Maurice Ravel made a jewel of excellence with his orchestration of 'Pictures At An Exhibition', a piano work by Modesto Mussorgsky.
What do you think?
No, Rimsky-Korsakov beat Ravel to the "punch." And probably to the punch bowl. ;D
But an interesting thing happened some time after Rimsky, Ravel et al had "corrected" and "improved" Mussorgsky's work: Somebody decided to put on Boris Godunov in Mussorgsky's original scoring--and a lot of folks realized it was pretty good after all! :D
Mussorgsky isn't famous, but to the extend that Ravel made his name know, yes, i think he did.
Quote from: jochanaan on September 26, 2008, 02:31:37 PM
But an interesting thing happened some time after Rimsky, Ravel et al had "corrected" and "improved" Mussorgsky's work: Somebody decided to put on Boris Godunov in Mussorgsky's original scoring--and a lot of folks realized it was pretty good after all! :D
I've heard it said the same fate befell the original piano version of
Pictures: when the orchestration (the "improvement") was lifted away what remained was the rightful gem waiting to be "discovered".
This is how I see the work. More attractive in the piano scoring.
Who said Ravel's orchestration was supposed to be an "improvement"? Solo piano and orchestra are two very different media, and when someone thinks the musical material of a piano piece might also be interesting in orchestral form (as Koussevitzky apparently did), that doesn't mean he thinks the original needs "improving". Nor do I think that Ravel's orchestration somehow obscures the value of the original piano version as such. Where do these strange ideas come from?
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:30:55 PM
Who said Ravel's orchestration was supposed to be an "improvement"?
Apparently early on the original didn't pass muster with certain folks:
QuoteOpinion of the day considered it unpianistic, a curiosity piece inviting improvement, a short-score...Godowsky's view was that "Ravel realized for Mussorgsky a fulfilment of ideals which Mussorgsky was obviously incapable of realizing for himself".
"Mussorgsky, as a writer for piano, is almost negligible", we read in Albert Lockwood's Notes on the Literature of the Piano (1940), "but his renaissance as a musician makes the inclusion of these few pieces desirable...[but the 'Promenade'] becomes a trifle tiresome and may be omitted."
International Piano Quarterly, Autumn, 1998.
My take is I'm just glad the piece eventually came in for reassessment. I'd hate to think remarks like the above could keep the original piano version from attaining wider appeal.
Count me as one who much prefers the original piano version. It's a good question though. I don't know much about it but I'd guess that it was thanks to Ravel's orchestration that Mussorgsky came to prominence much quicker in the west. When I listen to Mussorgsky these days, it's usually for his songs.
So what does it matter what some dude wrote in a book in 1940? I like to listen to both versions. I wouldn't mind getting to know an alternative orchestration, but the ones I have heard so far are nowhere near as good as Ravel's.
Apart from that, I don't find it surprising that Mussorgsky was never regarded as an "important" composer of piano music because he didn't write much else of substance besides PaaE? Or did he?
Quote from: M forever on September 28, 2008, 11:28:35 AM
So what does it matter what some dude wrote in a book in 1940? I like to listen to both versions. I wouldn't mind getting to know an alternative orchestration, but the ones I have heard so far are nowhere near as good as Ravel's.
Apart from that, I don't find it surprising that Mussorgsky was never regarded as an "important" composer of piano music because he didn't write much else of substance besides PaaE? Or did he?
No, emphatically not.
Quote from: M forever on September 28, 2008, 11:28:35 AM
So what does it matter what some dude wrote in a book in 1940?
I don't think it matters at all what that guy said.
But apparently it mattered to folks influential enough to lobby for an orchestral version of the work. Early on, that is.
Hence the flood of orchestrated versions. Ravel's has seemed to win out as the best. No argument there.
Eventually the piano version worked its way into the mainstream, no thanks to the attitudes of the 1940 guy above.
Quote from: M forever on September 28, 2008, 11:28:35 AM
Apart from that, I don't find it surprising that Mussorgsky was never regarded as an "important" composer of piano music because he didn't write much else of substance besides PaaE?
Yes, and others early on had the same impressions.
Quote from: donwyn on September 28, 2008, 06:49:06 PM
But apparently it mattered to folks influential enough to lobby for an orchestral version of the work. Early on, that is.
