Details
Lizzie Richards Podcast episode about Oklahoma and Green Grow the Lilacs. Independent Study 2024 Sarah Lawrence College. Advisor: Stuart Spencer
Comment
Details
Lizzie Richards Podcast episode about Oklahoma and Green Grow the Lilacs. Independent Study 2024 Sarah Lawrence College. Advisor: Stuart Spencer
Comment
Lizzie Richards Podcast episode about Oklahoma and Green Grow the Lilacs. Independent Study 2024 Sarah Lawrence College. Advisor: Stuart Spencer
Listen to OK/GGTL Podcast episode by Elizabeth Richards MP3 song. OK/GGTL Podcast episode song from Elizabeth Richards is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 48:55. This high-quality MP3 track has 968.522 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 4 May 2024. Stream and download OK/GGTL Podcast episode by Elizabeth Richards for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
Lizzie, a theater enthusiast, wanted to create a podcast episode on the revolutionary musical "Oklahoma." However, she realized it would take too long, so she focused on comparing the source material, "Green Grow the Lilacs," with the musical. She noticed differences in the characters, themes, and tone. Lizzie explores the history of musical theater before "Oklahoma," mentioning shows like "Show Boat," "Of Thee I Sing," and "Pal Joey" that pushed the boundaries in various ways. She then delves into the background of "Green Grow the Lilacs" and how it was adapted into the musical "Oklahoma" by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Despite initial financial struggles, "Oklahoma" became a huge success, running for three years and earning critical acclaim. Hello. Please take note that there will be outdated and some offensive or racist terms used in this. However, this will only be when reading lines from the shows and quotes from historical sources. Thank you, and enjoy listening. Hi, my name is Lizzie, and I am a nerd. And perhaps worse, I am a theater kid. I love studying musical theater history, and when doing that, I was always told how important Oklahoma was, how it changed musical theater forever. I was always told it was the first integrated musical, and that musicals became a new art form after. So as a part of an independent study, I decided to create a podcast episode on the history of why the musical Oklahoma was so revolutionary, how it changed musical theater, and why. But then I found that, being me, I bit off way more than I can chew, and I would need years to complete this project, rather than a handful of months. So, I pivoted. I decided I would look at Oklahoma's source material, Greenboro the Lilacs, while simultaneously looking at the libretto for Oklahoma, as Rogers and Hammerstein, who wrote the musical, said that they took much of the script for Oklahoma verbatim from Greenboro the Lilacs. And so that's what I did. And it was true. Much of the two scripts were identical. But as I read, I couldn't help but notice that the two shows were more different than meets the eye. I noticed how Greenboro the Lilacs had indigenous characters, and Oklahoma did not. The characters in Greenboro the Lilacs were against statehood, and the characters in Oklahoma were all for it. And lastly, Greenboro the Lilacs is much darker than Oklahoma. But does any of that matter? Do the changes do anything to dampen the revolutionary thing that Oklahoma did to change musical theater forever? So that's what we are going to explore today. Before I am going to go through and break down a basic history of both of these shows, try to quickly explain why Oklahoma was so revolutionary to the musical, and explain the changes between the two shows. I will then break down the opening scenes from both shows, pointing out what I noticed, and comparing and contrasting the material. Lastly, I will wrap up with some concluding thoughts on whether any of this matters. Do I think that these changes affect my thoughts on the lasting impact of Oklahoma? Well, we have a lot to get through, and very little time, so let's get started. Before we can begin talking about the history of the musical Oklahoma, and how it was so revolutionary, we have to understand what the Broadway musical looked like before Oklahoma. The Broadway musical finds its origins in part in the American variety show, such as reviews, vaudeville, and minstrelsy. It was also inspired by African American music, such as ragtime and jazz, European music, as well as Jewish klezmer music. The music of the musical was new and exciting. The Ziegfeld Follies and other musical reviews grew in popularity during the 1910s and 20s, and soon after this came the musical comedy. These musicals were lighthearted entertainment, meant to showcase singing and dancing. Often, songs were written for specific stars, and often the songs were written first, with the plot created to fit the songs. This often led to the story being confusing and forgettable. In 1929, musical writer and producer, Lawrence Schwab, wrote an article in the Theater Magazine called, How to Write a Successful Musical Comedy. In it, he stated, Do not attempt too much sophistication, as only comedy which is written and played in broad strokes is successful. There were musicals before Oklahoma that evolved the form of the musical in some way, whether in tone, subject matter, or integration. The main musicals that did this were 1927's Show Boat, 1931's Of Thee I Sing, and 1940's Pal Joey. There were other musicals before Oklahoma that attempted, successfully or unsuccessfully, to integrate their songs and libretto, but these three are among those that came the closest. Show Boat opened in late 1927, with music by Jerome Kern, and the book and lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II. Hmm. That name sounds familiar. Anyway, based on the 1926 novel of the same name by Edna Ferber, Show Boat is often thought of as the first integrated musical, and the first Broadway