How did led Zeppelin change music?

[Xolo1974]

On 19/05/2017 at 7:38 AM, Badgeholder Still said:

Were you the guy passing out brown acid at Woodstock?

 

The same way the Beatles broke and recreated the molds for what was possible in Pop/Rock music, Zeppelin created new templates for Rock/Hard Rock. While LZ excelled in failing to give proper credit, all bands have and continue to lean on and borrow from influences to create new music. Bur few (any?) have created as body of varied influential epics on par with "Stairway To Heaven", "No Quarter", "The Rain Song", "Kashmir", "Ten Years Gone", "Down By The Seaside", "In The Light", "Achilles Last Stand", "Nobody's Fault But Mine", "In The Evening", "Carouselambra" as well as definitive examples of psychedelic rock, blues rock,  acoustic rock, country rock, jazz-fusion and progressive rock while setting standards in songwriting, production and performance.

The degree to which Led Zeppelin affected not only it's contemporaries and future rockers but artists outside the realm of Rock music can't be calculated, only under-estimated.

Very articulate 

[SteveAJones]

7 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

 However, it seems pretty extreme (not to mention petty) to dismiss their musical impact as amounting to plagiarism.  Or are you simply claiming that subsequent musicians are not completely forthright in acknowledging their influences due to Zeppelin's precedent?  

I didn't dismiss their IMPACT, POPULARITY or INFLUENCE in the slightest, I merely pointed out they did not change the course of popular music. When six of nine songs on a debut album are derivative works and cover versions the artist ain't breaking any new ground musically, their presenting old pictures in new frames. No shame in that, but some here seem to think hard rock didn't exist prior to that debut album. 

Did the second album change the course of music? The fourth? We all agree the third, fifth, sixth, seven, eight, ninth and tenth didn't, right?   

[JohnOsbourne]

3 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

I didn't dismiss their IMPACT, POPULARITY or INFLUENCE in the slightest, I merely pointed out they did not change the course of popular music. When six of nine songs on a debut album are derivative works and cover versions the artist ain't breaking any new ground musically, their presenting old pictures in new frames. No shame in that, but some here seem to think hard rock didn't exist prior to that debut album. 

Did the second album change the course of music? The fourth? We all agree the third, fifth, sixth, seven, eight, ninth and tenth didn't, right?   

Well, your exact statement was "Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music."  Claiming someone else's work as your own is the definition of plagiarism, no?  And plagiarism is usually cause for dismissal, I'd say.  At any rate, I don't disagree with you that their impact on popular music *as a whole* was not as revolutionary as the Beatles.  It is true that hard rock existed before Zep (e.g. the great Cream is underappreciated here), but as others have already noted in this thread, hard rock after Zep was very different, and other pioneers in the genre (Sabbath, Purple) acknowledge Zeppelin's trail-blazing here.  I'd say their influence on the sub-genre of metal/hard rock (say what you want about it, it is not simply a minor or niche market) IS revolutionary.

[ForEvermore]

1 hour ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Well, your exact statement was "Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music."  Claiming someone else's work as your own is the definition of plagiarism, no?  And plagiarism is usually cause for dismissal, I'd say.  At any rate, I don't disagree with you that their impact on popular music *as a whole* was not as revolutionary as the Beatles.  It is true that hard rock existed before Zep (e.g. the great Cream is underappreciated here), but as others have already noted in this thread, hard rock after Zep was very different, and other pioneers in the genre (Sabbath, Purple) acknowledge Zeppelin's trail-blazing here.  I'd say their influence on the sub-genre of metal/hard rock (say what you want about it, it is not simply a minor or niche market) IS revolutionary.

Yes - your last statement is spot on (what you wrote is all good, but I wanted to expand a bit on the last comment you made.

There are certain bands that can take a genre/sub-genre of music and somehow make it relatable to a much wider audience. LZ definitely made the music that was, rightly or wrongly, dubbed "heavy metal" much more popular. They didn't invent blues-influenced hard rock (the blues movement in the UK had already been around for years - JP himself was a veteran of it, as were RP and JB to a lesser degree), but they made that variety of music more desirable than any other band - yes, Hendrix and Cream prepared the path for them, but LZ made such music their own.

You can even see the same phenomenon in the 90's. Back in the late-80s/early-90s, industrial music was a big underground movement, but it never would have made it to Main Street on its own. However, Trent Reznor comes out with Nine Inch Nails and, all of a sudden, music which had no hope of ever having mass appeal suddenly did. Even Bowie was influenced by that.

