Led Zep: Thieving Magpies!

[TheAtomicJeff]

 

Originally posted by blaghaus Zep rock, I'll forgive them a lot of sins.

 

+1. It still sounds good....

[Demented Avenger]

 

Originally posted by elctmist They perfected it though. "When The Leeve Breaks" was written by Memphis Minnie in the early 30s, so why was it credited solely to them until later CD issues of their albums?

 

 

I think people didn't care as much back then, until the money started to come in, and get divided by whose ever names were on the song.

 

So many songs were credited to entire bands when it may have been one or two guys writng them. Then band members started to want more recogition, and more money, and so people started disecting songs to see who deserves what.

 

 

I'm not saying they're a terrible band, it just seems somewhat distasteful that they made so much money off their arrangements of other people's song.

 

 

 

I actually agree with you on this

 

 

[Jamison]

I like listening to Led Zeppelin.

I really don't like listening to songs that they "covered".

 

In conclusion, I like Led Zeppelin.

[BillyGrahamCracker]

The one time they DID try to give proper credit is a funny story. It's the tune "Boogie With Stu" from the second disc of Physical Graffiti. If you look, it's credited to them, Ian Stewart (the Stones' pianist, who is "Stu"), and Mrs. Valens, Ritchie's mother. They wanted for her to get some money, as they'd heard she'd been {censored}ed out of his royalties and the song borrows from his old tune "Ooh My Head." Anyway, she tried to sue them for ALL of the royalties. Funny thing is, Valens stole that song straight from Little Richard's "Ooh My Soul," so it wasn't like it was his, in the first place.

[murtaghstyle]

Every guy to ever play a powercord is ripping Pete Townshend off and every shredder should pay EVH a nickel per shredded note.

 

Did you write your own song the first time you picked up a guitar? No. You bought one to play someone else's music and wether you like it or not, that artist is still influencing your music today, even if it was Whitesnake in the 80's.

 

It's ok to make your own music based on the stuff that you like. Otherwise there would be no genres in music cause every band would have to do something never done before. The only bluesman in history would be Robbie Johnson, Rock n Roll would have died with Little Richard/Elvis and the only person allowed to sing soul at the Apollo would be James Brown.

 

Zeppelin took all their influences and took them to the next level. I don't remember hearing all those echoes and bow sounds in any Willie Dixon recording, did you?

 

We don't need to reinvent the wheel to build cars, do we? We just take what's out there and make it our own.

[elctmist]

 

Originally posted by murtaghstyle Did you write your own song the first time you picked up a guitar? No. You bought one to play someone else's music and wether you like it or not, that artist is still influencing your music today, even if it was Whitesnake in the 80's.............

 

 

Nope, but the last time I looked I wasn't making miillions out of my version of "Wild Thing."

[AcousticControl]

Originally posted by murtaghstyle Every guy to ever play a powercord is ripping Pete Townshend off and every shredder should pay EVH a nickel per shredded note. Did you write your own song the first time you picked up a guitar? No. You bought one to play someone else's music and wether you like it or not, that artist is still influencing your music today, even if it was Whitesnake in the 80's. It's ok to make your own music based on the stuff that you like. Otherwise there would be no genres in music cause every band would have to do something never done before. The only bluesman in history would be Robbie Johnson, Rock n Roll would have died with Little Richard/Elvis and the only person allowed to sing soul at the Apollo would be James Brown. Zeppelin took all their influences and took them to the next level. I don't remember hearing all those echoes and bow sounds in any Willie Dixon recording, did you? We don't need to reinvent the wheel to build cars, do we? We just take what's out there and make it our own.

 

argument holds no water.

 

they shoulda gave credit where it was due. that's all.

 

also, as a wise man once said, they stole the HELL outta those tunes.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm really sick of hearing people whine about Led Zepplin being thieves. Consider that when Led Zepplin formed they were riding a fast, rapidly-changing artistic wave that no one was sure would last very long. Brian Wilson summed it best by pointing out that the goal was to create the next new sound, and everyone was experimenting with all types of musical forms and influences in order to get there, and in a hurry.