musical of the Golden Age. The musical was the first to have a serious plot, and many of the songs came from the characters' feelings, with the songs moving the story forward. Act 1 is considered to be nearly perfect at being an integrated musical, however, this cohesion falls apart through Act 2. The first 15 minutes of Act 2 do nothing to advance the plot, and much of the character development from Act 1 grinds to a halt. Often, scenes and songs feel too long and out of place. That being said, Show Boat was groundbreaking. It was not just frivolous entertainment. Paul Prince put it nicely, saying, it influenced all of us, whoever wanted to work in musicals in the best conceivable way, because it was serious, and because it was integrated, and it was courageous. Next was Of Thee I Sing. Premiering in 1931, the music was by George Gershwin, the lyrics by Ira Gershwin, and the book by George S. Kaufman and Maury Ristein. The musical was a satire on American politics, and became the first ever musical to win the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. The plot was coherent, and considered to be the first real satirical musical. The songs were meant to further the plot, and for the most part, it was successful. The reason the musical falls short of beating Oklahoma is because it really followed a traditional operetta format, and its subject and tone were like other operettas, too frivolous to really be taken seriously. Pal Joey premiered in 1940, with a book by John O'Hara, lyrics by Lorenz Hart, and music by Richard Rogers. Again, another familiar sounding name. Anyway, the musical was groundbreaking in the fact that the main character was an anti-hero, and most of the characters were three-dimensional. About half the songs were well-integrated, so while far from perfect, it is considered by many to have still been a large step forward at the time. Okay, so, with that done, we can dive into the two theatrical works we're going to be focusing on. Let's start with Green Grow the Lilacs, written by Lynn Riggs. It came out first, after all. Lynn Riggs was born in 1899 in Claremore, Oklahoma, which at the time was in Oklahoma Territory, owned by the United States, but not a state. Think Puerto Rico today. Riggs' mother was part Cherokee, and Riggs felt very connected to his Cherokee identity. In college, Riggs started writing poems and plays, and in 1928, he received a Guggenheim Fellowship and traveled to Europe. It was there where he wrote Green Grow the Lilacs, in 1929, as part of a series of plays called Cherokee Nights. The plays were all loosely based on his own childhood experiences, and almost all the characters were based on people that he knew. He placed folk songs throughout Green Grow the Lilacs, including many that had originated in Indigenous culture. The play was performed on Broadway in 1931, and was produced by the Cedar Guild. The play was not a hit, but it was enjoyed critically, and was considered for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. The basic plot is this. A cowboy meets Curly, like the farm girl named Lori. However, Lori is being pursued by a farmhand named Jeter Fry, who is quite creepy and violent. Eventually, Lori turns down Jeter, and she and Curly get married. After the wedding, Jeter and some of his friends attack the newlyweds, and Jeter dies by falling on his own knife. The play ends with Curly being taken to jail, as people think he killed Jeter. But Curly escapes and consummates his marriage with Lori, though he plans to go back to jail and await his trial. Okay, now for Oklahoma. Teresa Halburne, one of the people in charge of the Cedar Guild, which, you will remember, produced Green Girls a lot of that, contacted Riggs in 1942 about her plan to adapt his play into a musical. She then talked to Richard Rogers, a good friend, about being the one to write the music, and she was very interested. Richard Rogers had worked for 25 years with Lorenz Hart, writing 26 musical comedies. They were the most successful partnership on Broadway at the time, but Hart struggled with alcoholism and mental health issues, which in recent years had hindered their work. Rogers discussed writing the musical with Hart, but at the time, Hart was deeply struggling with his alcohol addiction, and in any case, the material was completely out of his wheelhouse. He passed. Rogers suggested to Halburne that he approach Oscar Hammerstein II. Oscar Hammerstein II had partnered with Jerome Kern in 1927 to create the groundbreaking showboat, and had spent the 1920s also writing hugely successful operettas and musical comedies. However, in the 1930s, Hammerstein had a long string of flops and an unhappy experience in Hollywood. Hammerstein had actually on his own already... Hammerstein had actually on his own already thought about adapting Green Grove the Lilacs into a musical, so he was thrilled to collaborate with Rogers. The biggest problem was money. Investors were not interested. Rogers had never written without Hart. Hammerstein had just had a long list of failures. The source material was not a popular play. And the Theatre Guild itself did not have a lot of experience making musicals. They got rejected by one investor after another. Eventually, they went into rehearsals without all the necessary funding. But history was made when Oklahoma opened at the St. James Theatre on March 31, 1943, and was a massive success. It ran for three years, closing in 1948 after 2,212 performances, making it the longest-running show on Broadway at the time, only surpassed by My Fair Lady in 1961. In 1945, the show was said to be making the equivalent of $60 million a year in today's money. Rogers and Hammerstein were awarded a special Pulitzer Prize for the show in 1944. The show was the first musical to have a complete original cast album released by a major label, selling over a million copies in its first year. Here's