As George Martin used to say about the impact of The Beatles and why it happened, he would simply say that their timing was right. Had they arrived on the music scene a couple of years earlier or later, they most likely wouldn't have had the same wide reach in their popularity. Led Zeppelin's timing was right too - Cream had just ended and Hendrix was just about to go to The Great Gig In The Sky. They filled the vacuum created by those two acts not being around anymore, and then they took the seed idea further.

[Dane1968]

I wouldn't say they changed it. They were doing more or less the same thing as most 70's rock bands, except a hell of a lot better.

Music changed dramatically after they were gone - rap etc. Music today is worlds away from Zeppelin, to the detriment of it in my opinion.

If anything, they showed us what not to do with a good band -  how to ruin it. Of course no one learns and good bands still self-destruct today.

[the chase]

Led Zeppelin successfully blended many styles of music.

They were one of the first, if not the very first major act to incorporate Blues, Folk, Hard Rock, Psychedelic and Heavy Metal into their sound.

I think that's what an earlier poster was trying to point out. Cream, Vanilla Fudge, Jeff Beck Group, etc didn't have a stitch of folk in their sound.

Fairpoint Convention, CSN etc.. didn't have a stitch of Blues in theirs. Zeppelin covered a lot more ground.

[SteveAJones]

15 minutes ago, the chase said:

Led Zeppelin successfully blended many styles of music.

They were one of the first, if not the very first major act to incorporate Blues, Folk, Hard Rock, Psychedelic and Heavy Metal into their sound.

I think that's what an earlier poster was trying to point out. Cream, Vanilla Fudge, Jeff Beck Group, etc didn't have a stitch of folk in their sound.

Fairpoint Convention, CSN etc.. didn't have a stitch of Blues in theirs. Zeppelin covered a lot more ground.

^^^

Which further supports my main point that they were masters of amalgamation and mystique as opposed to changing the course of popular music. 

[76229]

I'd argue they changed music temporarily, in some areas like recording the ambient sound of drums, backwards echo, etc. These things were revolutionary at the time but I'd argue music technology has moved on so much since then that it was only a real change in the 70s, not now.

 

And they changed things permanently in terms of some other areas: the business side of things, gigs, asking for and getting 90%, etc. So they left a permanent mark on the commercial side.

 

Tbh though I don't really care if they did change music or not. Not many bands have after all.  The Beatles arguably changed recorded music more than any other act, but for gut wrenching riffs and so on I'd rather listen to Zeppelin.

[SteveAJones]

1 hour ago, 76229 said:

The Beatles arguably changed recorded music more than any other act

Yes, and yet it was arguably the brilliance of Sir George Martin that was responsible in large part for that, IMHO. 

[Balthazor]

Just to toss my two cents in, I agree with Steve to the extent that they, maybe unlike any rock band before them, took a little bit of everything that was going on in pop music before them; blues, psychedelia, hard rock, folk, rockabilly, and merged it all into one amazingly coherent style. I can think of few bands, either before or since, that could pull that off as effectively as they did.

But I do think their impact goes beyond that. For starters, Zeppelin were at least as influential to 70's rock as the Beatles were to 60's rock. It's hard to look at 70's rock and not see some Zeppelin influence. Heck, even the Osmand Brothers were influenced by Zeppelin. One can see Zeppelin's influence all over the place in the 80's rock, and even in the 90's grunge thing. It's hard to argue that Zeppelin weren't a major influence on everything that came after.

Furthermore, each of the individual members basically became the template for every rock band to follow. Perhaps not so much these days, given that rock itself has so little presence left in mainstream pop culture. But certainly throughout the 70's and 80's and into the 90's, Jimmy Page was the quintessential rock guitarist, Bonham the quintessential rock drummer, Plant the quintessential rock singer. And one could argue that Jones defined the anonymity of the rock and roll bass player, although I'm mostly just joking on that one.

Last but not least, I think Zeppelin and Peter Grant created a model in which rock and roll as an art form could be profitable, and helped usher in an era of rock creativity and artistry. Which is not to say that rock bands weren't doing creative and artistic things before that, but largely, unless you were the Beatles, your only real hope of making any money was in recording top 40 radio hits. And even the Beatles, during their most creative and experimental period, still chugged out more than their fair share of top 40 radio hits. That was the market back then, you put out top 40 hits or you languished in obscurity and relative poverty. Led Zeppelin changed that paradigm, by totally eschewing the singles market and focusing on albums, by figuring out a way to actually make money touring, and along with groups like Alice Cooper, Pink Floyd and The Who, changed the very perception of the rock concert into an event onto itself rather than just a way for a band to promote it's records. I don't think bands like Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull could have ever really had the kind of popular and commercial success that they had in the singles-driven market of the 60's.