 

The majority of the infringement claims made against Zepplin were over Plant's lyrics, not Page's music. Plant, like many other young British musicians was inspired by black blues recordings and attempted to emulate them, which including copying certain elements of the recordings that inspired him.

 

Having listened to many old records, Plant heard a lot of lyrics that were borrowed and used by many bluesmen, and assumed he could use them freely. If you ask any of the old bluesmen from the American South, they'll tell you all of the musicians were borrowing ideas from each other. Think about it, virtually every 60's band that played blues was borrowing something from established musical forms. What happened in led Zepplin's case is that when a few young white musicians started making a lot of money from some of the borrowed elements of the blues, black musicians started crying plagarism. Show me one instance where a black bluesman has sued another for plagarism. There was clearly a double standard applied when it came to the white man playing the blues.

 

That's not to say Willie Dixon and other brilliant musicians were not entitled to compensation for their artistic property, but it should be kept in mind that the white culture's interest in the blues rejuvinated it, and literally saved many bluesmen from dying poor and in relative obscurity. Willie Dixon did little for Led Zepplin compared to what they did for him--he died a happy wealthy man, as did Muddy Waters and several other bluesmen that had already begun to fade before white culture took an interest in their music.

 

As for giving credit where credit was due, what was Led Zepplin to do? Just how much of Whole Lotta Love, or Bring it Own Home belongs to Willie Dixon? 10%? 20%? Should Led Zepplin have given the majority of the song up to an obscure artist that contributed a small amount to it? Maybe they should've entered into lengthy negotiations and tied the recordings up for few years in legal hassles and completely screwed themselves by watching their window of opportunity close.

 

Led Zepplin's critics have always been out of touch with the reality of the music business. While the vast majority of artists wound up with almost nothing for their efforts, Led Zepplin did it their way and succeeded on a scale unrivaled in the history of Rock and Roll--how about giving credit where credit is really due?

[hoerni]

Here's another question:

 

What was the legal standing of the copyrights for these songs in 1969 (or when Zep covered them)? For that matter, what was the agreement between the US and England.

 

What I'm getting at is were these songs still under copyright, or had they already fallen into the public domain? If they were already public domain, then while it's still wrong for Zep to take credit, it's not like the original authors would have received anything anyway.

 

I'm guessing they were still under copyright, as some have succesfully sued and won, but I figured it was another aspect that I hadn't seen adressed.

[ginnboonmiller]

 

Originally posted by GuitslingerTim how about giving credit where credit is really due?

 

 

That's a pretty strange conclusion in the context of the rest of your post.

[js1]

Mojo magazine (at least I think it was Mojo) included a "Roots of Led Zepplin" CD with one of their issues about a year ago. It had many of the original songs that were mentioned. And it made me look at Zep in a different light.

 

Unfortunately (and I say this as a Led Zep fan from day 1) they clearly crossed the line from influence to plagarism. Many times.

 

It doesn't take away from what they accomplished. But their accomplishments don''t excuse their actions, either.

 

js

[elctmist]

 

Originally posted by GuitslingerTim As for giving credit where credit was due, what was Led Zepplin to do? Just how much of Whole Lotta Love, or Bring it Own Home belongs to Willie Dixon? 10%? 20%? Should Led Zepplin have given the majority of the song up to an obscure artist that contributed a small amount to it? Maybe they should've entered into lengthy negotiations and tied the recordings up for few years in legal hassles and completely screwed themselves by watching their window of opportunity close. Led Zepplin's critics have always been out of touch with the reality of the music business. While the vast majority of artists wound up with almost nothing for their efforts, Led Zepplin did it their way and succeeded on a scale unrivaled in the history of Rock and Roll--how about giving credit where credit is really due?

 

 

Okay so we understand that you feel it's fine for LZ to take "inspiration" (including lyrics and musical structure) from old bluesmen, without credit.

 

How do you feel about Jimmy Page appropriating large chunks of the tune "Dazed & Confused", which was written by Jack Holmes in NYC in '66. Is that also fine?

[Demented Avenger]

I bet if you made a list of the songs Zep did actually write, it would still be a pretty impressive list.

