Page 1 of 2
#1
I just quit my band. We wrote maybe 2 full songs together. I wrote the solos of the 2 songs and pretty much whatever I played in that song (besides like the straightforward original riffs). Who owns these songs? These are instrumental. Is it me cause I wrote the "melody." We never signed anything together concerning ownership or anything like that.
#2
If "owning" songs you wrote with a band, let alone only 2 or so is what you're worrying about, maybe you shouldn't join another band anytime soon. Having fun writing and playing the songs is what you should be concerned with, not the money/ownership.
Question not yourself. Challenge those who would deny you your true self for an independent thinker is the greatest enemy to those who seek to control you
#3
well i dunno. I guess you cna take claim to whatever part you wrote
Quote by The Spoon
Unless you're sure she likes you, telling her you like her has a 110% chance of failing.

But hey, at least you have a 10% chance of absolutely guaranteeing failure.
#4
I don't mean this in a dickish way, but wait until you've actually matured and learned how to write good music first. I think you're a bit young to really give a shit about things like this for now.
#5
The music belongs to the band.
Quote by hostilekid
shadesofanger, you're my hero.


Quote by GoldenBlues
So I was wondering, are black people capable feeling love? I mean can their brains comprehend that kind of emotion, or are they not programmed that way.
#6
Quote by shadesofanger
The music belongs to the band.


This is true.
#7
what if he wrote it and wants to do his songs with another band? me and the other guitarist in my current band just split with the drummer and lead guitarist at the time, but we wrote everything, so we got a new drummer and bass(i moved to guitar since i was helping write and its my more natural instrument) but we are playing 4 to 6 songs that were played with the other band, but in no way are they theirs or did they do anything for them really, they just played along, or tried to.

do you think the band is gonna keep playing the song? if so, then you have to talk to them, tell em you feel you wrote them. if they arnt gonna play them, then i think you can assume playing rights for em.
#9
Seriously, it's not worth bothering about, if the band continues to do the songs without you, hey, it's free advertising for your writing skills.
If they release it, you could possibly ask for a songwriting credit, but what would be the point? Do you jonestly think that this band have a chance of selling loads of copies of these songs? Because they'll have to sell a cartload for your percentage of a writing credit to be worth anything worth bothering about.
Then there's your reputation to think about.
You've just quit a band, I presume you're going to be looking for another band? Can you imagine if word got around that you kicked up a fuss over ownership of a couple of songs as soon as you left your last band? It'd make you sound neurotic at best.
Best to just leave it be and if you join another band or even put another band together yourself, you could happily play these songs in the knowledge that you at least are entitled to.
#10
Well, I have another band.

Just one day randomly however, the old bassist tell me, "you can't play any of our songs, practice or live with (my new band Fusion)"

That just pissed me off since I wrote just as much as anyone, if not more.

And the other question is, I have a right to "cover" my old bands song, correct? They can't take that away from me and just tell me I can't play it.

And, if I were to play it live, would it be considered a cover or original?
#11
You have the right to cover the song, live or in practise. As long as you dont record it and sell that without permission, I'm pretty sure the other band cant do a thing
#12
Quote by shadesofanger
The music belongs to the band.


How can you possibly assess that?? I hate it when people with no idea jump on an assumption and spout it off matter-of-factly as if it were the truth.

ThreadStarter.... The legal definition includes lyrics and melody, for most purposes. If it is an instrumental piece, obviously there are no lyrics. My question is this.... You say the song has a solo. Fine. But, throughout the song, is there any other melodic content? If there isn't, you just wrote a bunch of chords and stuff that all go together, which means you wrote an accompaniment to a song that hasn't been written yet. You have NOT written a song, unless there is a recognizable melody that runs throughout your piece. Do you have that?

If you do, and only if YOU wrote that recognizable MELODIC content, can you claim you wrote the song.

Now..... as Slacker said, this really only matters when it comes down to making potential money off of the song, as in having it released for people to buy, or having it played on radio, TV, etc.

