Temporality, Intentionality, and Authenticity in Frank Zappa’s Xenochronous Works

I just got back from New Orleans where I read a paper at the 2010 conference of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music US Chapter: “Births, Stages, Declines, Revivals.” My presentation went well, although unfortunately I was given the first slot in the first panel on the first day of a three day conference. (8:30 AM on Friday morning!) I’m guessing that most people hadn’t yet arrived since–in addition to the three other presenters on my panel–there were only two people in the audience! Oh well.

In hopes of garnering some more feedback, I’m publishing the paper (as read) here on the blog. As usual, this remains a work in progress.

Click here to download a PDF version of the paper. (Slides and visual examples appear at the end of the PDF.) Or, follow the jump to read the html version.

Temporality, Intentionality, and Authenticity
in Frank Zappa’s Xenochronous Works

[Click the images to see the slides at full resolution.]

In traditional models of collaborative music making, participants can hear—and, usually, see—one another. Each musician registers the performances of his or her collaborators and responds to them in real time. Collective musical goals are achieved through cooperation and mutual intentionality, even in improvised settings. This feedback loop of musical interaction—that most vital aspect of live performance—is frequently absent in recordings, when studio technology facilitates the combination of temporally and spatially disjunct performances. Theodore Gracyk, Philip Auslander, and a number of other authors have shown this to be particularly true of recorded rock music. In rock, the manipulation of recorded sound is central to aesthetic ideologies.

Lee B. Brown defines “works of phonography” as “sound-constructs created by the use of recording machinery for an intrinsic aesthetic purpose, rather than for an extrinsic documentary one.”[1]

Documentary recordings may—and often do—comprise the constituent ingredients of such works; but overdubbings, tape-splicings, and other editing room procedures deliver to the listener a virtual performance, an apparition of musical interaction that never took place. Works of phonography raise a number of urgent questions about the relationship between live and recorded music, particularly in rock contexts.

In the 1970s, Frank Zappa developed a procedure for creating a specific kind of phonography. By altering the speed of previously recorded material and overdubbing unrelated tracks, Zappa was able to synthesize ensemble performances from scrap material.

He referred to the technique as xenochrony—from the Greek xénos (strange; foreign) and chrónos (time). Zappa translates the term as “strange synchronizations,” referring to the incidental—and aesthetically successful—contrasts and alignments that come about as a result of his manipulations.

Zappa describes the effect of his “strange synchronizations” in a 1988 interview conducted by Bob Marshall:

the musical result [of xenochrony] is the result of two musicians, who were never in the same room at the same time, playing at two different rates in two different moods for two different purposes, when blended together, yielding a third result which is musical and synchronizes in a strange way.[2]

By combining separately-recorded performances, such music easily meets Brown’s criteria. But unlike comparable works of phonography, the various ingredients of a xenochronous work are also intentionally disjunct. Zappa all but dismisses the original musical intentions of the performers. With xenochrony, he focuses instead on the unintended synchronizations that result from his manipulations.

In many cases, rock artists and producers mask their methods. Philip Auslander argues that by doing so they allow the music to be authenticated in live settings when the artists are able to reproduce—or at least approximate—the performances heard on their records.[3] In this paper, I argue that Zappa’s xenochrony problematizes the status of live performance as a marker of authenticity. I will begin with an examination of Zappa’s song “Friendly Little Finger” to demonstrate the construction of xenochronous music and how the technique draws inspiration from the world of the art-music avant-garde. By co-opting the intentionalities of the recorded musicians, xenochrony poses a threat to the creative agency of the performer. In the second part of this paper, I will briefly address the ethical issues that xenochrony raises. Despite manipulating the musical intentions of the performers, however, xenochrony poses little threat to the authenticity of the music. I will conclude by proposing that Zappa replaces traditional sources of authenticity with a spirit of experimentalism drawn from the art-music avant-garde.

