# Stairway to heaven - Stolen ?



## G.E. (May 21, 2014)

So I just saw this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI46Nnv5VD0

Will this bull**** seriously stand in court ? Aside from being similar in style and feeling,there's no basis for a lawsuit in my opinion.


----------



## The Darris (May 21, 2014)

Well, so much for writing anything that opens with a Perfect 5th interval. My life is now f**ked.


----------



## TGV (May 21, 2014)

45 years after writing it? I smell a rat.


----------



## impressions (May 21, 2014)

the dear led zepplin have copied alot more than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiY4ciKFQA


----------



## snowleopard (May 23, 2014)

Stolen? As in plagiarism? I say BS.

Inspired by? I say yes. It would have been nice if LZ had openly thanked Randy California, or better yet, directly to his face before he passed away, for inspiring them. Along with a heap of blues acts from days of yonder, and many more. Maybe they did. But that's all the further it needed to ever go. To say that they ripped him off isn't what I hear. No way. 

Michael Jackson admitted directly to Darryl Hall's face that he flatly ripped off the bassline for Billy Jean from I Can't Go For That. Listen for yourself, they're almost identical. What was Hall's reply? To not worry about it. That he had done the same, everyone had. 

This has gone on throughout music history, and will continue to go on. Very little music is 100% original and without any exterior input or inspiration. We could create a huge list of songs that "sounds like". The thread would extend pages on end.


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 26, 2014)

The idea that the opening to stairway to heaven was original whether it was Led Zeppelin or the other guy is silly. It's such an obvious, easy chord progression that I imagine thousands upon thousands of composes before and after StH of all abilities at some point play the same chords. I know I was writing dirges like that on the guitar when I was 15 and I'd never even listened to them. The 'originality' would only come from the actual treatment of it. You hear the same chords over and over in pop, rock and modern epic style film music that I would feel these types of cases must be impossible to judge.


----------



## Udo (May 26, 2014)

Here's an interesting article on the subject and related issues: http://tinyurl.com/nyrme4n


----------



## impressions (May 27, 2014)

if it was just one song, okay. but they stole so many riffs I thought were awesome on their own, which they are-only they haven't invented it. some poor black artist did, which had no means, or knowledge to sue their asses off. 
they are not the only band in the world who did that, deep purple also(the famous smoke on the water sounds too similar to astruid gilberto's song), and there are many other un-original bands who made millions over the back of the guys who really did the hard work by finding a real composition.

the nest thing those un-original bands job was getting a good marketer and a solid music producer. the rest is history.

fuck them, I stopped enjoying led zepplin after hearing the originals.

let me put it this way, if it was your shit stolen you would be screaming for justice, so spare me the fanboy bullshit.
I can't believe the hypocrisy here sometimes.


----------



## re-peat (May 27, 2014)

impressions @ Tue May 27 said:


> (...) fuck them, I stopped enjoying led zepplin after hearing the originals.
> let me put it this way, if it was your shit stolen you would be screaming for justice, so spare me the fanboy bullshit.
> I can't believe the hypocrisy here sometimes.


That so-called plagiarism montage you linked to above must be one the most idiotic and musically ignorant things ever assembled (and so are you, I’m afraid, for relying on it to make your point) since several of those tracks are actual covers, _credited as such_. Other than that, plenty of Led Zeppelin’s early material is firmly routed in the blues and/or based on traditional folk songs and to insist on plagiarism in those genres of music is, again, sign of utter idiocy and musical imbecilty.
So, if there’s anyone here dripping with bullshit, it’s you.

Sure, Page was a bit of a magpie — as is every good musician, I would think —, but it’s what he did with whatever he found, soaked up and what inspired him that matters, not the degree to which the original material may or may not be recognized in his assimilation.

I hate these petty discussions about plagiarism, I really do. They’re invariably fuelled by frustrated a-musical nobody’s who make it their pathetic mission in life to slander authentic greatness with their narrow-minded, braincell-deficient incapability to grasp what really matters in music.

(For the record, I’m not really a Led Zeppelin fan. I like some of their stuff very much, especially on their first few albums, and I think “Kashmir” has, apart from the flanging, a sensationally great intro, but it’s not one of my favourite bands.)

_


----------



## AC986 (May 27, 2014)

Jimmy Page was a really good session musician and would have a lot of almost subliminal styles locked away in his head. Plant was very into black blues music.

