[REMOVE ADS]




Results 1 to 48 of 48
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338

    Ask Ralph : # 2 - How a tape was edited

    Ralph....

    Before digital recordings, how were tapes so seamlessly edited?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Sharp razor blades and know how. I used to say my brother could edit out a vowel if need be.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    West,
    After thinking about it, I realized I really didn't answer your very good question.
    Here is how it worked:
    The tape would be stopped at the point where editing was needed.

    The engineer would hold both reels and gently move them forward and back just a bit. A procedure known as "rocking"

    He would listen to the strange sounds coming from this procedure until he heard the spot needing the edit.

    Once that spot was designated, he would take a pen, usually a magic marker type and put a mark directly where the tape was at the top of the record head.

    This was done at the front and back parts of the tape to be edited.

    The tape was then pulled off the heads and placed in an editing block. Front and back were cut at the marks and the two remaining pieces were spliced together with editing tape.

    The tape was ready for playback and if all was done correctly, you would never hear the splice point.

    Quite an art to say the least.

    I remember Russ telling me of his first experiences with digital editing and how very easy it was compared to old school editing.

    Hope this was understandable, West.
    Last edited by ralpht; 07-22-2014 at 09:15 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    And, you had to cut at an angle to make it sound more transparent. hence, the term "crossfade" used in digital editing. The faster the tape speed, the better the result.

    I never sliced a finger, but my problem with tape editing is that I always had problems getting the splicing tape on just right.

    Digital editing is such a breeze. One can do things that were impossible in the analog days. But, when you get right down to it, digital editing also takes a lot of skill.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Absolutely correct, Soulster. The splicing blocks had the proper angle grooved in. All one needed to do was run the blade through the slot to get the correct angle for splicing. And Soulster tells it like it is...getting the splicing tape on just right took a little practice.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    899
    Rep Power
    175
    .....and making sure you didn't immediately lose or damage the section you cut out, just in case the 'edit' you had made didn't sound right. If so you had to put it back and make another cut in a slightly different position - somethimes not possible [[or easy) if your first cut was very very close to where it really should have been. Also there was the danger of putting the tape section back in the wrong way round...so that the edited length plays the sound backwards!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by alanh View Post
    .....and making sure you didn't immediately lose or damage the section you cut out, just in case the 'edit' you had made didn't sound right. If so you had to put it back and make another cut in a slightly different position - somethimes not possible [[or easy) if your first cut was very very close to where it really should have been. Also there was the danger of putting the tape section back in the wrong way round...so that the edited length plays the sound backwards!
    Some engineers were wise to create a 1:1 copy and cut that instead.

  8. #8
    Interesting that this question should come up.

    I was watching part of a documentary on BBC4 the other day about the LA studio 'Sound City', and it showed how an edit was done on analogue tape in the old days [[exactly as Ralph describes), and then how it's done today in a DAW.

    I found some videos that show the technique.

    Here's the first one : -



    Cheers

    Paul
    Last edited by bradburger; 07-22-2014 at 07:20 PM.

  9. #9
    And the second on a multitrack studio machine : -



    Cheers

    Paul

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    I have read where some anal engineers would wear gloves so as not to get skin oil on the tape to prevent dropouts. And, i've read where some will take the blade and carefully trim the sides of the tape where the finished edit is to ensure that the sticky part did not make contact with the heads or rollers.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    Ooowee, what interesting responses. I've always felt that there was far more to the Motown Sound than just what I actually heard on a disc.

    Ralph, your second post was exactly the information I was interested to know. Thanks, too, to Soulster, Alanh and Bradburger. Keep it coming...