I. Temporality

To the uninformed listener, there is no strong evidence to suggest that Zappa’s “Friendly Little Finger,” from the 1976 album Zoot Allures,[4] is anything other than a recorded document of an ensemble performance.

The piece begins with a brief introduction featuring a repeated riff performed on guitar, marimba, and synthesizer. An extended improvisation with electric guitar, bass, and drums fills out the lengthy middle section before the track concludes with a quotation of the Protestant hymn “Bringing in the Sheaves,” arranged for a trio of brass instruments. Despite its apparent normalcy, however, “Friendly Little Finger” combines materials from four distinct sources spanning three years of Zappa’s career.

The primary recording—a guitar solo with a droning bass accompaniment—was recorded in the dressing room of the Hofstra University Playhouse as a warm-up before a performance on October 26, 1975. Several months later, Zappa added an unrelated drum track originally intended for use on a different song (“The Ocean is the Ultimate Solution”[5]) and a second bass part recorded at half speed. These three recordings, all appearing in the middle solo section, comprise the xenochronous core of the piece. To this, Zappa superimposed two additional recordings. The introduction comes from the same session as the added bass part, and the coda was recorded several years earlier, during a session for the song “Wonderful Wino.”

As Example 1 makes clear, the result of Zappa’s editing is a moderately dense network of temporally disjunct recordings. How is it that such seemingly disparate recordings happened to come together in this way? What inspired Zappa to take such an approach to manipulating recorded sound? Of course, examples of overdubbing in American popular music can be found at least as far back as the 1940s—recall Sidney Bechet’s One Man Band recordings in which each instrument was performed separately by Bechet himself. But while such tricks had become old hat by the mid 1970s, xenochrony stands out for it also has obvious ties to the twentieth-century art-music avant-garde.

Despite his continuing reputation as a popular musician, Zappa was remarkably well read in the theoretical discourse surrounding avant-garde art music, particularly with regards to musique concrète and tape music. He expressed an ongoing interest in John Cage’s chance operations, for example, trying them out for himself by physically cutting recorded tapes and rearranging the pieces at random for the 1968 album Lumpy Gravy.[6] Another figure who had a profound impact on Zappa’s development as a composer was Edgard Varèse, whose music he discovered at an early age and whose writings served as inspirational mantras. Given this fascination with the avant-garde, xenochrony may be best understood as a conscious attempt by Zappa to model himself on these influential figures. His own approach to music and composition would therefore require an analogous theoretical foundation.

Xenochrony is closely tied to Zappa’s conception of temporality. Zappa often described time as a simultaneity, with all events occurring at once instead of chronologically. Toward the end of his life, in an oft-quoted conversation with cartoonist Matt Groening, Zappa explained that the idea was rooted in physics:

I think of time as a spherical constant, which means that everything is happening all the time. […] They [human beings] take a linear approach to it, slice it in segments, and then hop from segment to segment to segment until they die, and to me that is a pretty inefficient way of preparing a mechanical ground base for physics. That’s one of the reasons why I think physics doesn’t work. When you have contradictory things in physics, one of the reasons they became contradictory is because the formulas are tied to a concept of time that isn’t the proper model.[7]

The pseudo-scientific implications expressed in this quotation were not always a part of Zappa’s conception of time. In a 1975 interview, Zappa discussed the idea as pertaining to life and art:

You see, the concept of dealing with things by this mechanical means that you [would] use to set your alarm clock… If you want to set your art works by it, then you’re in trouble—because then everything is going to get boring. So I’m working on a different type of a time scale.[8]

This second quotation dates from about the same time that Zappa began experimenting with xenochrony and seems suggests that the two ideas were closely related. Zappa’s conception of time may therefore be understood as a convenient justification for potentially contentious editing procedures. Although overdubbing had become common practice by the mid-1970s, combining temporally disjunct recordings was still regarded by listeners and critics as controversial. By reconfiguring the very concept of time, Zappa skirts the issue.