I used really enjoy going to watch them play when they first started.


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 28, 2014)

Some people on here really need to learn some tact. There is a rotten sense of entitlement of some on here to not just talk down to people but to actively insult them and humiliate them publicly that makes one just not bother contributing to threads. Such arrogance, it's sad really. You may think you command respect with such behaviour but I just think it's pathetic.


----------



## KEnK (May 28, 2014)

My 2¢-

I was about 13 when LZ 1 came out-
As I came from a musical family I was already listening to a lot of music by that time.

It's really hard to see it now, 
but that album had a totally new sound and upped the production ante quite a bit too.

Those 2 blues songs were entirely unique and weird.
There was nothing like the wild parts of Dazed and Confused or How Many More Times.
Not even "3rd Stone from the Sun" is like that.

As to the plagiarism stuff- most of the problems were Plant's lyric lifting.
All the riffs Page has been accused of stealing were "stolen" by everybody else.
Most Blues licks are generally thought of as public domain, even by Blues Artists.
Page unquestionably did his own thing w/ every classic riff he used.

The Stairway to Heaven thing, sure Page probably heard the Spirit tune-
But it is a very basic harmonic device.
Plus the 2 songs are not at all alike except for this intro bit.

I thought it was common and accepted practice that 
"Chord Progressions" are not subject to copyright.
Melody and Lyrics are what you can own- Not chord progressions.

Ever hear any trailer music?

k


----------



## impressions (May 29, 2014)

re-peat @ Tue May 27 said:


> That so-called plagiarism montage you linked to above must be one the most idiotic and musically ignorant things ever assembled (and so are you, I’m afraid, for relying on it to make your point) since several of those tracks are actual covers, _credited as such_. Other than that, plenty of Led Zeppelin’s early material is firmly routed in the blues and/or based on traditional folk songs and to insist on plagiarism in those genres of music is, again, sign of utter idiocy and musical imbecilty.
> So, if there’s anyone here dripping with bullshit, it’s you.


oh hello to you too troll. "been a long time(since i didnt rocknroll)"

have you ever thought taking a career inbeing an asshole? I'll vote for you.

this is the video I wanted to show by the way-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjPAEPFaxoM

so you are saying all of these are covers? which of course led zepplin payed the artists its royalties? then prove it(of course you wont, read above to know why).
traditional folk songs? those were blues artists which wrote the songs about 10 years before led zepplin released them. as far as I know the IP rights are almost 90 years. 25 years is for patents. so its not some mozart ripoff. 



> I hate these petty discussions about plagiarism, I really do. They’re invariably fuelled by frustrated a-musical nobody’s who make it their pathetic mission in life to slander authentic greatness with their narrow-minded, braincell-deficient incapability to grasp what really matters in music.
> 
> _



and i really hate an egotistic troll who thinks he can dictate to everyone what is right. if you really hate it then why do you participate? get a life yourself, "authentic greatness"?? that's bullshit and you know it.
YOU said it yourself about how "authentic" they were:


> ....several of those tracks are actual covers...Led Zeppelin’s early material is firmly routed in the blues and/or based on traditional folk songs




so what does matter in music oh great master? please enlighten us, the great yoda, so we can all learn.

and finally something dedicated just for you piet, however great your musical skills. you suck:


aaronnt1 @ Wed May 28 said:


> Some people on here really need to learn some tact. There is a rotten sense of entitlement of some on here to not just talk down to people but to actively insult them and humiliate them publicly that makes one just not bother contributing to threads. Such arrogance, it's sad really. You may think you command respect with such behaviour but I just think it's pathetic.


----------



## AC986 (May 29, 2014)

What's up Ariel? You sound like you've overdosed on Esther and Abi Ofarim and You da Lady.

You need to to have been around at the time to understand the likes of Led Zeppelin. Very good group and a unique sound. Lots of rock bands at the time that made it big all had very unique sounds. And could all play.


----------



## impressions (May 29, 2014)

I actually like led zepplin. they are a good band, its too bad they stole, but what's really too bad is the discussions here that can't maintain without going to personal insults.


----------



## AC986 (May 29, 2014)

There's a difference between theft and derivation. Everyone writes derivative music. Or at least they do if they want to make money. All music is basically derivative but very rarely stolen.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 29, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu May 29 said:


> There's a difference between theft and derivation. Everyone writes derivative music. Or at least they do if they want to make money. All music is basically derivative but very rarely stolen.




