Gsoul82

Emotional Responses to Certain Musical Things?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Another thing with Ray, is he was known to cry on stage:

Quote

 

The gospel, call-and-responses in your songs – "Drown in My Own Tears," "What'd I Say," and "Hit the Road Jack" – I'd say, were tremendous influences on Motown's sound. How did that develop?
Well, I don't know how anything . . . I just hear things in my head. That's the simplest answer I can give you, man. What I hear is what comes out, and I'm very instantaneous, I guess. I feel somethin', I get an idea how I want to do it, and I just do it. I don't have no special ways about it. Anything I do, good or bad, it's very, very natural. That's it. So, that's why I can't do anything twice the same way. I sing "Georgia" every night, just about, not because I want it to be different or I'm trying to make it different, it's just that when I'm bein' natural, it just comes out, because I don't always hear the same thing. I don't hear the same thing every time I sing a song. So, I guess it is a good thing, because the song never gets dull to me.

Sometimes you cry onstage.
That's true, that's true. I'm not embarrassed about that. It's just that some nights, man, I guess my mood, you know. And I don't know what happens in my soul, but I can be singin' a song, and for some reason it'll get to me, you know. I'll feel sorry, feel sad. It'll just hurt me or somethin', I don't know. So I cry. Can't hep it.

 

I think he really embodies being able to channel sincere catharsis into music and have it connect. I think the key is spontaneity of the emotion and whether the musicality of the performance is enticing.

When the emotion in question is premeditated before hand and strategically displayed at a pre determined interval/duration it becomes something else, like if Ray was instead thinking, "in about 10 seconds at the middle of the saddest part of the verse, I'm going to cry," that would be very different.

For this kind of performance, crying is just one of many feelings that can come and go while expressing the performance, there is no premeditation as to when or why. It is the result of expressing the sound he hears in his head and emotion he was feeling at that moment in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I agree with KillerKu and Felipe also...It is not that you are "Trying" to sound emotional, Yes, there are things you can do to help it along....like adding a little sob or distortion in certain areas or sing softer or louder when called for.  but rather knowing the song and the story, just let it play out in your imagination while singing can help, especially if you have been in a similar situation.

    You can practice your soft soulful voice or harsh one, or listen back to your recordings and decide to hold a note a little longer or shorten it for effect. But I would still reflect on how I would speak in a similar situation to give me ideas.

     It is also that you would not need to reflect every time you sang that song, once you settled on the approach practice it enough that it becomes what you do when you sing it.

There are some words where one syllable in a word may be strong and the next syllable almost whispered. That is also the same thing that happens when you are emotional.  Certain points are stressed and others weak. It is not latching onto a certain sound and sticking to that because you are singing a sad song. The tempo and phrasing of words are also different when in different emotional states. They are pretty much universal when you study them. Emotional delivery CAN be crafted and it is part of a good composition.

  Edit.....You cannot tell me that she was not visualizing that night  while singing this.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 12:09 AM, Robert Lunte said:

Geoff , if You feel it, the listener will surely feel it.

I guess so. Is it all emotional though? Or are there technical aspects of sound that will get that effect.

 

On 12/12/2017 at 4:48 PM, Draven Grey said:

I think emotion is contagious. Personally, I have a hard time singing a song that's not my own because I have less of a connection to it, but that doesn't mean someone else won't have a stronger connection to it as the listener rather than performer. 

What Felipe is talking about is pretentious to me as well, or overacting. It's one thing to lose yourself in the music/song, giving permission for others to do the same, but something entirely different to try to amplify that emotion through actions and emphasis. I think that desire for emotional amplification is where the rest of the band, other performers, wardrobe, staging, lights, and other visuals come into play. But even then, not to pretentiously amplify, rather to support it and assist.

I haven't seen anybody do what I'd call overacting. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

 

On 12/12/2017 at 12:22 AM, MDEW said:

Do you have a song in mind that you may be having trouble with?    I usually choose songs that I already have a connection with, or at least a situation similar to the song.

