For this forum, I chose "Purcell - Dido and Aeneas - Dido's Lament" (Act III) for comment.
The genre is of course Opera and it is baroque style music in the fullest degree by offering the distinct Basso Continuo that is a characteristic of the baroque period.
The composer of Dido's lament was an Englishman named Henry Purcell. Most of his work, besides this opera (Dido and Aeneas), were mainly lively and he used a variety of different musical forms to create such work; however this opera was widely thought of as his only real opera. Though he died very young of reasons unknown, "Dido and Aeneas" was considered an English masterpiece for the Baroque period.
I am not necessarily an aficionado of opera music, though I do love laments due to the grief, sorrow and deep thinking that goes into the music itself. The descending chromatic bass is a clear indication of such in this aria. It repeats itself 11 times throughout and its main intent to show sorrow / grief and makes the listener aware of the impending doom (fate) of Dido.
I personally liked this piece due to the story line of Dido and Aeneas and the suicidal ending. Though sad, it is very romantic with the love, betrayal and grief-stricken ending. I am a fan of the darker, deep music / plays and love the drama and attention to detail this particular act displayed.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Baroque People and Music
I truly believe that deep within human nature people are people no matter what time era or geographical location. I think people are needy, humble, greedy, giving, caring, creative, selfish, destructive, scared and courageous all at the same time. People will test their limits and get by with what they can get by with given their limitations in terms of social life and home life.
For instance, the musicians of the Baroque period (whether they were Protestant in England or Catholic in Italy) wanted to express themselves with their work and musical abilities. However, they did this with limitations on composition and they were also basically musicians just to fill a need in their communities. The need for their community was for court, church, or some other form of occupation for their town or village. In order to be a musician in the Baroque period one had to learn it by either being a choir boy, an apprentice who did odd jobs or it was learned from father to son.
I feel that the roles and social attitudes of the musicians today are actually quite similar as in the Baroque period.
One could choose to equate The Beatles with Bach or even Handel with Garth Brooks. Certainly the music is completely different - the style, form, texture, etc... Though, the roles are the same. The role is filling a need for a particular niche. In the Baroque period, the niche was aristocracy or the church, and demand for music. Today the niche is millions of die hard fans, and an entertainment industry thirsty for money and music. And the contributing push to both roles is money - it was a job in the Baroque period, such as it is a job today. The role is still a job for the people who demand their style of entertainment.
The social attitudes are even similar. Certainly the social times were much different given the monetary situations, the fact that people were severely segregated on the basis of money for one example. And naturally the details of social attitude among humans are varied and wide, but the larger picture of social attitude is what people want or like at any given time. Musicians / composers in general in any era compose and play for favor or attention. They base their work from what they are interested in or in what they believe. In the Baroque period, Bach wrote for favor and attention, bands of today also write for attention and for favor of their fans. The social attitude of Bach favored the church. When he died, he was in possession of many different types of musical instruments and 52 church manuscripts / booklets. This shows his interest in the church, and therefore the church is for what his compositions were mainly composed. Today’s musicians compose for what they believe in as well. We have many different types of bands from classical to hard rap and they all write for what they are most interested. Social attitudes of musicians today reflect in their music, such as the social attitudes of musicians in the Baroque period are reflected in their works. It is, in a way, a simplified and remarkably similar version of supply and demand. The people of the Baroque period and the people of today all wanted the same thing – pleasing musical entertainment. If an item or thing (such as music) is widely appreciated and accepted it then becomes a social attitude. The only difference I can think of between the social attitudes of today’s musicians and the attitude of the Baroque musicians is based on liberation and censorship. Again, people test limits and in the Baroque period they got by with impressing kings and therefore were limited to trying to win favor. Today musicians get by with cuss words in the middle of the afternoon on satellite radio.
The economic situations are, however, not as similar between the Baroque period and today. There was much more economic pressure in the Baroque period than there is today on musicians. Today, struggling musicians are considered fancy-free in their thinking by a majority of people - usually people with absolutely no music appreciation, in my opinion. Good (“good” being defined here as the most popular on the Billboard Charts of any given genre) musicians are considered pop stars and make excessive amounts of money due to the entertainment business. In the Baroque period, music was an art form that children were conditioned for in order to procure employment. Once employed, these composers / musicians still had to be frugal with their money pending hard times. Our ruling systems are different now, without absolute and intolerant kings in the majority. This change has occurred through many years of different types of rebellion and reform. So this, in turn, has lightened the load on many musicians or composers of today’s time.