Although George Harrison....well. We loved George and we know it was uninentional.


----------



## impressions (May 29, 2014)

the dear john lenon-
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... +interview


----------



## re-peat (May 29, 2014)

impressions @ Thu May 29 said:


> I actually like led zepplin.


No, you don’t. At some point you seem to have discovered that Jimmy Page didn’t invent the blues all by himself, and that was such a big shock and offensive disappointment to you that you decided to think of Page from then on as no more than a thief and an exploiter of poor black artists, and you completely failed to see how Page and his band assimilated their influences and created their own musical voice out of it. 
Apart from being quite stupid and unmusical, it also shows a degree of ignorance that can’t be a part of any genuine love for music.

If, as you claim, you ever *really* did have an ounce of true love for Led Zeppelin’s music, you'd know about their musical history and context, and you'd never reduce some of their achievement to vulgar thievery. And instead, you would have marvelled at the many ways in which Page, just like Clapton, Winwood, Mayall, Burdon, Green, Richards, Davies and Beck did, turned the blues into a powerful ingredient of the musical language that best expressed their talent, vision and individuality, and did so in a way that has brought, and still brings, profound musical (and social) joy to entire generations of people, the world over.

Most of the ‘original’ black blues artists are, in actual fact, sincerely and immensely grateful to that generation of British musicians, for showing so much enthusiam, love and respect for the blues (love and respect which they barely, if ever, got in their own country prior to the “First British Invasion”). In fact, many of your “poor black artists” have turned into “rich black artists” ONLY thanks to the likes of Page, Green, Clapton, Richards and Beck, and if blues music is what it is today — and has been what it has been for the past 50 years: a vibrant global scene of exciting musical activity and a major influence on all popular music —, it is again thanks in no small measure to those British artists.
If these British artists are all the opportunistic thieves which you say they are, how do you explain the fact that they are so frequently invited by the original black artists (from which they ‘stole’, according to you) to perform and record together? Why is that? Gratitude, intelligence, sincere mutual respect and a passion for music. That’s why. All things which you appear to be very much without, judging by your childish accusations.

Despite Lennon’s “Come Together" bearing more than a passing resemblance to Chuck Berry’s “You Can’t Catch Me” — both songs being at certain points virtually identical — I don’t think any less of that song and I've always considered it a wholly original ‘Lennon’ masterpiece, even if its creative trigger was sourced from a different writer. You, on the other hand, probably fail to recognize Lennon’s unique greatness in that song and also refuse (or are unable to) to appreciate how he transformed borrowed material into a expression that can only be called singularly his, obsessed as you are with the fact that he started off with an idea that wasn’t originally his.

It’s your right to think like that of course. It’s my right, I believe, and even my (or someone else’s) duty, to go against it. And rather firmly too.
(I’ve just had a quick listen to a few tracks on your website, by the way. You are not exactly above 'borrowing' several stylings and ideas from various people and cultures yourself, are you?)

_


----------



## dpasdernick (May 29, 2014)

Led Zeppelin were f*cking great. The Rain Song? Fawgedaboutit... that's f*cking music. Stairway, Black Dog, No Quarter... on and on... they made better music and bigger careers than most will even dream about.


----------



## AC986 (May 30, 2014)

dpasdernick @ Thu May 29 said:


> Led Zeppelin were f*cking great. The Rain Song? Fawgedaboutit... that's f*cking music. Stairway, Black Dog, No Quarter... on and on... they made better music and bigger careers than most will even dream about.



Haha! Yeah, John Bonham didn't play drums. He fucking _assaulted_ them.

Black Dog. New York.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVHMrO-z0Og

Although this is my favourite track they ever did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW5ZLyY9w0Y


----------



## AC986 (May 30, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu May 29 said:


> Most of the ‘original’ black blues artists are, in actual fact, sincerely and immensely grateful to that generation of British musicians, for showing so much enthusiam, love and respect for the blues (love and respect which they barely, if ever, got in their own country prior to the “First British Invasion”).
> _



That's very true. I remember when John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers came and played at our school one afternoon. After the show there was a lot of talk involved as above.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 30, 2014)

I don't know about you all, but when I play blues lead guitar, all of my licks are 100% original. No two notes that I play back to back have every been played before by any other musician. Same with my 12-bar blues chord structures. They're all 100% original - especially my completely unique, yet purely familiar blues, 5-1 turnarounds.
~o)


