Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Noodleehead

How did led Zeppelin change music?

Recommended Posts

The Beatles hit American shores in February 1964, roughly 3 months after JFK's assassination. People were looking for something to feel good about after such a tragic, senseless event. They were the right thing at the right time.... but they also had the goods. Everyone old enough to remember The Beatles on Ed Sullivan remember where they were when they watched it.. Thousands upon thousands site that as a life changing event.. I get what you're saying LPman, I really do.  But, The Beatles were so much more than just a band. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IpMan said:

Thank you Sir, this is exactly what I was trying to convey. For me, the Beatles started out as a boy band in the fact that they were a created product of Brian Epstein. Yes, they were talented musicians and writers, but when a manager plucks you from obscurity, completely changes your look and musical style, and then essentially begins to market you, that to me is a boy band concept. 

Also, this is why I dared to mention Gerry & the Pacemakers in the same paragraph as the Beatles. I don't know if anyone on the site is of an age where they were in their teens or early 20's around 1963 but Gerry & the Pacemakers were one of those bands that were crazy popular for a few years. Even more so than the Beatles were at the same period as it was them, not the Beatles who scored three consecutive UK #1 singles with their first releases, something the Beatles never did. So, my point was based on popularity more than anything else. Of course the Beatles are a much better group than Gerry, however that was because of what they accomplished over the course of their career, not because of what they accomplished from 63'-64'.

^^^

You cannot be serious! Epstein was a disinterested businessman who finally relented and went to see the group as their local popularity in Liverpool escalated. Having seen them for himself, a couple of months later he signed them to a management deal. He can quite rightly be credited with putting them in suits, as unsurprisingly he placed a primary emphasis on their physical appearance and fashion--he had originally wanted to become a dress designer. However, their music? That's John, Paul, George, Ringo and (Sir) George Martin all the way. They had been paying their dues together for years, refining their musical chops by playing night after night.

Gerry & The Pacemakers did score three consecutive UK #1 singles with their first releases. Unfortunately, for your side of this debate, The Beatles FIRST SEVEN ALBUMS scored #1 on the charts (1963-1966). Four of those hit #1 in 1963-1964!  By the way, EIGHT MORE ALBUMS have scored #1 since.

Perhaps your championing Gerry & The Pacemakers merely because they too were an Epstein-managed act? Regardless, I don't have peer-reviewed sources at the moment to further substantiate that which my towering intellect has presented here, but aside from basic common sense and logic I can readily provide the following links:   

https://www.beatlesbible.com/people/brian-epstein/

http://comprehensivebeatles.blogspot.jp/2010/11/how-brian-epstein-met-beatles.html

http://blog.sonicbids.com/5-forgotten-ways-the-beatles-changed-pop-music

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/09/beatles-albums-singles-music-rock-band

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For me it's numerous things but to be quick.... It's not just how they changed the face of music. It's also the way so many bands have tried to emulate them but just fail to do so, the music is just too pure to themselves. The best bet you have is to incorporate some things in to your own style, but I must emphasize that I feel not one band did this right (IMO) until much later. I think it took a lot of people many years to truly understand just how great Led Zeppelin were, and truly understand what each member brought to the table stylistically, which is hard to replicate but so many mistake as easy, simplistic or Sloppy (in the case of Jimmy). That always sounds melodramatic to say as they've been so popular for decades but I hope some will understand what i mean. I actually think the internet (bootlegs/videors) has brought more understanding of their greatness, as well as the DVD release in 2003 followed by how the west was won. Even a song like the most notorious "Still of the night" might have a zeppelin quality but to me it's nothing like led zeppelin, the only strong similarity is maybe Coverdale's voice and the octave riff within the song.