"Gimme three steps" by Skynyrd comes to mind.....been there ...."And I'm tellin' you son, it ain't no fun, staring straight down a forty four"......but I digress.....

 

I'm not working on anything, lol. Just a general question.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gsoul82 said:

I guess so. Is it all emotional though? Or are there technical aspects of sound that will get that effect.

 

I was just thinking about this, I tried to express it in earlier posts but missed the mark.

There are technical aspects. Tempo, duration of notes, Staccato, legato, chord structure of the music, dynamics, choice of "MODE, REGISTER, or Voice Coloring", vibrato, pulse, melisma....

There are things that your voices do naturally when in different emotional states. They can and are copied by singers and musicians.  Your body even takes on certain rhythms in different emotional states. A slow tempo has a calming effect and fast tempo gets us excited. Our heart beat is even effected by the type of music being heard.  Certain intervals between notes have an effect because of the type of tension created. Chords are the same way because they include those intervals. A minor chord is calming and a dominant 7 chord will add tension. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sob", "fry" and distortion are more likely than not going to make me reach for the OFF button. So I think that interpretation of emotional content can be quite a personal thing. The fact that some of these things go in and out of fashion suggests that it is not as primal as some people make out. There is also a huge cultural aspect to it, where certain effects have quite opposite interpretations in different cultures.

This can be a problem if you are not on your toes, because people giving you advice on improving your singing often assume that their own emotional response is universal. They often jump straight into the "necessary" technique, and take for granted that their preferred sound is "better singing". It is important to figure out where such advisers are going, before you adopt their technique. (Some are not too happy if you don't share their opinion.)

I came across one accomplished singer and coach who claimed that pop music was about emotional expression, while classical singing was not! Yes, his opinion was that opera singers, for example, are not that interested in conveying emotion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

"Sob", "fry" and distortion are more likely than not going to make me reach for the OFF button. So I think that interpretation of emotional content can be quite a personal thing. The fact that some of these things go in and out of fashion suggests that it is not as primal as some people make out. There is also a huge cultural aspect to it, where certain effects have quite opposite interpretations in different cultures.

This can be a problem if you are not on your toes, because people giving you advice on improving your singing often assume that their own emotional response is universal. They often jump straight into the "necessary" technique, and take for granted that their preferred sound is "better singing". It is important to figure out where such advisers are going, before you adopt their technique. (Some are not too happy if you don't share their opinion.)

I came across one accomplished singer and coach who claimed that pop music was about emotional expression, while classical singing was not! Yes, his opinion was that opera singers, for example, are not that interested in conveying emotion!

The artistry is how you chose to use them or not. People do these things naturally when in the emotional states. Anything can be over used. Just like any "Technique" is something to put in your toolbox like "Reverb", "Limiters", "Compressors" are used to produce an effect. A natural rhythm is not continual use of "Sob", "Fry" or "Distortion" They happen naturally on different words, phrases, or even syllables. You may not even notice unless you are analyzing a song for reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kickingtone said:

"Sob", "fry" and distortion are more likely than not going to make me reach for the OFF button. So I think that interpretation of emotional content can be quite a personal thing. The fact that some of these things go in and out of fashion suggests that it is not as primal as some people make out. There is also a huge cultural aspect to it, where certain effects have quite opposite interpretations in different cultures.

This can be a problem if you are not on your toes, because people giving you advice on improving your singing often assume that their own emotional response is universal. They often jump straight into the "necessary" technique, and take for granted that their preferred sound is "better singing". It is important to figure out where such advisers are going, before you adopt their technique. (Some are not too happy if you don't share their opinion.)

I came across one accomplished singer and coach who claimed that pop music was about emotional expression, while classical singing was not! Yes, his opinion was that opera singers, for example, are not that interested in conveying emotion!

You must have a very different definition of sob than I do. It's a specific vocal mode, can be mixed with twang vocal mode as well, and while you can get a particular sound color out of it, it's even more useful as a relaxation tool. Using vocal sob doesn't mean you have to sound a certain way when doing it. But it does mean it's easier not to push the voice. It also puts you into a physical state your body immediately associates with extreme emotion, so from a neuro-associative standpoint, it's much easier to convey emotion while singing. 