I don't think anyone had to "lobby" for an orchestral versions. People who felt they should orchestrate it simply did it, and Koussevitzky didn't "lobby" for it either. He just paid Ravel.
Quote from: M forever on September 28, 2008, 08:16:47 PM
I don't think anyone had to "lobby" for an orchestral versions. People who felt they should orchestrate it simply did it, and Koussevitzky didn't "lobby" for it either. He just paid Ravel.
Good enough...a half-dozen fellows or so independently felt the work needed orchestrating.
If someone orchestrates a piano piece, it doesn't automatically mean the he thinks it "needs" orchestrating. Maybe he simply thinks the musical material would make some nice orchestral music.
What I always find funny is that a lot of "experts" dismiss the Ravel version because they feel it is "too French" - apparently completely ignorant that Ravel's orchestration in general isn't "typically French" at all and that he actually learnt a lot from studying the often very colorful orchestration of Russian composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov.
Quote from: M forever on September 28, 2008, 08:38:44 PM
If someone orchestrates a piano piece, it doesn't automatically mean the he thinks it "needs" orchestrating. Maybe he simply thinks the musical material would make some nice orchestral music.
Agreed.
Mussorgsky's fame was established (in his lifetime too) at least as much by Boris Godunov as by the Pictures.
I would also point out that Ravel's Orchestration of Pictures came sort of late in the picture (1922?) By this point, Debussy had already been hugely influenced by Mussorgsky (and had already finished his career), and the ill-fated orchestration of Khovanschina by Ravel and Stravinsky had already taken place.
While the Ravel version (which I love) may have helped make Mussorgsky more known to the public, I'd say that in musical circles it was already a done deal.
Quote from: donwyn on September 26, 2008, 08:00:40 PM
I've heard it said the same fate befell the original piano version of Pictures: when the orchestration (the "improvement") was lifted away what remained was the rightful gem waiting to be "discovered".
This is how I see the work. More attractive in the piano scoring.
Part of the issue is whether what you're hearing from the pianist
is Mussorgsky's piano scoring. The Horowitz, for example, is notorious for introducing all kinds of deviations from the original score designed to make the piece sound more "effective."
I think it also true the piano PaaE is both more difficult to play and less "effective" pianistically than many comparable pieces. I've been practicing the piece off and on for years, and when a long time ago I met David Bar-Illan following a stupendous performance, I brought up how he played the original without any Horowitzian embellishments. DB-I (paraphrasing from memory of course): "Yes, but the damned thing is that you work so hard on so many awkward passages, but as it's not obvious to the audience where the tough spots are, most listeners just don't know the difference."
There is a strange tragedy involved in the way other composers stream-lined Mussorgsky's compositions, which had some sort of raw quality that was lost in translation. RK's reworking of Night at Bare Mountain is a downright rape of the piece. The original orchestration by Mussorgsky is hardly ever performed, which says something about the ritual of tradition in classical music....
Actually the original orchestral version is performed quite often these days and has also been recorded a number of times, and Rimsky-Korsakov's version isn't even based on that, but on another version Mussorgsky made for his opera project "Sorochinsky Fair" and the main difference is that R-K created a purely orchestral version of the music for ease of performance while that particular version also involved a choir and vocal soloist. But most of the general musical differences and the way he treats the material stem from Mussorgsky himself. So it wasn't a "rape" at all. I personally still prefer the original orchestral version to all others, but this choral version and also R-K's arrangement are very enjoyable, too.
Quote from: M forever on October 17, 2008, 10:44:15 PM
the main difference is that R-K created a purely orchestral version of the music for ease of performance
enough said 8)
...which as such is totally legitimate because the choral version wasn't even meant for concert performance, but to be a part of the opera. Arranging pieces from operas and ballets for concert performance isn't something R-K came up with to "rape" Mussorgsky's music. It was a very common practice of the time. You need to get to know the various versions to put that all into context.
In any case Ugh, RK was not exploiting Mussorgsky's music. He was acting as a friend in lavishing time on it; to make it more appealing to the taste of the time and ensuring it was listened to, all be it, dressed in different clothes.