    After all these years, you probably might be inclined to take it a bit for granted [['been there, done that') but the technical side is very interesting, particularly to people like me, who may relate it back to favourites from the finished product. [[I was thinking of the edit on Martha's "I'm Ready For Love" when the question came up in my mind...)
    Last edited by westgrandboulevard; 07-23-2014 at 06:55 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Technical stuff about how recordings are created always interest me more. I'd rather talk and read about that than the usual fan stuff. I also like seeing pictures of the tape boxes and the engineers notes about EQ, level adjustments, tape speed, use of Dolby, ect. Why? It tells me more about the music.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    899
    Rep Power
    175
    OK, a bit more finer detail from me. Soulster's right about the gloves, although that is very extreme. But the reasoning is indeed not getting greasy finger marks on the tape surface. It was so important to put the splicing tape on in line with the tape and not have it even a little 'diagonally off'. Any protruding edge of the splicing tape could catch on the guides of the tape machine and momenarilly affect the speed of the tape as it passed the record and play heads. That speed change could result in a sound blip or slurr. Protruding splicing tape could also transefer some of the 'glue' onto the guides or tape heads, which would attract a build up of dirt or dust from the tape surface. Dirt on the heads could produce a muffled sound reducing the higher fequencies. [[That's why you were always encouraged to keep tape heads clean using cotton buds and meths or a specially made fluid.)

    The other important thing when editing was to always use a sharp razor blade. A blunt blade could produce a ragged cut and make it harder to get a tight joint between the two bits of tape. A ragged joint could produce an unwanted bump noise on the playback. You could re-cut the edges with a new blade, but sometimes, with a really difficult edit, cutting away even a very small slither of extra tape could detrimentally affect the sound you wanted.

    There was also the danger of accidentally using a blade that had become magnetised. If you used one it would then magnetise the edge area of the tape you'd cut, which when played back would produce a bump or click type noise. [[Bear in mind that tape was a coating of ferric [iron] oxide on a 'plastic' backing. Recording worked by the tape heads transforming the sound you wanted into magnetic energy and magnetising the ferric particles on the tape. A magentised blade would introduce another unwanted type of magnetic energy.)

    It makes digital editing these days seem so easy. If you get it wrong, just click 'undo'!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by alanh View Post
    It was so important to put the splicing tape on in line with the tape and not have it even a little 'diagonally off'. Any protruding edge of the splicing tape could catch on the guides of the tape machine and momenarilly affect the speed of the tape as it passed the record and play heads. That speed change could result in a sound blip or slurr.
    Precisely! I did mention that.

    Protruding splicing tape could also transefer some of the 'glue' onto the guides or tape heads, which would attract a build up of dirt or dust from the tape surface. Dirt on the heads could produce a muffled sound reducing the higher fequencies. [[That's why you were always encouraged to keep tape heads clean using cotton buds and meths or a specially made fluid.)
    Again, correct! And, for examples of the extremes again, i've heard of recording engineers who would clean and demagnetize the heads before each pass! And, there is always the danger of running a tape too many times, usually in tracking, where the oxide can literally come off the tape. This actually happened while the Fleetwood Mac album "Rumours" was being recorded. Thank god they had a backup with the basic tracks on it.

    There was also the danger of accidentally using a blade that had become magnetised. If you used one it would then magnetise the edge area of the tape you'd cut, which when played back would produce a bump or click type noise. [[Bear in mind that tape was a coating of ferric [iron] oxide on a 'plastic' backing. Recording worked by the tape heads transforming the sound you wanted into magnetic energy and magnetising the ferric particles on the tape. A magentised blade would introduce another unwanted type of magnetic energy.)
    Right. The act of recording is that the record head, an low-power electromagnet, placed the magnetic particles into a certain direction on the tape with varying intensities. If you place a magnet, or other charged object too near the tape, it would change the properties of the particles, and that would cause an erasure or adverse sound.
    Last edited by soulster; 07-23-2014 at 12:48 PM.

  15. #15
    thomas96 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    Technical stuff about how recordings are created always interest me more. I'd rather talk and read about that than the usual fan stuff. I also like seeing pictures of the tape boxes and the engineers notes about EQ, level adjustments, tape speed, use of Dolby, ect. Why? It tells me more about the music.
    Yes, we need much more of this and less of the Supremes. Not just recording, but the arrangements, the process of writing, producing, the Funks [[or other studio band) playing, etc.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Thomas,
    I'm all for that. I have to tell you guys, this thread has been a breath of fresh air for me. Anything I can do to offer information, I am more than happy to do. This absolutely blows away any Supremes thread and the hissy fits that emanate, and is more in the spirit of what Soulful Detroit is all about.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    Ralph, I have some more topics noted.....but, Thomas [[or anyone else), if you'd like to start a new thread, [[next one would be 'Ask Ralph : # 3'........), on a different topic which particularly interests you, please go right ahead.

