More of Howard Stern busting Led Zeppelin.

[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.

[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.