Your bassist has absolutely no right in the world - even if HE wrote the song ENTIRELY by himself - to tell you that you can't play it. In rehearsal, it is for private purposes, which does not violate any copyrights. Playing live, the venue will have (should have..... if they haven't, that's not your problem, it's theirs.....) paid a blanket licence fee to ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN or whomever. What this does is allows performers to come in and play songs by other artists, whether it be Neil Diamond, Slayer, or some random bass player from Butt-F*ck Idaho. You are covered. There is nothing he can say or do.

As far as whether you introduce it as a cover or an original.... see my first paragraph. We need to establish who wrote the song - from a technical standpoint - and even, really, if there has been a song written at all - from a technical standpoint.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#14
My opinion is this - the first minute there seems to be a structured and recognizable melody. If you wrote that, then the melody is yours.

The rest of the song's melodic content comes across as an improvisation, which sends the whole thing into nebulous territory.

So, in short, that melody in the first minute is yours if you wrote it.

Keep in mind, though, that if they keep the same riffs and chords and drum beats and stuff, but change the melody significantly, they can use it all they want. It is the melodic content you own - not the other stuff. Accompaniments (rhythms, beats, chords, etc. can NOT be copyrighted)

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#15
So you mean like the little intro solo (starting with the straight 8th notes)? And then, what about that main solo? Plus, the 2 main riffs in that song, they can't be copyrighted meaning, no one can legally own it right?
#17
Quote by axemanchris
How can you possibly assess that?? I hate it when people with no idea jump on an assumption and spout it off matter-of-factly as if it were the truth.


I meant the song as a whole, not just a melody he created and can use as he pleases.

Lets say the band makes a song together. Member A leaves, but he created a sweet melody to the song. As you stated, if it is recognizable, and he wrote it, it is his. Although, Member A can't join a new band and play the song his old band created, a real jackass would do that. That is what I meant with my previous responce to the thread.

Sorry if there was any confusion or anything.
Quote by hostilekid
shadesofanger, you're my hero.


Quote by GoldenBlues
So I was wondering, are black people capable feeling love? I mean can their brains comprehend that kind of emotion, or are they not programmed that way.
#18
Quote by shadesofanger
I meant the song as a whole, not just a melody he created and can use as he pleases.


But you didn't know if the whole band created the song or not. Okay, he said the band wrote the song, but it was quite unclear as to who wrote the melodic content. Often, when people say the band wrote the song together, you find out later that one person wrote the lyrics and melody and the rest of the band just contributed beats, riffs, chords, etc. At the time you posted, we had little idea, really, who contributed what. As I say.... assessment based on what?

Quote by shadesofanger
Although, Member A can't join a new band and play the song his old band created,


Sure he can. Even if he didn't write one single note, he could still play it. Although, WHY he would choose to in that case is a bit questionable.... If he was going to do a cover, why pick one that nobody knows? Pick one that *everybody* knows.

Now, if he wants to record the song, he can even still do that in most cases. The writer of the song would need to register it with a licencing agency (you know.... if they wanted to be able to make money from their music rather than simply control it... ), and then Member A just needs to pay the licencing fee to record it, and the licencing agency would forward the money onto the creator of the song.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#19
Well, in my case, all the originals my bands play, I write. I wrote the lyrics, guitar parts, and bass parts, the drummer just comes up with stuff. If they are going to go on and play your riffs, I think you should have some ownership.
#20
Riffs aren't songs or any other form of composition, and therefore aren't subject to copyright. You don't own them. Just like you don't own chord progressions.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#22
^^

In a word? No

What everyone in this thread has failed to notice is that the 'song' hasn't been righted (legally defined as a piece of artwork) and thus cannot be COPYrighted.

TS can do whatever he want's with any part of the song, whether it be the whole thing or just some little parts.

This is why when bands enter my studio for pre-prod demoing i listen intently for any melody's that I've heard before. And i don't mean progressions, words, riffs, phrasing. I mean specific pieces of music that have been written recorded and sold before. You cannot copyright words, you cannot copyright notes, you cannot copyright chords nor drum beats nor bass lines nor anything else other than a melody.