Mike
Quote from: M forever on October 17, 2008, 10:44:15 PM
Actually the original orchestral version is performed quite often these days and has also been recorded a number of times, and Rimsky-Korsakov's version isn't even based on that, but on another version Mussorgsky made for his opera project "Sorochinsky Fair" and the main difference is that R-K created a purely orchestral version of the music for ease of performance while that particular version also involved a choir and vocal soloist.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Was Rimsky-Korsakov aware that there already is purely orchestral version when he sat out to arrange the choral one for concert purposes?
Quote from: M forever on October 17, 2008, 11:28:49 PM
...which as such is totally legitimate because the choral version wasn't even meant for concert performance, but to be a part of the opera. Arranging pieces from operas and ballets for concert performance isn't something R-K came up with to "rape" Mussorgsky's music. It was a very common practice of the time. You need to get to know the various versions to put that all into context.
I am aware of the different versions, in fact it was Mussorgsky's third version that was intended for the Opera. I think the following quote needs to be considered in respect to RK's reworking of the piece:
QuoteA Night on the Bare Mountain or, to give its proper title, Saint John's Night on the Bare Mountain, was inspired by a scene of a witches' sabbath in Gogol's story of St. John's Eve, and is a lurid melodrama following in the footsteps of Berlioz (finale of Symphonie Fantastique) and Liszt (Totentanz). He wrote it in 1867, produced a second, choral version (1872) as his contribution to a projected collective opera, Mlada, and finally recast it in the form of a choral introduction for Act 3 of Sorochintsy Fair (1873). With no fewer than three versions "in the can", there was no question of Rimsky-Korsakov "completing" his friend's work - his re-working (1908) of Mussorgsky's third version, into the popular piece we all know and love, was purely for the presumptuous purpose of "correction". While we may abhor in principle the subsequent edition for Walt Disney's Fantasia, which rubbed in further salt by shovelling the melody of Schubert's Ave Maria into the framework of Rimsky-Korsakov's oh-so-cosy ending, we must remember that this final "insult" also brought Mussorgsky's name to the lips of more people than the other four versions put together.
Rimsky-Korsakov's urbane manners and taste for tasteful "fairy-tales" dictated that his would be a sanitised, "PG-rated" version, complete with a cosy bedtime mug of cocoa. Mussorgsky's original is by comparison "X-rated", and arguably the product of a nightmare following a bout of hard drinking and Gogol. If so, all its crudities and disfugurements come not from "incompetence" but from terrible experience. The key to Mussorgsky's structure lies in his programme: " [1] An underground noise of inhuman voices. Appearance of the Spirits of Darkness followed by an appearance of Satan and [2] his adoration. [3] A Black Mass. [4] Joyful dancing of the Witches' Sabbath. All of which is ended by the ringing of a church bell and the appearance of dawn".
Dramatically, there's no place for any nice, neat recapitulation: following his programme, Mussorgsky crams his hatful of horrors into a loose, four-part variational form. Following the relatively familiar sounds of the opening tumult [1], [2] is "heralded" by a sinister, bulging bass-drum roll, while [3] starts after a long pause, on eerie tremolandos. This "Black Mass" includes a parody of a "Russian Orthodox" chant (violas), which Rimsky-Korsakov presumably found inexcusably offensive, as he completely excised (or should I say "exorcised"?) it. The final section, [4], starts with a long downward slither, just one of a catalogue of spine-tingling grotesqueries. Moreover, all these nasty devils and hobgoblins retire, like Dracula to his "bed", into the nether regions at only the very last bar, dispelled by the briefest hint of church bell and dawn - Mussorgsky denies us any Good Christian Consolation to ward off the bogey-men lurking in the gloomy shadows as we troop home.
(http://www.musicweb-international.com/Programme_Notes/mussorg_bare.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/Programme_Notes/mussorg_bare.htm))
Well, you obviously hadn't been aware of these different versions yesterday, but thanks to M, google, and musicweb you now are. And thanks for sharing the article here!
Quote from: Drasko on October 18, 2008, 03:09:34 AM
Interesting, I didn't know that. Was Rimsky-Korsakov aware that there already is purely orchestral version when he sat out to arrange the choral one for concert purposes?
Dunno. But I think that's very likely. I started reading R-K's autobiography once but never got very far. I wonder if it says anything in there about that.