Their best attribute is how timeless they are and it's due to very honest, organic production, as well as unparalleled energy and chemistry emitted while playing together which was captures through the aforementioned production (especially 1968-1975). The diversity in their style is just as important, but also arguably what is most key. The way they blended various forms of folk and did it with an energetic, enthralling feel unlike anyone else is the biggest thing that set them apart from other hard rock bands before and after them. It also helped that their heavier songs had a feel and experimentation unlike any other due to each members style, and this was most certainly emphasized or solidified by John Bonham and John Paul Jones. At times I feel Zeppelin is truly genre-less. That it's almost a disservice calling them just a rock band because they're really much more than just a rock band, as everyone on here knows.

One more quick thought, I feel that Led Zeppelin along with Sabbath were some of the first significant bands to really not care about mass popularity, singles, record sales or any music trends.  It was all about connecting with their souls to create something honest and unique to themselves as artists which they could feel proud of. How many good or even great bands are pushed in to this mindset either by their record companies and or from personal insecurities? If it wasn't for this trait then we wouldn't be discussing them, nor would this forum exist.

Edited by nemophilist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

^^^

You cannot be serious! Epstein was a disinterested businessman who finally relented and went to see the group as their local popularity in Liverpool escalated. Having seen them for himself, a couple of months later he signed them to a management deal. He can quite rightly be credited with putting them in suits, as unsurprisingly he placed a primary emphasis on their physical appearance and fashion--he had originally wanted to become a dress designer. However, their music? That's John, Paul, George, Ringo and (Sir) George Martin all the way. They had been paying their dues together for years, refining their musical chops by playing night after night.

Gerry & The Pacemakers did score three consecutive UK #1 singles with their first releases. Unfortunately, for your side of this debate, The Beatles FIRST SEVEN ALBUMS scored #1 on the charts (1963-1966). Four of those hit #1 in 1963-1964!  By the way, EIGHT MORE ALBUMS have scored #1 since.

Perhaps your championing Gerry & The Pacemakers merely because they too were an Epstein-managed act? Regardless, I don't have peer-reviewed sources at the moment to further substantiate that which my towering intellect has presented here, but aside from basic common sense and logic I can readily provide the following links:   

https://www.beatlesbible.com/people/brian-epstein/

http://comprehensivebeatles.blogspot.jp/2010/11/how-brian-epstein-met-beatles.html

http://blog.sonicbids.com/5-forgotten-ways-the-beatles-changed-pop-music

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/09/beatles-albums-singles-music-rock-band

Steve, I keep saying, over and over ad nauseam I am referring ONLY to the period of 63'-64', not the entirety of their career. I do appreciate your toning down on the insults though as I am always happy when a person turns a corner. Though you still need to work on your modesty and truly hope that is not a bridge too far. As I have been told by several people who indeed were towering intellects, those which are never consider themselves as such, however those who lack are the first ones to crow about how smart they are.

And yes, the Beatles sure paid their dues, some members more than others, no one is disputing that. The point is when they were playing those bars in Hamburg, soaked to the gills on amphetamines, they were playing covers. If they would have whipped out Love Me Do or Please, Please Me in one of those Hamburg clubs no one would have ever heard of the Beatles because the locals likely would have beat them to a pulp and tossed them in some ditch. Those were rough clubs and I doubt the locals would have gone in for one of those tunes.

So, in affect you are correct about the music regarding George Martin, he was a true genius and was likely the driving force behind how the music was arranged and laid down. Knowing their roots it is unlikely the Beatles would have, out of nowhere, come up with those pop style leanings without the direction of Sir George. I assume the songs would have been written, however they likely would have been more along the lines of what they had been doing, so the songs would have been harder and more aggressive in general and likely not have been as popular. However I personally would have loved to hear what those songs would have sounded like without Sir George in the Captains chair.

Edited by IpMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, IpMan said:

Steve, I keep saying, over and over ad nauseam I am referring ONLY to the period of 63'-64', not the entirety of their career. I do appreciate your toning down on the insults though as I am always happy when a person turns a corner. Though you still need to work on your modesty and truly hope that is not a bridge too far. As I have been told by several people who indeed were towering intellects, those which are never consider themselves as such, however those who lack are the first ones to crow about how smart they are.

