More of Howard Stern busting Led Zeppelin.

[Swish]

I know that Rich From Texas won't like this since he was a big fan and all, but I just have to get this out of my system. Many of you already know that Led Zep ripped off many of their best songs from other artists, but this segment on Howard Stern, with the world's foremost 'classic rock expert', has a lot more information that you may find interesting. For instance, while they never gave the proper credit to the original artists, they did so on recently released 'greatest hits' cds.

Anyway, I'm not saying they were a crappy band or anything, just that they really cheated everyone by ripping off others and representing it as their original music. It's fraud no matter how you slice it. If you would like to hear the clip, go <a href="http://www.dogmaticblog.com/2007/06/28/howard-stern-exposes-led-zeppelin-as-a-farce/">here</a> and scroll down about 6 lines to the highlighted "Click this to listen..." line.

G Swish

[GMichael]

Jimmy Page ruled at the time. You could keep the rest of them IMO.
Some great music from "The Song Remains the Same."
They copied? Shame on them. Still liked the music though.

[Swish]

Jimmy Page ruled at the time. You could keep the rest of them IMO.
Some great music from "The Song Remains the Same."
They copied? Shame on them. Still liked the music though.

It would be more appropriate to say "I liked the way they played the music of others'. In other words, they were either a very good cover band or good at rearranging the songs of others. Yes, they did have some original music, but too many songs were blatant copies.

Swish

[GMichael]

It would be more appropriate to say "I liked the way they played the music of others'. In other words, they were either a very good cover band or good at rearranging the songs of others. Yes, they did have some original music, but too many songs were blatant copies.

Swish

OK, I think they did a great job of taking someone else's music and turning it into something I like listening to.
Do all artists write their own stuff?

I still like "The Song Remains the Same."

[Swish]

OK, I think they did a great job of taking someone else's music and turning it into something I like listening to.
Do all artists write their own stuff?

I still like "The Song Remains the Same."

...or give credit to whoever does, but LZ didn't do that, so shame on them. Again, the issue isn't whether or not you like the band or the songs they recorded, but that they ripped off other artists and didn't give them credit. They lost numerous lawsuits over it in recent years, so it's not some big secret, although I don't see Rolling Stone a.k.a Teen Beat covering the story in their rag of a mag.

Swish

[GMichael]

...or give credit to whoever does, but LZ didn't do that, so shame on them. Again, the issue isn't whether or not you like the band or the songs they recorded, but that they ripped off other artists and didn't give them credit. They lost numerous lawsuits over it in recent years, so it's not some big secret, although I don't see Rolling Stone a.k.a Teen Beat covering the story in their rag of a mag.

Swish

Sorry, didn't mean to rain on your thread.

I do think that what they did sucked. People should be honest.

Will "Fast Times at Ridgemont High " have to change their credits too?

[BradH]

It's fraud no matter how you slice it.

This issue is blown so out of proportion it's just tired at this point. Yeah, they should have given credit where it was due but that credit is not nearly as large as Zep's detractors like to think (if "think" and "Howard Stern" can be used together). Creatively, if anyone got ripped off it was The Yardbirds more than Howlin' Wolf or Robert Johnson. Zep's approach to the blues comes straight out of the Beck & Page eras of the Yardbirds. Besides, the old blues artists lifted sh!t wholesale.

Zep were not innocent saints by any means but they were damn sure not frauds or a cover band.

[Troy]

I remember reading about this 20 years ago in that "Hammer of the Gods" book.

IIRC, basically, Robert Johnson didn't write that stuff either. It was all based on spirituals and slave songs, right? All LZ did was make these heavy and loud arrangements of them utilizing new instrument and recording tech to make the stoner kids go crazy.

If there should have been royalties paid, I have no idea who shoulda got 'em.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Gee G Swish. And I even thanked you for posting that link to Wolfgang's Vault. This is how you thank me? Do you know that Donovan McNabb has the power to lock anyone he chooses out of the stadium, and I have his phone number? :biggrin5:

Looks like I've got a lot of typing to do tonite but right now I'm hungry.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I wasn't able to find the thread where someone included a link to the Wikipedia explanantion of Led Zeppelin, but here it is anyway:

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

This time, read the whole enchilada and and not just what a few "critics" from Rolling Stone, and a book writer trying to make a name for himself had to say, then realize that in the 70's, "stoners" like me listened to them for the loud, driving beat, the fact that they were played all over FM radio, including MMR, YSP, Q-102 in Philly, and concert after concert for a decade where they played to sold out shows everywhere they went.

I don't know how old you are Swish... were you even alive in the 70's? Do you know anything about the culture of the time? I remember quite well what was going on back then, and the politics of music was absolutely nowhere in my, or anyone else I hung around withs mind.

I have nothing but great, stirring memories of the times when I absorbed myself in their music. Willie Dixon? Bert Jansch? Jake Holmes? Who the f**k were they? Who cared back in the 70's? Not me. You on the other hand seem to have some baggage you're carrying around that you need to keep bringing up here. You base your beliefs and opinions on what Howard Stern says, what John Mendelshon says, what Denny Somack... a DJ says, and what the writer of Teen Spirit, whoever he is (BTW, isn't Teen Spirit part of a title from a song Curt Cobain wrote?) says? All a$$holes trying to make a name for themselves IMO. Is Howard Stern the God you worship?

Tell me G Swish, who makes the important decisions in your household? Your wife or your kids?

[MindGoneHaywire]

Who the f*ck was Willie Dixon?

And you're asking others if they were alive in the 70s, as if being old enough to have lived through that decade means that much to this discussion?

You've got to be kidding.

Tell you what, do some research on Willie Dixon & then come back & admit that you had some learning to do yrself.

Brad, I disagree on this being blown out of proportion: it was never all that well-publicized outside of the small circle of people who actually care about such things. Like Swish (who is older than I am, and I remember the 70s, thank you), I listen to Howard Stern also, and if you haven't heard the clip in question, then you can't deny he makes a compelling case. It ties together a lot of the more disturbing aspects of what was touched on in Hammer Of The Gods.

If only they'd at least added the names of the blues guys, or Spirit or whoever, as partial collaborators, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That they did, was disgusting and illegal. I won't go so far as to call them a cover band, because I do think they did some great things, even if I'll be fine with never hearing any of them ever again. But that's part of why it's so strange that they would've done this--they were that good, and they didn't need to cut anyone out of credit for tunes they arguably IMPROVED.

[Mr Peabody]

I'm not saying what Zepplin did was right but they sure weren't the only band that done it. What is that old saying, something about immitation is the best form of flattery. Did they cover a song or just expand on an influence? It is ironic though that when this band in the 80's came out called Kingdom Come, who sounded a lot like Zepplin, was getting some recognition for one of their songs and Robert Plant was going around accusing them of ripping it off from Cashmere. So I guess what comes around does go around.

I do think the issue is exaggerated. There isn't a single artist who didn't borrow something from another artist at one time or another. Did every Thrash band give credit to Dave Mustaine and his once partner from Metallica for developing that style of guitar? I remember him being quite upset with the late Mr. Dimebag over Pantera's success using his style of guitar. Or, Ray Charles who basically got started boogginizing gospel songs. And man, look at the crap when sampling began...... It just seems like something becomes an issue when it is in another persons best interest to make it one. I mean Zepplin's first album came out in 1969, did it take all these years before some one finally realized what they sound like? Did we all the sudden find these Blues albums in a vault or time capsule and the light bulb turned on? Should we gather our Zepplin collections and burn them on a baseball field? Well, you sure the .... ain't gettin' mine. It says in the first amendment I can bare arms and rock my ... off to Led Zepplin!

A friend of mine who is like an expert in oldies burned me some discs of people I never heard of before and I was amazed at how many of those songs I recognized but were made popular by later artists. I have no idea if they were given credit, this is just a side note.

[BradH]

But that's part of why it's so strange that they would've done this--they were that good, and they didn't need to cut anyone out of credit for tunes they arguably IMPROVED.

Exactly, it's just weird more than anything. What the hell did they hope to gain? It's not like they were trying to hide their blues roots or anything. It's a weird issue. Cream went the complete opposite way so we get their version of "Crossroads" credited to Robert Johnson. That might make everyone feel better and might be more legal but, artistically, that's as bizarre as Zep giving no credit whatsover. My main point is this: if Zep had properly credited Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf and Robert Johnson, I suspect nobody would be calling them a cover band in 2007, they'd be praised for their radical interpretation. Yet, it would be the same damn records! Here's another thing: Zep was still considered dino rawk by the critics until the hip-hop dj's started sampling Bonzo off "When The Levee Breaks". Think about that. Within the history of the blues you could throw a rock anywhere and hit a song about levees. How many of those tracks got sampled? It was Zep's sound and style that inspired the dj's, not the blues itself. That matters because the way you play or interpret a song determines whether you're really original or just a cover band.

[BradH]

Willie Dixon? Bert Jansch? Jake Holmes? Who the f**k were they? Who cared back in the 70's?

Well, obviously Led Zeppelin did.

[Swish]

I wasn't able to find the thread where someone included a link to the Wikipedia explanantion of Led Zeppelin, but here it is anyway:

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

This time, read the whole enchilada and and not just what a few "critics" from Rolling Stone, and a book writer trying to make a name for himself had to say, then realize that in the 70's, "stoners" like me listened to them for the loud, driving beat, the fact that they were played all over FM radio, including MMR, YSP, Q-102 in Philly, and concert after concert for a decade where they played to sold out shows everywhere they went.

I don't know how old you are Swish... were you even alive in the 70's? Do you know anything about the culture of the time? I remember quite well what was going on back then, and the politics of music was absolutely nowhere in my, or anyone else I hung around withs mind.

I have nothing but great, stirring memories of the times when I absorbed myself in their music. Willie Dixon? Bert Jansch? Jake Holmes? Who the f**k were they? Who cared back in the 70's? Not me. You on the other hand seem to have some baggage you're carrying around that you need to keep bringing up here. You base your beliefs and opinions on what Howard Stern says, what John Mendelshon says, what Denny Somack... a DJ says, and what the writer of Teen Spirit, whoever he is (BTW, isn't Teen Spirit part of a title from a song Curt Cobain wrote?) says? All a$$holes trying to make a name for themselves IMO. Is Howard Stern the God you worship?

Tell me G Swish, who makes the important decisions in your household? Your wife or your kids?

...every other household in America. But seriously, I don't worship Howard. In fact, as a rock-solid conservative, I'm opposed to many of his political views, although I do find the show funny at times.