Quote from: M forever on October 18, 2008, 01:52:06 PM
Well, you obviously hadn't been aware of these different versions yesterday, but thanks to M, google, and musicweb you now are. And thanks for sharing the article here!
Actually I wasn't aware that there was a pre-choral version composed by Mussorgsky, no, but my point was that RK's reworking of the choral version involved a level of censorship that to me qualifies as a musical rape on a wonderfully "raw" piece that contained the sort of "modernistic" qualities that Stravinsky's Rite would explore much later, most likely to what would have been RK's discontent had he lived to hear it.... That was my entire argument in the first post, and I wonder whether we still disagree? I think it is an oversimplification that he simply made it easier to perform, because the musical translation involves far more than assigning the choral parts to other instrument groups....
I would agree with what knight said. I think R-K's intentions were good, and it's not like he destroyed the other versions and replaced them with his one. Anybody interested in the various original versions can study and perform them.
Quote from: Sforzando on October 17, 2008, 11:41:27 AM
He's not?
Mussorgsky isn't a well-known name outside of those interested in classical music.
Why would that be a measure? Such folk often know Pacbell. People in deepest Borneo won't know Bach or Mozart. So, surely we are talking here about fame in terms of those who have an interest in this kind of music, in which case, Mussorgsky is famous.
Mike
Quote from: The Six on October 18, 2008, 06:02:45 PM
Mussorgsky isn't a well-known name outside of those interested in classical music.
Oh I see.
Quote from: M forever on October 18, 2008, 02:16:27 PM
I would agree with what knight said. I think R-K's intentions were good, and it's not like he destroyed the other versions and replaced them with his one. Anybody interested in the various original versions can study and perform them.
I still find it sad that RK's version is performed and recorded far far more than Mussorgsky's own versions. In any event, the idea of making any work more appealing to the taste of the time and ensuring it is listened to is not very appealing to me. I am intrigued by the idea of wonderful works that never complied with the taste of their time and remained unknown in their time.
Les Chants de Maldoror comes to mind....
Quote from: Ugh! on October 19, 2008, 09:51:00 AM
I still find it sad that RK's version is performed and recorded far far more than Mussorgsky's own versions. In any event, the idea of making any work more appealing to the taste of the time and ensuring it is listened to is not very appealing to me. I am intrigued by the idea of wonderful works that never complied with the taste of their time and remained unknown in their time. Les Chants de Maldoror comes to mind....
If I remember correctly, Mussorgsky and R-K roomed together and constantly helped each other write his music. R-K knew the quality of M's unfinished operas. He composed the orchestration for them with the idea of keeping the operas before the public until such time as the public would be ready for M's own music. I don't believe R-K ever intended that his composing would replace what M had done.
I think it is only now that the M version is beginning to be accepted by the public. The Met has adopted M's version. I like M's version better myself despite those gorgeous steeple bells that R-K composed.
It's been a while since I listened to the Sorochintsy version, but IIRC, it contains the "dawn" music, and doesn't it also contain the bells? Or OTOH, IIRC, it actually only exists as a vocal score with piano accompaniment, so that probably doesn't contain any orchestration details.
It also has to be remembered that while the original version of "Night" was actually finished, Mussorgsy sketched out and drafted, but rarely ever really finished most of his projects, and it probably didn't help either that he drannk himself to death at a fairly young age. I think those around him, including R-K, recognized his extraordinary genius but as they were themselves striving to find new forms for Russian music to replace the prevalent forms of "high culture" which were almost exclusively imported from the West at that time, they were less interested in bits and pieces of genius flying around than in finshed, rounded-off pieces. That we today are more interested in the raw genius displayed in many of Mussorgsky's more or less finished compositions does not mean that the people of his own time who had other ultimate goals and priorities couldn't see the quality of his work.
Quote from: M forever on October 19, 2008, 11:37:30 AM
It's been a while since I listened to the Sorochintsy version, but IIRC, it contains the "dawn" music, and doesn't it also contain the bells? Or OTOH, IIRC, it actually only exists as a vocal score with piano accompaniment, so that probably doesn't contain any orchestration details.