TS, forget about copyrights until you're old enough to sign a contract, until then it doesn't matter.
This water's dark and coldGod's not where you hopedThis moment come and goneIt's time we all moved on
#23
You're not the one at the front with the SG are you? If so, then you fail.
My name is Danny. Call me that.
#24
So someone has to right it as a song? Or it needs a melody. Can't you consider the solo a melody?

And the other thing - riffs cannot be copyrighted but, what about, for example, the intro riff of Sweet Child of Mine, that's just a riff, but I'm pretty sure I can get sued if I published it in another song.

One song that comes to mind that doesn't have a melody but I'm pretty sure is classified as a song is "The Crusade" by Trivium.

So can we write actual songs without themes (like Cliffs of Dover, Surfing With the Alien, etc) that can legally be a song? Can't we just mix up a few riffs, maybe go back to the main riff a few times, add some solos/fills, and not have a theme or melody line running through (because we don't want to have those long themes running through, it almost takes spotlight away from the other 2 guitarists), and add bridges, breaks, etc. and call it a legal song. Can't the solos count as the melody line that would allow the song to legally be a song. Solos are melodies and can't be stolen right?

If not, can we have a song that can be published without a main theme, but has solos? To me, I believe a solo should be considered a melody- which should allow it to be legally called a song. I believe tis because solos are accompanied by usually rhythm guitar(s), bass, and drums, and the lead = melody, correct?

Am I crazy/completely wrong cause I'm not getting it.

EDIT:
Quote by asator
You're not the one at the front with the SG are you? If so, then you fail.


No
#26
@shredder - according to modern copyright law, something is copyrighted, technically, at the moment it is committed to a fixed form - a piece of paper, a recording, etc. So, if somebody writes a song and puts a video of them playing it on YouTube, it is considered copyrighted material. The trick is proving ownership on a certain date, which is where formally copyrighting a work comes into play. A formal copyright isn't the ONLY way, but is generally considered the most idiot-proof.

Copyright is important as soon as you create something of value - whether you are old enough to sign a contract or not.

You're right about not being able to copyright words - as in words individually. Imagine if someone copyrighted the word 'love.' For the same reason, we cannot copyright individual notes.

The philosophical question, then, is when does a series of words or notes become something of creative value that can be copyrighted? You can bet if I released a song where the chorus went "love love me do....." I might be treading on dangerous territory. Might be. Same with a riff or any other short melodic motif. At what point does it become a significant part of the composition? This is where lawsuits are brought to court and decided by a judge. There are no rules, except to generally say that borrowing a phrase is usually okay - hence, borrowing a riff is generally okay. In my above example, if I started my chorus with 'Love love me do" and continued with something measurably different than "you know I love you" and continued to depart from my 'borrowed Beatles" idea in significant ways, then I'm probably okay.

Now.... mz13's question about about the intro to Sweet Child. This is not a motif made up of a few notes. This is a readily recognizable melody (though repetitive) that lasts, IIRC, four whole bars or so. Borrowing this would be a no-no.

A 'song' by conventional definitions is a set of lyrics put to a melody. The two generally exist together. Lyrics never set to a melody are also copyrighted, but as a poem. A melody that is never linked to lyrics (Cliffs of Dover, for instance), though is generally considered a song. The rationale is that it is a structured composition, with a structured melody that is recognizable. (note that other instrumental musical forms can be copyrighted too.... a fugue, a symphony, etc. - it doesn't *have* to be a song! In all cases, though, the music is copywritten in terms of melodic content, though)

But what about a solo? Again, this is where it gets tricky. An improvisation is generally not copyrightable. However, at what point does an improvisation take on the characteristics of a 'composed' piece of music? This is another situation where the courts would decide. I would expect that 95% of the time, the judge would take the side of the solo being a significant melodic composition.

As a general rule, assume that if it exists out there in:
-tangible form
-melodically recognizable
-of significant length (ie. four bars or a complete phrase or more)

Then you should not touch it.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Aug 6, 2008,
#27
Ok thank you Chris, I would consider our song a song from your advice.