But like others have said, timing plays a huge roll in all of this. Zeppelin were just the right group of musicians with just the right manager and just the right sound appearing at just the right time. The same could be said of the Beatles. If the Beatles hadn't come along when they did, maybe it would have been the Stones, or some other British invasion band. Or, maybe it had to be the Beatles. Maybe it had to be just that perfect combination personalities, sound, image, etc. for a band to reach that peak of popularity, success and influence that the Beatles enjoyed; and maybe the same is true of Zeppelin.

In any event, I think it's indisputable that Zeppelin had at least as much impact on defining the sound of 70's rock as the Beatles had in defining the sound of 60's rock; and I think it's also indisputable that any list of the most important and influential rock bands of all time would have Zeppelin on it, and probably close to the top.

[the chase]

4 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

^^^

Which further supports my main point that they were masters of amalgamation and mystique as opposed to changing the course of popular music. 

My way of thinking is... If they were among the first to combine certain musical elements.. that makes them innovators, with a ton of imitators.  

Edited May 22, 2017 by the chase

[FL6]

2 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Yes, and yet it was arguably the brilliance of Sir George Martin that was responsible in large part for that, IMHO. 

I've always felt this way too, George was huge. Also as great as the Beatles were I don't think they were ever totally in the lead of innovation but whatever they took or learned from they absolutely made it better or just damn good. Dylan and others were doing the introspective songwriting thing before them, same with flower power and psychedelia. They added heavier guitar and more guitar solos after the guitar hero thing was already established by others. I think there's other examples of this type of thing but I can't remember right now.

[Balthazor]

1 hour ago, FL6 said:

I've always felt this way too, George was huge. Also as great as the Beatles were I don't think they were ever totally in the lead of innovation but whatever they took or learned from they absolutely made it better or just damn good. Dylan and others were doing the introspective songwriting thing before them, same with flower power and psychedelia. They added heavier guitar and more guitar solos after the guitar hero thing was already established by others. I think there's other examples of this type of thing but I can't remember right now.

I would add that the Beatles also exposed these innovations to a larger audience than the original innovators would have been able to. I've read that the Beatles may have been heavily influenced by what Pink Floyd was doing in the studio in the late 60's, but at that time there was absolutely no mainstream audience for whatever Pink Floyd was doing. Certainly not here in the US anyhow. But by exposing these innovations to a mainstream audience, I think it opened the door for those smaller acts to begin to have some mainstream appeal. In other words, if someone liked the weird psychedelic stuff that the Beatles were doing, they may start seeking out other psychedelic bands that they may not otherwise have had any interest in.

Frankly, I think Zeppelin and other blues rock bands (and to an extent, rock and roll in general) did the same thing with regards to the blues. For all the whining about rock and roll bands stealing from the blues, I think these bands did more to expose people to the blues than the blues ever could have itself. Would anyone even remember Robert Johnson or Willie Dixon if bands like Zeppelin weren't swiping their stuff?

Edited May 22, 2017 by Balthazor

[Balthazor]

One more thing I'd like to add: in order to really answer the question of how Led Zeppelin changed music, I guess we would need to define the terms of what "changing music" even means. Everyone seems to agree that the Beatles "changed music," and yet their early material wasn't much different stylistically from the 50's rockabilly that prompted them to pick up guitars and start playing rock and roll in the first place. It wasn't worlds apart from what the Beach Boys were doing in that same time frame, or any number of other artists.

To my thinking, it really wasn't the Beatles music that changed music, it was their massive popularity. The Beatles didn't change music as much as Beatlemania changed music. That popularity revived rock and roll both as an art form and as a business. I mean, rock and roll as a business was just beginning there in the 60's and the Beatles were a huge part of that. Additionally, the massive American success of a British band playing American music, something which the British considered impossible, prompted all the other British bands to take their shot, kicking off the British invasion. But none of that had diddly squat to do with their music, it had everything to do with their popularity. Granted, if their music had sucked, they likely wouldn't have enjoyed that level of success, but at the same time their success was as much due to the marketability of the band's members as it was with the quality of their music. I really don't think all those teenage girls were screaming like mad because they just sooo dug that riff in "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."