And yes, the Beatles sure paid their dues, some members more than others, no one is disputing that. The point is when they were playing those bars in Hamburg, soaked to the gills on amphetamines, they were playing covers. If they would have whipped out Love Me Do or Please, Please Me in one of those Hamburg clubs no one would have ever heard of the Beatles because the locals likely would have beat them to a pulp and tossed them in some ditch. Those were rough clubs and I doubt the locals would have gone in for one of those tunes.

So, in affect you are correct about the music regarding George Martin, he was a true genius and was likely the driving force behind how the music was arranged and laid down. Knowing their roots it is unlikely the Beatles would have, out of nowhere, come up with those pop style leanings without the direction of Sir George. I assume the songs would have been written, however they likely would have been more along the lines of what they had been doing, so the songs would have been harder and more aggressive in general and likely not have been as popular. However I personally would have loved to hear what those songs would have sounded like without Sir George in the Captains chair.

I haven't toned down, I'm just doing my show. A bit of cat and mouse is always funnier than insult, insult, insult. My towering intellect refers to my uncanny ability to aggregate essential elements of information into a consistent, cohesive if not entertaining point of view. I would never claim to be "smart", just handsome and powerful. Anyway, it's nothing personal, it's part of the act.

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many guitarists will tell you it was Zeppelin and not Hendrix that influenced them to pick up a guitar. That alone is worthy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with led zeppelin, it was most about building a band...as an influence. Which can be most commercially compared to the successful grunge bands of the 90s. 

I do not see jimmy page as a virtuoso after 73, i see him more of an artist using a guitar in broad instrumental movements within a band. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that LZ changed music

to me they are a bar band that played larger venues.

In looking at their achievements and misses, the "change" is about how audiences engage in performance whether that be on media or in person.

Specifically, the processes and dynamics of the band are open, genuine and fluid whereas most are closed, fabricated and static = short shelf life and no lasting demand. [most music since the 70s]

It may be heresy yet I do not ascribe to the band members being virtuosos and I find most of the narratives that prevail about the band to be utterly absurd and to think people write books etc for personal aggrandizement is so wrong.

Yet I digress...  LZ changed music? ...not so much. Changed how people engage with music 100%. Demand unprecedented because of this.

Kezar.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dallas Knebs said:

I don't know that LZ changed music

to me they are a bar band that played larger venues.

What fucking bars are you drinking in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonzo is considered in the top three of rock drummers so yes, he was a virtuoso.

JPJ can play multiple instruments perfectly and on the 77' tour frequently played passages of Bach, Rachmaninoff, Ray Charles, and other virtuoso composers and played these passages perfectly. So yes, he was / is a virtuoso and I would argue he was more so than Rick Wakeman.

Page played very, very fast runs and used several different scales while playing, he did not limit himself to the Pentatonic or blues Pentatonic like many believe, especially post 72'. He also incorporated numerous styles, was a unique composer and producer as well. His drug usage and how that affected his playing has nothing to do with his ability as a composer and player in general. Again, this would make him a virtuoso.

 

If people are comparing, especially Page, to post-70's shredders to dictate weather one is a virtuoso or not is unfair. If one uses the bar of technique alone than almost every single pre-late 70's guitarist would not qualify and that includes such luminaries as Hendrix, Green, Lee, Montrose, and Hackett. After all, if they cannot sweep pick and play a 1,000 note per minute solo...not a virtuoso?

Not being snarky but I would like to know what exactly constitutes a virtuoso if players such as Page, Jones, & Bonham do not qualify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mook said:

What fucking bars are you drinking in?

expensive ones. 

Bonzo and Plant never escaped their pub roots as performers. Plant intimated this on numerous occasions.

3 hours ago, IpMan said:

would like to know what exactly constitutes a virtuoso if players such as Page, Jones, & Bonham do not qualify?