People are people no matter where they come from or where they end. People are conditioned by time, social reform and many different other elements in their society and, on another degree, their home life (upbringing). But if you take away religion and shoddy opinion, people are still people and we are still the same. I believe any changes that have occurred in economic pressure, role or social attitude are directly related to religion and the generalization of society becoming more socially liberated and liberal in their thinking due to social reform and education.
For instance, the musicians of the Baroque period (whether they were Protestant in England or Catholic in Italy) wanted to express themselves with their work and musical abilities. However, they did this with limitations on composition and they were also basically musicians just to fill a need in their communities. The need for their community was for court, church, or some other form of occupation for their town or village. In order to be a musician in the Baroque period one had to learn it by either being a choir boy, an apprentice who did odd jobs or it was learned from father to son.
I feel that the roles and social attitudes of the musicians today are actually quite similar as in the Baroque period.
One could choose to equate The Beatles with Bach or even Handel with Garth Brooks. Certainly the music is completely different - the style, form, texture, etc... Though, the roles are the same. The role is filling a need for a particular niche. In the Baroque period, the niche was aristocracy or the church, and demand for music. Today the niche is millions of die hard fans, and an entertainment industry thirsty for money and music. And the contributing push to both roles is money - it was a job in the Baroque period, such as it is a job today. The role is still a job for the people who demand their style of entertainment.
The social attitudes are even similar. Certainly the social times were much different given the monetary situations, the fact that people were severely segregated on the basis of money for one example. And naturally the details of social attitude among humans are varied and wide, but the larger picture of social attitude is what people want or like at any given time. Musicians / composers in general in any era compose and play for favor or attention. They base their work from what they are interested in or in what they believe. In the Baroque period, Bach wrote for favor and attention, bands of today also write for attention and for favor of their fans. The social attitude of Bach favored the church. When he died, he was in possession of many different types of musical instruments and 52 church manuscripts / booklets. This shows his interest in the church, and therefore the church is for what his compositions were mainly composed. Today’s musicians compose for what they believe in as well. We have many different types of bands from classical to hard rap and they all write for what they are most interested. Social attitudes of musicians today reflect in their music, such as the social attitudes of musicians in the Baroque period are reflected in their works. It is, in a way, a simplified and remarkably similar version of supply and demand. The people of the Baroque period and the people of today all wanted the same thing – pleasing musical entertainment. If an item or thing (such as music) is widely appreciated and accepted it then becomes a social attitude. The only difference I can think of between the social attitudes of today’s musicians and the attitude of the Baroque musicians is based on liberation and censorship. Again, people test limits and in the Baroque period they got by with impressing kings and therefore were limited to trying to win favor. Today musicians get by with cuss words in the middle of the afternoon on satellite radio.
The economic situations are, however, not as similar between the Baroque period and today. There was much more economic pressure in the Baroque period than there is today on musicians. Today, struggling musicians are considered fancy-free in their thinking by a majority of people - usually people with absolutely no music appreciation, in my opinion. Good (“good” being defined here as the most popular on the Billboard Charts of any given genre) musicians are considered pop stars and make excessive amounts of money due to the entertainment business. In the Baroque period, music was an art form that children were conditioned for in order to procure employment. Once employed, these composers / musicians still had to be frugal with their money pending hard times. Our ruling systems are different now, without absolute and intolerant kings in the majority. This change has occurred through many years of different types of rebellion and reform. So this, in turn, has lightened the load on many musicians or composers of today’s time.
People are people no matter where they come from or where they end. People are conditioned by time, social reform and many different other elements in their society and, on another degree, their home life (upbringing). But if you take away religion and shoddy opinion, people are still people and we are still the same. I believe any changes that have occurred in economic pressure, role or social attitude are directly related to religion and the generalization of society becoming more socially liberated and liberal in their thinking due to social reform and education.
Rennaisance Music - Change to, from Middle Ages
When considering change in any type of situation, be it animal evolution, political reform, art, etc... it happens on a gradual scale. People are generally leery of change, but also embrace the "new" once the "old" seems boring or monotonous. Musical change is not an exception. Musical change takes place over time during which small changes are made in regards to style, form and texture and these changes end with a sudden innovation. These changes occur mainly due to the civilization of cultures, education and other types of social development.