Do you mean larynx dampening like Hozier? He uses both sob and larynx dampening. But easily 95% of the pro contemporary voices out there use sob constantly, most without audible larynx dampening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MDEW said:

The artistry is how you chose to use them or not.

True, but the sort of thing I am talking about is downstream of choice. The artist has made the choice and folk are reviewing the vocals. There are situations where I am fully engaged by the vocals, and I can hear plenty of emotional content and uniqueness, yet another listener would say that the singing lacks emotion, expression, or distinctive quality. Yet, I can hear all these things. Then they suggest some "remedies", which are usually dogmatic and along the same technical lines. What is really happening is that they are not tuned in to the emotional content. So they will make blanket statements like, "in order for the singer to 'engage' the listener, he should do x, y or z". I am engaged, they are not, but this fact is bypassed by using the term, "the listener".

Usually, when I don't like a vocal production, I can still hear the emotional content and quality. It's just that it is not my personal taste. When people tell me that emotional content that I can hear is lacking in emotion, it suggests to me that they need to educate their ears until they can hear it. Then they are in a position to like it or dislike it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Draven Grey said:

Do you mean larynx dampening like Hozier? He uses both sob and larynx dampening. But easily 95% of the pro contemporary voices out there use sob constantly, most without audible larynx dampening.

I've just youtubed "sob", and the description is as I would have expected. Off the top of my head (I am not familiar with Hozier, although I checked him out) Tom Jones singing "Green, green grass of home" is fine, for example. Excellent in fact. But that is a lot more subtle than some modern trends. Personally, in such a song, I am expecting the artist to communicate nostalgia, not sound as if they are on death's, door. I believe it is even possible to capture the nostalgia in that song well with very little sob. There is a popular trend of sounding emotionally "broken" that seems to have taken a grip on some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kickingtone said:

I've just youtubed "sob", and the description is as I would have expected. Of the top of my head (I am not familiar with Hozier, although I checked him out) Tom Jones singing "Green, green grass of home" is fine, for example. Excellent in fact. But that is a lot more subtle than some modern trends. Personally, in such a song, I am expecting the artist to communicate nostalgia, not sound as if they are on death's, door. I believe it is even possible to capture the nostalgia in that song well with very little sob. There is a popular trend of sounding emotionally "broken" that seems to have taken a grip on some people.

I understand. I think that gets further back in this forum thread, speaking more to forced emotion. I agree it can be overdone, and it's trendy right now too. That's quite different than how Chris Cornel used sob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

True, but the sort of thing I am talking about is downstream of choice. The artist has made the choice and folk are reviewing the vocals. There are situations where I am fully engaged by the vocals, and I can hear plenty of emotional content and uniqueness, yet another listener would say that the singing lacks emotion, expression, or distinctive quality. Yet, I can hear all these things. Then they suggest some "remedies", which are usually dogmatic and along the same technical lines. What is really happening is that they are not tuned in to the emotional content. So they will make blanket statements like, "in order for the singer to 'engage' the listener, he should do x, y or z. I am engaged, they are not, but this fact is bypassed by using the term, "the listener".

Usually, when I don't like a vocal production, I can still hear the emotional content and quality. It's just that it is not my personal taste. When people tell me that emotional content that I can hear is lacking in emotion, it suggests to me that they need to educate their ears until they can hear it. Then they are in a position to like it or dislike it.

 

Everyone is going to have their own opinions and likes and dislikes. The question was asked, basically, is there something you can do technically or musically to produce, enhance or promote the emotional response.

These are guides, not rules. There are a multitude of things that can be done, which can also be overdone or mis-used. In almost any case how it will be received can only be determined after the fact, but when something has worked in the past it can be used, again, as a guide for future use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Everyone is going to have their own opinions and likes and dislikes. The question was asked, basically, is there something you can do technically or musically to produce, enhance or promote the emotional response.

