Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
pagemccartney95

Zep and the Beatles

340 posts in this topic

Let me elaborate for you, Danny:

Have every actually watched Beatles concert footage? Not every member of the audience was a young girl: there were guy fans in the audience, too! Also, Linda McCartney was a Beatles(and Yardbirds!) fan before she met Sir Paul(Happy Birthday to him, btw), but she was born in 1941, which would make her approximately 23 when the Beatles hit: now she was young, but not as young as you seem to be suggesting, that is, 10-16 age range. Not all young girls at that time were into the Beatles: some of them simply weren't interested. A "Boy Band" would be the Monkees, N'Sync, and Minuedo, who were specifically manufactured for teenage girls. The Beatles, conversely, were actually talented(i.e., wrote their own music, etc.) and although they were boys when they started recording(George was either 19 or 20), boy bands are today thought of little puppets manufactured by companies wanting to make money. The Beatles actually knew each other before they became famous; Brian Epstein didn't just pick cute talented guys from auditions. Not every Beatles song was "mushy": how can, say, "You Can't Do That", or, "Tomorrow Never Knows", be considered "mushy"?

The Beatles, although starting out as a POP band, were built on the roots of rock(i.e., Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, etc.) and, like the rest of the music world, evolved into ROCK: looking at music charts at the time of "I Want to Hold Your Hand", most of the singles would'nt be considered CLASSIC ROCK; conversely, many singles on the charts at the time of "Help!", merely a year later, can be thought of as CLASSIC ROCK. They went from "Can't Buy Me Love" to "Get Back". They did manage to write poetry: Sir Paul wrote "And I Love Her" in '64 for his then-girlfriend, Jane Asher(she's aged really well! :) ) and, in '68, wrote "I Will" for future wife Linda(I miss her :( ). I will admit, though, they did possess the ability of sappiness, especially on Paul's part, but he could mange to write some rockers like "Get Back". John Lennon(who I think had something of an anger issue) wrote the majority of the band's most famous songs: "Help!", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "I am the Walrus", "Don't Let Me Down"(written for Yoko :) ), "Come Together", and "Dig a Pony" started at his pen.

Zeppelin were the Original Headbangers. I kind of agree with Aquamarine on this one, that we are sort of comparing "apples to oranges": Zep came after the Beatles, music had evolved quite a bit; if Aerosmith(thinking of, maybe, Toys in the Attic )tried to hit it big in '64, they probably would've gotten nowhere because the music was still pretty much POP then. Or suppose the Stones had tried, say, "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" even in '68: music hadn't reached that style yet. Bands become popular if their genre is whatever is popular. Zep was huge because their type of music was very popular in their time.

Beatles music needs lyrics, but so does most of Zeppelin's. If you wish to disagree, fine by me.

Let's agree to disagree!

That would be nice. B)

Jo

Hi Jo,

No, lets agree to agree on this one, i have looked back over many of our posts and have re-evaluated my own thinking and i am very tempted to agree with many other posters on here, Beatbo, ZFF and your dear self included.

When i called them a "Boy Band" i was refering to the Then not the Now, so i would tend to agree with you on this one.

If your of the thinking that in Pop Music other people write the material for you, like in the case of Robbie Williams, then yes you can class the Beatles as a Rock band because they write their own Music and Lyrics.

Its probably my take on what is and what isnt Rock that you and many others will take issue with, with some its a very fine line, with me it isnt, to me the Beatles are a Pop band because they manufactured Songs, Image, TV and the Media to incourage Young people, esp Girls, to become Fanaticle about what was just an Image or a Fashon, that to me is what Pop is any why i shun it.

Whereas Robert Plant said recently, "It was never about the fans, it was about us enjoying our music" and thats what makes Led Zeppelin a Rock Band and not a Pop orientated Band, they made songs for themselves not to please fans, if i stay focused on the "Music" then Led Zeppelin will always come out on top for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music

I have re-evalueated my reasoning after examining this link, there is so much more than meets the eye here, and although not "dazed" i am a bit "confused" by it.