I also liked LZ when I was a lad, like most of my friends, and I was in my teens in the 70s, so I certainly remember that decade well.... sort of. And like J, I couldn't care less if I never heard them again. There's just plenty of new music that I enjoy to listen to 'classic rock' any longer. Not that it all sucks or anything, I just grew quite weary of it.

I brought up this LZ topic because I thought many on this board would be interested (I was correct) and if anyone doesn't like it, well, what can I say? Express your thoughts on it (you did) and we can debate them. I stand on my position that it was a blatant ripoff that was rightfully exposed, albeit many years too late. I really take pleasure in the fact that they are now giving credit to the original song-writers on their 'greatest hits' records. Can you spell redemption?


G Swish

[Mr Peabody]

Swish, you make a good point about posting. Who knows what others here will be interested in and like it or not, but let's not be afraid to throw a new thread on, that's what keeps us going. Actually this LZ thing would have gone unnoticed by me if it wasn't for the thread.

And, if you are a conservative, for gawd sakes put your foot down and tell your wife who wears the pants around there:) You are an embarrassment.

[Swish]

Swish, you make a good point about posting. Who knows what others here will be interested in and like it or not, but let's not be afraid to throw a new thread on, that's what keeps us going. Actually this LZ thing would have gone unnoticed by me if it wasn't for the thread.

And, if you are a conservative, for gawd sakes put your foot down and tell your wife who wears the pants around there:) You are an embarrassment.

It's Cathy. Once I learned that, it was smooth sailing ever since.

Hey, I'm not afraid to post my views, no matter how ridiculous they may be. :) I was one of the early 'prog bashers', or more appropriately, I jumped on the anti-prog bandwagon many moons ago, and it was fun. I'm sure you know we have a large contingent of prog fanatics on RR, but we also have a large number who don't care for prog, and rightfully so, and it makes things more interesting at times, just like this LZ bashing has done. It's been quite some time since J and Brad H have posted a lengthy diatribe, and I always relish reading them, and if a post draws some ire from a few people, all the better in my opinion. We can't all be patting each other on the back and agreeing with everything or this board would never last.

G Swish

[audiobill]

We can't all be patting each other on the back and agreeing with everything or this board would never last.

G Swish


Here, here!! Nice retort Swishman (pat, pat!!) I do enjoy clashes like these. It's what makes reading and posting interesting.

Now, please excuse me, as I have some Led Zeppelin BBC sessions to listen to.

Great thread,

Bill

[ForeverAutumn]

We can't all be patting each other on the back and agreeing with everything or this board would never last.

G Swish

Yep! Right you are. I've never been a LZ fan and I couldn't care less what they did or didn't do. By the time I was old enough to take notice of them, I was so sick of hearing Stairway to Heaven and Cashmere, that I had no interest in hearing anything else by them. Probably my loss in the long run. But I have found this discussion quite fascinating and I will listen to the Howard Stern thing (I haven't had a chance yet).

I miss the old days of actual discussions and disagreements on this board. It's what made the place tick. And I learned a lot from those exchanges. Thanks for trying to bring some of that old passion back. We need more of it.

Just keep throwing new threads at the wall...you never know which one will stick.

[kexodusc]

I'm not a huge LZ fan, nor did I grow up in the 70's. But I do read a lot about music history, I do study and continue to listen to a lot of music to have an equally worthless opinion.

I think LZ did a bit more than just creatively interpret from other artists. But I'm not so sure what they did was terribly abnormal at the time. A lot of what I've read suggest this was the nature of the business, especially 35-40 years ago. Bob Dylan's been borrowing a lot, and not always giving credit, too. He's still revered as one of the best song-writers ever.

I agree, if they credited their, uhh inspirations, this would be non-issue, instead of a very minor one that only people with no vested interest in the alleged crime seem to care about.

But they didn't. As to why? From what I've read LZ was as much about the image and mystique, mystery, and total aversion to any form of communication with the media and public. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a conscious decision to not give due credit in order to preserve the "legend".

Whatever the reason, it's too bad. But at the same time, I don't think it diminishes the talent the band had. I probably don't agree with a lot of moral decisions a great many of my favorite musicians make. But to me, the songs, the music are entities themselves, separate from the people that play/write them. For example, whatever the case may be, Billy Jean is a kick-ass tune and nothing MJ could ever do will diminish that. Same goes for LZ. We could discover 100 more ugly truths about the band, but their music (and it is "theirs", I don't see many other cover/rip-off bands achieving even 0.01% of the success) will endure.

[Mr Peabody]

FA!..... you aren't a LZ fan?! I've been in love with you for so long and now this comes out. I had you on a pedestal as my perfect soul/R&R mate. Well.... I will just visit my imagination and put a spin on this as to maintain my fantasy. This little bump will just make our relationship stronger, right?

[ForeverAutumn]

FA!..... you aren't a LZ fan?! I've been in love with you for so long and now this comes out. I had you on a pedestal as my perfect soul/R&R mate. Well.... I will just visit my imagination and put a spin on this as to maintain my fantasy. This little bump will just make our relationship stronger, right?

It's not that I don't like LZ. It's just that all I've ever really heard is the stuff that gets played over and over and over again on the local classic rock station. I'm just so sick of those songs, that I have no desire to delve deeper.

If it helps any, I always thought (and still do) that Robert Plant is sexy. And...well...since in my imagination you look just like him... :ihih:

[nobody]

Funny thing is, I'm listening to Willie Dixon right now (I Am The Blues is a long time favorite of mine where he takes the vocals on his own songs), and I really don't like Led Zepplin much at all.

Yet, I think while they stole the notes, they played those notes so differently than the old blues men that they did indeed make a significant musical contribution to the end product. Those may be the same songs, but they sure as **** sound different. Just amping it all up and giving the blues that metallic crunch changes the whole vibe considerably.

I pretty much wish they had left well enough alone. But, if you like their sound, I do believe they brought a lot to the table themselves in creating it.

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah, LZ does get regular rotation on most Rock stations. There are a few good songs that don't seem to be as favored though, No Quarter comes to mind, one of my LZ favorites. I like the majority of Robert Plants solo work, especially his first couple albums. His cover of Darkness Darkness is very good. The album Plant and Page did called No Quarter is good. They took several of LZ's standards and rearranged them adding some Middle Eastern musicians as spice. It's hard to imagine anyone who collects music not having at least a couple LZ albums.

[BradH]

From what I've read LZ was as much about the image and mystique, mystery, and total aversion to any form of communication with the media and public. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a conscious decision to not give due credit in order to preserve the "legend".

That was a result of being trashed mercilessly in the British press from day one (and plagiarism wasn't the issue). They retaliated by not doing many interviews until Lisa Robinson of Hit Parader went on the road and blowjobbed her way to the inner circle in '75. They were more open to the press after the Physical Graffiti era. A lot of bands in the early 70's had a mystique about them because of the nature of the media at the time. Same with movies. I remember it well and I'm sure a few other old farts on the board remember it too. There was no internet giving the latest coverage on the minutia of backstage shenanigans and arrest charges. No MTV documentary on the making of anything. No concert videos to rent. FM still had an underground feel. Led Zep wasn't a household name even at the precise moment they were outselling the Stones on the road. This is why people like Yes or Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull were considered avant garde, new, mysterious and underground even if they were on a major label. Try telling that to a punk rocker. But that's what happened and it worked because the music biz just wasn't that big. By the late 70's, FM radio was cramming Zeppelin down everyone's throat 'till their nose bled. But my take on their sound stems from when I first heard it, starting in 1970. So yeah, I'm biased. I can play every freaking song they did on the drums without thinking and quite a few I've bothered to learn on the bass. It's a blast to play and I literally can't remember the last time I just sat and listened. For me, there's no point in that anymore. And you know what? I wouldn't walk across the street to talk to the sorry b@stards unless it was John Paul Jones. So I'm not impressed with the idea that suddenly in 2007 we should all be shocked, shocked, that Led Zeppelin often acted like a bunch of thugs.

[GMichael]

It's not that I don't like LZ. It's just that all I've ever really heard is the stuff that gets played over and over and over again on the local classic rock station. I'm just so sick of those songs, that I have no desire to delve deeper.

If it helps any, I always thought (and still do) that Robert Plant is sexy. And...well...since in my imagination you look just like him... :ihih:

I still think you're great.
I was never a huge LZ fan, but I do like what Jimmy Page was able to create. Can I say it one more time? Sure. Listen to The Song Remains The Same. It's a kick ars live CD that rocks the house. They opened the door for many heavy metal bands to come and add to.
You're welcome to stop by anytime and listen to it. Maybe I'll throw some Rush on after that.:ihih:

[Swish]

I still think you're great. h:
...she likes prog!

Just watchin' your back buddy.

Swish

[GMichael]

...she likes prog!

Just watchin' your back buddy.

Swish

Thanks, but don't all great music lovers like prog?

[MindGoneHaywire]

I guess. Us sucky music lovers who don't like prog don't like anything else that's great anyway.

[Swish]

I guess. Us sucky music lovers who don't like prog don't like anything else that's great anyway.

Swish

[GMichael]

I guess. Us sucky music lovers who don't like prog don't like anything else that's great anyway.

True, but you could change someday. There's still hope.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Doubt it. I heard the stuff for years. My preferences lie elsewhere. Mind you, I don't feel that strongly towards that first wave of that stuff, it's just not my cup of tea, and Brad's post, as with most of his, offers wise counsel.

What it inspired, I have full-on loathing towards. That is, of course, excluding certain hybrid types & some who had some interesting ideas & approaches. Mostly, though, it's nothing but the polar opposite of what I find appealing about music.

Fortunately for others, nobody has to give a rat's a$$ what I think. Least of all me.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Perhaps I should clarify, since the divide apparently remains on this board as much as it does in the real world, and as silly as it may seem, that's reality.

Not completely, but for the most part, I enjoy music that's more limited in its possibilities, because I consider it more difficult to create something memorable and pleasing when you're dealing with the limitations that come from simpler parameters, as well as dealing with a much harsher history, a canon in which so much has already been done that so little seems original, let alone good, not to mention both at the same time.

More complicated music offers more possibilities for originality, because there's a richer field of ideas with which to draw from. When you're not limited to certain types of structures, when you can incorporate time changes, and when soloing can easily exceed the time spent on contributing verbal ideas as well as musical ones, it's a completely different dynamic.