Exceptional talent is not the same as virtuosity.

Page:  His approach and presence are unmatched- his play sticky and cut.
Forever a skiffle-bot hence the safety of riff based music. Virtuosi have no need of plagiarism, Page did.

Plant:  Squalling and bawling got in the way of some amazing compositions. Exceptional range early then not. Unmatched stage presence, star quality surpassed in rock only by Page. Passion & honesty cuts thru, does not equal virtuosity.

JPJ:  Unbelievable versatility. Kinda vanilla though. Page/Plant tours did not miss him a bit. A virtuoso is known by what is missing when they are not present.  Page/Plant did not miss him. Was sad to see. And unexpected. "Replacement" musicians were easily able to fill in which demonstrates my point. It hurt when I realized this.

Bonham:  He is the most tasteful drummer I have ever watched, the most fun musician I have ever heard. A beautiful man and most memorable about him is his voice.  A virtuoso no. On his dying day he was despondent over this very point. Much more was said, it was not an empty statement.

 

wiki... The most notable virtuosi throughout history include Antonio Vivaldi, Niccolò Paganini, Franz Liszt, Frédéric Chopin, Sigismond Thalberg, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Anton Rubinstein, Hans von Bülow, Carl Tausig, Ferruccio Busoni, Emil von Sauer, Leopold Godowsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Josef Hofmann, Vladimir Horowitz, Jorge Bolet, Georges Cziffra, Raymond Lewenthal fgfdg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Dallas Knebs said:

I don't know that LZ changed music

to me they are a bar band that played larger venues.

A pub band - are you on the glue?

Yeah, when I pop down to the "Duck and Beaver" for a jar, I often see "Cover Magic" playing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da and think, God, this is just like Zep at the forum in '77.

Seriously, no offence, bu that post was laughable.

Edited by Boleskinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boleskinner said:

Seriously, no offence, bu that post was laughable.

none taken.  Glad to report I am off the glue.

My comment comes from Plant- that he longed to get back to the pub scene. His comments are that the large venues are impersonal and that he missed where they started- in the bars. LZ did not originate in The Kingdome, initially small clubs & ballrooms and those did not sell out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we seriously debating Led Zeppelin's innovations? For starters, they simply invented heavy metal. Before you come with "Black Sabbath did it!!" remarks, take the time to re-listen to "Dazed And Confused" (the studio version) and try to put yourself in early 1969. Zep were not the first "heavy" band, or the first "hard rock" band, they were the first "demonic" band. Stolen or not (and it is indeed stolen), Dazed was unlike any other song before it. It was too dark, too menacing, too satanic, too eerie, too schizophrenic to be compared with any other hard rock song before it. There were heavy songs, there were dirty songs, there were some dark ones, but there weren't anything like Dazed in 1969. This song (and Zep's debut as a result) was the main influence for both Deep Purple and Black Sabbath, as their members will admit. So, creating heavy metal (and this is something even the most amateur rock historian will tell you, it's common knowledge). It doesn't matter if the song were stolen or covered. What matters is the innovation in sound, attitude, mood, playing, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dallas Knebs said:

JPJ:  Unbelievable versatility. Kinda vanilla though. Page/Plant tours did not miss him a bit. A virtuoso is known by what is missing when they are not present.  Page/Plant did not miss him. Was sad to see. And unexpected. "Replacement" musicians were easily able to fill in which demonstrates my point. It hurt when I realized this.

Sorry, I have to disagree on this...and they were performing JPJ compositions. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

45 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

...and they were performing JPJ compositions. ;)

 

JPJ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dallas Knebs said:

expensive ones. 

Bonzo and Plant never escaped their pub roots as performers. Plant intimated this on numerous occasions.

Exceptional talent is not the same as virtuosity.

Page:  His approach and presence are unmatched- his play sticky and cut.
Forever a skiffle-bot hence the safety of riff based music. Virtuosi have no need of plagiarism, Page did.