At any rate, the level of popularity they achieved is what changed everything, like a black hole powerful enough to bend space. Not their music, which was not entirely different, and arguably less interesting and innovative, than what a whole lot of other bands were playing at that time. Now if you accept my premise, then consider that Led Zeppelin achieved, at least in some respects, such a level of success that it surprised even Elvis. Nobody had sold as many tickets as Zeppelin was. Nobody had sold as many albums as Zeppelin was. And most importantly, nobody had made the kind of MONEY that Zeppelin was. The one area that comes to mind where Zeppelin fell short of the Beatles in terms of success and popularity was, I think, in regards to their presence within the popular culture. What I mean is, everyone knew the Beatles. Everyone knew them by name. Everyone had a favorite Beatle. Even people who didn't listen to their music knew who they were. They unquestionably had the biggest footprint in the popular culture since Elvis. Whereas Zeppelin, by not doing television and not doing public appearances and largely taking the focus off themselves, didn't have nearly as big of a footprint in the general popular culture. Which, I think, both helped and hurt them, but that's another topic altogether. I think Zeppelin's level of success effectively took the fledgling rock music business, which had been created in large part due to the popularity of the Beatles, and honed it into a finished product.

The analogy I like to use is that of Atari vs. Nintendo. Atari created an entire industry out of nothing, and was successful to the extent that practically every US television had an Atari connected to it. But Atari had no clue what to do with this new industry they created, and ultimately crashed and burned. Then along comes Nintendo, having learned from Atari's mistakes, and rebuilds the video game industry into what it is today. Which is not to say that the Beatles crashed and burned, although Shea Stadium might count there, but rather, I think Zeppelin effectively took the fledgling rock industry of the 60's and in many respects transformed it into the massively successful business that it became in the 70's and beyond.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Balthazor

[IpMan]

Let me add a few points as well. Take the first album, yes, six of the tunes were covers, however it is their approach to those covers which made all the difference. Jeff Beck released Truth a few months before. Both the Zeppelin & Beck albums had essentially the same aim and same ideas, however old Beck was really not pissed off that Jimmy decided to put You Shook Me on hie record as well...Beck was pissed off because Jimmy did with YSM something Beck did not even realize was possible at the time. Sure, the lyrics were the same and the 1, 4, 5 blues metering was there, otherwise, Zeppelin's version of YSM sounds little like the original whereas Beck's approach was much more faithful to the original. This is also why I somewhat take the whole plagiarism claim as mostly bullshit. Zeppelin's Dazed and confused, outside of the lyric, "I have been Dazed and Confused" is zero, nothing like the Jake Holmes version, different lyrics, different progression, completely different structure, so, how exactly was that plagiarism? Whole Lotta Love, The Lemon Song, and the beginning and end of Bring it on Home would be the only true examples of plagiarism, and again, only so far as lyrical content. Even the acoustic guitar intro to BIOH is not nicked because that same progression, played exactly as played there, is on around 80% of ALL blues tunes.

Now regarding the Beatles, they were not the most influential, not even close. Those honors go to three men and in this order: Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard. There would be no Beatles, Stones, Who, Cream, nothing without those three, you have the whole template for rock and roll for the next 60 years and counting right there. The Beatles did not even begin to change or really contribute anything new to music until Revolver, their early stuff was mostly bubble gum pop, engineered to sell records. Rubber Soul would be the first real Beatles album IMO, anything prior to that may be good music, but nothing which had not been done by several other bands before, during, and after.

Zeppelin did indeed change music itself, how you ask? Two ways, first, they not only incorporated several different genres and styles into music, but they took those varying genres, put them in a blender, then added their own "special sauce" and BAM! The second way they changed music, and I am sure others would have come along and did the same...very soon, is they were truly the first to take a song and "play it at 11." What I mean by this is not just volume and / or attitude, but in style, virtuosity, confidence. Sure the MC5 were loud and aggressive, but they were reckless and arbitrary as well, pronto-punk. Yes Hendrix was virtuosity and confident, however often times it lacked focus and his best music lacked accessibility (Axis & Electric Ladyland). Zeppelin were the first ones to pretty much do it all in a tight, focused manner, balls to the wall, confident as hell, and open to all.

That is Zeppelin's legacy and that is how they changed music IMO.

[Black_dog_boogie]

How did Led Zeppelin change the music scene of the 1970s?