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm so not wanting to argue with anyone, but I can attest that we in America hear that all the time..."The Beatles knew they wouldn't be 'big' until they were big in America." "Led Zeppelin was never appreciated in their home country like they were in America."

If this isn't true, I am so glad to be educated. But please, people, don't get angry at us for posting something we have been taught as truth.

You catch more flies with honey... ^_^

I think, in truth, we get a bit fed-up with the whole 'they weren't appreciated in the UK like they were the US', because you're comparing a tiny island country to that of a mahoosive one. We have around 1/4 of the population that you guys have - there's little room for wonder if bands get a bigger reception in your neck of the woods. You may hear it a lot, and it may be true in part, but it does get old. Very old.

What pisses me off is when people don't appreciate (or except) that they were excepted here, and they just basically take the credit on behalf of their country for 'making' them. Both the Beatles and Zeppelin were popular here - not to the degree that they would have been in the US - but popular enough to sell out tours, popular enough to label such hysteria attached to the band as 'mania', popular enough to have not released a friggin' single until '97, yet still be one of the greatest bands to have ever risen from this little island.

I'd like to think that if Zeppelin had toured here as extensively as they had done in the US, we may have been a close rival in terms of fandom. It amazes me how little people seem to counter that in. The fact that they're both still held in such high esteem here really tells me that they've always been appreciated. That they always will be.

The Quo on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think that the thing about the Beatles not being "big" until they were big in America simply means that they would only be (massively) successful on one small island, whereas when they scored in the US they'd be selling albums to millions and millions more people. But this then leads to the misapprehension that they WEREN'T big, in the sense of unbelievably popular and famous, at home--they were just big in a small place. :D And the extent and intensity of their popularity (per capita, so to speak) was, IMO, even greater in the UK. (Btw, Moonmaid, my dear, I don't think anyone's getting angry, unless I missed it! ;) )

Btw, can't remember if anyone's mentioned that Zep used to do I Saw Her Standing There quite often--one of their best covers, I always thought!

Edited by Aquamarine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think, in truth, we get a bit fed-up with the whole 'they weren't appreciated in the UK like they were the US', because you're comparing a tiny island country to that of a mahoosive one. We have around 1/4 of the population that you guys have - there's little room for wonder if bands get a bigger reception in your neck of the woods. You may hear it a lot, and it may be true in part, but it does get old. Very old.

What pisses me off is when people don't appreciate (or except) that they were excepted here, and they just basically take the credit on behalf of their country for 'making' them. Both the Beatles and Zeppelin were popular here - not to the degree that they would have been in the US - but popular enough to sell out tours, popular enough to label such hysteria attached to the band as 'mania', popular enough to have not released a friggin' single until '97, yet still be one of the greatest bands to have ever risen from this little island.

I'd like to think that if Zeppelin had toured here as extensively as they had done in the US, we may have been a close rival in terms of fandom. It amazes me how little people seem to counter that in. The fact that they're both still held in such high esteem here really tells me that they've always been appreciated. That they always will be.

The Quo on the other hand...

I can see your point about it getting irritating. At first, I had to chuckle every time a poster would get so offended and defensive every time the "America is what made Led Zeppelin" line was uttered. Don't take it personally. We just have more people.

No one is saying, "America is better than the UK." Well, I'm not. And you know this to be true. :beer:

But what of this agrument? He's saying that the British audiences don't appear to be enjoying concerts as much as Americans do. Perhaps it's this arument that has caused some confusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAR0eeGfwJc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I think that the thing about the Beatles not being "big" until they were big in America simply means that they would only be (massively) successful on one small island, whereas when they scored in the US they'd be selling albums to millions and millions more people. But this then leads to the misapprehension that they WEREN'T big, in the sense of unbelievably popular and famous, at home--they were just big in a small place. :D And the extent and intensity of their popularity (per capita, so to speak) was, IMO, even greater in the UK. (Btw, Moonmaid, my dear, I don't think anyone's getting angry, unless I missed it! ;) )

Btw, can't remember if anyone's mentioned that Zep used to do I Saw Her Standing There quite often--one of their best covers, I always thought!