Plant:  Squalling and bawling got in the way of some amazing compositions. Exceptional range early then not. Unmatched stage presence, star quality surpassed in rock only by Page. Passion & honesty cuts thru, does not equal virtuosity.

JPJ:  Unbelievable versatility. Kinda vanilla though. Page/Plant tours did not miss him a bit. A virtuoso is known by what is missing when they are not present.  Page/Plant did not miss him. Was sad to see. And unexpected. "Replacement" musicians were easily able to fill in which demonstrates my point. It hurt when I realized this.

Bonham:  He is the most tasteful drummer I have ever watched, the most fun musician I have ever heard. A beautiful man and most memorable about him is his voice.  A virtuoso no. On his dying day he was despondent over this very point. Much more was said, it was not an empty statement.

 

wiki... The most notable virtuosi throughout history include Antonio Vivaldi, Niccolò Paganini, Franz Liszt, Frédéric Chopin, Sigismond Thalberg, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Anton Rubinstein, Hans von Bülow, Carl Tausig, Ferruccio Busoni, Emil von Sauer, Leopold Godowsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Josef Hofmann, Vladimir Horowitz, Jorge Bolet, Georges Cziffra, Raymond Lewenthal fgfdg

I will have to disagree here to a point, however if you are comparing a modern rock musician to a classical musician, well, you just can't. Paganini practiced for upward of 12 hours a day every day and most of the classical composers listed did the same or even more extreme regiments. That being said, though Paganini was indeed a virtuoso, his playing becomes boring as hell within five minutes. I went to a Paganini recital back in the 90's and just about fell asleep. Just run after run after scale after scale after trill, repeat. Yes it was incredibly difficult to play, but it also lacked passion and melody. Out of all those you listed the ones I would consider not only virtuosi but also damn fine composers and presenters of music would be Chopin, Liszt, Vivaldi, Rachmaninoff, and Busoni. However that is just my opinion.

To each their own but in the world of rock musicians from the 60's & 70's yes, Bonham, Page and Jones would be considered virtuoso musicians within that genre. Though regarding JPJ I would include him as a virtuoso even among the classical as well. Reason being, besides being a classically trained musician, I suggest you look up the YouTube video's of his solo performances which is where he really shines. He did some great stuff in Zeppelin but even his best work in Zeppelin pales compared to his solo works and performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ForEvermore said:

:D

Where was this picture taken?

The artist area backstage at the Rock Wechter Festival in Belgium on July 4, 2010. 

That's Sam Doyle of The Maccabees.

Interviewer: I love that photograph of you posing with a passed out fan backstage who was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt.

John Paul Jones: That wasn’t a drunk fan; that was the drunk drummer of The Maccabees! His band mates put us up to it – me and Dave Grohl. They said, “Our drummer’s asleep – would you come and take a photo with him?” They did ask other bands to do it but he was wearing a Zeppelin T-shirt so it seemed kind of appropriate! But it was funny and then Dave followed me and did his one!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Sorry, I have to disagree on this...and they were performing JPJ compositions. ;)

+1.  There are talented players out there. You can get others to play his parts. Writing them is a different story. 

JPJ was desperately missed on WIC. That to me was vanilla. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

The artist area backstage at the Rock Wechter Festival in Belgium on July 4, 2010. 

That's Sam Doyle of The Maccabees.

Interviewer: I love that photograph of you posing with a passed out fan backstage who was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt.

John Paul Jones: That wasn’t a drunk fan; that was the drunk drummer of The Maccabees! His band mates put us up to it – me and Dave Grohl. They said, “Our drummer’s asleep – would you come and take a photo with him?” They did ask other bands to do it but he was wearing a Zeppelin T-shirt so it seemed kind of appropriate! But it was funny and then Dave followed me and did his one!

 

 

That is a great story to match a great picture - thanks again! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎02‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 10:24 PM, Dallas Knebs said:

expensive ones. 