Just a question for you Chris, how do you know so much??? It's like you and Slacker know everything about the music biz and you respond by posting all your knowledge into huge walls of text no matter what the topic be, it's just so...amazing. You guys are like Bandleading Forum gods...
#28
Slack and I are both considerably older and more experienced in the business end of music than most of the rest of us here. (like about twice the average here, almost.... haha) In any case, Slack and I have probably been playing in bands since before most of us on this board were even born.

Part of it is learning by going through the various processes, and, at least for me, a lot of it is being interested in the business aspect of thing and following up on that interest with a lot of reading, talking to others who are currently in or have been in the business (recording acts, etc.).

Your song you posted seemed to be in three very distinct parts. The first part, with the structured melodic content could stand on its own as a song. The other two parts.... one had a solo, so yeah, probably. IIRC, the other part was just jamming on a riff or chord progression or something.

Coming from a 'commercial music' background, I would personally flesh those three parts out into some separate ideas. Yeah, you want verses, choruses, bridges, etc., but you want them to be somehow related or connected to each other. IIRC, those sections were so different from one another that a lot of listeners (especially in our current pablum market) would find too jarring.

Just my two cents....

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#29
Quote by axemanchris
But you didn't know if the whole band created the song or not. Okay, he said the band wrote the song, but it was quite unclear as to who wrote the melodic content. Often, when people say the band wrote the song together, you find out later that one person wrote the lyrics and melody and the rest of the band just contributed beats, riffs, chords, etc. At the time you posted, we had little idea, really, who contributed what. As I say.... assessment based on what?


Ok I think this part is basically cleared up.


Sure he can. Even if he didn't write one single note, he could still play it. Although, WHY he would choose to in that case is a bit questionable.... If he was going to do a cover, why pick one that nobody knows? Pick one that *everybody* knows.


Yeah he can play it, and no one can stop him, just parts of the song and the whole song. Although this is where I brought in the "Member A can't join a new band and play the song his old band created, a real jackass would do that."

With cover bands though, it is completely different, they are known for covering great musicians, and playing the music the artists already made and licenced. Cover bands to cover a song by lets say Led Zeppelin, and say it is their own song, is really gay.

Although in this case with mzhang13, he left a band with with "maybe 2 full songs". Those two songs written by him and the band, should belong to the band. The song hasn't been copyrighted, but in the Youtube video, it has been recorded showing the band created the song, but mzhang13 is telling us he wrote the melody. This is what I mean by song=bands, and you and me and everyone else says melody=mzhang13.

Unless of course I am missing something, if so please tell, I think we have this cleared up and we just had a misconception of what I meant.


Now, if he wants to record the song, he can even still do that in most cases. The writer of the song would need to register it with a licencing agency (you know.... if they wanted to be able to make money from their music rather than simply control it... ), and then Member A just needs to pay the licencing fee to record it, and the licencing agency would forward the money onto the creator of the song.

CT


Now here is where I am lost. Member A pays licencing fee, records song, they sell song, money goes to creators of song. Ok, I am not sure but Member A and his old band mates are the creators, all profits go to him and his band right? I don't know, with your last sentence it looked like he goes though the recording process and gets nothing out of it but his recording of the song.

Either way, you are a smart man, I am glad UG has people like you and Slacker helping out.
Quote by hostilekid
shadesofanger, you're my hero.


Quote by GoldenBlues
So I was wondering, are black people capable feeling love? I mean can their brains comprehend that kind of emotion, or are they not programmed that way.
#31
Maybe you can briefly touch on what type of protection you have for registering a copyright. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't seek any type of monetary compensation if you don't register the copyright. As long as you can prove ownership of the original work, all you can do is tell the other party to stop.
#32
Quote by shadesofanger

Yeah he can play it, and no one can stop him, just parts of the song and the whole song. Although this is where I brought in the "Member A can't join a new band and play the song his old band created, a real jackass would do that."