These are guides, not rules. There are a multitude of things that can be done, which can also be overdone or mis-used. In almost any case how it will be received can only be determined after the fact, but when something has worked in the past it can be used, again, as a guide for future use.

 

That can depend on whether it is trending, and with whom it is trending.

"Train to give yourself more choice" is too obvious an answer to the question. "Nothing specific" seems to be closer to the mark, imo. Isn't that what makes it an art more than a skill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

That can depend on whether it is trending, and with whom it is trending.

"Train to give yourself more choice" is too obvious an answer to the question. "Nothing specific" seems to be closer to the mark, imo. Isn't that what makes it an art more than a skill?

Artist use skills to their advantage.  The skills are developed by what worked before and studying what other artist did to get those effects that captured the imagination of the new artist. The art is how you use the developed skill and creating a new skill. Yes, that may be my own opinion but it is as valid as anyone else's opinion.

 When you study music, art, basketball playing, martial arts or pretty much anything, there are skills and tactics that are used as a basis. The player or artists develop their own style from  utilizing the basics.

You are correct when something is "Trending" it gets to be a bit monotonous.  But take a look at the songs that actually started the "Trends" they are still effective to this day.

There are actually "Things" that will provoke an intended emotional response. They are used constantly in movies, advertising, music, classical compositions.......

But, I do agree with you, somethings can be overdone and what works for the majority of people will not work with everyone. Most of the popular comedians I find distasteful, annoying and almost nauseating yet they have made millions of dollars and most people find them hilarious  and sometimes thought provoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDEW said:

There are actually "Things" that will provoke an intended emotional response. They are used constantly in movies, advertising, music, classical compositions.......

But, I do agree with you, somethings can be overdone and what works for the majority of people will not work with everyone.

I also think that what we deem to be "the majority of people" can be distorted by the fact that most of us tend to gravitate towards like-minded people, and are exposed to the echo chamber effect.

This reminds me. I was brought up with no TV as a child (very strict parents, who didn't believe in it. I was 18 before I had regular access to TV). When I started watching the news on TV, the body language of the news anchors (news readers in the UK) just looked WEIRD! THOROUGHLY WEIRD! They are no doubt trained to emphasize and stress information with head and body movements, and this was supposed to convey gravitas and assertiveness. But to me, who had not been exposed to it, it looked exaggerated and comical! I guess that people can get desensitized to effects, which then need to be made more explicit.

Same sort of thing happened with movies. I would hear what was supposed to be a "chilling" and foreboding cello interlude, but it would sound comical. I think that the nuances of a lot of these associations are learned, and not instinctive. I wonder how much of the evolution of expression is also beset by desensitization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickingtone said:

I also think that what we deem to be "the majority of people" can be distorted by the fact that most of us tend to gravitate towards like-minded people, and are exposed to the echo chamber effect.

This reminds me. I was brought up with no TV as a child (very strict parents, who didn't believe in it. I was 18 before I had regular access to TV). When I started watching the news on TV, the body language of the news anchors (news readers in the UK) just looked WEIRD! THOROUGHLY WEIRD! They are no doubt trained to emphasize and stress information with head and body movements, and this was supposed to convey gravitas and assertiveness. But to me, who had not been exposed to it, it looked exaggerated and comical! I guess that people can get desensitized to effects, which then need to be made more explicit.

Same sort of thing happened with movies. I would hear what was supposed to be a "chilling" and foreboding cello interlude, but it would sound comical. I think that the nuances of a lot of these associations are learned, and not instinctive. I wonder how much of the evolution of expression is also beset by desensitization.

"I wonder how much of the evolution of expression is also beset by desensitization." 

And conditioning. That is part of it's effectiveness..... and also goes to your own point that it may not cross cultures. But there are still things that are universal.