In my world, when someone puts out something that's memorable (read: catchy) and not disgustingly derivative, that's an accomplishment. When they manage to develop credible melodies within relatively simple structures, and/or manage to throw in a lyrical idea or two that beats teen pop, there's another plus.

Swinging for the fences is far harder in this area than it is when you can utilize methods of putting together parts that range further. And that's fine, but for folks like me, it's just not what I'm wired to be interested in.

Of course, there is so much that is in fact disgustingly derivative, that sometimes it can be difficult to find something to like about something that sounds great on first listen--before you realize exactly how transparently it's been copied. Again, getting back to the point of this thread, Led Zeppelin were amongst the most notorious, at times, when it comes to this. Which doesn't take away from how derivative so many others were before them, but that's not the point.

One of the most difficult things to get across to people who often opine that there is no good music anymore--which, as a generalization, if not a stereotype, happens to describe many Led Zeppelin fans--is that the more time passes, the more difficult it becomes to compete with history. Which is not to say that prog bands necessarily have it easy in this regard, but certainly they have more tools with which to make something sound original than a band playing 3-chord pop or rock music.

Give me the ones who are in the garage & can't work past that 3rd chord, but don't stop trying. If there's one in 10,000 who produce a piece of work I happen to like, it's worth it. The aspects of prog that separate it from this sort of thing involve ideas & approaches that emphasize elements that I just don't think much of, when it comes to this relatively lowbrow form of music we call rock.

As for LZ, they did so many things well, they almost did too many things well. And it's an interesting footnote that they never ended up doing...too many things. In Through The Out Door was a very strong last album; but a few more like Presence, and the potential that Page would've felt it necessary to compete with either the wave of British metal like Judas Priest or Iron Maiden & the like, or American bands like Rush and/or Kansas or Styx, and some real crap could've flowed forth.

On the other hand, though it needed to be edited down, what he came up with after seeing the Damned (Wearing & Tearing, on the Coda album) could've opened up doors that could've kept me more interested. But we'll never know, will we now.

Fast food for thought.

[ForeverAutumn]

Can't a person enjoy both? Why does it have to be three chord simplicity OR prog? My music collection proves that there's room for the enjoyment of all kinds of music. :14:


...or American bands like Rush.

Rush are Canadian. I know that you know that, and maybe you meant North American bands, but I feel the need to make the correction regardless.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Nothing wrong with liking both and yes, that was my mistake, of course. But when it comes to liking both, in my experience it's a divide that's rarely crossed. Actually I think it shows openmindedness to in fact appreciate both, but most people, myself included, happen to go one way or the other.

The problem comes in when the discussion aims for low ebbs & of course so many eventually degenerate into useless insults. However, pointing to reasons for likes & dislikes is something I don't find anything wrong with, which is more than I can say for the herd mentalities present both in this as well as other cultural divides.

I do think it would be a good thing if people interested in this sort of stuff took a look at books like Hammer Of The Gods, but also Hit Men. And if the book has been written that points to how a guy named Lee Abrams, arguably more than any one person, caused people like me to get sick of Led Zeppelin for nearly 25 years at this point due to his vision for what rock radio should be, I haven't seen it.

If I can find a copy of the Rolling Stone magazine in which I first learned of his shaping of AOR through what was then called the Superstars format, I'd be inclined to try to write it myself. In the meantime, anyone who can't understand how some of us could be sick of hearing Led Zeppelin nearly 40 years after they replaced the Yardbirds...I'll quit while I'm ahead.

[Mr Peabody]

GM, I don't like you invitin' my girl over. You'd better just steer clear of her.

MGH, I haven't read that book but the Rock station programmers are like if they deviate from force feeding you certain songs the Mob will kill their family or something. One of the multi-station programmers in our area who is responsible for ruining our best Rock station way back for some reason has yielded. He programs a Classic Rock station that now will not repeat a song in the same week. They actually don't play much LZ.

[kexodusc]

Perhaps I should clarify, since the divide apparently remains on this board as much as it does in the real world, and as silly as it may seem, that's reality.

Not completely, but for the most part, I enjoy music that's more limited in its possibilities, because I consider it more difficult to create something memorable and pleasing when you're dealing with the limitations that come from simpler parameters, as well as dealing with a much harsher history, a canon in which so much has already been done that so little seems original, let alone good, not to mention both at the same time.

More complicated music offers more possibilities for originality, because there's a richer field of ideas with which to draw from. When you're not limited to certain types of structures, when you can incorporate time changes, and when soloing can easily exceed the time spent on contributing verbal ideas as well as musical ones, it's a completely different dynamic.

In my world, when someone puts out something that's memorable (read: catchy) and not disgustingly derivative, that's an accomplishment. When they manage to develop credible melodies within relatively simple structures, and/or manage to throw in a lyrical idea or two that beats teen pop, there's another plus.

I am a big prog-lover, but I would say it counts for about 5%-10% of my total music collection. In terms of Rock only, maybe 20-25%? Tops.
I dont' know if I can say I prefer prog to non-prog. Never really reduced it down to a pissing match before.

I agree with what you're saying regarding the challenge of creating compelling new, 3 chord, 4/4 rock music. That's always been something about some prog-lovers I've had a beef with - a lot of them don't even give the music a chance, they reduce it to time signatures and other arbitrary formula, make sure it passes some arbitrary complexity test, then start listening too it. Not all prog lovers, probably the minority, but enough to give it a bad rep sometimes. Reminds me of some jazz snobs.

For me, I just take more out of relatively more complicated songs, I guess. I do find the music becomes less repetitive, derivative, redundant, etc, though even a most prog has an undeniably familiar sound to it and isn't immune to the challenges you described above.
It's not the 10 minute soloing and playing fast and complicated parts for the sake of complexity. Actually, I really hate that sometimes.

For me, it's difficult to explain why enjoy it. It's musical journey. A feeling of an a epic story being told within the music, the range of emotion, drama, and story that the songs can tell - to me it's just much bigger with prog than non-prog rock. If I were to compare it to TV, it'd be like watching a sitcom vs an Epic film....I enjoyed both, just for different reason. One leaves a stronger lasting impression, though I probably watch more sitcoms. I can watch Seinfeld or Simpsons reruns in perpetuity...not sure I could watch The Shawshank Redemption or Gladiator 3 or 4 times a year. Different music for different reasons I guess.



One of the most difficult things to get across to people who often opine that there is no good music anymore--which, as a generalization, if not a stereotype, happens to describe many Led Zeppelin fans--is that the more time passes, the more difficult it becomes to compete with history. Which is not to say that prog bands necessarily have it easy in this regard, but certainly they have more tools with which to make something sound original than a band playing 3-chord pop or rock music.

Give me the ones who are in the garage & can't work past that 3rd chord, but don't stop trying. If there's one in 10,000 who produce a piece of work I happen to like, it's worth it. The aspects of prog that separate it from this sort of thing involve ideas & approaches that emphasize elements that I just don't think much of, when it comes to this relatively lowbrow form of music we call rock.


If people say there's no good music anymore they've just moved on and closed their minds to the things that made them enjoy music in the first place. Most people older than me cite the influences they hear in music I like, and therefore, it's been done before and is boring.
Yet the originals they refer to and enjoyed so much for their creativity had similar influences that was blatantly obvious in their music. Yet the nay-sayers didn't have a problem getting "it" back then. The same argument can be made, etc.
I think the youth have an advantage in some regards. A kid today who can hear the Beatles or hear some modern band like Queens of the Stone Age or whoever can decide for themselves, without 40 years of emotional attachment, what sounds better to them.

Anyway, enough rambling...interesting to read your post and get an insight into why you like the music you do...

[BradH]

For me, it's difficult to explain why enjoy it.

I was thinking about the same thing last night watching some Genesis footage w/ Bruford from 1976. If I had to describe the deepest meaning of early 70's progressive rock in a nutshell it would be the idea of embracing the technological future with humanity, not retreating into acoustic folkiness or wallowing in heavy-metal decadence. It sounds pretentious but, hey, consider the territory. That doesn't come through for me with a lot of the neo-prog outfits, it's more like they're worshipping at the Church Of Prog or something. (I hear technical proficiency but a lack of depth and range of emotions.) It was a post-1968 atmosphere that said the party was over so find your own way home. None of these concerns were relevant to the punk rockers or any other style that came after. The punks looked at prog like it was just a bad hangover from the sixties without understanding that, in many ways, it was a rejection of the sixties. And maybe there's only so much you can do with that genre, maybe that's why so many of those bands gave it up, I don't know. Maybe by rejecting the 60's you're navigating by your wake and limiting your direction by the late 70's.

Where I differ with Jay is in rejecting something because it's technically complex. I look for emotional depth and complexity in music regardless of the genre. He and I will never, ever, agree on this subject and that's fine. But after he made me listen to Howard Stern I'm going to retaliate by sending him Yes on the Howard Stern Show from 1996. It's effing hilarious!

Stern: "Hey, you guys got any pot or some hash?"

[GMichael]

GM, I don't like you invitin' my girl over. You'd better just steer clear of her.

MGH, I haven't read that book but the Rock station programmers are like if they deviate from force feeding you certain songs the Mob will kill their family or something. One of the multi-station programmers in our area who is responsible for ruining our best Rock station way back for some reason has yielded. He programs a Classic Rock station that now will not repeat a song in the same week. They actually don't play much LZ.


Where were you when Tex and I threw her a party? Oh well, you're invited to come over too. Doesn't really matter, 'cause I know she'll bring her hubby with her. That's part of her charm.

Back when I first got into "prog" rock (not that I even knew what it was called at the time) I also loved such bands as Cheap Trick & AC/DC etc. I love both. Never gave music as much thought as so many RR's do here. If I like something, it's because it makes me feel good.

LZ had a huge following. I liked (and like) them but not to the same extent. I think that what they did sucks, but I also feel that they were not alone in what they did. How many other bands did the same?

[ForeverAutumn]

For me, it's difficult to explain why enjoy it. It's musical journey. A feeling of an a epic story being told within the music, the range of emotion, drama, and story that the songs can tell - to me it's just much bigger with prog than non-prog rock. If I were to compare it to TV, it'd be like watching a sitcom vs an Epic film....I enjoyed both, just for different reason. One leaves a stronger lasting impression, though I probably watch more sitcoms. I can watch Seinfeld or Simpsons reruns in perpetuity...not sure I could watch The Shawshank Redemption or Gladiator 3 or 4 times a year. Different music for different reasons I guess.

That's a great explanation Kex. A good prog epic is a journey. It'll take you on twists and turns and can be a very emotional ride.