When considering the monophonic texture of the Gregorian chant, you can clearly see a primitive form of music whereas the people of that time believed the more sacred, the less lively the setting. They did not even use proper notation and was more than likely learned from ear to ear (much like any type of vocal church music is learned today - mono or polyphonic) In other words, the reserved Roman Catholic members were very introverted in their music having a single line of chant with a single line of music. A good example is Alleluia in the listening guide.
Granted, the Gregorian chant may not have been as drab as we make it out to be, because of the scarcity of the pieces found and no notation, no one really knows how the chants were sung. Gregorian chant could have had a range of dynamics including mild crescendos, or even a mf (Mezzo Forte) in the middle of a song when they were really trying to make God listen. We doubt they went vivace on the music much, but again with no notation who is to say?
Change - once something is there for so long, it does become monotonous and boring. Humans, creatures of habit though they may be, look for change when they are bored, mad, or just plain tired of repetition. As stated in a previous post, the culture directly affects music in any society. Culture, for this matter, includes religion and politics of the era. Because the church was becoming more lax and branching, people were able to lessen their fears and become more individualized with their artistic expression.
There was secular music in the early Middle Ages, just not as much and as time grew more and more people were interested in the lively sounds the new instruments produced. They were excited by the change in their repetitious lives. They began to experiment with more lines of music as well as with more instruments such as the harp, sacbut, lute and bagpipe. The notation began to reflect the people's desire to separate from the church; the notes were no longer grave steps, but instead leaps were added to the music and with modulation and measured rhythm the music produced new and exciting sounds. A good example (though still liturgical and gentle) is Ave Maria. Ave Maria is perhaps one of my favorite pieces from the Renaissance period. It flows so beautifully and within its polyphonic imitation you hear the combination of four voices in the motet.
In summation, it is very easy to see the musical changes throughout 450-1600 on a visible timeline, it is the same with differentiating the music with your ears – you can clearly tell the difference between the monophonic and polyphonic texture of the pieces and examples given. With the advent of notation, measured rhythm, modulation, and various other key elements during these early times, the music became more complex and began to reflect more of the spirit of the people. The culture of these societies was changing and thus had a direct impact on the musical climate. Religion is still a very large part of music in people's lives, but even the religious music became a bit more lively and to an extent imitated portions of the secular music. The musical style changed because the melodies, rhythms and tones changed given the addition of notation, more vocals, and more instruments. Harmonies were gradually added to the music and more instrumentation was used to form what we call today a “band”.
When considering the monophonic texture of the Gregorian chant, you can clearly see a primitive form of music whereas the people of that time believed the more sacred, the less lively the setting. They did not even use proper notation and was more than likely learned from ear to ear (much like any type of vocal church music is learned today - mono or polyphonic) In other words, the reserved Roman Catholic members were very introverted in their music having a single line of chant with a single line of music. A good example is Alleluia in the listening guide.
Granted, the Gregorian chant may not have been as drab as we make it out to be, because of the scarcity of the pieces found and no notation, no one really knows how the chants were sung. Gregorian chant could have had a range of dynamics including mild crescendos, or even a mf (Mezzo Forte) in the middle of a song when they were really trying to make God listen. We doubt they went vivace on the music much, but again with no notation who is to say?
Change - once something is there for so long, it does become monotonous and boring. Humans, creatures of habit though they may be, look for change when they are bored, mad, or just plain tired of repetition. As stated in a previous post, the culture directly affects music in any society. Culture, for this matter, includes religion and politics of the era. Because the church was becoming more lax and branching, people were able to lessen their fears and become more individualized with their artistic expression.
There was secular music in the early Middle Ages, just not as much and as time grew more and more people were interested in the lively sounds the new instruments produced. They were excited by the change in their repetitious lives. They began to experiment with more lines of music as well as with more instruments such as the harp, sacbut, lute and bagpipe. The notation began to reflect the people's desire to separate from the church; the notes were no longer grave steps, but instead leaps were added to the music and with modulation and measured rhythm the music produced new and exciting sounds. A good example (though still liturgical and gentle) is Ave Maria. Ave Maria is perhaps one of my favorite pieces from the Renaissance period. It flows so beautifully and within its polyphonic imitation you hear the combination of four voices in the motet.