But even if Zappa successfully renders temporality a non-issue, xenochrony still raises questions about intentionality. Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a studio musician is called in to add a bass track to previously recorded material. While recording the new track, the bassist listens to the existing tracks and responds to the sounds in his or her headphones as though the other musicians were present. (The other musicians, for their part, would have performed their tracks knowing that a bass part would be added later.) Overdubbing, at least in cases like this, retains a degree of musical collaboration. The artistic goals and musical intentions of the various participants are more or less aligned, even though they interact in abstraction. Xenochrony, however, dispenses with intentionality altogether. For Zappa, part of the appeal is the musical product that results from combining recordings specifically of disparate temporalities, locations, and moods. The dismissal of the performer’s intentionality is an integral part of the aesthetic.

II. Intentionality

It is not my intention here to delve too deeply into issues of morality. Other discussions have shown that the ethics of manipulating recorded sound are both delicate and ambiguous. I mention these issues here because creative agency is often regarded as a source of authenticity.

In his analysis of the 1998 electronic dance music hit “Praise You,” Mark Katz discusses how Norman “Fatboy Slim” Cook takes a sample from Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo’ Praise” and changes it in the process.[9] In “Praise You,” Cook isolates the first verse of Yarbrough’s song and changes the tempo and timbre. Katz argues that in doing so, Cook risks potentially unethical behavior. By presenting the sample out of context and in an altered state, Cook effectively negates all of the emotional, personal, political, and sexual content and meaning of the original—a sensitive love song imbued with racial overtones related to the Civil Rights Movement. Cook therefore presents a threat to Yarbrough’s artistic agency. Katz goes on to point out—though he himself does not subscribe to this line of reasoning—that one could interpret Cook’s actions as disempowering Yarbrough or perhaps even exploiting her.

Zappa takes similar risks with xenochrony. Consider the 1979 track, “Rubber Shirt”—another xenochronous work which combines unrelated performances by bassist Patrick O’Hearn and drummer Terry Bozzio.

As with “Friendly Little Finger,” “Rubber Shirt” gives the listener the impression of performers interacting normally—each complementing and supporting the other as they explore the irregular meter. But, as Zappa describes in his liner notes on the song, “all of the sensitive, interesting interplay between the bass and drums never actually happened.”[10] While neither Bozzio nor O’Hearn had any part in this “sensitive, interesting interplay,” their performances by themselves are highly expressive. This facet of their artistic labor, however, is obscured by the new, xenochronous setting.

As with Norman Cook’s “Praise You,” Zappa strips his sources of certain points of value. He too takes the constituent performances out of context and alters them in doing so. In many musical genres, value is closely related to a performer’s ability to interact with other musicians. When Zappa simulates interaction by xenochronously combining individual recordings, he projects new musical meaning onto performances that the original musicians did not intend. That the resulting music succeeds aesthetically does not make the practice any safer in terms of ethics.

Of course, there are also some obvious differences between “Praise You” and “Rubber Shirt,” the most important being the financial relationship between Zappa and the members of his various ensembles. O’Hearn and Bozzio were paid employees, hired to perform Zappa’s music. As their contracting employer, Zappa claimed legal ownership of any music or intellectual property produced by the members of his band. This policy seems to have been somewhat flexible in practice—O’Hearn and Bozzio are given co-writer credits for “Rubber Shirt”—but in most cases the performers of xenochronous works are not acknowledged.

Questions of acknowledgement—and related copyright issues—have plagued musical sampling from the beginning. But again, xenochrony complicates the issue. Many of the tracks on Zappa’s 1979 album Joe’s Garage,[11] for example, feature guitar solos extracted from concert performances xenochronized with studio backing tracks. All of the audible musicians are credited in the liner notes. But what of the musicians that aren’t audible? What of the ensembles that provided the original accompaniment to Zappa’s solos? By interacting with Zappa in a live setting, these musicians played a crucial role in shaping the solos that appear on Joe’s Garage. If we acknowledge the value of interactivity in musical collaboration, it would seem that credit is due to these musicians, even in their absence.

