Music And The Transcendental

by

I am greatly encouraged by this initiative of actually bringing into public awareness just what matters about the symphony and what its place in modern cities should be, what its place in the surrounding way of life and the culture generally should be, and how we can support and give meaning to it. What I shall talk about today are some philosophical ideas about music itself, in particular about classical music, and why we think it is such an important thing. And it is a difficult area for many reasons.

People who love music often find it extremely difficult to talk about it, to say what it is that they love in it; and people who dislike it nevertheless think that they have very good reasons to do so. And there seems to be no forum of debate in which people can try to come to some agreement as to why music has the importance that it has in our society. I am going to say a few things about that and also about the theme that I have put in the title.

I think we have to begin from this idea that we have inherited a listening culture. Listening is not an easy thing itself to define. There is such a thing as hearing. We hear music all the time around us, but most of us do not pay attention to it—partly because most of it is not worth paying attention to. But there is also overhearing and that is a very common experience. Wherever we are—in restaurants or in the Metro or wherever—we are overhearing music coming at us from all angles, and we are learning how to ignore it. Music was not originally designed to be ignored. But we live in a society where, if we do not learn to ignore it, we cannot also learn to listen to it. This puts an enormous strain on us and it is one reason, of course, for the existence of these special places like symphony halls where one can insulate oneself from the surrounding world.

I totally endorse everything that Léon Krier said to us about modern architecture and the way in which it has created alienating spaces where it should create spaces where we are at home. And I think of all spaces where we should be at home, the symphony hall is the most important. Many of us have this sense that musical experience is of supreme value and that musical experience of the kind I am going to be talking about—the kind that involves listening—has been extremely important in our civilization.

Western civilization is in many ways a musical civilization. Music has had a place in our civilization which it has never achieved elsewhere. Of course, all people everywhere sing and dance. Dance in particular has a profound social meaning, and without it most societies in the past could not have really held together. But dancing is a very different thing from just sitting and listening, and we have this long—perhaps a thousand-year-long—experience of just sitting and listening for long moments, and doing so in company. We detach music from collective singing and dancing and make of it what you might call a spectacle or auricle, an occasion for simply sitting together and listening. Though detached from those natural social forms of musical order like singing and dancing, it is still a social experience. It is something shared. Even when you are listening on your own, there is an implicit sharing going on. You do not think of yourself as “me, alone, listening to that.” You are, as it were, representing your ideal group of fellow listeners for whom this is a communal experience. You are being returned in some way to a deep social experience within you.

There are many threats, however, to this listening culture. In particular, there is growing around us a habit of merely hearing music, or merely overhearing music, and of having to fight music off so that you can listen. The music that you hear in most restaurants today is not music that you could listen to without going mad. Or if you if you did start listening to it then of course the whole purpose of the restaurant would be defeated, too. It is there simply to fill in the silence that would otherwise, people fear, be engendered between the people sitting at the tables by the fact that they have forgotten how to speak. That is only one place in which music intrudes, but it intrudes in so many other ways and so many other places that we do have to learn the habit of ignoring it. And that gives us a real sense that learning to listen is not something that can be achieved simply by doing it. We need to rehabilitate ourselves to a particular culture….

Read the original here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Music And The Transcendental

  1. toadspittle says:

    Marvellous and insightful comment.
    Reblogged it on “Paranoid Catholic.”

    Music is a mysterious miracle.
    Dawkins will gladly agree.

  2. toadspittle says:

    “I know that you are looking at my face and you are listening to my words, but I also know that in some deep sense you cannot actually enter that space from which I address you. We have to reach across this barrier. Otherwise, what is the point of human life?”

    Well, I agree with you, Professor Scruton, but others would say that “the point of human life” is simply to go and live with Jesus forever after we are dead – and that music is nothing but a potential snare and distraction.

  3. Adrian Meades (in town) says:

    This article reminded me of a rather odd, but very insightful video sent to me last week, which (quite convincingly) attempts to explain some of the ‘magic’ we sense in art:

  4. toadspittle says:

    Very nice video, Adrian.
    Told me nothing I didn’t already know, but it’s ingenious, interesting and imaginative. Ultimately gets us nowhere, but what the hey. Needs a better voice-over, too.
    Occasionally the narrator talks of “Man and animals.” At other times he gets it right and talks of “Man and the other animals.”
    A lotta wouldda, couldda, shouldda. I reckon.