In summation, it is very easy to see the musical changes throughout 450-1600 on a visible timeline, it is the same with differentiating the music with your ears – you can clearly tell the difference between the monophonic and polyphonic texture of the pieces and examples given. With the advent of notation, measured rhythm, modulation, and various other key elements during these early times, the music became more complex and began to reflect more of the spirit of the people. The culture of these societies was changing and thus had a direct impact on the musical climate. Religion is still a very large part of music in people's lives, but even the religious music became a bit more lively and to an extent imitated portions of the secular music. The musical style changed because the melodies, rhythms and tones changed given the addition of notation, more vocals, and more instruments. Harmonies were gradually added to the music and more instrumentation was used to form what we call today a “band”.
Music in the Middle Ages 650-1450 - Short and Sweet
This age period for culture and musical style has always fascinated me, personally. The first development I would like to discuss is the cultural climate changes because the culture directly affects the music of any given time or era. The culture was changing so much during that time and simply stated people were becoming more aware, less afraid of the church, and smarter due to universities and other areas of study becoming more readily available. Naturally in any culture or society (but especially in earlier times), religion plays a huge role in musical style. The culture was significantly changing due to the break-down and separation of the all-powerful church. Because the culture was changing, becoming more lax and people were not as afraid to express themselves, there was a musical revolution. This revolution included singing new music, more complex music and new instruments with which to experiment. The music becomes more notated and widespread and therefore more copies were saved from the later middle ages. With meter and notation we are able to, in our age, recreate the pieces more effectively. Because the older middle age pieces were missing these crucial elements, it is nearly impossible for us to recreate anything, if found (also due to the scarcity of parchment during the early years). We can only assume how people use to sing Gregorian chant in early medieval times.
The notation of music was pressured to change over time because the pieces themselves became more and more complex. Because there were more instruments used in the music and with vocals included - the music required more than one person to have a copy of the music in order to play together harmoniously and in sync with one another. It was a pressure due to the necessity of the complexity of the music.
In regards to having a source, or to back up the last statement, it is simply obvious with the documents (musical artwork found from the era(s)) and comparing the pieces on a time line. The more complex, the more copies, the more documents found in any give era.
The notation of music was pressured to change over time because the pieces themselves became more and more complex. Because there were more instruments used in the music and with vocals included - the music required more than one person to have a copy of the music in order to play together harmoniously and in sync with one another. It was a pressure due to the necessity of the complexity of the music.
In regards to having a source, or to back up the last statement, it is simply obvious with the documents (musical artwork found from the era(s)) and comparing the pieces on a time line. The more complex, the more copies, the more documents found in any give era.
Comparing Music to Another Art Form - Simple Blog
1) The comparison of music to another art form.
I racked my brain to think of a comparable art form, however the comparison to dance and music, poetry and music, etc... seems a bit prosaic to me. Maybe because I really love music, and dance does not appeal as much. No matter the reason, I can clearly see the comparison with dance and music, though it is not a very deep comparison in retrospect. So I thought and I thought and the only close comparison I could come up with was the comparison of Music and Life. I thought there might be some semantics involved and even perhaps a debate on whether or not "life" is considered an "art" per say. According to Dictionary.com, one definition of art is - "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." The definition is there, makes sense and therefore can be used in the comparison.
In comparing Music and Life, there are many similarities - some similarities include the simple or understated version of, for instance, a beginning, a middle and an end to both a piece of music and life. However more deep and using some vocab to appease, there is a definite rhythm to life such as there is to music. It can be a simple rhythm like the leisure of vacation days, or a more complex rhythm of a harsh workday. Either way, it is the compilation of these rhythms in sync that makes the entire piece of music or a lifespan come together as a whole.
The tempo of life can be greatly compared to music as well. Just like any opus, collection or composition, life has a determined (not to be confused with pre-determined) tempo or pace. This tempo is directly correlated with the type of mood a person is feeling on that particular day. Much like the mood of music, if the person is feeling happy or sad, it will show in their daily tempo - such as how they walk, speak, write, etc... It also correlates on a grander and somewhat reaching scale - as with any type of music there is a mood, such as with any type of person there is a personality mood. Is the piece of music lively or slow? Is the person outgoing or shy?