 

and what about ability?

 

these guys could all do thier thing better than most rockers still to this day.

[Demented Avenger]

 

Originally posted by ginnboonmiller While I'll defend Zep as another fine example of racist cultural imperialism (Original Dixieland Jazz Band and Paul Simon round out the trinity), I have to say, it's a lot of fun watching classic rock heads squirm when their idols get killed. That's why I keep these bumped, anyway.

 

 

What'd Paul Simon do?

[alloowishus]

you guys forgot to mention the middle of "How Many More Times" is stolen from Jeff Beck's "Beck's Bolero".

 

i think that a lot of it was probably done as kind of an inside joke more than anything, most people would not have recognized the original source, but it was a wink to all the blues fans out there. they should have credited them more though.

[alloowishus]

 

Originally posted by Jakeowen I bet if you made a list of the songs Zep did actually write, it would still be a pretty impressive list. and what about ability? these guys could all do thier thing better than most rockers still to this day.

 

 

 

uh, no, try watching "Song Remains the Same" or the 5 DVD box set. maybe it was the drugs, but most top selling bands today could kick their ass musically, they were all pretty sloppy players. there are parts of song remains the same that sound like a crappy garage band. page was a genius in the studio though, i'll give him that.

[Demented Avenger]

 

Originally posted by alloowishus uh, no, try watching "Song Remains the Same" or the 5 DVD box set. maybe it was the drugs, but most top selling bands today could kick their ass musically, they were all pretty sloppy players. there are parts of song remains the same that sound like a crappy garage band. page was a genius in the studio though, i'll give him that.

 

 

yeah ok, green day can out play zeppelin yeah sure

 

Song remains the same only suffers from sloppy editing.

 

Zeppelin may be perceived by the not so well informed, as sloppy because they would take risks. live improvisations are a lot more difficult to pull off thenn the same safe droaning whinny bull{censored} that the "top selling bands of today" are giving us.

try to name one "top selling band of today" that was not influenced by Zeppelin.

 

There are no guitar players in these "top selling bands" ( I am loving this term) that are taking music in any new directions or influencing people the way Page did.

 

 

and just because something is top selling, doesn't mean its any good.

 

Oh, as far as the drugs, some of the best music in the world was written by people on drugs, and also listened to by people on drugs as well. It's just part of life.

 

Green Day just looks like they're on drugs because its fashionable, cause they probably don't have the balls to really take anything, and they still suck.

 

[miles mayhem]

 

Originally posted by Jakeowen Green Day just looks like they're on drugs because its fashionable, cause they probably don't have the balls to really take anything, and they still suck.

 

First part of your post= decent point. Good job.

"It takes balls to take anything"= stupid point. Boo.

Anyone who thinks it makes them look hard or mature that they imbibe in mind-altering substances is misguided. If it makes you feel good, okay, but nobody with any sense is impressed. It takes a person of character to face life sober day after day.

[mrbluetone]

In 1978, a band from Davis, California called Little Roger and the Goosebumps put out a single called "Stairway To Gilligan's Island" (by putting the words to the theme of the 1960s US television show Gilligan's Island to an adapted and condensed "Stairway to Heaven"). This song became popular especially through heavy play (and many listener requests) on the Dr. Demento Radio Show. Legal action by representatives of Led Zeppelin soon followed and the single was withdrawn from sale.

[Demented Avenger]

 

Originally posted by miles mayhem First part of your post= decent point. Good job. "It takes balls to take anything"= stupid point. Boo. Anyone who thinks it makes them look hard or mature that they imbibe in mind-altering substances is misguided. If it makes you feel good, okay, but nobody with any sense is impressed. It takes a person of character to face life sober day after day.

 

 

 

Right on, bad choice of words.

 

Your last sentence sums that all up.

[L6Sguy]

Originally posted by Jakeowen ...Song remains the same only suffers from sloppy editing.....

 

truthe be known, SRTS was comprised of three nights at MSG, and in most spots, very poorly edited together. which explains why Plant often makes no sense between songs. theres also a point at which Jonesy is shown in a different shirt

 

the DVD on the other hand, was not nearly as reckless in terms of studio diabolicness. i've got the original '75 Royal Albert Hall set in its entirety (on video, from the master reels), and i'll be damned if I can find the audio grafted from somewheres else.