----------



## germancomponist (May 30, 2014)




----------



## impressions (May 31, 2014)

> it also shows a degree of ignorance that can’t be a part of any genuine love for music.



no, it shows your ignorance. quite firmly.

please swallow(and hopefully choke) those blatant examples from wiki-

" On Led Zeppelin's album Led Zeppelin II (1969), parts of the song "Bring It On Home" were copied from Sonny Boy Williamson's 1963 recording of "Bring It On Home," written by Willie Dixon. On the same album, "The Lemon Song" included an adaptation of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor." In 1972, Arc Music, the publishing arm of Chess Records, brought a lawsuit against Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Bring It On Home" and "The Lemon Song"; the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Led Zeppelin's song "Whole Lotta Love" contained lyrics that were derivative of Willie Dixon's 1962 song "You Need Love." In 1985, Dixon filed a copyright infringement suit, resulting in an out-of-court settlement. Later pressings of Led Zeppelin II credit Dixon as co-writer.[18]

Led Zeppelin also paid a settlement to the publisher of Ritchie Valens' song "Ooh! My Head" over "Boogie with Stu" (from their album Physical Graffiti) which borrowed heavily from Valens' song.[19]
"

the john lennon case if you ever think highly of frank zappa, and I know you do. mr lennon simply stole a song that was zappa's.
its called "king kong". lennon twisted it to its own liking and never negotiated zappa about it. he even changed the name to "jamrag" in its own album when he released it. its all in the interview in the link i've put above, which you didn't even bother to look because you think you know everything about anyone, and about music in particular. or about me. which you dont.

now, about my liking of zepplin, I grew on their music, took out pages solo's and riffs, even taught them to my students later on as a teacher. I've discovered about plagiarism in music(which is very frequent) in a workshop on blues i did for my students. blues is a style which i very much like(hendrix, clapton and my favourite stevie ray vaughn which I even giged with his tunes).
never did i say that soloing on blues is theft from other artists, I was talking about songs and main riffs which are considered by anyone's term as theft, hence the lawsuits against LZ were quited down by large sums of money. which i'm sure is much less thatn the royalties the artists should have received.

those rich black artists haven't got any royalties until the lawsuit, you can be sure of a lot more cases like this which we never heard of because those "rich black artists" didnt have money for lawyer.



> I’ve just had a quick listen to a few tracks on your website, by the way. You are not exactly above 'borrowing' several stylings and ideas from various people and cultures yourself, are you?)



no i'm not, but i dont think youll find a stolen song in my music. which LZ and lots of other famous artists did. influences are fine., JW tributes are great, even though not so subtle as i wished they were. there is no such thing is pure originality but there is such thing as plagiarism in music, not the blues one. led zepplin did rock music influenced by blues. and they could have done very well without those examples. btw john bonham was an insane drummer with an amazing time feel. i can appreciate them as a magnificent rock band which sounded really good together. but they pissed me off. and you piss me off too with your all knowing tone ego. which is apparently unjustified.


----------



## germancomponist (May 31, 2014)

What a thread!

Interesting: Last week I found an old layout what I had produced with a Roland XP 50. I asked Hannes if this is my own composition or if it existed before. 

Please listen and tell me: Am I the composer or did I copy ...: https://app.box.com/s/sgqg0e4i1mk6q35bdzcx

(Please have in mind that this is only a midi catching idea recording.....)


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 31, 2014)

germancomponist @ Sat 31 May said:


> What a thread!
> 
> Interesting: Last week I found an old layout what I had produced with a Roland XP 50. I asked Hannes if this is my own composition or if it existed before.
> 
> ...



Like the Stairway to Heaven intro, this chord progression is so obvious and is what I'd consider a cliche. It has been so done to death that you could probably walk into HMV, grab a random CD and it will probably have those chords or similar on it! I wouldn't say you stole it at all, you're just offering a different treatment of an extremely common set of chords. These are the types of chord progressions I'd actively stay away from.


----------



## re-peat (May 31, 2014)

impressions @ Sat May 31 said:


> > (...) please swallow (and hopefully choke) those blatant examples from wiki (...)