Their music wasn't the same on every album, they didn't get stuck with one sound like Black Sabbath did. Furthermore they where a tight unit without the ego like John and Paul. I grew up with the Beatles and love Abby Road and The White album. Though their are some songs I have to skip on both of those albums that just don't fit. Led Zeppelin maybe had two or three songs that I would call a "filler" and that is pretty good considering that they only had 8 official albums. finally, the music of Led Zeppelin is as "dated" as the Beatles.

anyways I thank the one above for both bands.

[John Teegen Sr.]

1st big rockband to put on a 3 hour show without an opening band.

[the chase]

2 hours ago, John Teegen Sr. said:

1st big rockband to put on a 3 hour show without an opening band.

Bingo.. one of if not the 1st.. 

was Moby Dick too long? Yes.. At times.. Where were his bandmates? Offstage or wherever doing who knows what.. I doubt they were standing stage right waiting Bonzo's que.. 

That's why I've been more into Jazz, Instrumental music and Fusion these past few years.. Drummers get to express themselves. They get to improvise and take a solo without people running off to the bathroom. Granted they don't usually go for 30 minutes. They can fit it in the context of a song and it doesn't have to be the same every time. 

[gln826]

Zeppelin influenced many artists to want to be like Zeppelin...four piece musicianship, bravado, sexuality, big arenas, groupies. Van Halen, Def Leppard, Guns n Roses, etc. all wanted to be Zeppelin as an act, but weren't able to pull it off in a lasting and diverse way.

My sadness is that their style wasn't strong enough to keep hip hop/rap at bay. Those genre have been around longer than late 60s to early 80s hard rock, and for the life of me, I can't understand why the record companies continue to push it.

[Bong-Man]

The Beatles borrowed from everyone just like Zep.  Their name and band structure came from Buddy Holly & the Crickets.  They did covers of Motown, Chuck Berry, and others to establish themselves.  Bob Dylan inspired and teased them to go deeper.  There isn't an artist of any type that wasn't influenced or inspired by someone else. 

Unlike Zep, the Beatles were the media darlings of their era.  They were accessible to the Press, and they were rewarded by them.  That's not a knock against them, it just wasn't what Zeppelin was looking for....it had already been done.

There are several reasons Zep's first album was panned by the critics.  The comparisons to the Jeff Beck Group was a factor, but I think it had more to do with Jimmy's stage act.  Zep's first album was an extension of what the critics had already seen.  The bow, D & C, You Shook Me,....unlike the average fan in '69, that was all old hat to the critics and Press.  After following the careers of the original Yardbirds, Cream, & later The Jeff Beck Group, they weren't lying.  Jimmy used everything he knew and learned along the way for the first Zep album.  However unlike most of Zep's fans, the critics and Press had actually heard and seen it all before.

If any band's influence was overlooked during the era they performed, it was The Yardbirds.  JMO. 

  

 

[Balthazor]

30 minutes ago, Bong-Man said:

If any band's influence was overlooked during the era they performed, it was The Yardbirds.  JMO. 

I agree. It reminds me of a quote from the booklet of a Yardbirds compilation I have:

"Depending on your perspective, the Yardbirds were either a footnote in the history of Led Zeppelin and the careers of three superstar guitarists, or one of the most important bands of the 1960's, second only to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."

[IpMan]

2 hours ago, gln826 said:

Zeppelin influenced many artists to want to be like Zeppelin...four piece musicianship, bravado, sexuality, big arenas, groupies. Van Halen, Def Leppard, Guns n Roses, etc. all wanted to be Zeppelin as an act, but weren't able to pull it off in a lasting and diverse way.

My sadness is that their style wasn't strong enough to keep hip hop/rap at bay. Those genre have been around longer than late 60s to early 80s hard rock, and for the life of me, I can't understand why the record companies continue to push it.

This is just do not understand, that is, your position. Who cares if Rap / Hip Hop are popular, or will remain so for the next 1,000 years while everything else is virtually forgotten. You sound no different than some 50's era Ward Cleaver bemoaning Elvis & Berry and pondering why swing was not strong enough to keep those hooligans at bay. Every genre has their day in the sun, some longer than others and in the end it does not matter. It's not like once Rap & Hip Hop came about some edict from on high forced people to only listen to Rap & Hip Hop.