III. Authenticity

In his book Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, Philip Auslander argues that recorded and live performances are symbiotically linked in rock culture.[12] Here, Auslander disagrees with Theodore Gracyk—who, in his 1996 book Rhythm and Noise; An Aesthetics of Rock,[13] describes these types of performance as separate media. Auslander contends that live performance validates the authenticity of recorded musicians. The nature of the recording process, he continues, raises certain doubts as to the authenticity of the musicians. When their abilities as performers are demonstrated in a live context, these questions are put to rest.[14]

According to the rock ideologies Auslander describes, studio manipulation is typically cast in a negative light. As Auslander puts it, “Listeners steeped in rock ideology are tolerant of studio manipulation only to the extent that they know or believe that the resulting sound can be reproduced on stage by the same performers.”[15] I would venture to say that a majority of listeners are informed when it comes to the recording process. Most rock fans, in other words, are aware of the various studio tricks that go into producing the note-perfect performances heard on recordings: listening to a click track, recording multiple takes, overdubbing parts, and, more recently, digital audio processing. Except in some cases, where the technical characteristics of the music would seem to permit it, most listeners make the mental distinction that recordings are not documents of a single, perfect performance.

If Auslander is correct in his assessment of how rock ideologies view recordings with suspicion, this may, in turn, influence the terminology used to describe the process. Fans, critics, and journalists alike all speak of artists “going into the studio” to produce an album. While there, the artists are thought of as being sequestered from the world, free from outside influence—save that of a producer or, perhaps, engineer. The artists, while in the studio, are focused entirely on their creativity, free of distractions. When the artists “come out of the studio,” they have an album: the product of their creative interaction and artistic toil. Such discourse paints the studio process as having a certain purity.

Of course, this understanding derives from the various mythologies that surround rock music and its participants. That a live performance might validate the authenticity of a recording suggests that listeners are aware of the reality, but are willing to ignore it in favor of subscribing to an appealing fantasy. In Zappa’s case, however, these processes are intentionally integrated. The appeal of xenochrony, as Zappa describes it, is in achieving an effect otherwise unobtainable from live musicians:

Suppose you were a composer and you had the idea that you wanted to have […] this live on stage and get a good performance. You won’t get it. You can’t. You can ask for it, but it won’t happen. There’s only one way to hear that, and that’s to do what I did. I put two pieces of tape together.[16]

The impossibility of the virtual performance is an essential part of the aesthetic. Such a recording cannot be validated in the manner described by Auslander.

Zappa selected his sources specifically for the illusion of musical interaction they produce. Aesthetically, Zappa designs his xenochronous tracks to play the line between being feasibly performable and technically impossible. The listener becomes fully aware of the processes at play only after reading liner notes and interviews. There, Zappa reveals his manipulations and makes no attempts to cover his tracks. If anything, his descriptions of the xenochrony process are marked by an air of pride. Zappa’s listeners—who tend to be more attentive to published discussions of the music than most rock listeners—appreciate xenochrony on its own terms. For these reasons, we should view the process as a direct influence on the listener’s aesthetic experience.

In Auslander’s model, authenticity derives from live performance, characterized not only by technical ability or emotional expressivity, but also by the manner in which the performers interact with one another musically. Xenochrony, by its very nature, negates the possibility of musical interaction as a source of authenticity. Rather than the performers being the locus of authenticity, the focus is now on Zappa as recordist. Zappa replaces the traditional source of authenticity with a spirit of experimentalism drawn—as we have seen—from the art-music avant-garde of the twentieth century.

I have suggested here that Zappa’s xenochrony was influenced not only by earlier examples of phonography in pop music, but also by the philosophical theorizing of the art-music avant-garde. The picture remains incomplete, however, for it has not yet addressed the role of technology in shaping Zappa’s aesthetics.

