It's fucking ridiculous that every band is categorised. Like what the hell you like and don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks.

That's real punk.

Punk was a reaction to the rock excess of outfits such as Yes, ELP, Led Zeppelin, and other rock dinosaurs. Britain's then political climate was also crucial to its early beginnings - race riots, spiraling unemployment...

Regarding the use of rules - should we then tolerate racism, the promotion of christian belief - those who preach intolerance? Should we permit those who seek only to exploit our scene for financial gain - those with no interest in community, in what our scene means and stands for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...