I know all that. Doesn’t make one bit of difference. You have to ask yourself, what defines Led Zeppelin most: the fact that, on a couple of occasions, they were perhaps a bit too careless or misguided when adapting the love and enthusiam for their musical heroes — and thus ended up with a couple of musical moments and fragments of lyrics which bring a smile to the faces of laywers and of those who spend their days childishly searching for this sort of stuff instead of listening to the music —, or the fact that they left behind a unique and immensely influential body of work that hundreds of thousands of music lovers, spanning several generations, simply can’t live without.

Same with Lennon. If you want (and if you are of that sort of narrow-minded disposition), you can easily turn his work inside out, tear it apart and reveal all the sources where he got his ideas from (the “King Kong” lift is actually one of the more trivial examples). And then what? Does that information make him and his legacy any less significant? You seem to think that it does, I absolutely don’t. Because I’m of the opinion that anything that Lennon touched, he turned into a pure Lennonism, even if some of it got barely Lennonized in the process. And besides, the stunning originality which he gave us, is far, far, far greater than the non-originality which he assimilated. Not to mention the fact that an artist, any artist, needs a dosage of assimilation, a certain amount of outside input, in order to be who he/she was meant to be.
Is the fact that the writing of some of his songs was kick-started by ideas which weren’t entirely his, relevant in view of what he left behind? Or is he far more correctly and justly defined by saying that he is a key figure in the history of music, the author and/or co-author of some of the greatest and most-loved songs of all time (and, though having less direct bearing on the matter in hand, a rather important voice during one of the most serious socio-cultural changes in recent history as well)?

Lennon would never and could never have been Lennon — the icon as I described him in the previous sentence — if he didn't use and borrow the ideas which he used and borrowed. Because out of all that appeared Lennon. If Lennon had been forced to rely solely on his own powers of invention, and been forced to not give in to any desire to incorporate outside ideas into his work, he'd be a far less interesting figure. As would Page. And if that offends you, too bad. Me, I'm grateful that they did what they did, otherwise we'd be without them. 

Zappa, by the way, was a bit of sponge himself. Just like Ellington. When either of them heard any of their band members come up with musical ideas that they considered useful, they didn’t hesitate to claim and incorporate these ideas into some piece or other. Now, do we accuse them of stealing — I assume you would — or are we thankful that they were able to spot and capture a good idea (which other people would have just let evaporate into thin air) and make a great piece of music out of it?

Is the achievement of Williams any less because a few of his motifs reveal what he was listening (or asked to listen) to at the time? Does Zimmer stop being the towering figure in contemporary scoring which he is, because Nino Rota makes a rather recognizeable appearance in “Matchstick Men”? 

I really do not, and never will, understand what sort of satisfaction you get out of establishing — in the most unmusical and small-natured of manners, I find — that great artists, people who gave and give the world the best of themselves, year after year, and who have flooded and keep flooding our planet with beautiful/important/life-enhancing music, occasionaly rely on a raw idea from someone else when they feel that that is the best way to say what they need to say at that given moment. Honestly, I find your accusations — or anyone else’s that sound alike — deeply wrong, indecent, ungrateful and undescribably stupid.

I hear Hanson in “E.T” as well. But I hear above all, and a lot more, Williams. And it’s the Williams-element (even in the way in which he adapts Hanson) that makes this music the treasure which it is. And even if Rota can’t be ignored in the music for “Matchstick Men”, not even in those cues which aren’t (partially) credited to him, it’s before all else Zimmer’s unique talent, craft and instinct that make this music as enjoyable and effective as it is, Rota being merely one of the ingredients that Zimmer decided to cook with at the time. The resulting dish, however, is very much and entirely Zimmer’s.

Rossini is very much present in Stravinsky’s “Jeu De Cartes” — in style, in spirit, and even, quite literally, in several melodic ideas — and yet the work is 100% unmistakeable Stravinskian. Now, some people, not unlike yourself, stumble and fall over the fact that they hear distinct echoes of Rossini in this music and call Stravinsky a thief, other people however — and, in my view, the more intelligent and musically insightful ones — admire the inspiration with which Stravinsky adapts, transforms and Stravinskyfies the Rossini-ingredient to arrive at yet another masterpiece of rare and sparkling musical creativity.