Check your PM.

And I like Please, Please Me as well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what of this agrument? He's saying that the British audiences don't appear to be enjoying concerts as much as Americans do. Perhaps it's this arument that has caused some confusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAR0eeGfwJc

Off topic: If you watch a concert in Japan, you would probably think the audience is dumb. :bagoverhead:

And Happy Birthday to Sir Paul McCartney! :yourock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jo,

No, lets agree to agree on this one, i have looked back over many of our posts and have re-evaluated my own thinking and i am very tempted to agree with many other posters on here, Beatbo, ZFF and your dear self included.

When i called them a "Boy Band" i was refering to the Then not the Now, so i would tend to agree with you on this one.

If your of the thinking that in Pop Music other people write the material for you, like in the case of Robbie Williams, then yes you can class the Beatles as a Rock band because they write their own Music and Lyrics.

Its probably my take on what is and what isnt Rock that you and many others will take issue with, with some its a very fine line, with me it isnt, to me the Beatles are a Pop band because they manufactured Songs, Image, TV and the Media to incourage Young people, esp Girls, to become Fanaticle about what was just an Image or a Fashon, that to me is what Pop is any why i shun it.

Whereas Robert Plant said recently, "It was never about the fans, it was about us enjoying our music" and thats what makes Led Zeppelin a Rock Band and not a Pop orientated Band, they made songs for themselves not to please fans, if i stay focused on the "Music" then Led Zeppelin will always come out on top for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music

I have re-evalueated my reasoning after examining this link, there is so much more than meets the eye here, and although not "dazed" i am a bit "confused" by it.

Regards, Danny

How's it going Danny as well as our fellow die hard hard core ZEPPELIN fanatics? When I say ZEPPELIN fanatics to all of you, I know for fact that all of you are. I apologize for hitting a nerve here on this particular subject but this is something that has been puzzling me for many years now and I'm just glad that there are fellow Englishman and Englishwomen from England that are here on the Forum to help set the record straight. It pains me to hear people from England say negative things about either LED ZEPPELIN or THE BEATLES and it shouldn't be that way but yet in reality, it is! Maybe this is a subject better left alone and we should all be thankful that we have a Forum where we can all come together and talk about LED ZEPPELIN or any other band so to speak, but it is LED ZEPPELIN that brings us all together in unity. To all of us, ELVIS, THE BEATLES and LED ZEPPELIN (In no particular order) will ALWAYS be the three greatest acts that music ever produced and lets just leave it at that. Danny wasn't kidding when he said that there is more than meets the eye here on this very sensitive subject of ZEPP and THE BEATLES. I'm hoping that everything that I have heard from at least 12 people that I know personally that are from England, (Not including the ones here on the Forum) have misinformed me although I will approach them again with this subject. Who knows, maybe I'll get them to join our Forum and speak their peace whereas we can help set the record straight for them. In the mean time, thank you for being the true LED ZEPPELIN fanatics that all of you are, I truly feel honored in being part of this Forum with all of you. ROCK ON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How's it going Danny as well as our fellow die hard hard core ZEPPELIN fanatics? When I say ZEPPELIN fanatics to all of you, I know for fact that all of you are. I apologize for hitting a nerve here on this particular subject but this is something that has been puzzling me for many years now and I'm just glad that there are fellow Englishman and Englishwomen from England that are here on the Forum to help set the record straight. It pains me to hear people from England say negative things about either LED ZEPPELIN or THE BEATLES and it shouldn't be that way but yet in reality, it is! Maybe this is a subject better left alone and we should all be thankful that we have a Forum where we can all come together and talk about LED ZEPPELIN or any other band so to speak, but it is LED ZEPPELIN that brings us all together in unity. To all of us, ELVIS, THE BEATLES and LED ZEPPELIN (In no particular order) will ALWAYS be the three greatest acts that music ever produced and lets just leave it at that. Danny wasn't kidding when he said that there is more than meets the eye here on this very sensitive subject of ZEPP and THE BEATLES. I'm hoping that everything that I have heard from at least 12 people that I know personally that are from England, (Not including the ones here on the Forum) have misinformed me although I will approach them again with this subject. Who knows, maybe I'll get them to join our Forum and speak their peace whereas we can help set the record straight for them. In the mean time, thank you for being the true LED ZEPPELIN fanatics that all of you are, I truly feel honored in being part of this Forum with all of you. ROCK ON!