The three chord rock songs are quick, they're fun and they're immediately gratifying. But (IMHO) they can't compare to immersing yourself in a good, long prog epic that takes your emotions for a ride up and down and in all directions. When that song finally hits it peak...well, the three chord tune, as great as it might be, just doesn't allow me to hit that same high.


I hear technical proficiency but a lack of depth and range of emotions.

That's the reason that my Hubby gives me for not enjoying Dream Theater. Lots of talent, but not enough passion.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Ya know, I'm reading post after post where people are now saying they listen to music because it takes them on a "musical journey", listen to it for the 3 chord melody... etc. but when I say who cares about the politics, I listen to Led Zeppelin for the hard-hitting beat, it still gets people's back up with remarks like this:


I know that Rich From Texas won't like this since he was a big fan and all, but I just have to get this out of my system.
I interpret this as antagonism, to which I responded with equal antagonism. But then he jumps up on the high road with this:


I also liked LZ when I was a lad, like most of my friends, and I was in my teens in the 70s, so I certainly remember that decade well.... sort of. And like J, I couldn't care less if I never heard them again. There's just plenty of new music that I enjoy to listen to 'classic rock' any longer. Not that it all sucks or anything, I just grew quite weary of it.

I brought up this LZ topic because I thought many on this board would be interested (I was correct) and if anyone doesn't like it, well, what can I say? Express your thoughts on it (you did) and we can debate them. I stand on my position that it was a blatant ripoff that was rightfully exposed, albeit many years too late. I really take pleasure in the fact that they are now giving credit to the original song-writers on their 'greatest hits' records. Can you spell redemption?
I don't have a problem with you or anybody else having their opinion about the band, but again, you bring it up often or hijack threads about another band to make your point. Why is that? If I've insulted you in some way please let me know here or with a PM.



Who the f*ck was Willie Dixon?

And you're asking others if they were alive in the 70s, as if being old enough to have lived through that decade means that much to this discussion?

You've got to be kidding.

Tell you what, do some research on Willie Dixon & then come back & admit that you had some learning to do yrself.
Yes, I was asking people if they knew what it was like to be alive in the 70's when popular bands like Led Zeppelin were cutting albums. When I was listening to Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Yes, Pink Floyd and other bands of that ilk, I again, couldn't care less about anything that wasn't fitting in with my taste for music at the time. Am I not allowed that mindset? As has been pointed out here, and which echos my thoughts, though maybe in a more understandable way to you, to be a part of the 70's culture is a lot different than being in the here-and-now. If you weren't into the rock music scene back then you can't know what I saw and heard. Also, please save your condesending attitude for someone who cares.


I think LZ did a bit more than just creatively interpret from other artists. But I'm not so sure what they did was terribly abnormal at the time. A lot of what I've read suggest this was the nature of the business, especially 35-40 years ago. Bob Dylan's been borrowing a lot, and not always giving credit, too. He's still revered as one of the best song-writers ever.

I agree, if they credited their, uhh inspirations, this would be non-issue, instead of a very minor one that only people with no vested interest in the alleged crime seem to care about.
How very true. So why the unending barrage of hate for Led Zeppelin?



Yep! Right you are. I've never been a LZ fan and I couldn't care less what they did or didn't do. By the time I was old enough to take notice of them, I was so sick of hearing Stairway to Heaven and Cashmere, that I had no interest in hearing anything else by them. Probably my loss in the long run...
You know how sick I got of hearing "Tom Saywer"? How sick I got of hearing "Fly by Night"? Didn't stop me from buying Snakes & Arrows though. I'm glad I did and one reason was because of the conversations by you and others here about it. Have you ever listened to the song "Ten Years Gone" by Led Zeppelin? I've never heard a musician make his guitar absolutely cry like Jimmy does in that song, which fits the lyrics perfectly. Ever listen to "That's the Way", from the third album? Beautiful acoustic love song. Or the song titled "Hats off to (Roy) Harper" from the same album? (That's strange, the title makes it sound like they're giving credit to Roy Harper, whoever the F*ck he is)! The song "D'yer Mak'er" is an interpretation of the Regae beat... What a talented and diverse band this was!

So what other bands do you hate Swish? BTW, why "Swish"? For as long as I can remember the Sixers have sucked!

[ForeverAutumn]

You know how sick I got of hearing "Tom Saywer"? How sick I got of hearing "Fly by Night"? Didn't stop me from buying Snakes & Arrows though. I'm glad I did and one reason was because of the conversations by you and others here about it. Have you ever listened to the song "Ten Years Gone" by Led Zeppelin? I've never heard a musician make his guitar absolutely cry like Jimmy does in that song, which fits the lyrics perfectly. Ever listen to "That's the Way", from the third album? Beautiful acoustic love song. Or the song titled "Hats off to (Roy) Harper" from the same album? (That's strange, the title makes it sound like they're giving credit to Roy Harper, whoever the F*ck he is)! The song "D'yer Mak'er" is an interpretation of the Regae beat... What a talented and diverse band this was!

Sick of Tom Sawyer?! Blasphemy, I say! :eek:

You're absolutely right Rich. That's why I said that it was probably my loss in the long run. I do think, however, that if Zep were still around and recording albums, like Rush is, I'd have paid more attention to them. They were done and gone by the time I hit that scene. There's lots of other bands that fall into this category for me also. I only "discovered" The Beatles this year, because I thought that if I heard Strawberry Fields Forever one more time I was gonna pull an "I Don't Like Mondays" move. Now I've realized that I missed out on a band that I actually quite enjoy, for the most part.

Regarding your comment of hijacking threads, sometimes these threads can take on a life of their own. This thread, for example, started with comments about LZ, and took a little side jaunt to discuss three chord rock vs. prog. It's the nature of conversation. If all of our conversations in life were restricted to a single topic, we'd be having a lot of real short conversations. Just relax and go with the flow...let the threads meander a little. It's a lot more interesting.

[Mr Peabody]

Interesting comments. I like a wide variety of music, including Prog, Fusion, Jazz and more mainstream Rock and Pop. I don't like a lot of repetitiveness no matter the style, so I play an album a few times when I first buy it and then it may get played a couple times the rest of the year, that really depends on how much I like it. I find that what I listen to depends a lot on what mood I'm in at the time. I can appreciate the simple music like ZZ Top has probably done more with simple 3 chords than anyone who comes to mind now. If I find a Prog album that I think is really good I don't have a problem listening to it as much as anything else I have. I think we all have favorite albums that just does it for us and sees more play than others. I've never really sat and analyzed why an album does it for me.

[Troy]

Man, this thread metamorphosized, dinnit?

All this justification for liking a certain type of music. Like what you like, it's no big deal. I was never a LZ fan, and I was definitely a part of their target audience. I think it's the whole blues-based thing, not being a fan of the blues. I'd rather hear Dread Zeppelin 100% of the time.

I wanna hear the Yes on Stern thing, Brad.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Kexodusc:

>Wow, great post!

Thank you very much.

>I dont' know if I can say I prefer prog to non-prog. Never really reduced it down to a pissing match before.

There probably shouldn't be one; the reasons why one would or should exist have been mostly gone for a good 30 years now. People aren't content to let the music speak for itself, for one thing, though...and, for another, in the 90s all of a sudden people who enjoy & who made a particular style of relatively simple music were given a new voice, through music-related documentaries, to articulate their feelings to masses who weren't aware of any of this stuff. Then people who don't know any better parrot their chosen heroes' screeds without regards to anything in the way of critical thinking.

>Reminds me of some jazz snobs.

There's a whole different can of worms. Part of what some of us don't like about prog, though, is closely related to developments in music that came around at the same time as prog--fusion. And, for me, what works in jazz just doesn't work in rock. They're two different forms & the crossover potential for good results is miniscule compared to how much ground has been plowed in pursuit of using elements such as extended improvisations & the like in a form that's defined itself, with no shame, mind you, as being far more limited in many ways.

>For me, it's difficult to explain why enjoy it. It's musical journey. A feeling of an a epic story being told within the music, the range of emotion, drama, and story that the songs can tell

You just explained it. And that's fine. I'm just one of those people who isn't interested in rock music because it can provide a journey. I look towards films or books, or actual travel for that. But that's me.

>Yet the originals they refer to and enjoyed so much for their creativity had similar influences that was blatantly obvious in their music. Yet the nay-sayers didn't have a problem getting "it" back then.

That's why threads like this happen.


Brad:

>Where I differ with Jay is in rejecting something because it's technically complex.

You miss the point. I could lay out a laundry list of stuff you know I like that's plenty complex and you know it. The point is that technical complexity is too often an indication that what I look for in music just isn't going to be there. When it is, why would I have a problem with it? The difficulty occurs when, after years & years of listening to music, you hear so little that's technically complex yet has anything else to it that does interest me. Most people who bring technical complexity to the table simply aren't interested in what I listen for in music, and you know it. That'll never stop me from listening in the hope that I'll find something about it to like, it's just that when the percentage is so low in that regard, it shouldn't be unreasonable to understand that I don't have much in the way of expectations. And, again, if it's complicated music that sounds complicated, I'm going to have a lot less patience with it than music that's complicated, yet sounds simple. But then the people who do that well don't exactly grow on trees, now, do they.


GMichael:

>I think that what they did sucks, but I also feel that they were not alone in what they did. How many other bands did the same?

To the extent that they did? How about none. Have you ever seen a songwriting credit that said something like "Trad., arranged by ______"? Or something along those lines? Nobody's saying LZ didn't significantly alter the songs they put their name on, but in many ways it was little more than bells & whistles. At least including the name of the person or people who were credited with the original composition--regardless of how much they themselves may have unethically borrowed--is not just a matter of doing the right thing, it's the law. Of course, it would've been considered professional etiquette to procure permission, if not a license, to even record a cover in the first place, but that's just one more layer of how unbelievably nasty this practice was. But then I wouldn't compare Peter Grant to Moishe Levy.


Rich:

>I say who cares about the politics, I listen to Led Zeppelin for the hard-hitting beat

I say fine. Some of us care about the politics as well as the hard-hitting beat. Others don't care about the hard-hitting beat. So?

>When I was listening to Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Yes, Pink Floyd and other bands of that ilk, I again, couldn't care less about anything that wasn't fitting in with my taste for music at the time. Am I not allowed that mindset?