Now regarding the Beatles, or what I call, the worlds first boy band. When the Beatles first started out under Brian Epstein, he took a pretty good bar band and formed them into what he thought the public wanted, image and music. They were a product, and for all intent and purpose, a shitty one at that. However they appealed to the masses (just like most shitty boy bands do) and became massive. As far as I am concerned the Beatles as a creative entity did not truly exist prior to Rubber Soul. Rubber Soul was the transitory album between shitty, teen bubble gum pop and truly innovative music. Revolver was their first, fully realized and innovative record. So for me there are three Beatles: the pre-Brian Epstein bar band which had style and integrity; then the early Brian Epstein driven & controlled Beatles which sucked; and finally the latter, band driven pioneers of rock music Beatles who helped change music along with Hendrix, the Yardbirds, Floyd, and Cream.

Zeppelin however started out mostly strong (exception was their first album being mostly covers) and became incredible as writers and composers over time. Their impact cannot be denied, nor can their creativity. This IMO places them in the top six innovative bands of the 60's: The Beatles, Hendrix, The Yardbirds, Cream, Floyd, & Zeppelin in that order. Notice I did not put the Stones on that list. This is because even though they were (notice I stress the word were here) a great band, they were not innovators and did not bring anything new to the table except maybe for image, or rather perceived image. I still get a laugh that the Hamburg Hooligans (Beatles) were considered the good boys while the Stones were considered the bad boys, talk about turning the truth on its head.

Edited May 25, 2017 by IpMan

[SteveAJones]

2 hours ago, gln826 said:

My sadness is that their style wasn't strong enough to keep hip hop/rap at bay. Those genre have been around longer than late 60s to early 80s hard rock, and for the life of me, I can't understand why the record companies continue to push it.

Demographics...and it's much cheaper to produce.

 

1 hour ago, Balthazor said:

I agree. It reminds me of a quote from the booklet of a Yardbirds compilation I have:

"Depending on your perspective, the Yardbirds were either a footnote in the history of Led Zeppelin and the careers of three superstar guitarists, or one of the most important bands of the 1960's, second only to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."

I vote for footnote. The Yardbirds had longevity, but were it not for the connection to Clapton, Beck & Page they'd be about as famous as Rory Storm and The Hurricanes.

 

13 minutes ago, IpMan said:

Notice I did not put the Stones on that list. This is because even though they were (notice I stress the word were here) a great band, they were not innovators and did not bring anything new to the table except maybe for image, or rather perceived image. I still get a laugh that the Hamburg Hooligans (Beatles) were considered the good boys while the Stones were considered the bad boys, talk about turning the truth on its head.

White Englishmen performing black American blues was innovative at the time, and pound for pound The Stones did and still do dwarf The Beatles as bad boys. McCartney can't go more than two days alone (craves a constant love interest), Lennon was totally emasculated and domesticated by Yoko, Harrison was hippy dippy and Ringo was just lucky to be there. Conversely. Brian Jones fathered five children out of wedlock and died young, Mick & Bill ultimately fucked everyone from Bangkok to Baltimore, Keith Richards...well, need I say more? Greatest rock and roll band of all time.

  

 

[IpMan]

2 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

 

 

White Englishmen performing black American blues was innovative at the time, and pound for pound The Stones did and still do dwarf The Beatles as bad boys. McCartney can't go more than two days alone (craves a constant love interest), Lennon was totally emasculated and domesticated by Yoko, Harrison was hippy dippy and Ringo was just lucky to be there. Conversely. Brian Jones fathered five children out of wedlock and died young, Mick & Bill ultimately fucked everyone from Bangkok to Baltimore, Keith Richards...well, need I say more? Greatest rock and roll band of all time.

  

 

Sorry, I was referring to the period from 63' - 66', I agree the tables turned by 67'. However Lennon, before the emasculation by Yoko, was an extremely violent, and unstable individual would would have easily beat the living shit out of every Stone without raising a sweat. Lennon was just nuts and if it were not for music and Yoko, he would have likely wound up a a thug in either the Kray or Richardson firm's. Before Yoko, Lennon and John Bindon were very similar personalities.

[SteveAJones]

16 minutes ago, IpMan said:

Sorry, I was referring to the period from 63' - 66', I agree the tables turned by 67'. However Lennon, before the emasculation by Yoko, was an extremely violent, and unstable individual would would have easily beat the living shit out of every Stone without raising a sweat. Lennon was just nuts and if it were not for music and Yoko, he would have likely wound up a a thug in either the Kray or Richardson firm's. Before Yoko, Lennon and John Bindon were very similar personalities.

I would agree that pre-Yoko, John was a persistently conflicted, occasionally unstable person prone to fits of anger. A rebel without a cause.