Hi, me ole mate ZFF and to you Moon,

I'll tell you the difference between your Great Country and My Not So Great One concerning this thread.

1. Our Media in Britaln, TV, Radio, Newspapers, at that time in the 60s and 70s were only ever interested in promoting Pop Mucic Culture, Rock Music was an Underground entity then. The Beatles Ruled and were treated like Royalty buy our Media. Led Zeppelin were not wanted by the Media because they were not Pop.

2. In the Great US of A your Media, TV, Radio, and Newspapers took a whole different approach to this, they welcomed both The Beatles and Led Zeppelin as did your Great People. They and you, took to them like they were your own, and did them proud.

3. If Led Zeppelin didnt have the American market and only relied on the UKs interest then in my honest opinion we wouldnt be here talking because they would never have been the Huge success that they were and in fact are. The Beatles would have and did make it Big in the Uk because they were just what the Media and Pop Fans wanted.

4. Dont believe the Hype People of Americia, you made Led Zeppelin what they are today not us here in the UK, after the Media slated them for only playing big stadiums, they went on a Small Town Tour of the UK and in some places played in front of a hanful of People, Robert Plant has verified this, this never happened in Americia.

You dont have to believe me, do what i do, look it up for yourselves.

When it comes to Rock Music the UKs interest used to suck, it might be different now but back in the day me and all my Rock Music Friends would have loved to have been born Rebels in the Great Old US of A.

Gotta go now buddies, Kind Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see your point about it getting irritating. At first, I had to chuckle every time a poster would get so offended and defensive every time the "America is what made Led Zeppelin" line was uttered. Don't take it personally. We just have more people.

No one is saying, "America is better than the UK." Well, I'm not. And you know this to be true. :beer:

But what of this agrument? He's saying that the British audiences don't appear to be enjoying concerts as much as Americans do. Perhaps it's this arument that has caused some confusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAR0eeGfwJc

Oh, I don't take it personally. But, like I said, it does get old. And, in a way, I always think that it kind of undermines the fan base that both bands do have here.

As for that interview, I don't know what to say about how our audiences were - I'm an '85 baby. On the one hand, we've always been seen as a rather reserved lot compared to other countries. On the other, I think that by the time Jimmy came along, the Yardbird's had already reached their zenith in the UK. They simply weren't as popular here any longer. That interview was when? '68? You're looking at a drastic change in the popular culture in the UK around that time. The kind of music that was 'in' was a bit of a departure from the Yardbirds - Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Cream, even bands like the Who, the Beatles and the Stones had evolved. The Yardbirds were mostly (pun not intended) churning out Mickie Most records left, right and center. In terms of popularity, they'd probably taken a step back, rather than a few steps forward.

Having said that, I once read somewhere that UK audiences didn't react well to drastic change in established acts. How accurate that is, I don't know. If that is the case, it may well be a reason for Zeppelin's relatively modest beginnings here.

Or I could just be talking shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are Queen so unpopular in the US?