    As long as each thread is introduced with the next consecutive number, they can each have a separate identity, be viewed separately or collectively, and could make a neat little series, particularly for the archive.
    Last edited by westgrandboulevard; 07-23-2014 at 04:01 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Great idea, West.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Thomas,
    I'm all for that. I have to tell you guys, this thread has been a breath of fresh air for me. Anything I can do to offer information, I am more than happy to do. This absolutely blows away any Supremes thread and the hissy fits that emanate, and is more in the spirit of what Soulful Detroit is all about.
    I have to agree Ralph.

    After all, these sort of topics used to be the main point of focus on the forum at one time, with some great input from those who were involved with Motown .

    I must admit, another thread on what gowns or outfits the Supremes wore on whatever TV show or performance isn't exactly of interest, or indeed importance to me. [[Nor is the argument and flaming that usually follows such a thread!)

    Keep asking them questions WGB!

    Cheers

    Paul

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Paul,
    From my perspective, it is nice to participate, rather than police.... That gets old. I made some crack about if I had my way I'd ban Supreme threads. Of course that couldn't happen, but it had me thinking. However, that would be insulting to the Supremes that still exist and I couldn't do that to those talented women. Too bad some of their fans aren't a little more respectful.

  21. #21
    Ralph,

    I'm glad you have enjoyed this thread [[I know I did) and that you were able to participate in , rather than police it!

    As you say, these kind of threads are in the spirit of what SD is about, and long may they continue.

    I often wonder if we have lost some of the posters who used to be regulars over the years, due to some of those threads that turned volatile, or just didn't interest them, or at worst, personal attacks on them by other members because of their opinions on a particular subject.

    That said, it's always amazing to look back at the old archived threads, and see what a treasure trove of information this place was [[and still is).

    SD may have changed over the years, but it's still a great place to be if you are interested in Motown and the other Detroit labels, and soul music in general.

    Cheers

    Paul

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,541
    Rep Power
    182
    Very interesting thread. I'm learning something new everyday regarding the folks in the background at Motown. Liking the format too, WGB.

    Hopefully one day soon, I'll be able to jump into the conversation[[s).

    What a breath of fresh air, WGB! Thanks.

    Tyrone

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    I'm with you, Paul, Ralph, Tyrone, and Westgrand. We just need more threads like this, and more new members who find this place who are interested in the technical side of things.

    I'm all for talking about how The Supremes were miked, recorded, mixed, and mastered, but I have zero interest in gowns and the stupid gossip.

    Those other topics that run rampant here can bring out the worst in people. I say let those Supremes/Ross/Wilson fanatics find some other forum to do their cat-fights in.
    Last edited by soulster; 07-24-2014 at 03:58 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Soulster,
    They're beating me up pretty good on the main forum.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    This thread is dedicated to creativity and art.

    Some [[at least) of those other people, Ralph, are hecklers. They have their own story, of course, but they also just want to spread their unhappiness around. An unhappiness which almost certainly has nothing to do with this forum, and no place here.

    I've yet to meet a focused, truly creative person who has time to think like that, let alone act like it.

    Was just thinking about the context of this thread, and how edits would become required in the first instance.

    From the producer- ?
    Last edited by westgrandboulevard; 07-24-2014 at 11:02 AM.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    I would say that editing is just a part of the process. The idea is to make the best recording possible, and editing helps achieve that.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    242
    Rep Power
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    I would say that editing is just a part of the process. The idea is to make the best recording possible, and editing helps achieve that.
    My experiences with editing are somewhat limited. When I was working for Pye, I assisted in editing the Michael Henderson track Wide Receiver for British release, as well as one or two of B.T. Express’ later UK singles on Calibre. I always marvelled at the gentle rocking back and forth the engineer did, trying to find the exact right spot to cut.

  28. #28
    thomas96 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    Some engineers were wise to create a 1:1 copy and cut that instead.
    Wouldn't some of the quality [[of the new one) be lost when copied?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas96 View Post
    Wouldn't some of the quality [[of the new one) be lost when copied?
    Just a tad. If you copy the tape backwards, which is normal procedure, you preserve the transients. Another thing to preserve quality is to make a 30 ips copy with no Dolby.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Not exactly sure when it happened, Soulster, but 30ips masters became normal and suggested.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    So, would that be the more tape used, the better the sound quality?