  5. Tom Fisher says:

    Adrian’s video is an example of Evolutionary Psychology, which is becoming increasingly popular as interest in astrology wanes. The trick is to adopt a vaguely “scientific” tone and vocabulary, and then just make s### up to you heart’s content. There is in a sense nothing that evolutionary psychology can’t “explain”, because it is simply a modern version of the Just So story. Great fun though

  6. toadspittle says:

    I didn’t realise that interest in astrology was waning, Tom.
    This is gave news indeed. Not looking closely enough at my horoscope, I suppose
    God knows what they’ll start believing in now.
    Mormonism, possibly?
    Or climate change? Or religion?
    …Nah.

  7. johnhenrycn says:

    I’d never heard of ‘Evolutionary Psycholgy’ before you mentioned it, TF, but don’t see what’s wrong with or unserious about trying to explain human behaviour with a new paradigm, a new path of research, a Theory of Everything, much like the Unified Field Theory, the holy grail of physics.

  8. toadspittle says:

    “Only connect,” says Forster, re “Evolutionary Psychology,” or “Astrology, or “Catholicism.”

    Odd, yet significant – that you should bring up Astrology, Tom – as I have yet another theory – that Shakespeare didn’t believe in it.
    Only a theory, of course.
    Because, for all I know, he wouldn’t have put his codpiece on upright until he’d first consulted the chart of the orbit of Uranus.

  9. Adrian Meades says:

    “Told me nothing I didn’t already know”
    perhaps, but I’m sure it must have got considering things you’d never considered before? I think his ideas for an instinctive sense of ‘wonder’ or ‘specialness’ (could there be a more suitable term for this I wonder) are quite far reaching, once you start pondering, Toad.

    “then just make s### up to you heart’s content”
    I’ve certainly heard quite a bit of evolutionary psychology theory that fits with your description, Tom, but can you convincingly refute any of the claims made in this video?

  10. Tom Fisher says:

    don’t see what’s wrong with or unserious about trying to explain human behaviour with a new paradigm, a new path of research

    Well, I was being just a wee bit too flippant. And there is nothing inherently wrong with exploring the role of evolution in the development of human psychology and behaviour. — However the hypotheses which are developed are notoriously difficult to test. Suffice to say that (as per the video) some excessively grand conclusions are sometimes drawn.

  11. Tom Fisher says:

    can you convincingly refute any of the claims made in this video?

    Nope. Can you test any of them?

  12. toadspittle says:

    “…but I’m sure it (the video) must have got considering things you’d never considered before? “
    No, Adrian. Sorry, but there you are. Nothing remotely original in it, at least as far as I was concerned. But then, it would be remarkable if there were. None the worse for that, though.
    Skilfully put together, with nice pix and graphics, by – I presume – a talented young amateur for his, and/or our diversion.

    As to wonder and all that, we’re back to Scruton and music.
    Why, or how, can an assemblage of mere sounds move some of us to tears, and yet leave others utterly unmoved?
    Dunno. Miracle?

    (…And does it matter whether the composer was a Jew-hater or not? Hmm.)

  13. Was I the only one who found the video “How the misinterpretation of human nature has stifled the progress of civilization” deeply contrary to the Catholic Worldview?
    (Not to mention that the creators of the video could benefit from a large dose of Chesterton.)

  14. Adrian Meades says:

    Oh, Toad! When have you ever before heard it claimed that our fantasies of envy, glamour, ‘specialness’ etc. are part of an evolved function to motivate animals to adhere to hierarchical systems? I certainly haven’t; and the more I think about it – applying the concept to how we interpret things as being ‘wonderful’ or ‘magical’ – , the more it makes sense.
    We can share the love for the same beautiful piece of music, but we interpret it in our own individual ways, dependent on our particular character and life experiences.

  15. The Raven says:

    HRM, most atheists believe in the convincing novelty of the most recent re-iterations of subjects that have been dealt with comprehensively by theologians and philosophers of earlier ages (vide Fry on the problem of evil); wider reading would lead them to understand that most of their “devastating knock-downs” of Christianity are neither particularly new nor particularly devastating.