It also has to be remembered that while the original version of "Night" was actually finished, Mussorgsky sketched out and drafted, but rarely ever really finished most of his projects, and it probably didn't help either that he drannk himself to death at a fairly young age. I think those around him, including R-K, recognized his extraordinary genius but as they were themselves striving to find new forms for Russian music to replace the prevalent forms of "high culture" which were almost exclusively imported from the West at that time, they were less interested in bits and pieces of genius flying around than in finshed, rounded-off pieces. That we today are more interested in the raw genius displayed in many of Mussorgsky's more or less finished compositions does not mean that the people of his own time who had other ultimate goals and priorities couldn't see the quality of his work.
The beautiful steeple bells' music was from
Boris Godunov.
The "
Dawn" music is the overture to
Khovanshchina. This opera includes an instrumental piece,
The Dance of the Persian Slaves which is SO beautiful! Everyone should hear that gorgeous music.
Sorochinsky Fair has very little music composed. People warned me it was not worth the effort to locate a copy of it. I loved M's music so much that I hoped there might an aria or whatever. The people who warned me were right.
Have you heard M's
Songs and Dances of Death? They are beautiful and so well written. IMHO those songs rival Schubert's. There is a Russian baritone, Dmitri Hvorotovsky, that Gergiev helped get established in the west. The ladies think he is quite special. Anyway he sings those songs very well. I like Boris Christoff's recording of them also; that recording is from EMI's Great Recordings of the Century. It also includes other songs -
The Nursery and
Sunless. I am just learning these other songs now.
"
That we today are more interested in the raw genius displayed in many of Mussorgsky's more or less finished compositions does not mean that the people of his own time who had other ultimate goals and priorities couldn't see the quality of his work."
I agree. You're right. I didn't state that very well.
By "dawn music" I didn't mean the prelude to Khovanshchina ("Dawn over the Moscow River"), I meant the ending of "Night" as heard in R-K's version. IIRC, that is already there in the later drafts by Mussorgsky, so it wasn't something that R-K came up with and tacked on to his version. That end section also contains bells which was what I referred to. It is rather close in athmosphere and melodic gestus to that prelude, so I have no problems believing it is authentic Mussorgsky material.
I have the Songs and Dances of Death with Hvorostovsky and the St.Petersburg Philharmonic conducted by Temirkanov which is a live recording from the Proms. I don't really care what "the ladies" think about him, but that recording is very good indeed. He also made one with Gergiev which I haven't heard. Incidentally, the orchestration of the songs is by Shostakovich - I hope Ugh! won't hold that against DSCH.
He he I'm straight with DSCH 8)
Quote from: M forever on October 19, 2008, 10:11:41 PM
By "dawn music" I didn't mean the prelude to Khovanshchina ("Dawn over the Moscow River"), I meant the ending of "Night" as heard in R-K's version. IIRC, that is already there in the later drafts by Mussorgsky, so it wasn't something that R-K came up with and tacked on to his version. That end section also contains bells which was what I referred to. It is rather close in athmosphere and melodic gestus to that prelude, so I have no problems believing it is authentic Mussorgsky material.
Are you referring to "Night on Bald Mountain?" What recording would you recommend? I would like to hear what you are talking about.
[quote author=M I have the Songs and Dances of Death with Hvorostovsky and the St.Petersburg Philharmonic conducted by Temirkanov which is a live recording from the Proms. I don't really care what "the ladies" think about him, but that recording is very good indeed. He also made one with Gergiev which I haven't heard. Incidentally, the orchestration of the songs is by Shostakovich - I hope Ugh! won't hold that against DSCH.
[/quote]
I understand Shostakovich also orchestrated
Khovanshchina. Have you heard it? I keep looking for a copy but so far have been unsuccessful.
Quote from: Anne on October 20, 2008, 12:20:57 PM
Are you referring to "Night on Bald Mountain?"
Well, uh...yes...that's what we have been talking about for over a page now...
Quote from: Anne on October 20, 2008, 12:20:57 PM
What recording would you recommend? I would like to hear what you are talking about.
Do you mean of Mussorgsky's two versions or of R-K's?
Quote from: M forever on October 20, 2008, 08:42:17 PM
Well, uh...yes...that's what we have been talking about for over a page now...Quote
I didn't go back and check the reference. I'd made an error in identifying the "Dawn" music and just wanted to verify this music. Have been so interested in the presidential campaign that I hardly have time to come here. In 2 weeks it will be over.