You're allowed anything you want. But you were posting in a thread that discussed, among other things, the shameless copyright infringement engaged in, serially, by Led Zeppelin. If you don't care about that, you're entitled to that, too. Plenty of people don't walk away from their appreciation of art because they find things out about the creators of that art they find repugnant. I can't see all of a sudden not liking Led Zeppelin's music because they tried to cheat a bunch of mostly broke musical pioneers from well-deserved royalties. What you don't seem to get is that there have been many posters in this thread who not only lived through the 70s, but were sick & tired of Led Zeppelin's music 25 years ago. I for one am certainly not questioning liking them, in the 70s or any other time. Over time, though, I will say I've heard more & more in their music I don't like, and what appealed to me about it 30 + years ago just doesn't pack the same punch any more. That's a mindset I would hope you would agree I myself am entitled to.

>As has been pointed out here, and which echos my thoughts, though maybe in a more understandable way to you, to be a part of the 70's culture is a lot different than being in the here-and-now.

Thanks for the tip. I'm sorry my own experiences growing up in the 70s are essentially meaningless to you.

>If you weren't into the rock music scene back then you can't know what I saw and heard.

And I could easily say the same to you.

>Also, please save your condesending attitude for someone who cares.

This from the guy who says 'who gives a f*ck about Willie Dixon.' Pot, kettle.

One of the things that you'll likely never care about, and just as probably wouldn't understand, is that guys like Lee Abrams knew darned well that most rock fans in fact didn't care about guys like Willie Dixon, regardless of the LZ issue. Most people don't care what inspires an act they like, and wouldn't have cared about Dixon's contributions to the Chess outfit. Hell, if you're lucky, they won't even care if you omit certain records from the playlists.

Chuck Berry? Whodat? Zep rools, man.

[GMichael]

GMichael:

>I think that what they did sucks, but I also feel that they were not alone in what they did. How many other bands did the same?

To the extent that they did? How about none.


.

None? No one other than LZ has ever stollen a song and not given credit? Ever? Really? Are you sure?

[MindGoneHaywire]

This is where people choose to call me condescending.

I didn't say one song, did I?

What does 'to the extent that they did' mean to you?

Sorry to come off like a wiseacre, but, for Pete's sakes, I couldn't have made it any clearer. I know of no rock act that copied as blatantly as they did, as many songs as they did, while denying credit to those whose names were credited as the composers & lyricists of the music so obviously the basis for as many tunes as Led Zeppelin did this with.

If anyone knows of any rock band that did this to this extent, please name them.

[GMichael]

This is where people choose to call me condescending.

I didn't say one song, did I?

What does 'to the extent that they did' mean to you?

Sorry to come off like a wiseacre, but, for Pete's sakes, I couldn't have made it any clearer. I know of no rock act that copied as blatantly as they did, as many songs as they did, while denying credit to those whose names were credited as the composers & lyricists of the music so obviously the basis for as many tunes as Led Zeppelin did this with.

If anyone knows of any rock band that did this to this extent, please name them.

Chill, no need to get your knickers in a bind.
But I do know of bands who stole hits from lesser known bands. To the same extent? I don't know. But it sure happened a lot.

[Mr Peabody]

I agree that the blend of Rock and Jazz, Fusion, may not have a vast selection of material that was done well but it can, and has been done excellently in my opinion. Some folks like John McLaughlin or Mahavishnu Orchestra but that ranks up there close to fingernails on a chalk board for me. But I really enjoy Al Dimeola, Jean Luc Ponte, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock and the like.

Good point about thinking for ourselves. This is something that needs to be improved on across the board. Why do you think political commercials are so effective. I heard an applicable quote yesterday from Thomas Jefferson who said, "There can be no freedom without knowledge".

[MindGoneHaywire]

Well, no offense, and hopefully no hard feelings. But sometimes it seems like people either don't read what you write, or they see only what they want to.

As Brad & I both noted earlier in the thread, there's a weirdness factor since LZ had the goods to not have to engage in this sort of thing, unlike other bands where it makes more sense if they tried to rip someone off. Also, don't forget that I said both that what they did to some of the songs essentially added bells & whistles (particularly the blues songs), but also could be seen as having arguably improved the songs in question. So when someone asks why the hate, I have to believe it's because people actually don't like the music. Now, back in the 70s, it was social suicide in a lot of places for someone to actually not like Led Zeppelin, unless it was a girl who liked Barry Manilow or something. It was like a rule, to be obeyed, not questioned. Hell, as much as I dug LZ, there were plenty of people who thought I was lame because I actually preferred the Beatles & the Rolling Stones.

Back to the point of yr post, though, I think there's a reason why you'll have difficulty citing examples that point to this sort of activity on a scale anywhere near what Led Zeppelin did: two lawsuits, both directed at Beatles, to John Lennon for lifting a Chuck Berry toon for Come Together (merely the structure, as 'You Can't Catch Me' and 'Come Together' are miles apart, unlike, say, 'Killing Floor' and 'The Lemon Song'), and, in a far more publicized case, to George Harrison for 'My Sweet Lord.' In that case, some may remember, a determination was reached that was characterized as 'subconscious plagiarism' on the part of George Harrison, based on the Chiffons' 'He's So Fine.' Bullcrap, that was way more of a blatant lift than Lennon's, but I do believe it cost Harrison far more. Lennon, however, was obligated to do a Berry cover, which he did on that lame covers album a few years later. Point being, there was some established case law by the time LZ had already pilfered most if not all of the toons in question as raised by the guy who was on Sirius last week, but also in the Zep bio from 1984.

A later example of a Zep lift would be the Crunge, which was worked over to a decent extent so as to not sound as close to a Godfather song as what they'd done in the past, and it had a good-natured, humorous tinge to it as well.

Coincidence? I think not.

Meanwhile, by all means, cite some examples where bands did what LZ did, to the extent they did. I don't think you'll be able to come up with too many examples--a band with a song or two here or there, but nothing like what they did. Which was what I meant, and what I said.

[ForeverAutumn]

This may lead us in another direction, but I have a somewhat related question...

Do the rap and hip hop bands that sample older music as part of their own music give credit to the original writers? As the most obvious (and earliest) example that I can think of, Vanilla Ice using Under Pressure in Ice Ice Baby.

[MindGoneHaywire]

They did not at first, but the lawsuits flew and eventually sample clearances became a standardized part of that segment of the business.

Some very interesting things were done without permission, particularly by the Beastie Boys, whose first two albums are great examples of this (though I think Licensed To Ill was a different story since Rick Rubin actually recorded guitar parts instead of using actual samples, and I do believe there's some credit issued there). This continues today in 'mash-ups,' the most interesting of which are unauthorized.

However, these are not rock bands doing this, nor are they pretending that they wrote the stuff. Also, it took years for people to make a stink about unauthorized sampling since in a few cases it led to increased visibility for acts who'd languished in obscurity for years. Not to mention the collaboration between Run-DMC & Aerosmith that brought credibility to the idea, if not legality. That's not an excuse, I think that some people (like the Dust Brothers) got away with whatever they could get away with for as long as they could: nobody could ever make a record like the 2nd Beastie Boys album again, and it was grandfathered in. But it was considered a gray area for a long time, though it might not have if not for the Walk This Way cover.

These days, no rap record on a label that doesn't want to be sued out of existence would dare use a sample without proper clearances, and credit given. Some acts will not allow their work to be sampled. Others have minimum licensing price points: a few years ago, I was told, an Ozzy sample, for instance, carried a price tag of $100,000.

[ForeverAutumn]

I knew that I could count on you for a great answer! Thanks J.

[GMichael]

Well, no offense, and hopefully no hard feelings. But sometimes it seems like people either don't read what you write, or they see only what they want to.

As Brad & I both noted earlier in the thread, there's a weirdness factor since LZ had the goods to not have to engage in this sort of thing, unlike other bands where it makes more sense if they tried to rip someone off. Also, don't forget that I said both that what they did to some of the songs essentially added bells & whistles (particularly the blues songs), but also could be seen as having arguably improved the songs in question. So when someone asks why the hate, I have to believe it's because people actually don't like the music. Now, back in the 70s, it was social suicide in a lot of places for someone to actually not like Led Zeppelin, unless it was a girl who liked Barry Manilow or something. It was like a rule, to be obeyed, not questioned. Hell, as much as I dug LZ, there were plenty of people who thought I was lame because I actually preferred the Beatles & the Rolling Stones.

Back to the point of yr post, though, I think there's a reason why you'll have difficulty citing examples that point to this sort of activity on a scale anywhere near what Led Zeppelin did: two lawsuits, both directed at Beatles, to John Lennon for lifting a Chuck Berry toon for Come Together (merely the structure, as 'You Can't Catch Me' and 'Come Together' are miles apart, unlike, say, 'Killing Floor' and 'The Lemon Song'), and, in a far more publicized case, to George Harrison for 'My Sweet Lord.' In that case, some may remember, a determination was reached that was characterized as 'subconscious plagiarism' on the part of George Harrison, based on the Chiffons' 'He's So Fine.' Bullcrap, that was way more of a blatant lift than Lennon's, but I do believe it cost Harrison far more. Lennon, however, was obligated to do a Berry cover, which he did on that lame covers album a few years later. Point being, there was some established case law by the time LZ had already pilfered most if not all of the toons in question as raised by the guy who was on Sirius last week, but also in the Zep bio from 1984.

A later example of a Zep lift would be the Crunge, which was worked over to a decent extent so as to not sound as close to a Godfather song as what they'd done in the past, and it had a good-natured, humorous tinge to it as well.

Coincidence? I think not.

Meanwhile, by all means, cite some examples where bands did what LZ did, to the extent they did. I don't think you'll be able to come up with too many examples--a band with a song or two here or there, but nothing like what they did. Which was what I meant, and what I said.


I don't take offence. And I save all my hard feelings for the softer gender.
But you are right. I can't give you as many example as LZ had/has. But I do know that the band Rainbow ripped off two songs from a local "cover band" in our area who was trying to break into writing their own stuff. It never made it into the limelight like LZ because no one had ever heard of the other band. But they had been playing those two songs for a couple years before Rainbow made them big. I know of others but they are, one from this group, and one from that. So, no, I don't know of anyone who did it to the same extent. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear of it. Not in the least. This was my point.

[Resident Loser]

...we can always accuse every rocker for stealing concepts or melodies/lyrics from the synthesis of field hollers and Celtic music...boogity, boogity, boogity, boogity shoop...Robert Johnson supposedly stole stuff left and right, at least from what I've read...Do lyrics like "I wanna' be your backdoor man" reveal sinister thievery or is it simply use of an idiomatic slang expression? Is the Bo Diddly beat actually his? Was Buddy Holly a bad boy? Chuck Berry sued John Lennon on account of the first line in Come Together, should it have been a Lennon/McCartney composition or should there have been an asterisk saying that "here comes ol' flat top" etc. was the work of another? And what flat top was being referred to and by whom? Was it the hairstyle? The Dick Tracy character who sported such hirsuite embellishments? The internal combustion engine given the moniker due to it's headless design and valve configuration? Inquiring minds want to know...