    I can’t comment on the video, as I really haven’t got 20 minutes to spend listening to the narrator reinventing that particular wheel.

  16. Adrian Meades says:

    Which particular wheel, Raven?

  17. The Raven says:

    That some particular aspect of human experience can be reduced down to a “fantasy” that serves an evolutionary purpose, Adrian.

  18. GC says:

    The title reminds me of what Pope Benedict wrote about two posited types of music, the Apollonian and the Dionysian, the former being the transcendental kind:

    The Church’s Tradition has this in mind when it talks about the sober inebriation caused in us by the Holy Spirit. There is always an ultimate sobriety, a deeper rationality, resisting any decline into irrationality and immoderation. We can see what this means in prac­tice if we look at the history of music. The writings of Plato and Aristotle on music show that the Greek world in their time was faced with a choice between two kinds of worship, two different images of God and man. Now what this choice came down to concretely was a choice between two fundamental types of music. On the one hand, there is the music that Plato ascribes, in line with mythology, to Apollo, the god of light and reason. This is the music that draws senses into spirit and so brings man to wholeness. It does not abolish the senses, but inserts them into the unity of this creature that is man. It elevates the spirit precisely by wedding it to the senses, and it el­evates the senses by uniting them with the spirit. Thus this kind of music is an expression of man’s special place in the general structure of being. But then there is the music that Plato ascribes to Marsyas, which we might describe, in terms of cultic history, as “Dionysian”. It drags man into the intoxication of the senses, crushes ra­tionality, and subjects the spirit to the senses. The way Plato (and more moderately, Aristotle) allots instruments and keys to one or other of these two kinds of music is now obsolete and may in many respects surprise us. But the Apollonian/Dionysian alternative runs through the whole history of religion and confronts us again today. [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), pp. 150-51]

    http://www.ceciliaschola.org/notes/benedictonmusic.html

  19. Adrian Meades says:

    If sexual fantasies evoked by an evolved purpose, why not others? But I’m not aware the particular theory in the video has been ‘dealt with’.

  20. toadspittle says:

    Was I the only one who found the video “How the misinterpretation of human nature has stifled the progress of civilization” deeply contrary to the Catholic Worldview?”
    No, HRM,I also found it so. Most things are, I find. I doubt it was made with Catholics in mind. Most things aren’t.

    And, Adrian – as others on here are now pointing out – all our fantasies, functions, etc, have and are evolving.
    Towards a “bad” stifling of progress?
    Maybe – maybe not.
    …Maybe the stifling of progress is “good.” Some Catholics will loudly tell you so.
    Hard to know.
    Anyway, none of it is “new” thinking. It’s all evolved thinking. We are all evolving daily. Always have, always will. And we couldn’t stop it if we wanted to.
    “…our fantasies of envy, glamour, ‘specialness’ etc. are part of an evolved function to motivate animals to adhere to hierarchical systems…”
    Their “function” of, for example, envy – is not in order to motivate. But I’ll say no more for fear of Habsburging this comment with 95,000 words. Except that Finches don’t develop certain kinds of beaks in order to survive – they survive because they have developed certain kinds of beak.
    It’s hard, I know.

  21. toadspittle says:

    Regarding this interesting and mysterious topic, possibly Wittgenstein’s most famous aphorism is appropriate: “Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.” And maybe he should have added, “…and just listen.”

  22. Tom Fisher says:

    If sexual fantasies evoked by an evolved purpose, why not others? But I’m not aware the particular theory in the video has been ‘dealt with’.

    The video seems to have made quite an impression on you. Personally I don’t find it especially thought provoking, nor do I find the reasoning sufficiently interesting to demand any particular response.

    But in general terms: Human beings are social animals and I take it for granted that some of our cognitive capacities evolved as social adaptations. — Though the exact process must remain speculative and largely untestable. The video implies that the process by which a capacity (such as our capacity for awe) came about determines the value of the capacity itself. — That’s nonsense of course. I have a capacity for sight, hearing, and the appreciation of beauty — all three of these capacities allow me to experience reality, regardless of how they developed. The polemical conclusion of the video doesn’t impress me at all, and the one size fits all explanation it offers is te product of very shallow and unimaginative thinking.