In the late 1970s, after a series of debilitating legal battles with MGM and Warner Bros. over album distribution and the rights to master tapes, Zappa took it upon himself to start his own record company. Coinciding with the founding of Zappa Records in 1979, Zappa completed the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen, a fully-equipped recording studio attached to his home in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood of Los Angeles. With a vast archive of studio tapes and live performance recordings, the entirety of Zappa’s work was now available to be used, reused, remixed, and manipulated. It is no coincidence that with unlimited studio and editing time at his disposal, Zappa’s experiments with xenochrony and other recording manipulations would flourish. Nearly every one of his albums from the early 1980s onward featured some degree of xenochrony.

Though far from being a direct influence, we may view Zappa’s xenochrony as foreshadowing the widespread use of digital sampling in popular music. I do not mean to suggest that Zappa should be regarded as the forefather of digital sampling as it exists now, nor even that he paved the way for it. But I do see a provocative parallel. Artists that use digital samples often find their aesthetics influenced by the results of compositional tinkering. In turn, changes in taste affect how these artists approach the business of sampling later on. I see a similar relationship between Zappa and xenochrony. In both cases, the artist interacts with his or her compositional processes, effectively setting up a feedback loop between aesthetics and means of production at hand.

All of Zappa’s musical activity can be seen as one work, constantly-evolving and perpetually unfinished. In fact, Zappa himself referred to his entire output as a single, non-chronological “project/object.”

Individual compositions and recordings—the constituent elements of the “project/object”—are treated not only as works in and of themselves, but as potential raw material. Though populated largely by outtakes and rejected performances, Zappa’s personal tape archive became a resource pool for further creativity—a pool to which many artists and musicians contributed. By manipulating pre-recorded material and repurposing it in such a way as to transform disparate recordings into a new, coherent entity, Zappa’s xenochrony anticipates the use of digital sampling in contemporary popular music. With contemporary sampling, however, the resource pool is greatly expanded. Sampling, in other words, renders the entirety of recorded music a vast, ever-changing, often non-intentional, unfinished work—a project/object on a global scale.

References:
[1] Lee B. Brown, “Phonography, Rock Records, and the Ontology of Recorded Music,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58, no. 4 (Autumn 2000): 363.
[2] Bob Marshall, “Interview with Frank Zappa (Part 7),” St. Alphonzo’s Pancake Homepage, October 22, 1988, http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/interviews/Bob_Marshall/Part07.html.
[3] Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2008).
[4] Frank Zappa, Zoot Allures, Warner Bros. BS 2970, 1979.
[5] This song would be released several years later on the 1979 album Sleep Dirt. (Frank Zappa, Sleep Dirt, DiscReet DSK 2292, 1979.)
[6] Zappa described the process in a lecture given at the New School in New York City on February 21, 1969. A clip of the lecture can be heard on the track “Lumpy Gravy ‘Shuffle’” on the 2009 posthumous release, The Lumpy Money Project/Object. (Frank Zappa, The Lumpy Money Project/Object, Zappa Records ZR20008.)
[7] Rip Rense, “Zappa Drinks and Goes Home,” The Rip Post, http://www.riprense.com/zappa_drinks.htm.
[8] Rob Fixmer, “A Matter of Taste,” Bugle American, no. 229 (December 17, 1975): 26.
[9] Mark Katz, Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 145-151.
[10] Frank Zappa, Sheik Yerbouti, Zappa Records SRZ-2-1501, 1979.
[11] Frank Zappa, Joe’s Garage, Act I, Zappa SRZ-1-1603, 1979; and Frank Zappa, Joe’s Garage, Acts II & III, Zappa SRZ-2-1502, 1979.
[12] Auslander, Liveness, 94-95.
[13] Theodore Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock (Durham [NC]: Duke University Press, 1996).
[14] Auslander, Liveness, 95.
[15] Ibid., 94.
[16] Marshall, “Interview with Frank Zappa (Part 7).”
Temporality, Intentionality, and Authenticity in Frank Zappa’s Xenochronous Works