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Yes, in its most simple sense, the tape moves quickly over the heads and this allows the sound to "breathe" and not distort.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    And reel-to-reel has much better sound quality than cassette?

  34. #34
    thomas96 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard View Post
    And reel-to-reel has much better sound quality than cassette?
    It is the best sound quality of all recording mediums by a long shot.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    756
    Rep Power
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotspurman View Post
    My experiences with editing are somewhat limited. When I was working for Pye, I assisted in editing the Michael Henderson track Wide Receiver for British release, as well as one or two of B.T. Express’ later UK singles on Calibre. I always marvelled at the gentle rocking back and forth the engineer did, trying to find the exact right spot to cut.
    The 12" mix of the one single that I co-produced was put together by splicing together the best parts of several runs through of the track with an engineer who specialised in reggae "versions". I spent a lot of time with the producer in his attic studio picking through these multiple "on the fly" mixes and agreeing on the best bits and the order in which they should run. By the end, the floor was full of cuttings and there was loads of splicing tape in place. The end result was an absolutely mad mix that was IMHO ahead of its time, but it never got much exposure and I probably have as many copies in my collection as were sold commercially. [[Sigh)

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    242
    Rep Power
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Sotosound View Post
    The 12" mix of the one single that I co-produced was put together by splicing together the best parts of several runs through of the track with an engineer who specialised in reggae "versions". I spent a lot of time with the producer in his attic studio picking through these multiple "on the fly" mixes and agreeing on the best bits and the order in which they should run. By the end, the floor was full of cuttings and there was loads of splicing tape in place. The end result was an absolutely mad mix that was IMHO ahead of its time, but it never got much exposure and I probably have as many copies in my collection as were sold commercially. [[Sigh)
    It was always claimed that the Pye studio at Great Cumberland Place was one of the best in London, with the best engineers to boot. I don’t know whether that claim was right, since I didn’t have much to compare it with, although I did some work at CBS’ studio at Whitfield Street [[how apt is that name!) a good few years later and they seemed as savvy as their counterparts at Pye.


    What was funny was trying to work with engineers who were more used to dealing with Max Bygraves, Lena Martwell, Brotherhood of Man and assorted other popular artists as opposed to the funk inclinations of Michael Henderson and B.T. Express.

    A couple of years later in Miami I had my first experiences of digital editing, at a recording session for Julio Iglesias, of all people. I watched with some amazement as the engineer and producer were able to punch in a word here, a phrase there and then another word in order to create a seamless entity that resulted in Julio’s first full English language album. In fact, I can still recall them using a different colour coding to differentiate from one session to another, resulting in the finished article being a virtual rainbow!


  37. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Yes, in its most simple sense, the tape moves quickly over the heads and this allows the sound to "breathe" and not distort.
    It's better for high frequencies. And, since there is less tape hiss at higher speeds, there is no need for the use of noise reduction like Dolby or dbx, although there are many 30 i.p.s. [[inches per second) masters or copies that were encoded with them.

    The problem with using noise reduction is that one has to have the same unit and have it perfectly calibrated for the tape. It is more often used on 15 i.p.s. tape.

    The reason an engineer would use 15 i.p.s. tape, [[as Motown typically did in the 60s) was to conserve tape. Also, some producers today like the bass bump around 260 Hz.

    Ralph, I believe 30 i.p.s. came into fashion somewhere in the mid-70s.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas96 View Post
    It is the best sound quality of all recording mediums by a long shot.
    That is debatable. Some believe that 24-bit/192 kHz digital matches, if not surpasses analog reel-to-reel. That may be a debate that will never be won, except that, many, including myself, believe that any digital over 96kHz is worse, and is overkill. But, the bottom line is always to use your ears.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    I've always assumed that the sound quality heard on playback in a recording studio, [[and/or from a Master, assuming they are different items) is far superior to anything heard on any subsequent copies bought by the consumer - ?