Every serious music lover can hear the blues and folk originals in Led Zeppelin. And even if some of it ended up unchanged in their songs, it doesn’t spoil the Led Zeppelin experience for us. Not in the least. On the contrary, I would say: it highlights, for me anyway, this extra, rather fascinating idea of music being a never-ending continuum across the ages and the continents: old talent inspiring new talent, previous generations reincarnating in today’s generations, people discovering the roots of the music that is so important to them and using it, or transforming it to create something fresh and alive which then becomes important and meaningful to all of us ..
I believe there is actually more to enjoy in Led Zeppelin when you know where they fed musically. And the fact that some of that digestion has come to the surface in a few songs, is no cause for disappointment to me at all. Even if they were drowning in copyright lawsuits, even if their entire catalogue was tainted with doubt as to its originality, I still would see no reason whatsoever to lower my respect and admiration for the band by even the smallest amount. Because they simply produced too many hours of bloody fantastic and 100% original Led Zeppelin music and did too many unforgettable 100% pure Led Zeppelin concerts for such a reaction to ever feel even fractionally right.

It might seem that I’m willing to defend all cases of plagiarism or ripping off of ideas. Certainly not. Whenever someone of mediocre talent, or someone who is in short supply of ideas him- or herself, decides to aim for quick and easy profit by lazily using ideas from somebody else, I’ll be as firm in my condemnation as the next person. But when an artist of unique and undisputable greatness happens, on occasion, to sail a little bit too close for legal comfort to his influences/inspirations, there’s not a fibre in my brain that would ever make me want to use the word ‘theft’.

_


----------



## impressions (Jun 1, 2014)

I am not sure you are reading my posts at all.
you are confusing between influences of genres and pure rip offs from artists who deserve credit-at the least(which zappa didn't get) and royalties(LZ??). which is theft.

those amazingly great artists(which were also just abit of thieves on the way) shows what kind of artistic integrity, they didn't have.
they might have great musical talents, but too bad they couldn't hold themselves to keep at it, instead of stealing from someone, if it was 1 case, like lennon, I could slide, but there were other cases besides those 4, which are harder to prove. you could tell if someone is doing a tribute or he is simply stealing a good composition for his own selfish needs. at least I think I can tell. steve ray vaughn's rude mood is influenced by hopkins "sky hop" but its not a ripoff, as an example. whole lotta love is a ripoff, at least they could change the lyrics.



> I really do not, and never will, understand what sort of satisfaction you get out of establishing — in the most unmusical and small-natured of manners, I find — that great artists, people who gave and give the world the best of themselves, year after year, and who have flooded and keep flooding our planet with beautiful/important/life-enhancing music, occasionaly rely on a raw idea from someone else when they feel that that is the best way to say what they need to say at that given moment. Honestly, I find your accusations — or anyone else’s that sound alike — deeply wrong, indecent, ungrateful and undescribably stupid.



I'm ungrateful? not them, right.

satisfaction? disappointment is what i feel. but seriously, I don't think you can tell that difference between influence or giving a tribute to a genre or a composer and stealing. in your opinion, theft is the same as influence.
you think it is stupid to be pissed off by this. I think its stupid you don't care about artistic integrity. you simply count the % which they contributed vs theft, and call them winners when the odds are in their favour. they already made their history, I just don't want a part of it anymore because its somewhat tainted and disgusting where art should be as pure as possible. I can't listen to wagner for the same reasons, because of his affiliation with the nazis. you can call me stupid or whatever, I don't expect you to understand. you are too self indulged in yourself and your own opinion to see anything else.



> Zappa, by the way, was a bit of sponge himself,


zappa, didn't rip off artists. he used the influence or mimicked songs to make fun of them, like he always did. if you say that, you can't tell the difference.



> they were perhaps a bit too careless or misguided when adapting the love and enthusiam for their musical heroes



and you are making excuses for them. "misguided"? do you really think they didn't know better? seriously? then you are a fool. with the battery of lawyers they had, they probably gave them specific instructions from who to steal and from who to not steal.

and that is the worst part of what you said-


> Whenever someone of mediocre talent, or someone who is in short supply of ideas him- or herself, decides to aim for quick and easy profit by lazily using ideas from somebody else, I’ll be as firm in my condemnation as the next person.



so if someone with a great musical talent who steals ideas and decides to make a profit out of it-its ok? why did you have to put it that way at all? its like the fact that he has less talent gives you the right to shoot him down. but when its someone famous its more ok? if someone with the immense talent of lennon or LZ, steals in such obvious way, I get appalled by it. especially after growing on their music. if you already got that gift, that fame, why do you need to steal? i am even willing to forgive if they admit it, but they didn't. screw them. that's my opinion about the whole stealing thing.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 1, 2014)

I was in a Seattle coffee shop last week and the Bowie song, "Under Pressure" came on. You know, starting with the bassline: 1-1-1-1-1-1-5...