the synopsis of the musical from the official Rogers and Hammerstein organization. In the Oklahoma Territory during the turn-of-the-century land rush, a boastful cowboy named Curly and a surly ranch hand named Jud are both in love with Laurie. Though she loves Curly, stubborn Laurie spites him by going to a dance with Jud. There, Curly proves his love by bidding all he owns for Laurie's lunch basket. They marry, and after the ceremony, Jud picks a fight with Curly and is killed by his own knife. After Curly is acquitted, the newlyweds ride off to celebrate their honeymoon. As I stated in the beginning, Oklahoma has been given the title of the first true integrated musical, and it really did change the history of musical theater. But how is it so revolutionary? Well, the first thing Rogers and Hammerstein did differently than how they had worked before, and different, really, from any musicals written prior to Oklahoma, was that the book and lyrics were written first. This helped them to shape the concept and make the story cohesive and clear. The music made sense in the plot and matched the lyrics. The next thing was that they didn't prioritize spectacle and made the decision to put the story first when writing, and this is what helped the show to be as integrated as it was, rather than the story being shaped around the songs, like the traditional musical comedy. The songs were based on the script. They did not want the songs to be there just for entertainment. No song should stop the story in its tracks. They had planned the first 40 minutes of the show, but they had no idea how to integrate the chorus girls. But again, they eventually gave in to their instincts. Hammerstein explained, Dick and I talked for a very long time before we accepted the revolutionary idea of not having any chorus girls in the first 40 minutes. We tried very hard to obey tradition, to invent reasons why the girls should be on. We couldn't find any that didn't seem to hurt the character of the play we were adapting. In fact, different from any past musical at the time, the first scene takes up 40% of the show, all taking place in front of Aunt Eller's porch. Not to mention, more than half of the show's score is introduced in that first scene. The songs were carefully placed to make sense, and they worked to make the songs and dialogue flow together naturally. Songs had to help develop the character and move the story along. In an interview years later, Hammerstein articulates why this choice was made and why it was so integral to the show. He says, The songs had to help our story and delineate characters, supplementing the dialogue and seeming to be, as much as possible, a continuation of the dialogue. The art of this thing is to get in and out of the numbers so smoothly that the audience isn't aware you are jumping from dialogue to singing. The art, you understand, is not to jump, but to ooze. The musical used everything it could to tell its story, including song, dialogue, dance, costuming, sets, I mean, you name it, and they considered how they could use it to tell the story. There were shows before Oklahoma that had aspects of the integrated musical, but Oklahoma was the first to have all of them and to do it all so well. At the show's premiere, the New Yorker said, The music of Oklahoma is so well built into the production that it shouldn't be analyzed as a detachable part. Oscar Hammerstein II, whose skillful book and lyrics match anything that he has done in his successful career, has devised matters so that the ballet is an integral part of the entertainment rather than the usual interpolation. Oklahoma truly revolutionized the Broadway musical. It was considered to be the first integrated show, seamlessly combining singing, acting, and dance to tell the story. The Oxford Companion to the American Musical describes this perfectly, saying, It was the first fully integrated musical play. Its blending of song, character, plot, and even dance would serve as the model for Broadway shows for decades to follow. No song from the score could be reassigned to another actor, no less another show, because each was drawn from the character so fully that it became an integral piece of the character's development within the plot. The songs in Oklahoma continued plot development and characterization rather than interrupting them. The history of the Broadway musical can accurately be divided into what came before Oklahoma and what came after it. Musicals would never be the same again. So, I had said before that when I read both Oklahoma and Green Grove the Lilacs, I had noticed that there were some omissions in the musical that took out the indigenous identities of the characters that were in the source material. And in Green Grove the Lilacs, the characters don't want the territory to become a state. But in the musical, they sing a whole song about wanting to be a state. They name the whole show after it. In Green Grove the Lilacs, the land is always referred to as Indian territory and not as a possession of the United States. In fact, Riggs never refers to the location as being Oklahoma. This territory, where both shows take place, was part of a 31,000 square mile area where the American government had been sending indigenous people forcibly uprooted from their homelands since the early 1800s. On the first page of the script, in the stage directions, Riggs writes, the unearthly moonlight pours through the crocheted curtains of a window in the living room, the front room of a farmhouse in Indian territory. The musical uses the same opening stage directions but cuts the paragraph short, no longer containing the sentence saying the story takes place in Indian territory. In fact, the 1900 U.S. Census reported that more than 97% of the people living in this territory belonged to one of four indigenous tribes, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Creek, and the Cherokee. Now, while it can't be confirmed that all of the characters in Greengrove Lilacs were also indigenous, Riggs makes it clear that certainly a majority were. In scene six, when Aunt Ella confronts the crowd who want to take Curly back to jail for his alleged crimes, she yells at the group, pardon my awful southern accent, why, the way you're siding with the federal marshal, you think us people out here lived in the United States. It's just a foreign country to me, and you supportin' it. Just dirty old foreigners, every last one of you. In response, the crowd yell back, now, Aunt Ella, we ain't hangin' foreigners. My pappy and mammy was both born in Indian territory. Why, I'm just plumb full of Indian blood myself. There's also evidence that Curly, the main character of the play and musical, was meant to be part indigenous. Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Georgia, Jace Weaver, feels strongly that Curly is mixed race, both European and Cherokee ancestry. He says that Curly's surname and nickname are suggestive of such a lineage. Weaver explains, McClain was a fairly prominent native last name. Curly's nickname could have come about because he, as a mixed blood, had curly hair, an uncommon trait among Indians. It is at least marginally more likely that Indians would have been the cattlemen and the Amer-Europeans the farmers during this period of Oklahoma history. In contrast to all this, in the musical, almost all the characters are seemingly white, with the exception of Ollie Hockam. Though it is apparent when reading the two scripts side by side that much of Oklahoma was taken verbatim from Green Grow the Lilacs, any mention of indigenous culture or characters is nowhere to be seen. It is noteworthy to point out that Richard Rogers wrote in his autobiography musical stages. In 1942, I had never been to the state of Oklahoma, and I suppose it may be truthfully said that Oklahoma does not contain a single bar of authentic southwestern music. It doesn't seem to have hurt the overall effect. Now, this does not mean that there's anything wrong with the music of Oklahoma, but it does show that the cultures depicted in the two shows were always going to be very different based on who was writing them. They also had very different purposes. In his autobiography, Richard Rogers wrote, people could come see Oklahoma and derive not only pleasure, but a measure of optimism. It dealt with pioneers in the southwest. It showed their spirit and the kinds of problems they had to overcome in carving out a new state. And it gave citizens an appreciation of the hardy stock from which they'd sprung. People said to themselves, in effect, if this is what our country looked and sounded like at the turn of the century, perhaps once the war is over and we can again return to this kind of buoyant, optimistic life. Conversely, while writing Green Grow the Lilacs, playwright Lynn Riggs wrote to a friend, the reason I continue to write about Oklahoma people, and especially backwoods or unleathered people, or part of the reason, at least, for I find it difficult to give up using that flavorous, that lustrous imagery, that beautiful rhythmic utterance. The main reason, of course, is that I know more about the people I knew in childhood and the youth than many others. But it so happens that I knew mostly the dark ones, the unprivileged ones, the ones with the most desolate fields, the most dismal skies. And so it wasn't surprising that my plays concerned themselves with poor farmers, forlorn wives, tortured youth, plowhands, peddlers, criminals, slaveys. With all the range of folk victimized by brutality, ignorance, superstition, and dread. And it will sound like an affection. It most surely is not. If I say that I wanted to give a voice and a dignified existence to people who found themselves, most pitiably, without a voice, when there was so much to be cried out against. Both shows take place at the turn of the century, when Oklahoma was at the verge of statehood. Yet the characters have a very different opinion on if they want Oklahoma to become a state at all. Let's go back to Aunt Eller's line from scene 6, the one where she yells at the townspeople. In this line, we hear that Aunt Eller, and in response, the townspeople, do not see themselves as Americans. And they're perhaps even anti-America. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume from this line alone that many of the characters in Green Grow the Lilacs were against Oklahoma becoming a state. There's historical evidence that this is quite possibly true. Bob Blackburn, head of the Oklahoma Historical Society, said in an interview, the people of Indian Territory, Lynn Riggs' people, wanted a separate state, meaning sovereign nation, but Congress wouldn't have it. Riggs also wrote in his other works about being against statehood. Of Riggs' other plays, over half were about life in the Southwest, and more specifically, in Indian Country. For example, his most famous play, excluding Green Grow the Lilacs, was The Cherokee Night. The Cherokee Night was described as a seven-scene, non-sequential opus illustrating the demise of the Cherokee people at the hands of white encroachment. Now, none of this anti-statehood sentiment is present in the musical Oklahoma. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The townspeople in the musical appear to be all for Oklahoma becoming a state. You don't even have to look any further than the title song. In place of that ever-so-important quote from Aunt Eller, we get the song Oklahoma, in which we hear jubilant music and lyrics, such as, Brand New State Gonna Treat You Great, and, We know we belong to the land, And the land we belong to is grand, And when we say, Yo, a yippee-o-yay, We're sayin' you're doin' fine, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma,
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