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard View Post
    I've always assumed that the sound quality heard on playback in a recording studio, [[and/or from a Master, assuming they are different items) is far superior to anything heard on any subsequent copies bought by the consumer - ?
    But, now, that has changed with the availability of downloadable hi-rez albums, SACD, and DVD-A. But, remember, the final mastered version that leaves the mastering room is what the consumer hears. Many people think that once something is mixed, that's the end of the process, but it isn't. It has to be mastered. What you hear as a product may or may not be superior to what was in the studio or mastering room.

  41. #41
    thomas96 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    That is debatable. Some believe that 24-bit/192 kHz digital matches, if not surpasses analog reel-to-reel. That may be a debate that will never be won, except that, many, including myself, believe that any digital over 96kHz is worse, and is overkill. But, the bottom line is always to use your ears.
    Just in my opinion. There's no right answer to that question, but for me it's analog all the way.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,845
    Rep Power
    179
    I bet the sharpest razor blades were saved for Supremes' releases! Kidding......

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,083
    Rep Power
    195
    Wonderful thread about a lost art. When I finally gave up on my radio "career", digital editing was just coming into play, so I never really mastered the art of digital editing, but part of the "fun" of editing tape was the process itself, and once you got the edit the way you wanted, there was a certain joy in a job well done.
    Last edited by Doug-Morgan; 07-31-2014 at 07:52 AM.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug-Morgan View Post
    Wonderful thread about a lost art. When I finally gave up on my radio "career", digital editing was just coming into play, so I never really mastered the art of digital editing, but part of the "fun" of editing tape was the process itself, and once you got the edit the way you wanted, there was a certain joy in a job well done. Alas. two t
    You still get that joy with digital editing, too. It's just different.

    I'll say one thing: spectral editing makes digital editing a lot easier and precise.

  45. #45
    thomas96 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    You still get that joy with digital editing, too. It's just different.

    I'll say one thing: spectral editing makes digital editing a lot easier and precise.
    soulster, I may have already asked this and gotten an answer, but I forget... What is your experience with recording? Did you work for any labels or studios?

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas96 View Post
    soulster, I may have already asked this and gotten an answer, but I forget... What is your experience with recording? Did you work for any labels or studios?
    That's a passive, polite way of asking me what my credentials are. Some people will only listen to people with a list of credentials. I understand.

    I am self-taught, and started out doing live sound mixing waaaay back in high school. I am an audiophile, music collector, and a musician who hasn't played professionally in decades, but have worked for a major pro audio software company. I also professionally do audio restoration and mastering on the side when the opportunity comes. I have done a bit of mixing, but it's not my thing. I used to be a DJ back in the 80s but got out of it because I hated playing rap, and I like rap! I dabbled with radio production but decided I don't like the business. I have friends and connections in the recording industry, some of whom are active and a couple who are retired. Some have mastered some of the Motown music you know and love. One guy is a recent Grammy-winner. I have no dealings with the record industry, which is distinct from the recording industry. There is a difference.

    Now am I a little more credible to you? There are thousands of people who know their stuff about audio, and they are just hobbyists. All you have to have is the desire to learn this stuff and work with it.

  47. #47
    thomas96 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    That's a passive, polite way of asking me what my credentials are. Some people will only listen to people with a list of credentials. I understand.

    I am self-taught, and started out doing live sound mixing waaaay back in high school. I am an audiophile, music collector, and a musician who hasn't played professionally in decades, but have worked for a major pro audio software company. I also professionally do audio restoration and mastering on the side when the opportunity comes. I have done a bit of mixing, but it's not my thing. I used to be a DJ back in the 80s but got out of it because I hated playing rap, and I like rap! I dabbled with radio production but decided I don't like the business. I have friends and connections in the recording industry, some of whom are active and a couple who are retired. Some have mastered some of the Motown music you know and love. One guy is a recent Grammy-winner. I have no dealings with the record industry, which is distinct from the recording industry. There is a difference.

    Now am I a little more credible to you? There are thousands of people who know their stuff about audio, and they are just hobbyists. All you have to have is the desire to learn this stuff and work with it.
    I believed what you were saying, I was just curious as to what your experience was. I have done some amateur recording as well but don't know quite as much as you do. Thanks for all that info.

  48. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    I have to admit I was a little curious myself. You seem to know your stuff and your comments are spot on.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.