Basically there are many ways to compare life and music. There are gradual crescendos, decrescendos in every day life and in the larger picture of life as well. There is a general melody to life as there is to music and depending on how the person is in life will change that form or how the performer plays a piece of music can change that form. There are numerous other ways I could describe this comparison however this is getting a bit too lengthy for the forum ;)
I am intrigued by the other answers so far on the forum. Especially the post by Janice Ketchum - very nicely spoken, clearly worded, and all together a moving comparison.
2) Live Performance Vs Recorded. (Explain which you like the best and why)
I prefer a live performance MUCH more than a recorded performance for the simple reason that during a live performance it is a first-person perspective and not a synthesized or mocked-up version. I also enjoy the symphony in person as opposed to on a recorded tape - when the tympani rolls I can feel my heart jump and contrast thumps with the beat of the drum. That is probably one of the best feelings with music is letting it flow through you and enjoying every beat with not only your ears, but your entire body.
I racked my brain to think of a comparable art form, however the comparison to dance and music, poetry and music, etc... seems a bit prosaic to me. Maybe because I really love music, and dance does not appeal as much. No matter the reason, I can clearly see the comparison with dance and music, though it is not a very deep comparison in retrospect. So I thought and I thought and the only close comparison I could come up with was the comparison of Music and Life. I thought there might be some semantics involved and even perhaps a debate on whether or not "life" is considered an "art" per say. According to Dictionary.com, one definition of art is - "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." The definition is there, makes sense and therefore can be used in the comparison.
In comparing Music and Life, there are many similarities - some similarities include the simple or understated version of, for instance, a beginning, a middle and an end to both a piece of music and life. However more deep and using some vocab to appease, there is a definite rhythm to life such as there is to music. It can be a simple rhythm like the leisure of vacation days, or a more complex rhythm of a harsh workday. Either way, it is the compilation of these rhythms in sync that makes the entire piece of music or a lifespan come together as a whole.
The tempo of life can be greatly compared to music as well. Just like any opus, collection or composition, life has a determined (not to be confused with pre-determined) tempo or pace. This tempo is directly correlated with the type of mood a person is feeling on that particular day. Much like the mood of music, if the person is feeling happy or sad, it will show in their daily tempo - such as how they walk, speak, write, etc... It also correlates on a grander and somewhat reaching scale - as with any type of music there is a mood, such as with any type of person there is a personality mood. Is the piece of music lively or slow? Is the person outgoing or shy?
Basically there are many ways to compare life and music. There are gradual crescendos, decrescendos in every day life and in the larger picture of life as well. There is a general melody to life as there is to music and depending on how the person is in life will change that form or how the performer plays a piece of music can change that form. There are numerous other ways I could describe this comparison however this is getting a bit too lengthy for the forum ;)
I am intrigued by the other answers so far on the forum. Especially the post by Janice Ketchum - very nicely spoken, clearly worded, and all together a moving comparison.
2) Live Performance Vs Recorded. (Explain which you like the best and why)
I prefer a live performance MUCH more than a recorded performance for the simple reason that during a live performance it is a first-person perspective and not a synthesized or mocked-up version. I also enjoy the symphony in person as opposed to on a recorded tape - when the tympani rolls I can feel my heart jump and contrast thumps with the beat of the drum. That is probably one of the best feelings with music is letting it flow through you and enjoying every beat with not only your ears, but your entire body.
Dotted Notes - a Liberal Explaination
I am going to try my best to help out here...
I know you have read what the text says, however think of it like this... The dot by a note increases that notes value by just a half extra. So a half note with a dot makes it a 3/4 note. Or to show it - 1/2 (length of a half note) + 1/4 (half of the half note) = 3/4 note.
And as the text shows a regular quarter (1/4) note = 2 eighth notes - and a dotted quarter = 3 eighth notes. This is the same principle - half of the quarter note is an eighth note. So a quarter note with a dot = 1/4 plus an eighth and they wrote it as 3 eighth notes because that is the duration you hold a dotted quarter (1/4) note. A dotted quarter has the same duration as three eighth notes.
Simply stated just add one half of the notes original duration and you have the length of a dotted note.