"I would hear what was supposed to be a "chilling" and foreboding cello interlude, but it would sound comical."  Overuse or excessive musical/emotional motifs are part of a comedians "Skillset" and "comedic devices" for lack of a better word. Also a tool to be used and can be mis-used by some comedians, like the ones I mentioned earlier.  You can use an effect that becomes too cliche but subtle use is still effective. It becomes Cliche because it works when not overused.

Even a Band like KISS used an orchestra and string section for their "Love" songs like "Beth" and "Every time I look at You" because for some reason it adds to the effect.

Part of the charm of the original lone ranger was the use of the "William Tell Overture" when the chase was on.

Again, all of this is a guide, Tempo, dynamics, use of certain instruments in specific phrases of a song or composition can add to the overall feel and emotional expression of a song. Yes, they can and sometimes are over done, but learning how and why they work can lead to better expression of a song or composition. That also goes for a singers emotional and delivery devices like the use or conscious choice of vocal register, use of vibrato, fry, sob, distortion, clean tones, airiness, phrasing. melisma.... on and on. 

An expressive sound/tone is something tangible and can be worked on if you feel you are lacking this quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kickingtone said:

Same sort of thing happened with movies. I would hear what was supposed to be a "chilling" and foreboding cello interlude, but it would sound comical. I think that the nuances of a lot of these associations are learned, and not instinctive. I wonder how much of the evolution of expression is also beset by desensitization.

And you think it was because the cello players lacked emotion? Or was it that the choosen language used on the movie did not make sense to you?

A lot of it is learned of course, even Ray Charles would not make much sense if he decided to play on some weird non-diatonic scale, and just go humming his songs. But so is the language we all use.

That's why I think its important to consider the content well before worrying too much on how much emotion you place on it. If worrying at all, after all, can we really control emotions?

This language, which involves both music, lyrics and interpretation, is how you will communicate. If it does not make sense to the other side, it sounds, just as you said, comical.

For example, on Soul, Jazz, Blues and Funk, improvising and playing with the song are part of this expression. Imagine if James Labrie decided to do the same in front of Dream Theater, changing whole sections, adding syncopations on top of the already syncopated rhythm, and so on? Perhaps you would find interesting, but I guarantee that most of the band fans would not find that very appealing. Or on Metallica? Drifting on tempo on the tight sound that is part of trash metal?

And its not like the fans are wrong or numb in some manner, I can certainly enjoy both DT Metropolis pt1 and Ray Charles. But everything has its place and time, emotion alone will not be able to acount for the language being used.

Also on the aspect of technique, there is one important point: if how you are using your voice can not respond in the manner you want, you just won't express what you feel, no matter how much you may feel it! Quite frustrating actually, its one of the reasons most seek lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole conversation reminds me a bit of what is called "soul" by millions people. If someone uses a ton of embellishments and melisma, they are said to have "soul"

After a while though it loses its effect (to me anyway)

How can "soul" be something you learn? If a singer starts embellishing to the max on the first note of the CD and does it on every song, doesnt it lose its effect after a while?? If its a "soul" station on the radio and EVERY single singer on EVERY single song does the same thing. to me its the very definition of LACKING soul

 

All that being said, sob and melisma are just techniques. They dont have to be overdone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JonJon said:

the whole conversation reminds me a bit of what is called "soul" by millions people. If someone uses a ton of embellishments and melisma, they are said to have "soul"

After a while though it loses its effect (to me anyway)

How can "soul" be something you learn? If a singer starts embellishing to the max on the first note of the CD and does it on every song, doesnt it lose its effect after a while?? If its a "soul" station on the radio and EVERY single singer on EVERY single song does the same thing. to me its the very definition of LACKING soul

 

All that being said, sob and melisma are just techniques. They dont have to be overdone.

 

Yep its my impression precisely, the elements of interpretation and music expression that together give what people label as "soul". And that of course depends on the experience of the person on the other side of the equation to make sense.

Is there more emotion in Soul music than on Japanese Seigaku?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

Yep its my impression precisely, the elements of interpretation and music expression that together give what people label as "soul". And that of course depends on the experience of the person on the other side of the equation to make sense.