Despite JPs creative guitar work and multitracking, I find a lot of their blues-based material tedious at times and Plant's screams too far over the top...My fave Zep stuff is like Over The Hills And Far Away and The Battle Of Evermore or maybe Kashmir...was that stuff "stolen' from someone, I sure as heck dunno'...nor do I really care...I love The Crunge...Is it a ripoff of JB or a parody or a foray into something else stylistically? "Has anybody seen the bridge?" is one of the best musical questions ever asked IMHO. Of course, you have to understand the question to appreciate it fully.

I mean if someone takes a phrase (musical or lyrical) and builds on it without any sort credit to the original, that's real bad, right? And yet for some reason others can blatantly sample things (again without full disclosure) stick it in a rap and somehow this becomes creativity or some other PC line of BS...

Homage?

jimHJJ(...humbug, say I...)

[MindGoneHaywire]

I'd be very surprised, G. And for a reason. The Chess family wasn't stupid. Those songs were copyrighted, which was one small way to make up for their common practice of underpaying their recording artists. Were the cover band's songs that you referred to copyrighted?

New X Factor in the discussion: did they have the money for the attorneys that Arc did? It's possible, though unlikely, that there could be a case where someone was as blatantly plagiaristic as LZ was...but we don't know about it due to either the songs being in the public domain, or the lack of ability of those who were stolen from to do something about it.

On the other hand, urban legends die hard, and in this day & age it's almost inconceivable that there are any examples that we don't know about. Everything's been researched to death. And RL's point is only good to the extent that the outrage the book & now the DJ guy is inspiring exists because the nature of the example shifts from when one is talking about ripping off non-copyrighted indigenous folk musics, and established, copyrighted compositions & lyrics. There are legalities here. Which, RL, if you read my post, you'll see are adhered to when it comes to the practice of making rap records that utilize samples. However, if you still wish to believe that rap music simply steals without giving proper credit, paying licensing fees, and receiving proper and legal clearances, you go right ahead. You are correct when it comes to unauthorized, underground material that few people ever hear due to the fact that nobody will distribute it. Because it's illegal.

One more point on the idea of LZ worship & not caring about those who inspired them: the AOR format was built on focus groups & whittled the playlists down to 250-500 songs over time. Why? Because, it is true, nobody gives a sh*t about, say, Willie Dixon. But in less than a generation, that format had determined that the listeners didn't give a sh*t about the Beatles, either, and, as I mentioned, that was in full effect by the 1970s. The guy who had a white act rapping over AC/DC samples in 1984 understood this, too, but that's why he did something to change it when he merged rap with Aerosmith, whose tune already incorporated aspects of rap meter. But that culture of LZ worship that I grew up in, so did he, and he better than anyone on the planet saw what could be done if that sensibility was merged with rap. But then our high school was the rare place where one would hear Rapper's Delight just as often as Stairway To Heaven.

Rubin had the vision, if not the talent. Portnoy had the talent, if not the vision. We all come from the same town. And it's not that difficult to remember how social lines were divided when it came to music, and, to make it slightly more complicated, racial lines as well. Hence the rock/disco tension that led to the race riots we had in the late 1970s.

The social lines drawn by taste in music don't seem any less silly now than they did then.

[GMichael]

Were the cover band's songs that you referred to copyrighted?.

I don't know. They were very small time even though they were very good. It's a shame they never made enough cash to move to the next level.



New X Factor in the discussion: did they have the money for the attorneys that Arc did?

I doubt it.


It's possible, though unlikely, that there could be a case where someone was as blatantly plagiaristic as LZ was...but we don't know about it due to either the songs being in the public domain, or the lack of ability of those who were stolen from to do something about it.



That's all I'm saying. Or was trying to. My posts are usually (oh heck, always) overly simple.

[Rich-n-Texas]

...we can always accuse every rocker for stealing concepts or melodies/lyrics from the synthesis of field hollers and Celtic music...boogity, boogity, boogity, boogity shoop...Robert Johnson supposedly stole stuff left and right, at least from what I've read...Do lyrics like "I wanna' be your backdoor man" reveal sinister thievery or is it simply use of an idiomatic slang expression? Is the Bo Diddly beat actually his? Was Buddy Holly a bad boy? Chuck Berry sued John Lennon on account of the first line in Come Together, should it have been a Lennon/McCartney composition or should there have been an asterisk saying that "here comes ol' flat top" etc. was the work of another? And what flat top was being referred to and by whom? Was it the hairstyle? The Dick Tracy character who sported such hirsuite embellishments? The internal combustion engine given the moniker due to it's headless design and valve configuration? Inquiring minds want to know...

Despite JPs creative guitar work and multitracking, I find a lot of their blues-based material tedious at times and Plant's screams too far over the top...My fave Zep stuff is like Over The Hills And Far Away and The Battle Of Evermore or maybe Kashmir...was that stuff "stolen' from someone, I sure as heck dunno'...nor do I really care...I love The Crunge...Is it a ripoff of JB or a parody or a foray into something else stylistically? "Has anybody seen the bridge?" is one of the best musical questions ever asked IMHO. Of course, you have to understand the question to appreciate it fully.

I mean if someone takes a phrase (musical or lyrical) and builds on it without any sort credit to the original, that's real bad, right? And yet for some reason others can blatantly sample things (again without full disclosure) stick it in a rap and somehow this becomes creativity or some other PC line of BS...

Homage?

jimHJJ(...humbug, say I...)
Extremely well said RL... As always, your messages, antidotes, brevity are a pleasure to behold.

Rich(really suckin up)-n-(were would AR be without it)Texas.

[MindGoneHaywire]

That's fine. My point remains that if there were examples that deserved equal notoriety, that it's almost inconceivable that they would not have been ferreted out by now. Now, at this point, I'm certainly content to let this die, and if you wish to cling to the notion that it's possible that another rock band out there did what LZ did just as much & just as blatantly & just as illegally, that's fine, I'll cling to mine that the odds of this being possible are beyond astronomical.

[GMichael]

That's fine. My point remains that if there were examples that deserved equal notoriety, that it's almost inconceivable that they would not have been ferreted out by now. Now, at this point, I'm certainly content to let this die, and if you wish to cling to the notion that it's possible that another rock band out there did what LZ did just as much & just as blatantly & just as illegally, that's fine, I'll cling to mine that the odds of this being possible are beyond astronomical.

OK, but I have yet a third choice. You can cling if you like. But I'll probably forget all about it till the next time it comes up.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Was it proven that what they did was actually illegal. I didn't read that in the Wikipedia article. "Out of court settlements" don't equate to illegalities do they?

Why is everybody now so ready to let this die?

[GMichael]

Was it proven that what they did was actually illegal. I didn't read that in the Wikipedia article. "Out of court settlements" don't equate to illegalities do they?

Why is everybody now so ready to let this die?

The horse looked dead. And I broke my bat.

[Rich-n-Texas]

You must've beat it too hard.

[Resident Loser]

...look...it's still moving...

I dunno' I listened to the audio link (and now I have to disinfect my ears to eliminate the Stern cooties) and once you get past Joan Baez squawks (might have to do it twice) I think there is enought diff in most of the examples to make a case for them being Led Zep songs...there are melody differences, and an argument could be made for them simply being poetry that was set to a somewhat different score, certainly way different arrangements...

Whatever legal questions might remain, whatever settlements, whether cash or writing credits may have been arrived at, there seems to be no admission of guilt and as pointed out in the broadcast, it might not have been Page's or Plant's fault or intent...rather that it might have been that of their management and is now Atlantic's responsibility...Add to that the fact that while writing credits may have been more appropriate to have been trad Arr by: Led Zep there may be some additional question re: whether some of the songs may have been public domain to begin with.

I think it was Robin Quivers who said, even if they are "covers" they are probably the best ones of the bunch...

jimHJJ(...all in all, strikes me as a lot of hype...)

[GMichael]

You must've beat it too hard.

That's just what my wife says.!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Public domain? Hmmm, that would sure throw a wrench in Swish's theory wouldn't it? Guess we'll just have to wait 'til next season I reckon.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Was it proven that what they did was actually illegal. I didn't read that in the Wikipedia article. "Out of court settlements" don't equate to illegalities do they?

Why is everybody now so ready to let this die?

Nice try, no dice. Yes, it was proven, and it was in the Wikipedia article: Led Zeppelin II used to withhold credit to Willie Dixon--you know, that guy you said you didn't give a f*ck about? A lack of an admission of guilt of course does not mean that an illegality has not in fact occurred.

Yes, it's an illegality to pass off someone else's copyrighted work as yr own. Any other sneaky questions you won't like the answers to?

[BradH]

I think there is enought diff in most of the examples to make a case for them being Led Zep songs...there are melody differences, and an argument could be made for them simply being poetry that was set to a somewhat different score, certainly way different arrangements...

I totally disagree with that. For those who haven't heard the clip, we're talking mostly about the first album here. Sure there are different arrangements but slight melody differences, the kind injected to many cover tunes by artists adding their own twist, and Page's guitar work is always more complex but Led Zeppelin I is largely a cover album, maybe the best ever made. However, I don't think that made Zeppelin's entire 12-year run an artistic "farce".


...it might not have been Page's or Plant's fault or intent...rather that it might have been that of their management and is now Atlantic's responsibility...

It might not have been their intent but it's still their fault and Atlantic bears responsibility too. I'm sure it was Grant's intention. If the decision had been left solely up to the band then proper credit might have been given. They did lots of covers on the road in the 68/69 period that never made it on the first lp and on those bootlegs from that time they often tell the audience whose song it is, sometimes even the ones that ended up on Zep I. (And I could've sworn Page said "Black Mountain Side" was not entirely his own when the Yardbirds were on the BBC but I'll have to give that a listen.) But, again, I don't think that absolves Page & Plant. And let's not forget Brian Wilson having to credit Chuck Berry as co-writer for "Surfin' U.S.A.".


>Where I differ with Jay is in rejecting something because it's technically complex.

You miss the point. I could lay out a laundry list of stuff you know I like that's plenty complex and you know it.