And the tattoo'd girl was like, "WTF? That's not Vanilla Ice." 

And so it goes...


----------



## re-peat (Jun 1, 2014)

impressions @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> I am not sure you are reading my posts at all. (...)


I read them alright. With mounting sadness and disbelief over such narrow-minded outlook and choir-boy hypocrisy.

I find it perplexing that: (1) your views on artistic integrity are so utterly simplistic, (2) you seek evil-doing where there is none, and (3) you fail to see the gift of greatness, blinded as you are by what you perceive as the impurity of its creation.

Artistic integrity is, first and foremost, about being who you are supposed to be. It’s about realizing your potential to the fullest, and knowing how to do that, and being fully committed to do it. And if that involves, at certain stages during that development, the soaking up of material which may not be technically yours, then that’s how it’s gotta be. All through the ages, great artists — writers, painters, composers, architects, scientists, …. — have done that. If they hadn’t, they would never have been as great and important as they turned to be. 
If your art requires you to be somewhat alienating to the people around you, or to isolate yourself from the world, or to neglect your children, or be a self-centered dictatorial asshole or whatever, than that is what takes. And you do it. Because you have to. (Not suggesting that it always needs to be as unpleasant as all that, but if it does, it does.)
It may not be sweet, it won’t win you a medal for nicest person of the year, your loved ones may leave, tears might be shed, pain will be caused, suitcases may need to be packed, but there’s no other way: you have to be who you have to be. That is artistic integrity. Taking up the responsibility, and making the sacrifice of sitting out out the life-time sentence that your talent condemned you to.

Of course those people know when they’re appropriating material that isn’t theirs. But they don’t really care. They do what they have to do. They only care about one thing: creating what they feel they were put on this earth to create, no matter what it takes, no matter whose name is on the bricks that they use to build their art with.

Having said all that, I’m not even sure if all this heavy-handed artistic self-awareness was ever much on the mind of someone like Jimmy Page. Self-consciously, I mean. The way I see it, he simply loves blues and folk music and during the earlier stages of his development as a writer, some of that love and admiration did leave a few traces in his work which narrow-minded dwarfs like yourself are apparently deeply offended by. 
But as far as I know, everything got settled over time, credits have been given were credit is due, and all the while Jimmy Page simply continued with steering his band into giving us some of most highly acclaimed rock music ever produced. And that is, ultimately, the only thing that matters.
Now, if you feel that that gift needs to be questioned and tarnished by digging up all these niggling details about where the band may have found some of their ideas, you go ahead, don’t let me stop you, but I find it very sad, childish and stupid.

About Zappa not ripping off other artists: you might want to reconsider that, after reading some interviews with the people who worked with him. But again, I am not bothered in the least by any of that. Zappa, to me, remains on of the greatest composers of all time, and he did whatever he felt needed doing in order to achieve his goals. Even if some of his musicians can now point to certain ideas in his work and rightfully claim them as their own.
I mean, what does it matter that some idea in some song is not entirely Zappa’s own. What bearing does that have on the magnitude of his achievement? None whatsoever. It’s the total body of work that counts, and that total body of work can have only one true signature: Zappa’s.

George Harrison used a few lines from James Taylor to get the writing of “Something” going, with some of those words still lingering in the finished lyric. I suppose you will deplore what you consider a complete lack of artistic integrity and are repelled by what you see as theft, I simply enjoy and am grateful for the fact that a rather remarkable song got written.

But I will agree that the distinction between opportunistic theft and creative appropriation is not always clear-cut. It’s not always obvious to condemn one instance as ‘stealing’ and excuse another as artistic self-development. Even so, when in the presence of greatness — and most of the names mentioned in this thread do very much qualify, I believe — I’m much more inclined to respond with positives such as gratitude, awe, joy and complete respect, than with your small-minded, petty negatives which speak of theft, lack of integrity and questionnable morals.

_


----------



## rayinstirling (Jun 1, 2014)

Could it be composing is over-rated?
Can any of us here enjoy a piece of music or a song without dissecting?
I think performance is more important, whether in the studio or on stage.
It's down to what you do with the material you've got. Compliment, improve or murder?