Is there more emotion in Soul music than on Japanese Seigaku?

that being said, im still going to find time to work on my "soul" and pentatonic embellishments lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 6:57 PM, MDEW said:

In "Blues for Baby and Me" by Elton John, Elton uses a lot of "Sob" quality. He sounds sad and almost apologetic for leaving and taking his girlfriend or wife away from her father. He has the music behind it to express the same feeling.  I choose to sing it from the perspective of saving the wife from an abusive father. Matter fact and defiant. I am also just using an acoustic guitar and I play it a bit faster.

Believe me, I have come across so many people who won't get that! Their expectations are so tuned in to "sob" and "fry", that anything different becomes a failed attempt at what they are expecting. For them, defiance would be a catastrophic failure. To use that expression you introduced, they would think you were "phoning it in". Your choice is quite subtle, especially "matter of fact", which some people easily confuse with "no emotion".

I would totally get it, though. I enjoy listening to singers who can nail positive defiance, particularly "quiet defiance", which is the most subtle.

"Dead pan", "monotony", "reminiscence"... are other subtle qualities that don't reach the most people. These are all very interesting emotions. Sometimes they are mere effects the singer uses as a foil for another singer or the mood of another instrument. e.g you can bring out the the quality of something else by singing in a contrasting style.

This is one of the dangers of the concept of "universal emotions". The person who doesn't pick up on these subtle emotions has a smaller "universe", but may not know it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

Yep its my impression precisely, the elements of interpretation and music expression that together give what people label as "soul". And that of course depends on the experience of the person on the other side of the equation to make sense.

Is there more emotion in Soul music than on Japanese Seigaku?

Good points . Frankly a lot of pop singers way over do melisimo and I do not like it! It sounds like show boating and pretentious.

For the love of God... stop... and just sing a damn simple melody for one minute without a bunch of riffs. Melismo just doesn’t do much for me. That is not evidence of soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert Lunte said:

Good points . Frankly a lot of pop singers way over do melisimo and I do not like it! It sounds like show boating and pretentious.

For the love of God... stop... and just sing a damn simple melody for one minute without a bunch of riffs. Melismo just doesn’t do much for me. That is not evidence of soul.

It is almost no wonder that people get carried away and overuse an effect. Just replying on this thread mentioning things that can and do "enhance" a response has people debating it's use like It is some kind of rule to be broken. General ideas that can be used. At the same time Genres are mentioned which those very Genres are based on the things I have described. Tempo, use of certain instruments on certain phrases,, Use of Sob, fry, distortion to promote a certain feel. 

Sure we are all in our little "Clicks" or circle of like minded people and what reaches us may not be the same that reaches others. And inside those "Clicks" the effects would be used differently.....but they are still used for the same purposes. Some more subtle and some excessive. No, it may not give the same effect to all people.

Some of my favorite songs have been ruined for me from crossing genres from a new artist. The original replaced on the radio by the new interpretation, but the same song in this form loved by a new generation {until the original is finally heard).

To me a driving monotonous dance beat does not work on a sad song. My first experience with this was Neil Diamonds "Red, Red, Wine" with a reggae beat. I have to admit that that one was not too bad....But it was not long before 3 or 4 more Neil Diamond songs ended up on the radio with Reggae beats.......one is enough.   Now I am hearing "Lean on me" with a reggae beat and "We be Jammin' " being yelled in the back ground. It just does not work for me. But there are others I am sure who love it.

 Don't get me wrong.....I do love me some reggae and I feel that it works with certain songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

Also on the aspect of technique, there is one important point: if how you are using your voice can not respond in the manner you want, you just won't express what you feel, no matter how much you may feel it!

yeah this is huge. A beginner singer (or guitar player) may end up working hard for 5-10 YEARS just trying to "play what I feel"

I may hear all kinds of A5s in my head but no matter how bad I want to hit that note, it just aint there yet lol. But thats what drives us to keep working.

 

just like I have done all kinds of original songs. Thats nice and all, its good practice, and im proud that I can do it at all, but im only about 30% of where I want to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now