 

as for the sloppiness thing, i think you're right on there too. in the 200+ LZ audio bootlegs i've collected over the yrs, i've yet to hear the so-wacked-out-on-drugs-they-couldnt-perform version of Zep. couple/few boinked notes here and there -- sure. mebbe somebody could suggest a date to check out, as every single Zep gig has been bootlegged and are readily available for easy reference.

[MonkeyKnifeFighter]

 

Originally posted by ginnboonmiller You've got to admit, though -- they stole the hell out of those tunes.

 

 

Kuh-Lasssic!

 

~MkF!

"Page/Plant/Miller!"

[MonkeyKnifeFighter]

 

Originally posted by miles mayhem It takes a person of character to face life sober day after day.

 

I'll drink to that.

 

~MkF!

"Double!"

[mabus013]

 

Originally posted by Jakeowen So many songs were credited to entire bands when it may have been one or two guys writng them. Then band members started to want more recogition, and more money, and so people started disecting songs to see who deserves what.

 

 

Personally, I see that whole attitude as greed and ultimately destructive. When my band is together, I don't care if I write 90% of the material, I want the whole band credited. Subtle little things push songs into new territory, and frankly it's not worth the infighting, or seeing your drummer turn into an endorsement whore because he doesn't get {censored} for royalties, etc. Just another fertile breeding ground for pointless infighting that detracts from what you're there for - to make music. If you just wanna make money, go become a stockbroker.

 

As for Zep, it's funny - I remember when I was just starting to play, Guitar World was my Bible. I was thoroughly pissed when the November 97 issue (or thereabouts) was dedicated, practically cover-to-cover, to Led Zep. At the time, hardly anyone, it seemed, gave a {censored} about Sabbath - my favorite band at the time, and still in my top five - yet here's an entire issue dedicated just to Page's guitar playing. I wrote a scathing letter that got printed - truncated and edited, naturally, but I did get my own little feature caricature and title - "The Song Remains Inane" - talking about how people practically trampled each other to death (journailists especially) to kiss Zep's collective ass when Sabbath was, in my opinion, the most influencial band since the Beatles - think about it, they created the Metal genre and all of it's offshoots - goth, industiral, grunge, doom, etc etc - not to mention their wider influence in the hard rock realm where they competed with Zep. Zep just ripped off bluesmen left and right and got all of the accolades. Their offspring? Whitesnake, which I recently found out is actually a latin term meaning 'ball-less 80's Zep wannabe cover band'.

 

The tradition continues!

 

Really, I just think I was tired of the old farts at the time all parroting 'you know, back in the 70s Led Zep was considered metal and Sabbath just hard rock' - WHAT??!!! Was Jimi Hendrix just considered straight blues and John Lee Hooker a psychedelic adventurer, too?

 

I was pissed! Really, though, the music - not the legalities - of Zep is great. No real points for origiinality, sure, but great stuff none the less. Thieves? YES!!! Quite. That really sucks - I hope Crowley's ghost {censored}ed Page up the ass in his sleep when he owned his old manse, paid for by the songs of numerous unsung (and unpaid!) artists. I suspect he might have liked that, though.

 

I'm kind of still pissed at GW for editing me, though - they have no compunctions with printing {censored}, {censored}, piss, whatever, but when I said that the journalists fawning over Zep after being effectively dead for 20 years needed some new kneepads, they printed it as 'needing new keypads' or something like that.

[Raymar]

Couple of things to ponder:

 

Zep might've done some shady legal dealings with royalties but they did popularize the blues(along with Cream and Jimi) and created a larger audience for blues musicians and alot of gigs.

 

As for Sabbath being more influential, that may be so but only because their music was much easier to play. I remember buying Paranoid in my teens and being able to figure the tunes out complete with solos as I heard them for the first time just playing along. Not so for Zep, had to sweat for the Zep tunes and solos. Don't forget the acoustic stuff.

 

Steve