Maybe, but I had reasons to quit. They treated me like crap and most people know that. Especially the drummer, who has a very bad reputation in the school and pretty much every kid in my school has something against him. They were jackasses to me, real big jackasses, and I wouldn't consider myself one for playing a song. Plus, if we were to play it, I pretty much alternated and modified everything in the song (loaded it up with harmony). So even though they told me I cannot play it (which they have no right to say), I might play it if it's requested or something (we old band) played it at the Talent Show at out school so most people in the school know it.

One obvious example I can think of of people playing their former band's songs is Velvet Revolver - they played STP songs and GNR songs. Just saying.
#33
Quote by mzhang13
Maybe, but I had reasons to quit. They treated me like crap and most people know that. Especially the drummer, who has a very bad reputation in the school and pretty much every kid in my school has something against him. They were jackasses to me, real big jackasses, and I wouldn't consider myself one for playing a song. Plus, if we were to play it, I pretty much alternated and modified everything in the song (loaded it up with harmony). So even though they told me I cannot play it (which they have no right to say), I might play it if it's requested or something (we old band) played it at the Talent Show at out school so most people in the school know it.

One obvious example I can think of of people playing their former band's songs is Velvet Revolver - they played STP songs and GNR songs. Just saying.


Wow what a bunch of asses

If you are going to alternate and modify the song, go ahead, because you didn't exactly play the song from your old band. If the parts your old band members wrote are completely different then you have every right to play it.

And with Velvet Revolver, it was just a cover of STP and GNR songs. They aren't going around saying Velvet Revolver creating Sweet Child O' Mine though. Why? It is obsurd to say that, everyone knows Guns N' Roses created that song. Although, their original guitarist, bassist, and drummer, is playing the song, and with STP songs the original singer is singing the songs. David Kushner, completely forgot where he came from.
Quote by hostilekid
shadesofanger, you're my hero.


Quote by GoldenBlues
So I was wondering, are black people capable feeling love? I mean can their brains comprehend that kind of emotion, or are they not programmed that way.
#34
Quote by shadesofanger

Although this is where I brought in the "Member A can't join a new band and play the song his old band created, a real jackass would do that."


Okay..... if the band and not him wrote it and he tried to pass it off as his own, then he would be a jackass, yes. If his old band wrote it and he just played it, I would only question his choice of a very obscure cover.

Quote by shadesofanger

Those two songs written by him and the band, should belong to the band. The song hasn't been copyrighted, but in the Youtube video, it has been recorded showing the band created the song, but mzhang13 is telling us he wrote the melody. This is what I mean by song=bands, and you and me and everyone else says melody=mzhang13.

Unless of course I am missing something, if so please tell, I think we have this cleared up and we just had a misconception of what I meant.


The fact that it is on YouTube means that it is now in a tangible form and is now subject to copyright laws, even though it has not been formally copyrighted. The thing is, it seems that the structural melodies of the song were written by the thread starter. It seems, then, by extention, that the band came up with chords, riffs, drum beats, etc. If that is all true, then the song was written by the thread starter and not at all by the band. If the band contributed to those structural melodies, then they should get co-writer credits. Otherwise, the band has NO rights to the song.

Quote by shadesofanger

Now here is where I am lost. Member A pays licencing fee, records song, they sell song, money goes to creators of song. Ok, I am not sure but Member A and his old band mates are the creators, all profits go to him and his band right? I don't know, with your last sentence it looked like he goes though the recording process and gets nothing out of it but his recording of the song.


Let's take a real-life example. Remember that song Hootie and the Blowfish did called "I Go Blind"? this song here... That song was originally done by a Canadian band called 54-40. here's their version...

Now... 54-40 are one of those many bands that did well enough in Canada, but are virtually unknown anywhere else in the world. Odds are that, unless you are Canadian, you have never heard the 54-40 version, and thus, made the assumption that it was Hootie's song.

So what happens is this.... a typical licencing deal (which is often done such that the original artist has no idea this is being done until they receive a cheque....) sees a band like Hootie paying somewhere in the vicinity of 8.5 cents per manufactured copy of the song. (note that it is not per copy sold, but per copy manufactured....)