  23. toadspittle says:

    “If sexual fantasies evoked by an evolved purpose, why not others?”
    I’m not at all sure what you mean, Adrian,
    But if you mean that sexual fantasies have a purpose, they clearly don’t – at least not in any coherent fashion.
    Other animals have sex perfectly well without fantasies.
    …Though I have a feeling that’s not what you mean.

  24. Tom Fisher says:

    You tube videos aside however… Thanks for posting that G.C. It complements the post beautifully

  25. toadspittle says:

    “….subjects that have been dealt with comprehensively by theologians and philosophers of earlier ages (vide Fry on the problem of evil);”
    Aquinas has already comprehensively dealt with that subject, so Fry (or anyone else) has no business to go frothing and spluttering with rage about it on Irish Telly.


    …Come off it, Raven. What a lot of tripe.

  26. toadspittle says:

    You’ve got old Toad bang to rights,Tom.
    …Just a little pussy cat Not a bit of harm in him.

  27. The Raven says:

    Don’t be silly, Toad: Mr Fry’s entire business is to froth and splutter and I don’t want to see a man deprived of his trade; what neither he nor anyone else has any business doing is trading on the pretence that their vapourings are either particularly new or insurmountable.

  28. Adrian Meades (in town) says:

    “The video implies that the process by which a capacity (such as our capacity for awe) came about determines the value of the capacity itself.”
    I don’t agree, Tom. What he appears to be claiming is that, with such a tendency to create a sense of awe, human beings develop and intellectualise that influence, and in doing so they misinterpret this capacity (hence the title I guess), which leads to all kinds of negative outcomes.
    The reason this conclusion has made an impression on me is that it appears to tally with many of the ills we witness in individuals and our society as a whole, and if there is some truth in this claim, then it is well worth pursuing.

  29. toadspittle says:

    “Mr Fry’s entire business is to froth and splutter..”
    If you say so, Raven.
    We can all be the judge of just how inarticulate the absurdly Atheist mummer is for ourselves, on here.
    And who is suggesting the “problem of evil” is either new or insurmountable?
    Fry? When? Where?
    He probably doesn’t know that no less than C. S. Lewis, the Catholics’ favourite non-Catholic, cracked it donkey’s years ago. Stephen really doesn’t know Jack, in fact.
    He’s simply making a modest crust “ranting and raving” about what a rotten chap God is.
    Yes, he was less worse at Jeeves, I reckon.
    Should have stuck to that.
    ….Much funnier.

  30. The Raven says:

    He played closer to type as Mr Meyerberg in “Cold Comfort Farm”.

  31. toadspittle says:

    Whoopee! Toad’s fave religion of all* – The Quivering Brethren!
    Repent, ye swine!!

    * Although Muggletonians, possibly?

  32. toadspittle says:

    There’s real religion for yer! None of this Pope Francis, nicey-nicey, cuddly stuff, eh Kathleen!

    Thanks to The Raven for the reminder.

  33. Tom Fisher says:

    Mr Fry’s entire business is to froth and splutter and I don’t want to see a man deprived of his trade

    I’m sorry Raven but this is becoming silly, that simply isn’t true and you know it.

  34. The Raven says:

    On the contrary, Tom, Mr Fry used to have a nice line as a comic actor, but he seems to have given that up in favour of playing Mr Meyerburg on a full time basis.

  35. toadspittle says:

    Truth is what other people let us get away with,” said Pope Francis. (no, of course he didn’t Toad, you little liar – that was Rorty.)
    But, Tom, here’s an instance, viz The Raven, of presumably sane people seeing exactly what they want to see – nothing more, nothing less. Hence miracles.
    I probably do the same thing, because each of us subconsciously ensures we aren’t aware of doing it.
    Trouble is, it makes life – and everything – nonsensical, which it is of course.

  36. toadspittle says:

    …On further reflection, “Nonsensical” is too strong a word here – “very mysterious,” is nearer the mark.
    And that’s two words.