Can somebody tell me, I never really understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are Queen so unpopular in the US?

Can somebody tell me, I never really understood.

I wouldn't say they're unpopular in the US :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say they're unpopular in the US :huh:

Ehmmm, I remember Brian once said something like they were better "tolerated" in UK and Europe in the 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In comparison with what they are in the UK, they are really unpopular in the Uk.You just have to read what Rolling Stone say about Queen's music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I don't take it personally. But, like I said, it does get old. And, in a way, I always think that it kind of undermines the fan base that both bands do have here.

As for that interview, I don't know what to say about how our audiences were - I'm an '85 baby. On the one hand, we've always been seen as a rather reserved lot compared to other countries. On the other, I think that by the time Jimmy came along, the Yardbird's had already reached their zenith in the UK. They simply weren't as popular here any longer. That interview was when? '68? You're looking at a drastic change in the popular culture in the UK around that time. The kind of music that was 'in' was a bit of a departure from the Yardbirds - Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Cream, even bands like the Who, the Beatles and the Stones had evolved. The Yardbirds were mostly (pun not intended) churning out Mickie Most records left, right and center. In terms of popularity, they'd probably taken a step back, rather than a few steps forward.

Having said that, I once read somewhere that UK audiences didn't react well to drastic change in established acts. How accurate that is, I don't know. If that is the case, it may well be a reason for Zeppelin's relatively modest beginnings here.

Or I could just be talking shit.

No, you're fine. I just want you to know that any argument stating "this or that English band wasn't as popular in England as they were in the States" is not a slight at England. I, and a lot of other American posters, have always heard this regarding Zeppelin and accepted it as fact. If it's not a fact, so be it. Lesson learned.

Aqua brought up Eddie Cochran. If you google a biography on Eddie you invariably find a line that says, "he was never as accepted in the US like he was in England." Now, I LOVE Eddie, but I accept this statement as fact. It doesn't offend me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In comparison with what they are in the UK, they are really unpopular in the Uk.You just have to read what Rolling Stone say about Queen's music.

I don't take what Rolling Stone says as the final word. I wasn't comparing their popularity to the UK but from my perspective, they were pretty popular here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you're fine. I just want you to know that any argument stating "this or that English band wasn't as popular in England as they were in the States" is not a slight at England. I, and a lot of other American posters, have always heard this regarding Zeppelin and accepted it as fact. If it's not a fact, so be it. Lesson learned.

Aqua brought up Eddie Cochran. If you google a biography on Eddie you invariably find a line that says, "he was never as accepted in the US like he was in England." Now, I LOVE Eddie, but I accept this statement as fact. It doesn't offend me at all.

I hope you didn't think I was getting angry at you or anything? :blush: I completely understand where you're coming from and would agree with you to a degree.

It seem to always be the case that different countries had/have a larger appreciation for certain acts that otherwise may have struggled in their homeland. I don't get offended, I just get fed up with it. Zeppelin/Beatles were accepted - we just didn't have enough of us to rival the US :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it comes to Rock Music the UKs interest used to suck, it might be different now but back in the day me and all my Rock Music Friends would have loved to have been born Rebels in the Great Old US of A.

Er, no. Or at least, none of my friends (or I) would. In fact the UK was an amazing place to be for a rock fan. Unless you're talking about a different day from me! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeppelin/Beatles were accepted - we just didn't have enough of us to rival the US :D

Just saw this--sums it up perfectly. They were more than accepted, in fact--but it's just a numbers thing. Of course they'd sell more albums, play to more people, and generally be bigger in the US, for the sole reason that the US is a vastly bigger country!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just saw this--sums it up perfectly. They were more than accepted, in fact--but it's just a numbers thing. Of course they'd sell more albums, play to more people, and generally be bigger in the US, for the sole reason that the US is a vastly bigger country!