28,590 thoughts on “Temporality, Intentionality, and Authenticity in Frank Zappa’s Xenochronous Works

  1. 19 sailing sunglasses sailing sunglasses 900 white tribord sunglasses

    銉撱儍銈般儨銉儱銉笺儬g銈搞儯銉?銈兂銈般儶銉冦儔銇甮銈搞儯銉抽€氳博 d銉涖儐銉偡銉兗銈恒偡銉с儍銉戙兗銉愩儍銈?/a>dress 銈搞儍銉椼偄銉冦儣 銉┿儍銈枫儱銈兗銉?2018 銉┿偆銉堛偘銉兗sowa 鍗婅銈枫儯銉?銈点儩銉笺儓銈ゃ兂銉娿兗 鏄ュ 妗戝拰 50353 t銈枫儯銉?銉°兂銈?娑笺仐銇?娓呮都鎰?/a>

  2. united by blue the mountains are calling stainless steel tumbler green

    褌械锌谢邪褟 褞斜泻邪 屑懈写懈 泻邪褉邪薪写邪褕 胁 泻谢械褌泻褍 胁褘褋芯泻邪褟 锌芯褋邪写泻邪 dorothy perkins锌谢邪褌褜械 garne summer m 蟹械谢械薪褘泄泻褍锌懈褌褜 卸械薪褋泻褍褞 芯斜褍胁褜 屑芯褋泻胁邪泻褍锌懈褌褜 谢械褌薪懈械 褞斜泻懈

  3. 锌芯写邪褉芯褔薪褘泄 薪邪斜芯褉 泻褍褏芯薪薪褘褏 锌芯谢芯褌械薪械褑 paris 鈩?锌褉芯写邪卸邪

    lotta from stockholm womens high heel peep toe wooden clogs in tanindian large garden parasol outdoor sun umbrella patioshoes department skecherscheap manolo manolo blahnik sandals sale authorized retailers

  4. kid boy skateboard tee

    popular bandeau beach dress buy cheap bandeau beach dress lots fromever pretty 2019 new fashion women cocktail dresses sexypopular baby girl clothes buy cheap baby girl clothes lots fromlong sleeves maxi t shirt promotion shop for promotional long

  5. siri pearls

    polo ralph lauren mensnew north face women s chilkat ii removable bootswomen winter warm thick faux fur coat outdoor hood parka long jacketthe north face thin winter gloves men

  6. 蟿蟽慰蠀纬魏蟻伪谓伪 12 未慰谓蟿喂伪 295112 agro net 伪纬蟻慰蟿喂魏维 蔚蟻纬伪位蔚委伪 蔚蠁蠈未喂伪 位喂蟺维蟽渭伪蟿伪

    skarpety nike basketball hyper elite sx4801 101compressport koszulka biegowa racing ss tshirt niebieskilustrzanka czy cyfrè´¸wka podpowiadamy poradnikibanery reklamowe wejherowo gaja producent reklamy

  7. outlet online nike stockx

    sunglasses oakley radar ev advancer white prizm road 0438polarized sunglasses colors blink eyecarecosta harpoon tortoise 580p gray with free neoprene retainerangle of the joliet bifocal reading sunglasses in tortoise with amber

  8. new orleans saints football shirt

    nike mens dunk high premium sb metallic silver hyper verde gu skate shoe 12 men usamazon mens shoes non slip wear resistant basketball shoesladies walking boots amazonamazon cute little snail seamless pattern phone ring holder

  9. usa new york giants knit

    amazon ghfjdo autumn winter waterproof sneakers mens sportsamazon danny green san antonio spurs 2017 18 nba action photocoolway womens clea ankle bootamazon toal 4 test of adolescent and adult language fourth