  37. kathleen says:

    Toad,
    Life is “nonsensical” only for those who give their own prideful, partial, relativist, sceptical and warped interpretation to it.
    Why not step back and forget your great big ego for once, by starting to look at the Catholic Church’s explanation to life instead? Start off with God and His Revelation of Himself to Mankind through the Bible. Open yourself to God in prayer; call out to Him with “a humble and contrite heart”. He will hear you, for He has been calling out to you all along though you turned a deaf ear.
    You could find all the answers (or most of them) to your continual rambling questions in reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Doctors of the Church and those of many of the great saints. And yes, a bit of Chesterton (as HRM has mentioned above) would do you a world of good too! Accompanied by a little humility and recognition that this has already been worked out for us if we ‘open our eyes to see’, it might make you come down from your eternal merry-go-round of nonsense.

    All this is said to you from a fellow sinner mind you – we are all on the same pilgrim path of struggles. God bless you old pal.🙂

  38. The Raven says:

    I have a small confession to make, Toad, I haven’t owned a television for the last twenty years, so only become aware of Mr Fry when he says something sufficiently asinine for his comments to be reported in the broadsheets. In other words, the information from which I draw my conclusions is limited and may not be wholly representative of his oeuvre.

    Is there some great work of his that you would like to point me to, which would justify a change in my opinion of the man?

  39. Kathleen: I have had ‘WORD PRESS’ installed as suggested by B Burrito and Nothing has changed. I must be doing something wrong………

    (Kathleen: So sorry to hear you still have this ongoing problem Geoff. I’m sending you a personal e-mail about it.)

  40. toadspittle says:

    1: Toad amended “nonsensical,” before you wrote, Kathleen.
    The Bible, which I’ve read, is a nasty, porno book. What ever happened to the God who encouraged Moses to do beastly things to the Midanites? Is He dead, as Fred said?

    2: Yet another virtue we hold in common, Raven. We have had no TV for over 10 years now.
    Re: Fry, I regard him as a polymath of near genius. He has shown remarkable talent in a very wide range of disciplines, film writing and directing, journalism, acting of course, debating, naturally, first rate comedian, novel writing and a book on poetry, and heaven knows what else.
    True, he has superiors in each of these fields, but few, if any, of us can aspire to such a sweep of achievement. Probably paints saleable Matisses and writes mazurkas in the manner of Chopin in his down time. A little too forceful in the Atheist dept. for my taste, but there you are. Take all sorts, dunnit?
    To portray him as an incompetent bungler tells a good deal more about those who do so than it does of him.
    If you see what I mean.

    3: Maybe you are saying the wrong prayers to the computer God, Geoff. He can be very picky.

  41. Tom Fisher says:

    Raven,

    Toad’s latest comment contains a few rather provocative statements, however I very much agree with him when he says this: (although “near genius” is clearly an exaggeration)

    Re: Fry, I regard him as a polymath of near genius. He has shown remarkable talent in a very wide range of disciplines, film writing and directing, journalism, acting of course, debating, naturally, first rate comedian, novel writing and a book on poetry, and heaven knows what else.

    It is simply inaccurate to dismiss Fry as a man whose entire business is to froth and splutter and it offends my sense of fairness. If Toad doesn’t provide you with examples of things to read or watch, as requested, I’ll have a think and make a suggestion or two.

  42. Tom Fisher says:

    I have had ‘WORD PRESS’ installed as suggested by B Burrito and Nothing has changed. I must be doing something wrong………

    Hi Geoff, what’s been the problem? I’ve had a few issues with WordPress myself over the years.

  43. toadspittle says:

    Christians are always going on about how “humble” they are. But it seems to me the greatest arrogance imaginable to believe that God has singled out humans from all other species – possibly in the entire universe – for immortality.
    But I might be utterly wrong, of course. Always a live possibility for a sceptic.

    (And I’ve read practically all of Chesterton, or at least all that’s reasonably available. And Shaw. And Wells. And C.S. Lewis, the famous Protestant. Very good they all are, too. In their way.)

  44. toadspittle says:

    I don’t think “near genius” is an exaggeration, in Fry’s case Tom. However, there is nothing to stop you from thinking so.
    Civilised differences of opinion, such as those we enjoy, are good and stimulating.
    Which is why I plod cheerfully on, on here.