True enough but that doesn't extend to soloing or individual dexterity with the possible exception of, say, Django Reinhart or Stephan Grappelli. That's seems extreme to me. Which leads to...


Part of what some of us don't like about prog, though, is closely related to developments in music that came around at the same time as prog--fusion. And, for me, what works in jazz just doesn't work in rock.

Well, of course it doesn't work in rock. That's why they called it something else.

Man, I love me some fusion.


I wanna hear the Yes on Stern thing, Brad.

I thought I sent that. It's a riot. Anderson is like a salty old show-biz dog. I swear, Stern never gets one over on him, not once. Freakin' hilarious.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Nice try, no dice. Yes, it was proven, and it was in the Wikipedia article: Led Zeppelin II used to withhold credit to Willie Dixon--you know, that guy you said you didn't give a f*ck about? A lack of an admission of guilt of course does not mean that an illegality has not in fact occurred.

Yes, it's an illegality to pass off someone else's copyrighted work as yr own. Any other sneaky questions you won't like the answers to?
Sneaky? Sounds like you're taking this topic personally Haywire.

Copyright infringement is a crime right?
No one was convicted of a crime, right?
Anything after that is speculative, open to interpretation.

Now, at this point, I'm certainly content to let this die...
Good idea. Me too.

[ForeverAutumn]

Copyright infringement is a crime right?
No one was convicted of a crime, right?
Anything after that is speculative, open to interpretation.

That's faulty logic.

I murdered someone.
I wasn't convicted.
Therefore, that I murdered someone is speculative and open to interpretation.

I don't think so. That I wasn't convicted doesn't change the fact that I did it.

(I'm not suggesting, with this post, that LZ did or didn't do anything. I'm just pointing out the error in your argument)

[Swish]

Public domain? Hmmm, that would sure throw a wrench in Swish's theory wouldn't it? Guess we'll just have to wait 'til next season I reckon.

...and Resident Loser was incorrect regardless. Only music and lyrics published in the US before 1922 are considered in the public domain. PD songs may be used for profit-making without paying any royalties. If you create a new version or derivative of a public domain song, you can copyright your version and no one can use it without your permission. However, the song remains in the public domain, and anyone else can also make and copyright their own version of the same PD song.

That being said, PD has NOTHING to do with this anyway. Taking credit for songwriting that isn't your own is just plain wrong.

Swish

[Resident Loser]

Sneaky? Sounds like you're taking this topic personally Haywire.

...ya think? Hmmm...seems to be a recurring pattern don't it?...


That's faulty logic

I dunno'...there seems to me I've seen enough nolo contenderes with the explanation of "...while the matter is settled, there is no admission of guilt, nor is there assumed to be any inferred..." Just pay off and be done with it...quite simply an expedient...Lord knows there are many nuisance claims that large companies handle in this manner rather than go to court with the potential of protracted litigation...


...and Resident Loser was incorrect regardless...

Well to quote a line from Sugar Magnolia "...I ain't often right but I've never been wrong...", the speculation of that possibility was stated in the audio clip and I repeated it here for those who didn't take the time to listen to it in it's entirety...AND who is to say some of those songs weren't pieced together from, or had their origins in, older works that had been passed down only by performance? There's an awful lot of music runnin' through my head and if I happen to be noodlin' and come up with a melody or sequence of notes for a riff that may have been previously done by someone else does that mean I'm in trouble? If I get a known song in my head, change bits of the melody, take it out of a major key and inject some minors to give it a different feel and alter or update lyrics to make it more contemporary yet keep it's overall sentiment or intent, is that plagiarism?

I've heard some newer stuff, in keeping with the contemporary arts penchant for remakes and/or retools, wherein entire melodic sequences and chord changes seem to be lifted in toto from other songs and then comes the chorus and it's different...where do we go with that?

Simply put, a big chunk of the 50s and 60s relied on the C-Am-F-G chord sequence or the even simpler l-lV-V form and there are a finite group of notes and a finite number of sequences for them...It stands to reason some things are gonna' sound the same...I'm not attempting to say that these considerations are the be all and end all in the LZ case, but that rationale has to enter the picture and I think there are folks involved in this aspect of litigation that are conversant with that reality.

jimHJJ(...and if I hear Whole Lotta' Love one more time I'm gonna' scream...)

[ForeverAutumn]

I dunno'...there seems to me I've seen enough nolo contenderes with the explanation of "...while the matter is settled, there is no admission of guilt, nor is there assumed to be any inferred..." Just pay off and be done with it...quite simply an expedient...Lord knows there are many nuisance claims that large companies handle in this manner rather than go to court with the potential of protracted litigation...

So all those companies that plead 'no contest' and pay off their accusers to make them go away actually aren't guilty of anything? Whew! That's a relief.

I guess I can let my kids sleep at Michael Jackson's house again. :thumbsup:

[kexodusc]

So all those companies that plead 'no contest' and pay off their accusers to make them go away actually aren't guilty of anything? Whew! That's a relief.


Can't say all of them, but when I worked for Honda I know for a fact a large portion of our claims were cheaper to pay-off than go to court, risk bad reputation in a local market, and to get the ever-popular I'm-mad-at-Honda-because sites shut down.

It's getting really bad today. Stricter governance/accounting standards strongly pressure companies to disclose potential costs of various suites in their annual reports
I have little doubt that a large portion of settlements are just cost-minimization/risk management decisions. I don't know the exact figures, but I know there's enough discussion in my industry about this now where companies are just paying off claims to keep their loss expectations below pre-defined amounts, all for the purpose of a more favourable balance sheet.

Guilt is probably less a factor than ever in the decision to settle.
Of course, there's still plenty of guilt out there...

[ForeverAutumn]

I don't disagree with you or RL on what the reality of the situation is. Yes, there are lots of guilty parties who buy their way out of court. But that doesn't make them any less guilty.

Rich's argument seemed to be implying that guilt and conviction of guilt are synonymous.

Copyright infringement is a crime.
No-one was convicted of a crime.
Therefore, whether a crime took place is open to interpretation.

My point was simply that because no-one was convicted of the crime, does not mean that no crime was commited. Lots of guilty people walk free.

[nobody]

Reading through this makes me curious about how we judge music at all. Maybe it's just how it plays out on the page, but it sometime sounds like there's a bit too much over-intellectualizing and taking of positions rather than just taking a listen. Music always seems more emotional and visceral to me. I'm gonna like or dislike something based on how I react to it when I hear it, not based on whether it fits into some preordained definition of what I have decided good music should be.

I'm not about to dismiss out of hand whole genres of music because they don't fit into my theoretical framework of music appreciation.

Still don't like Zepplin, but it really has nothing to do with music theory...they just never grabbed me by the ears, although I don't mind hearing Rock 'n' Roll now and then; it sounds great on that Cadillac commercial.

[GMichael]

I'm against the whole royalties forever idea to begin with. If I do a job I get paid for it once. Not for years to come. If an artist writes a song and it makes money then they were paid. If someone else takes it and changes it and it makes more money, then great for them.

[Resident Loser]

I'm against the whole royalties forever idea to begin with. If I do a job I get paid for it once. Not for years to come. If an artist writes a song and it makes money then they were paid. If someone else takes it and changes it and it makes more money, then great for them.

...if it were your work, how would you feel about it then? I mean there is a bit of a difference between selling your time or product which are tangible items or producing an intellectual property...a very gray area. I recall back in HS we would go to a place in Manhattan to purchase scripts for the drama club...if their intended use was educational (as it always was) you simply paid for them as though they were books...If the intention was to do the ol' "hey kids, let's put on a show" (the reality) there were royalties/licensing fees that applied as you were going to do it to realize some monetary gain, even if the benefit was for the school or club or whatever...

Perhaps like patents they should be given a finite lifetime within which money is due and then afterwards only be acknowledged with a required attribution...

jimHJJ(...who knows?...)

[GMichael]

...if it were your work, how would you feel about it then? I mean there is a bit of a difference between selling your time or product which are tangible items or producing an intellectual property...a very gray area. I recall back in HS we would go to a place in Manhattan to purchase scripts for the drama club...if their intended use was educational (as it always was) you simply paid for them as though they were books...If the intention was to do the ol' "hey kids, let's put on a show" (the reality) there were royalties/licensing fees that applied as you were going to do it to realize some monetary gain, even if the benefit was for the school or club or whatever...

Perhaps like patents they should be given a finite lifetime within which money is due and then afterwards only be acknowledged with a required attribution...

jimHJJ(...who knows?...)

I negotiate contracts to lower pricing on products we bring in. I get paid the one time. But our Sales department and company makes extra money on every sale after that.

Maybe I should get a cut for every sale. Even if I retire I should keep making money from it. That's what these artists are getting.

[Resident Loser]

I negotiate contracts to lower pricing on products we bring in. I get paid the one time. But our Sales department and company makes extra money on every sale after that.

Maybe I should get a cut for every sale. Even if I retire I should keep making money from it. That's what these artists are getting.

...I'm ambivalent...Why tip in a restaurant? You do your job, you get paid...period...Unfortunately that's the wage structure similar to your sales reps...the get a base-pay (usually a low ball figure) plus tips or commissions...You should try to negotiate something in your contract to reflect your part in the company's bottom line, a bonus perhaps.

If we go to one of our 4 or 5 regular restaurants and get good service from a familiar member of the wait staff (and there's no reason I shouldn't get good service period) I tend to tip toward a 20% ceiling on the whole tab...It's all service dependent...If you remember I use Tabasco, pour a second cup of coffee without my asking, keep refilling my iced tea, that sorta' thing...but things tend to work on a downward sliding scale...sometimes it's 20% based on food less tax and drinks...sometimes it's 15% of the entire tab, etc. If I know it's a place where the tips are pooled, its automatically 15%...period...

jimHJJ(...these threads go all which ways...)

[Swish]

Well to quote a line from Sugar Magnolia "...I ain't often right but I've never been wrong...",jimHJJ(...and if I hear Whole Lotta' Love one more time I'm gonna' scream...)

They took the music of others that was published and used the songs for personal gain without getting permission and ended up paying for it. Justice was served. See the definition of 'Public Domain' one more time if you didn't read it thoroughly the first time. And I don't care about ideas running through your head or the collective heads of Led Zep. It's pretty much a done deal. They admitted it and gave credit on their recently released 'greatest hits' records, so that pretty much wraps it up.

Swih

[GMichael]

Just my POV. I do get a bonus. But just the one time. Never again after that. While people who had nothing to do with the contact keep making extra for years to come.