  10. if you are looking for branded eyeglasses online india

    胁械写褜 懈薪芯谐写邪 褏邪谢邪褌 屑芯卸械褌 懈蟹 薪邪褌褍褉邪谢褜薪芯谐芯 褕械谢泻邪泻邪泻 芯锌谢邪褌懈褌褜 懈薪褌械褉薪械褌 薪邪 褕邪谐屑邪谐邪蟹懈薪 锌褉芯写芯胁芯谢褜褋褌胁械薪薪褘褏 褌芯胁邪褉芯胁懈谐褉褍褕泻懈 泻邪泻 锌褉懈褉褍褔懈褌褜 写褉邪泻芯薪邪

  11. new balance womens wte412n2

    new england patriots nike 2016 afc east division champions t shirt navynike limited deion sanders white youth jersey san francisco5 standout players giants vs. jaguarsdallas cowboys football apparel

  12. givenchy white leather elegant studded buckle strap ankle boots

    marks 銉炪兗銈偣 銇?/a>姘寸潃 銉儑銈c兗銈硅姳鏌勩儻銈ゃ儰銉笺儞銈儖 2鐐广偦銉冦儓 銇ㄣ仯銇︺倐鍙剾銇勬按鐫€銈掑叆鑽疯嚧銇椼伨銇椼仧 銇撱倱銇按鐫€銈掔潃銇?澶忋倰婧€鍠仚銈屻伆涓€鐢熸畫銈嬫€濄亜鍑恒伀 銇倠銇撱仺闁撻仌銇勩仾銇椼仯銉┿儍銈枫儱銈兗銉?銈广偒銉笺儓 姘寸潃 瀛愪緵姘寸潃 銇裤仛銇?銉兂銉斻兗銈规按鐫€ 濂冲厫鐢?銈广偆銉犮偊銈с偄 銈广偆銉熴兂銈?姘撮亰銇?瀛愪緵 銈儍銈烘按鐫€ 灏忓鐢?銈广偗銉笺儷fear of god t銈枫儯銉?銈儍銉…

  13. where can i buy a canada goose coat

    stackable silicone rings jewelry secretspersonalized arabic name necklace islamic jewelry customized gold arabic nameplate necklace bridesmaid giftmobius wedding ring 5mm rectangle profile mobius ring in 14k whitekaren millen metallic mosaic bracelet

  14. 转讬拽 讛讞转诇讛 tots 讜讬讗讝 住诪讗专讟 讟专讬讬拽

    讛讞诇驻转 讙诇讙诇讬诐 诇讞诇讜谉 讛讝讝讛 砖讬专讜转 诪拽爪讜注讬 讜诪讛讬专 讞讘专转 讟讜驻 住讜专讙诪讻住讞转 讚砖讗 谞讟注谞转 讘讜砖 rotak 37 lipalladium pampatech hi tx 诪讬讚讜转 讙讘专讬诐讬诇讚讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讗砖 讙讬讘讜专 诇谞爪讞 诪砖讞拽 诪讞砖讘

  15. fish chips paneeritud peipsi

    goedkoop clarks trisand marine slippers heren outletbetaal uw contactlenzen veilig via idealgratis nieuw huis is duurder dan je zou denkenzobairou heren italiaanse lederen schoenen zwart lederen fashion design fluwelen roken slippers formele schoenen m…

  16. new york burgundy panel t shirt

    victorias secret pink crop legging capris yoga pants plain blackvictorias secret intimates sleepwear 2 10 victorias secret red striped pajama pantsvictoria secret lotion pink chiffonpyjama boxer en satin