I used those two examples because when reading music, the 1/2 and the 1/4 notes are the most commonly dotted.
On the interactive chapter (ELEMENTS OF MUSIC: MUSIC NOTATION - Page 4), you can click play on the song and that will help a lot. Just remember to look at that first note when the music starts on the "mine" (it is a 16th note ) - then you can easily follow the beat. Those types of notes are usually used with big band style of music and a lot of Sinatra / Dean Martin work for instance.
Also, I am not sure why the interactive chapter played an extra note at the end of that march song - at the very end the music flips up a bit. If you are new to reading music, do not let that ending confuse you. There is only one note at the very end, not two notes and it is a 3/4 "C" note. It is a 3/4 note because it is a dotted 1/2 note. (1/2 note + 1/4 (half of the half note) = 3/4 note.)
When you learn music, you learn the beat of the dotted note as a music reader - in other words, you learn the dotted notes as a 3/4 note, instead of doing the math at a concert ;)
I hope that has helped and not confused anyone more :)
Laura~
I know you have read what the text says, however think of it like this... The dot by a note increases that notes value by just a half extra. So a half note with a dot makes it a 3/4 note. Or to show it - 1/2 (length of a half note) + 1/4 (half of the half note) = 3/4 note.
And as the text shows a regular quarter (1/4) note = 2 eighth notes - and a dotted quarter = 3 eighth notes. This is the same principle - half of the quarter note is an eighth note. So a quarter note with a dot = 1/4 plus an eighth and they wrote it as 3 eighth notes because that is the duration you hold a dotted quarter (1/4) note. A dotted quarter has the same duration as three eighth notes.
Simply stated just add one half of the notes original duration and you have the length of a dotted note.
I used those two examples because when reading music, the 1/2 and the 1/4 notes are the most commonly dotted.
On the interactive chapter (ELEMENTS OF MUSIC: MUSIC NOTATION - Page 4), you can click play on the song and that will help a lot. Just remember to look at that first note when the music starts on the "mine" (it is a 16th note ) - then you can easily follow the beat. Those types of notes are usually used with big band style of music and a lot of Sinatra / Dean Martin work for instance.
Also, I am not sure why the interactive chapter played an extra note at the end of that march song - at the very end the music flips up a bit. If you are new to reading music, do not let that ending confuse you. There is only one note at the very end, not two notes and it is a 3/4 "C" note. It is a 3/4 note because it is a dotted 1/2 note. (1/2 note + 1/4 (half of the half note) = 3/4 note.)
When you learn music, you learn the beat of the dotted note as a music reader - in other words, you learn the dotted notes as a 3/4 note, instead of doing the math at a concert ;)
I hope that has helped and not confused anyone more :)
Laura~
Explaining Two Musical Elements - In Your Own Words
The two terms I will use are:
1. Clef
2. Tempo
1. The Clef is what tells the musician which pitch they are playing. The lower (more mellow) instruments play in the Bass Clef and the woodwinds and higher pitched instruments play in the Treble Clef. As a flute player, I play in the treble clef because the notes are higher on the staff and my instrument is able to reach those notes played (otherwise known as the range of the instrument).
2. Tempo is quite simply how fast the piece is going. For instance the tempo for an upbeat, joyful TV commercial about fabric softener is going to have a faster tempo - and probably along the allegro / vivace pace. An older and more conservative liturgical piece will more than likey have a grave / adagio pace. Tempo sets the mood, atmosphere and all around design of the piece. You could play a song slowly that is meant to be played fast or vise versa - it changes the entire mood of the piece.
1. Clef
2. Tempo
1. The Clef is what tells the musician which pitch they are playing. The lower (more mellow) instruments play in the Bass Clef and the woodwinds and higher pitched instruments play in the Treble Clef. As a flute player, I play in the treble clef because the notes are higher on the staff and my instrument is able to reach those notes played (otherwise known as the range of the instrument).
2. Tempo is quite simply how fast the piece is going. For instance the tempo for an upbeat, joyful TV commercial about fabric softener is going to have a faster tempo - and probably along the allegro / vivace pace. An older and more conservative liturgical piece will more than likey have a grave / adagio pace. Tempo sets the mood, atmosphere and all around design of the piece. You could play a song slowly that is meant to be played fast or vise versa - it changes the entire mood of the piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