The song appeared on the Friends soundtrack (which sold somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2 million copies), and on a couple of Hootie's own albums. Hootie gets essentially all of the money that he would otherwise get if it was his own song, minus that 8.5 cents per manufactured copy, which then goes to 54-40. Obviously, this works well for both of them!


Quote by shadesofanger

Either way, you are a smart man, I am glad UG has people like you and Slacker helping out.




CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#35
Quote by MacDizzy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't seek any type of monetary compensation if you don't register the copyright. As long as you can prove ownership of the original work, all you can do is tell the other party to stop.


Absolutely not true. Registering copyright is probably the most idiot-proof way (but not completely idiot-proof) of establishing that the song is indeed yours, but so long as you can prove it in some other way, then you have all rights related to the piece - the copyrights belong to you.

Establishing ownership comes down to having unbiased third-party sources with verified (or verifiable) information that connects you to a composition on a certain date. A formal copyright does exactly that. The trick is it needs to be bullet-proof - completely uncontestable and un-tamperable. The 'mail it to yourself' trick is among the least bulletproof. Can you prove that you didn't open the envelope? Nope. You can take that process one step further, though.... send it to an attorney via registered mail and have the attorney file it in his/her posession. Then you can't tamper with it.

For my material, here is my paper trail:
-copy of our CD sent to National Archives Canada - this will be logged and dated upon receipt, and is official government documentation
-receipt of invoice from duplicators - includes date, track listing along with song lengths, etc. I have a copy.... but so will the duplication house.
-songs registered with CMRRA (Musical Reproduction Rights) and SOCAN (Performance rights organization) - these are dated with titles and song durations, etc.
-recordings and video of commercial airplay (radio and TV) - by law commercial radio and TV have to log all music they play and when they played it

So... I can pretty clearly establish that I had a song titled such-and-such on a particular date. I can produce a copy of the CD and play the track - all the data matches up. No formal copyright, but lots of undisputable, unbiased third-party proof with dates. (and all of it untamperable)

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Aug 7, 2008,
#36
Quote by shadesofanger

If you are going to alternate and modify the song, go ahead, because you didn't exactly play the song from your old band. If the parts your old band members wrote are completely different then you have every right to play it.


Even if they play it exactly note for note.... they can still play it. See above...

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#37
One other thing to add... if you are called to the plate to defend your copyright of a song, consider the following:

- it may go to court
- a major artist will be backed by a major label who undoubtedly keeps high-priced entertainment lawyers on retainer at their beck and call. You can bet that if your claim isn't bullet-proof, that their lawyers will exploit any weakness they can find or even infer to their advantage.

Ultimately, it comes down to what, really, is at stake, and how much is it worth it to you to spend to defend what.... and for what gain? If you lose, you're stuck with the court costs too!


CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#38
Wow, quadruple post.

BTW, the version I have (modified one) pretty much harmonizes everything so it's derived from the original, which I believe I am allowed to do anyways.

Funny thing actually, when the bassist said I wasn't allowed to ever play the song. He tried to make me promise and claimed he would get it copyrighted. That cracked me up, now that I know how wrong he was and how he sounded like he knew his stuff and was so sure.
#39
Quote by mzhang13
Wow, quadruple post.

BTW, the version I have (modified one) pretty much harmonizes everything so it's derived from the original, which I believe I am allowed to do anyways.

Funny thing actually, when the bassist said I wasn't allowed to ever play the song. He tried to make me promise and claimed he would get it copyrighted. That cracked me up, now that I know how wrong he was and how he sounded like he knew his stuff and was so sure.


Looks like you are good to go then.
Quote by hostilekid
shadesofanger, you're my hero.


Quote by GoldenBlues
So I was wondering, are black people capable feeling love? I mean can their brains comprehend that kind of emotion, or are they not programmed that way.
#40
Quote by shadesofanger
Looks like you are good to go then.


Guess so,

Farewell informative thread that answered all my questions in detail, allowing me to fully understand everything. Thank you. You guys have been helpful.
Page 1 of 2