  45. kathleen says:

    Toad,
    The Bible is anything but a “a nasty, porno book” – what a dreadful thing to say! It is the history of Man’s Salvation, culminating in the Son of God’s Incarnation, Death and Resurrection, to redeem our fallen race, and finalising with the Birth of the Church (built on the Apostles) to carry on His work.
    That, my friend, is why we need the Catholic Church to help us understand and interpret the Bible properly, and not simply pick out the “nasty” bits and then condemn the whole book.

    You say you have read practically all of Chesterton’s works (hmmm, I wonder with what frame of mind!) Anyway, have you read this one, “The Ball and the Cross“, one of GKC’s earlier works, written before he became a Catholic? The link below is a review of the book’s qualities, revealing that a view of life that is rooted firmly in pride as opposed to a genuinely objective assessment of the various data we have before us, will lead to muddled positions like yours:

    https://cburrell.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/chesterton-the-ball-and-the-cross/

    (‘Hat tip’ to Michael Kenny for alerting me to the link.)

  46. Tom Fisher says:

    “The Ball and the Cross“, one of GKC’s earlier works, written before he became a Catholic?

    About 12 years before I think. Orthodoxy was well before as well.

  47. toadspittle says:

    No not read that one. Big Gil did write a lot of stuff.
    What is all that “nasty stuff” doing in The Good Book, anyway – I’d like to know. Oops.Off to pronto.

  48. Toad: Never thought of praying before. Do you think it’ll help? Has it worked for you before???

    Tom Thanks for your offer. I have written to word press. Hope they can help if not I’ll get back to you

  49. toadspittle says:

    The thing about prayer, Geoff, is you don’t know what would have happened if you hadn’t done it So, it’s best to do it, anyway.

  50. GC says:

    Geoff, if you mean you can’t access CP&S or wordpress in general this may help:

    How to Fix if You Can’t Access a Particular Website

    At one stage I couldn’t access some sites such as newadvent.org. I just took everything to the local computer clinic and they re-formatted my laptop, after I stored all my important stuff on a portable drive. That did the trick and it didn’t cost much.

  51. The Raven says:

    Without wishing to be too wilfully contrary, I had always thought that “polymath” was to be applied to a person learned in many different fields (Jonathan Miller comes to mind as a weak candidate for the title), whereas Mr Fry seems to have limited himself to writing and acting (his one directorial credit is for an adaptation of Waugh’s “Vile Bodies”, which didn’t exactly wow the critics).

    I used to find some of the stuff that he did with Hugh Laurie amusing and enjoyed his pod-casts about his travels in the USA, but none of it really seems to merit the adulation that he currently enjoys.

    His current role is to pretend omniscience on TV panel shows and to say contentious things in public.

    I appreciate that this whole thing is probably the product of my own uneducated, plebeian tastes and low tolerance of whimsy (I find Chesterton virtually unreadable); I can only apologise for my lack of class.

  52. toadspittle says:

    Yet another commonality, Raven. Chesterton, like Shaw, and Wells, is rather hard going for me these days. As a kid, I ate them all up like pumpkin pie. There’s something tiresome and superannuated about them all since the last war. Or so it seems. Odd.

    And I think we will let poor young Fry go – at that.
    “I appreciate that this whole thing is probably the product of my own uneducated, plebeian tastes…”
    and Toad suspects that is a howling great “porky” on your part. But he might be wrong.
    But, like you, when it comes to “stand-up” – he prefers Frankie Howerd.

    ..and the incomparable Max

    >>But then I suspect Fry will agree, gladly.

  53. toadspittle says:

    Oh, for God’s sake, Toad – try to take something – anything – a bit seriously. Ever since Kathleen appointed you Head Jester, you’ve got totally out of hand

  54. johnhenrycn says:

    “…Chesterton virtually unreadable.”

    Have read a couple of his books and was a subscriber to the Chesterton Review, but over time became fatigued by his overuse of paradox as a literary device. OTSOTA was a great admirer of GKC and scolded me for this opinion.

    S. Fry in a pod-cast? Grandiloquent be thy middle name, Stephen. Doubt that he could ever be compared favourably with the late Charles Kuralt whose On The Road With television series beginning in the mid-1960s took him all over the backroads of America in a motor home for a quarter century. But for not having a plummy accent, nor a ‘to the manor born’ air about him, Kuralt would also have made a better Jeeves. He certainly looked the part:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s