A music artist makes money on the CD sales, concerts, T-shirts, etc forever and ever. And if someone comes along and remakes their song so that it's completely different, they get paid yet again. Next thing you know I'll have to send them extra money every time their song gets stuck in my head playing over and over.

[Resident Loser]

They took the music of others that was published and used the songs for personal gain without getting permission and ended up paying for it. Justice was served. See the definition of 'Public Domain' one more time if you didn't read it thoroughly the first time. And I don't care about ideas running through your head or the collective heads of Led Zep. It's pretty much a done deal. They admitted it and gave credit on their recently released 'greatest hits' records, so that pretty much wraps it up.

Swih

...I didn't say it was my position...I repeated a theory or whatever that was stated in the audio clip...You said I was wrong before and you are repeating it again...It was postulated by someone else, I heard it and I repeated it here...so...I most certainly am not wrong in what I heard...I realize it gets convoluted, but it ain't that difficult...

As to what goes on in my or anyone else's head, try to delve into the abstract now and again...a "f'rinstance" ain't a done deal, however it could be cause for reasonable doubt legally...

And as I recall from the clip their entire catalog was sold to Atlantic who takes on both the assets AND liabilities...and if their label did through third-party agency collude to commit some sort of copyright infringement way back when, then it is fitting and proper that they now pay the price.

Again a nolo contendere or any form of consent decree, regardless of it's outcome is not generally considered an admission of guilt or impropriety...

jimHJJ(...and besides, who really gives a friggin' rat's @$$...)

[Swish]

Again a nolo contendere or any form of consent decree, regardless of it's outcome is not generally considered an admission of guilt or impropriety...

jimHJJ(...and besides, who really gives a friggin' rat's @$$...)

...that nolo contendere is basically an admission of guilt. In general, when you have no defense because you are guilty and can't weasel out of it, you cop that plea, usually because you're guilty as sin and the cops offered you a deal if you rolled over on somebody else. I have a very good friend who used to bust dopers all the time, and this was a very common ploy to get to someone higher up the food chain. According to him, it was the easiest way to get the big guys, and most of the low level dealers are eager to roll.

I didn't catch your drift in the prior post, so I stand corrected, but I'm really done with this topic, for better or for worse. One thing you have to admit is that it stirred up a lot of people on RR, and it was sorely needed. This place has been a morgue of late.

Swish

[3-LockBox]

Holy crap! I go away for a few days and a four page discussion pops up...oh well, what's that tell ya....

Just bought a new (old) ski boat and have been tooling around the lake for a few daze with the wife'n chirlins.

I still count myself as a major LZ fan. Yeah, I remember the rumors floatin around in the late '70s about how much Zep 'borrowed' from blues artists w/o giving credit. I read Hammer Of The Gods in the '80s. Then, in the suit happy '90s, LZ was successfully sued by the estate of Willie Dixon (and one other but can't remember who).

I agree with Brad - its just wierd that they would do that, being naive enough to think no one would say anything about it at all (well, they were nearly right). But let's set one thing straight; the they in "they" was Jimmy Page, who was already an experienced session man and jaded businessman in the rock world. JPJ was too, but he wasn't steering the ship from a business perspective, Page was. I don't think that Plant and Bonham, still being wet behind the ears, thought as much as they should have concerning things like credit and royalties, but Page shoulda known better. It wasn't as wierd as it was...well...dumb. And reprehensible. Page tried to skip out on the tab, and it finally tracked him down.

Page was a notorious skinflint anyway, and from what I've read, hard to do business with. He was thought of as a very shrewd business man, except for that royalty thing. Page was a penny pinching, teeny-bopper dating, devil worshiper from all accounts, but I'm still a fan of LZ.

But I also agree that 'borrowing' from other artists was a common practice among blues and jazz artists, so much so that we prolly never heard the best that the roots era had to offer because some artisits didn't want to be recorded, only to have rivals be able to copy their music. So does that make what LZ did OK? No. So is the fact that LZ did it too more of a travesty than blues artists who did it decades before them? Nope. Who they were, and the fact they got rich off of it is the main issue. So no, LZ is not a guilty pleasure of mine. I didn't really care for the first three albums anyway. But from LZ-zoso and on, they kicked ass, took names, and from 1970 on, never put out the same album twice in a row and there are very, very few artists who can say that, living or dead, and that is something that even the blues masters cannot say.

Led Zeppelin need not apologize to anyone, nor should anyone apologize for liking them. And since Jimmy Page hasn't played an interesting riff in nearly three decades, its a moot point. Maybe he really did turn into Allister Crowely.

[MindGoneHaywire]

That might be the best post you've ever written...so I'd say maybe you should go away more often, but I won't. And I wouldn't mean it anyway if I did.

[tentoze]

. This place has been a morgue of late.

Swish

Needs more twang.

[kexodusc]

. So no, LZ is not a guilty pleasure of mine. I didn't really care for the first three albums anyway. But from LZ-zoso and on, they kicked ass, took names, and from 1970 on, never put out the same album twice in a row and there are very, very few artists who can say that, living or dead, and that is something that even the blues masters cannot say.

Led Zeppelin need not apologize to anyone, nor should anyone apologize for liking them. And since Jimmy Page hasn't played an interesting riff in nearly three decades, its a moot point. Maybe he really did turn into Allister Crowely.
That was almost inspirational...
Oh hell yeah....I feel some Helix comin' on..

Gimme an "R"
"R"
Gimme an "O"
"O"....:5:

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm going to break my silence here just to say that 3-LockBox's even-handed summation deserves honors, and that IMO, would be a great point for putting this thread to bed. :thumbsup:

[BradH]

But let's set one thing straight; the they in "they" was Jimmy Page, who was already an experienced session man and jaded businessman in the rock world. JPJ was too, but he wasn't steering the ship from a business perspective, Page was.

No way, Grant steered the ship. They engaged in a lot of bad behavior knowing Grant would cover everything. Good point about Plant & Bonham being naive on that first album. But there's something about rock artists acting innocent and naive that just kills me. I remember when we won a contest to meet Supertramp in a hotel conference room after the show in 1983. There were about 20 people there. After the band wandered around a bit, they sat behind this table with a stack of autographed albums and Hodgson says, "Okay, come get your albums" like we're kids and he loves us or something. But these were signed album COVERS, there was no record inside. People were walking away in confusion and disgust and these guys are sitting right there like they're totally oblivious. Amazing. It was a stark example of how artists and celebs can be disconnected from a reality other than their own.

Anyway, great post, 3-Lock.

[3-LockBox]

No way, Grant steered the ship. They engaged in a lot of bad behavior knowing Grant would cover everything. Good point about Plant & Bonham being naive on that first album. But there's something about rock artists acting innocent and naive that just kills me. I remember when we won a contest to meet Supertramp in a hotel conference room after the show in 1983. There were about 20 people there. After the band wandered around a bit, they sat behind this table with a stack of autographed albums and Hodgson says, "Okay, come get your albums" like we're kids and he loves us or something. But these were signed album COVERS, there was no record inside. People were walking away in confusion and disgust and these guys are sitting right there like they're totally oblivious. Amazing. It was a stark example of how artists and celebs can be disconnected from a reality other than their own.

You're right that Grant was heavy handed as far as the business end went, but the first few Zep albums was Page's babies. I remember a passage in the HOTG book that Beck wouldn't speak to Page after LZIII came out, suggesting that Page had ripped off some of Beck's ideas, and other rock artists (The Who and The Stones) thought LZ were a bunch of wanks.

And yeah, I've known a few of those contest winners who felt less than winner-like after their encounter with a couple of completely detatched band members. Or better yet, bands who sent their roadies in their place. Let's face it, popular bands are/were used to people fawning on them 24-7, so the notion that they were going to freely give of themselves for anything prolly got under their skin. Now they really are, a bunch of wanks.

[BradH]

You're right that Grant was heavy handed as far as the business end went, but the first few Zep albums was Page's babies.

Artistically, yes. But the decision to forego crediting other songwriters was a business decision and that came under Grant's purview....and Atlantic's, frankly.

Beck was largely angry at Page because his own career was going down while Zep became huge using a blues guitar/vocals approach lifted from Beck & Rod Stewart while they were in The Jeff Beck Group. They're huge friends these days and have been since they were about 13, actually. Page got Beck the gig for the Yardbirds because Relf & Co originally wanted Page. Beck thanked Page by showing up on his doorstep with a Strat of some kind, it's the one recorded on Stairway...so there's a long history there. Then there's the whole Led Zeppelin name and the Hindenburg pic concocted by Keith Moon and John Entwistle when they wanted to leave The Who. Entwistle said Richard Cole was their limo driver. He became Zep's road manager and took the idea with him. And Townshend can say what he wants but "Naked Eye" and a couple of other riff-heavy Who songs from that post-Tommy period were markedly influenced by Zeppelin and he admitted it at the time.

[BradH]

Oh yeah, that Supertramp thing? Dude, they were calling those things "albums" and there was no record inside and they were acting like everything was normal. That was the disconnect.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I think you're thinking of this Tele...http://pyzeppelin.free.fr/photos/page/jim68_telecaster.jpg


http://www.rockindaddys.com/page.jpg

[3-LockBox]

Artistically, yes. But the decision to forego crediting other songwriters was a business decision and that came under Grant's purview....and Atlantic's, frankly.

No matter how you slice it, its a shameful blemish on an otherwise, legendary rock band. Anyone within earshot of the process during those days are culpible if you really get down to it.

Plant's vocals sort get on my nerves from those first three albums, so its hard for me to really love them anyway. Plant matured as a singer though, and to my recollection, became more influential in the creating process. I can still listen to just about album from LZ's canon, except those first three. Since I Been Lovin You is a stellar song from III, but I never found out if it was 'lifted' or not.



Oh yeah, that Supertramp thing? Dude, they were calling those things "albums" and there was no record inside and they were acting like everything was normal.

That was very cheap and sleasy. Did it change your outlook on the band?

[BradH]

That was very cheap and sleasy. Did it change your outlook on the band?

Not that much, I guess. It was more bizarre than anything. They were dazed and on the road and having to f*ck with this sponsor's contest thing after the show. A&M probably didn't want to ship the records because it wasn't their deal and the band just figured it was out of their hands, etc. etc. Lot of internal conflict in that band involving a wife/manager formula from hell so there's no telling. Tons of reasons to be self-absorbed. Next thing y'know they're giving away invisible albums and fans are staring at them from 4 feet away thinking "WTF?". Killer show, though. Very Genesis-like. Not a shy studio band at all.