  17. 銉曘儍銉堛優銉笺偗 銉°兂銈?姘存吵 甯藉瓙 銈儯銉冦儣 銉忋儍銈广偆 銉勩兗銈︺偋銈?銈儯銉冦儣 銇仯姘村姞宸?澶с亶銇勩偟銈ゃ偤 footmark

    銈汇兗銉?銈枫儯銉笺儶銉炽偘銉儨銉炽偣銉堛儵銉冦儣銉撱偔浜?姘寸潃 anap 銈儕銉冦儣銈般儵銉夈儷 绔规湰鑼夎帀 绺︺伄鐪煎腐姘寸潃銈掑緦銈嶃亱銈夎銈嬨仺 锛?/a>銉堛儍銉椼偣 銉儑銈c兗銈?鍙剾銇?鏄?銉戙儠銈广儶銉笺儢 鍗婅 銈儍銉堛偨銉?銉溿兗銉€銉?銈枫兗銈广儷銉?鍊嬫€х殑 琚栥偝銉炽偡銉c偣 銈儯銉偖銉c儷babydoll銇柊鍝?babydoll 130 姘寸潃 銉兂銉斻兗銈?銉斻兂銈?銉欍儞銉笺儔銉笺儷 銈儍銈?/a>

  18. 闊撳浗瀛愪緵鏈?鍙剾銇勭唺銇曘倱 闀疯銉戙偢銉c優 缍?濂冲厫 鐢峰厫 鐢枫伄瀛?濂炽伄瀛?瀛愪緵銉戙偢銉c優 銉欍儞銉?銈儍銈?銈兗銉偤 瀛愪緵銉夈儸銈?銉娿儊銉ャ儵銉?鍙剾銇?銉︺儖銉曘偐銉笺儬 鍏ュ湌婧栧倷 閫氬湌

    scott bags schwarze luxus damen leder reisetaschestein in leder f眉r 85 dollar spiegel onlineover der online shop f眉r herrenmode in 眉bergr枚脽enausverkauf damen t shirt mit spitze schwarz

  19. gi脿y balenciaga speed trainer 膽en full

    銉嗐偅銉炽儛銉笺儵銉炽儔 timberland 銉偠銉笺偄銉冦儜銉?銈枫儳銉笺儓銉栥兗銉?绱愰澊 銈儯銉°儷 7.5 锝?/a>a0215 銈点兂銉€銉?闈┿偟銉炽儉銉?銈广儶銉冦儜 銉°兂銈?銈点儨銈点兂銉€銉?銉撱偢銉嶃偣銈点兂銉€銉?銈偢銉ャ偄銉偡銉ャ兗銈?銉兗銉犮偡銉ャ兗銈?绱冲+鐢?銇婃磼钀?澶忕敤 婵€瀹変尽鏍?/a>kidsteddy teddyshop teddyshop銇按鐫€銈掍娇銇c仧銉庛兗銈广儠銈с偆銈?銈儍銈?銉儱銉冦偗 nmj71752 k berkele…

  20. balenciaga sac en cuir air hobo s orange femme

    kotty full sleeve solid womens denim jacket2019 new famous brand super designer long ripped young individuality mens jeans top quality comfortable fashion biker jeans for men hot salesac cabas herm猫s victoria ii en cuir togo golddenim jackets collectio…

  21. asileto mujeres botas mujer zapatos de invierno mujer botas de nieve caliente de piel botas de

    卸械薪褋泻邪褟 泻芯卸邪薪邪褟 褋褍屑泻邪 1030 light beige锌懈卸邪屑邪 锌懈薪谐胁懈薪. 泻芯褋褌褞屑 104泻芯褎褌邪 胁褟蟹邪薪薪邪褟 写械褌褋泻邪褟 boy 写谢褟 屑邪谢褜褔懈泻芯胁. 4 5褌芯谢褋褌芯胁泻懈 屑褍卸褋泻懈械 泻褍锌懈褌褜 褋锌芯褉褌懈胁薪褘械 泻芯褎褌褘

  22. 位伪渭蟺伪未伪 渭蔚 蟺伪喂蠂谓喂未喂伪

    ichi we艂niany szal du偶y i ciep艂y na zim臋 w zalandobuty blu w chorz贸wzetpol tenis贸wki kapcie dawid granatja艣ki bawe艂naod producenta polski produkt najlepsza jako艣膰 kobi sklep

Comments are closed.