Quote from: M Do you mean of Mussorgsky's two versions or of R-K's?
/quote]
I've heard the music but do not have a CD of it and don't know which of the 3 versions is best. Do you have a recommendation?
Quote from: M forever on October 20, 2008, 08:42:17 PM
Do you mean of Mussorgsky's two versions or of R-K's?
Is there actually recordings of all 3 M versions? I am only familiar with the choral one, with Abbado AFAIR...
Mussorgsky's choral version (Abbado/BPO Sony)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41lv3h8sRjL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Mussorgsky's orchestral version
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NED3S3BCL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61GEABSY1KL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51usOzdxwmL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412Zw20SATL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
recordings of Rimsky-Korsakov version are too many to mention
Great, thanks!
MM was a legend in russia a long time before Ravel has done his job.
AFAIK, the middle of Mussorgsky's three versions has not survived. Wikipedia confirms that (so it must be true!). Of the original version, my favorite is this one:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EZYATSqzL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
I also have Abbado's LSO version which I dimly remember as very good, but it has been ages since I last listened to it, so I can't really comment on it. His later one with the BP on DG is also good, but I found it too expansive and lacking in demonic drive, compared with Dohnányi, although there are some wonderful lyrical moments.
For the later choral version, again Abbado and the BP, this time on Sony, is the only recording I know of.
There are indeed countless recordings of the R-K version, but these two I find particularly good:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412ZGJ31KSL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B6PD95CSL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
The NYP/Sinopoli is also one of the best PaaE (Ravel) versions I know. Extremely colorful and highly characterized, and there is some really spectacular playing by the NYP going on there (the word "spectacular" is often used, but here it really applies).
Of some curiosity interest might also be the arrangements of Mussorgsky's music made by Stokowski which are on this very CD:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A3G9QZMTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Thank you for the recommendations.
Thanks to everyone else for their recommendations.
Somebody earlier on in this thread commented that Mussorgsky is not famous, which of course is right if you consider him outside the cycle of classical music. Bob Marley, Bruce Lee, George Bush, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sylvester Stallone, Madonna, Maradona, the Pope, now there are some famous people who are known even outside the western hemisphere. For a while I lived with Lacandon indians deep into the jungle of Chiapas, Mexico. Bruce Lee was huge there. Mussorgsky was seldom discussed. ;)
In as far as he, or rather, his music, is famous, is it fair to say that it is more than anything through Disney's promotion of Night on Bald Mountain rather than Ravel's orchestration of Pictures?
Quote from: Ugh! on October 22, 2008, 02:24:29 AM
For a while I lived with Lacandon indians deep into the jungle of Chiapas, Mexico. Bruce Lee was huge there. Mussorgsky was seldom discussed. ;)
Can I have this as a signature? 8) ;D
Quote from: Ugh! on October 22, 2008, 02:24:29 AM
In as far as he, or rather, his music, is famous, is it fair to say that it is more than anything through Disney's promotion of Night on Bald Mountain rather than Ravel's orchestration of Pictures?
No, it isn't. It is just nonsensical to say that since there is no way one could "measure" that. How many people have actually seen the Disney stuff which is 70 years or so old? I think most of the posters on this website haven't seen the movie. It doesn't really matter anyway. Most people who listen to "classical" music probably know who Mussorgsky is. Most people who don't listen to classical music probably don't know who he is.
BTW, I was in Chiapas once, in Tuxtla Gutierrez. But only for 2-3 days. The company I worked for had shares in the big Xtreme Cinema complex. I didn't have enough time to take a jungle tour though. Did you see a lot of big hairy spiders?
Quote from: Ugh! on October 22, 2008, 02:24:29 AM
For a while I lived with Lacandon indians deep into the jungle of Chiapas, Mexico. Bruce Lee was huge there. Mussorgsky was seldom discussed. ;)
Huge as this?
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/28/xin_55110228054140823452.jpg)
Mostar, Bosnia, Balkans
Quote from: Drasko on October 22, 2008, 09:36:43 AM
Huge as this?
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/28/xin_55110228054140823452.jpg)
Mostar, Bosnia, Balkans
:o For a moment I thought that was C3PO! ;D