Bonzo and Plant never escaped their pub roots as performers. Plant intimated this on numerous occasions.

Robert Plant talks a load of rubbish at the best of times, I'd be interested to see the quotes you're referring to though?

John Bonham was known in the early days as claiming to be the best drummer in the World, he changed the face of rock drumming overnight with his drumming on the first LP, hardly a 'pub rock'-type situation. Robert Plant had a similar effect on vocalists, influencing everyone from Roger Daltrey to Geddy Lee. They may have enjoyed playing in smaller rooms (who doesn't?) but their influence on the musical World was immeasurable.

I'm not sure if they're virtuosos myself but I think there's a huge grey area between being Paganini & playing bar room rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On June 2, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Dallas Knebs said:

 

Why is it that only classical players are always cited when the term virtuoso is discussed? All the jazz greats such as Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Wes Montgomery, Charles Mingus, Charlie Christian, Miles Davis, Django Reinhardt, Les Paul, Danny Gatton....... are all virtuosos in their field.

 

Edited by blindwillie127

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, blindwillie127 said:

 

Why is that only classical players are always cited when the term virtuoso is discussed? All the jazz greats such as Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Wes Montgomery, Charles Mingus, Charlie Christian, Miles Davis, Django Reinhardt, Les Paul, Danny Gatton....... are all virtuosos in their field.

 

Absolutely agree.

Virtuoso is one of those terms like "artist" or "genius" that seems to be open to very wide parameters of interpretation. I mean, is James Brown a virtuoso of soul?? I would say yes.

To me, a virtuoso is a musician who has the utmost degree of technical skill on their instrument. Whether or not that means they communicate feeling is another matter , although the greatest virtuosos are able to render the highest degree of human feeling and relate emotions along with technical mastery. Page certainly didn't possess the level of virtuosic ability technically as classical guitar masters, great Flamenco guitarists or jazz musicians like Coltrane or Wes Montgomery, George Benson, Charlie Parker , Art Tatum...the list goes on and on. But IMO, he communicates feeling just as much as any other great musical artist. Same with Jones , and to a greater extent Bonham, who IMO was a very highly skilled drummer technically, and was pretty much a virtuoso in terms of sound and groove /feel.  IMO , Bonzo was the most virtuosic player in Zep , in his prime, before the drugs and alcohol started to slow him down at way too early an age. Page is kind of a virtuoso in terms of sound crafting, production etc but I can't call him a virtuoso guitarist. He was a bad motherfucker though! 

The fact is, many musicians who possess virtuosic skill may have a dearth of emotion in their playing. Technical mastery is impressive but often is boring without soul/feeling whatever you wanna call it. To me Zep was a perfect chemical reaction, an alchemy of three great musicians (and one annoying but necessary singer) who were masters of their genre and they changed music in the respect they influenced a huge number of musicians after their arrival on the scene. Page's sloppy, but raw emotion filled solos made thousands of people want to play like him. Bonham's sound and feel made thousands ( millions?) want some of his magic dust. Jones I think is less of an over all influence on musicians but he also possessed not just great technical skill on bass and keys, he had soul ! I would never characterize Jones as vanilla!! ?  His bass playing is as close as any rock player got to the sound and feel of Jamerson, always bluesy and soulful, funky, melodic. ( i.e. The Lemon Song) Not vanilla at all. He's no piano virtuoso though IMO...he is a solid, well skilled organist and pianist. But he's no Jimmy Smith or Herbie Hancock. Let's not get carried away.  

Of course they changed music... starting with track one of the debut album. It was all there, the skill, the sound, the feel , the soul that would change the sound of rock forever.  Bonzo's triplets on the bass drum that no one ever heard played that way before. The raw attitude of Communication Breakdown, the dark brooding vibe on Dazed and Confused...all influenced countless musicians. There are many other posts here that cite their contributions that changed music much more articulately than me. But thats my 1,000 lire.

 

 

Edited by porgie66

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


×