Okay. I'll buy this. But I still think we've been told that there were comparably less UK fans than US fans. Meaning, if the UK did have the population of America, it would be obvious that there were less people in the UK buying records and going to concerts. For Zep. I don't think we ever heard this about the Beatles.

But if the people from that country are saying "no," then the answer is "no." :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. I'll buy this. But I still think we've been told that there were comparably less UK fans than US fans. Meaning, if the UK did have the population of America, it would be obvious that there were less people in the UK buying records and going to concerts. For Zep. I don't think we ever heard this about the Beatles.

But if the people from that country are saying "no," then the answer is "no." :beer:

Well, the point I've been making all along is about the Beatles, where I'd say without a doubt that "comparably less UK fans" just isn't remotely true, though that's what some have been arguing. I'll leave it to others to argue the case about Zeppelin, where there may be a greater basis of fact (after 1970, anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you're fine. I just want you to know that any argument stating "this or that English band wasn't as popular in England as they were in the States" is not a slight at England. I, and a lot of other American posters, have always heard this regarding Zeppelin and accepted it as fact. If it's not a fact, so be it. Lesson learned.

Aqua brought up Eddie Cochran. If you google a biography on Eddie you invariably find a line that says, "he was never as accepted in the US like he was in England." Now, I LOVE Eddie, but I accept this statement as fact. It doesn't offend me at all.

How's it going "Moonmaid?" Its amazing how "Aquamarine" brought up EDDIE COCHRAN. I love EDDIE COCHRAN and I heard the same thing about why he was never accepted in the US like he was in England. I guess its along the same lines as to why JIMI HENDRIX (An American) made it in England first before he ever made it in the US. Although BUDDY HOLLY was big in America, he was even bigger in England being a guitarist. In my opinion, the reason why certain artists made it in England rather than their own US soil is because the British musicians in the 1960's were guitar fanatics and they accepted American artists that were guitarists as one of their own. Thats just my opinion. ROCK ON!

Edited by ZeppFanForever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the Beatles were any more of a "boy" band than Zeppelin was a "hair metal" band. I also believe the Beatles were a rock n' roll band from the beginning to the end. Where they "popular"? Yes. Did they play music that could be considered "pop"? Most definitely but not in the vacuous sense of the word. Just ask any one of the many power pop artists out there such as Cheap Trick, Nick Lowe, Elvis Costello, etc. who helped to influence that aspect of their sound and they will all mention the Beatles. And while I do agree it's pointless to compare the two, I'll take the majority of Lennon and McCartney's lyrics over those of Zeppelin any day of the fucking week but that may just be me.

As for the original question, isn't there an interview on the bonus portion of the Led Zeppelin DVD where they mention the Beatles? Been a while since I've watched it myself.

ahh, jahfin very well said. i knew i could count on ya!

the only thing i will add is all this talk about robert's greatness as a vocalist and paul mccartney's skills, john lennon was one of the greatest rock and roll singers to ever draw a breath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ahh, jahfin very well said. i knew i could count on ya!

the only thing i will add is all this talk about robert's greatness as a vocalist and paul mccartney's skills, john lennon was one of the greatest rock and roll singers to ever draw a breath...

How's it going "beatbo" my buddy? And how's your Viv doing? And how are you doing "Jahfin?" Who would have ever believed that this subject would really spark an interesting conversation. This subject should have been a separate thread but who cares, it happened and so be it! At least it has answered some questions. "BIGDAN" and "Aquamarine" have been extremely helpful on this subject being from England themselves and I would like to personally thank them for their valuable knowledge and assistance in this matter. ROCK ON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the point I've been making all along is about the Beatles, where I'd say without a doubt that "comparably less UK fans" just isn't remotely true, though that's what some have been arguing. I'll leave it to others to argue the case about Zeppelin, where there may be a greater basis of fact (after 1970, anyway).

Crap, we've been arguing in circles then. Apparently, we agree. I just don't know what to do with myself now, Aqua. :unsure::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0