----------



## impressions (Jun 1, 2014)

> Of course those people know when they’re appropriating material that isn’t theirs. But they don’t really care. They do what they have to do. They only care about one thing: creating what they feel they were put on this earth to create, no matter what it takes, no matter whose name is on the bricks that they use to build their art with.



in other words, you're saying that if they had to steal because it "felt right with their artistic integrity" of being thieves, or assholes, then its perfect. it is their mission in life to create music even if it means stealing.
is that how you define artistic integrity? its sounds worse than stealing. like adding a crime after committing it.

you are justifying that with so much ease, like you've never composed. like you wouldn't mind someone stealing from you in the name of progress. if you composed a stupid little tune, which someone later was inspired by it and created a hit, wouldn't you want a share from it? I'm talking about that. not about influences, even though you keep getting back there. so you and your fans can stop all that talk about hearing a similar riff. 

if you are not offended by that, fine. I do. you want to be fussy about it, go ahead. I do, because i know how much effort and blood it takes to come up with a real composition, which doesn't sound like another genetic replication of everything else. I get offended by someone who takes that work and claims it his own. I don't care if he is the next michael jackson. that's my narrow minded opinion. its wrong, its tasteless, and it shows lack of awareness and respect. it seems, in your opinion, moral isn't even an issue here.

"everything was settled", because they had lawyers, but what about those who didn't have money to launch a lawsuit? the history of music is full of theft. influence is ok-its even crucial obviously. plagiarism- isn't cool. you won't convince me otherwise. 



> I find it perplexing that: (1) your views on artistic integrity are so utterly simplistic, (2) you seek evil-doing where there is none, and (3) you fail to see the gift of greatness, blinded as you are by what you perceive as the impurity of its creation.



and I find your views(1) on any definition of integrity as valid. in your opinion there is no such thing as morality in music. all in the name of progress. it reminds me alot of native americans. (2) can't even tell where there are evil doings even if they are brought to you as proof. (3) can't tell when a buddying musician is being an asshole to his friends, both in this discussion and the content of it.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 1, 2014)

I fear your argumentation is slowly desintegrating into rather incomprehensible ramblings, Impressions. I sort of still get the main points, and I can also see that your emotion about all of this runs deep and high and all over the place (and is no doubt entirely sincere), but I fail to see where exactly the Native Americans come into this, or in what sense the 'asshole buddying musican' serves your point, or how your assumption — cause it is no more than that — that there must also have been several cases where "people didn't have any money to start a lawsuit" (I would have thought that capable lawyers, especially the ones who are certain of their case, would easily find a way around that), lends any weight to what you're trying to get across.

Anyway.

The difference between you and me is, that you bring music down to a level where the originality of an idea matters. I call that the insecurity and paranoia of mediocrity: attaching importance and merit to originality itself. I don't do that. I'm not even interested in that. Of all that music has to offer, the originality of its naked ideas ranks lowest on my list of things that I find artistically meaningful. Music, to me, is never about original ideas themselves, it's about good ideas and, much more so, about what one does with them. Therein lies, I believe, whatever originality an artist has to contribute to the history of music. Not in the ideas themselves, or where they come from, but in what he/she does with these ideas and how they become part of the fabric of his/her work.

It seems to me you prefer mediocre or bad music provided it has 'artistic integrity' (as you define the term) and consists of nothing but totally original ideas, rather than good music but which you consider suspect regarding the source of its material. Whereas I much rather reserve my time for great music, not caring in the least if it contains material which the composer found somewhere else or not.

With the way you look at these things, I guess it must be impossible for you to appreciate Stravinsky, because here's a man who simply plundered and looted his way through the history of music in search for material that he could use to bring him closer to his artistic goals. You will consider Stravinsky a thief and call him an asshole, I consider him among the five greatest composers that ever walked this planet.

See, great music, in my view anyway, transcends the banality of ideas and originality. Be it Led Zeppelin, Stravinsky, Lennon, Zappa or Ellington, their greatest achievement lies not in the individual ideas as these appear in their music, but in the power of the work that was created with these ideas. And that is why none of the things which upset you so much, cause even the faintest hint of a similar emotion in me.

To answer your question how I might respond if someone pinched some stuff from me, I wouldn't mind in the least. Honestly. My pride and pleasure in having written the thing in the first place is all the satisfaction I need. And I also have way too much self-confidence — in my talent and in my capabilities to come up with some more of these ideas — to be even in the slightest disturbed should an idea of mine ever end up in the work of somebody else (even if it were to make them a big pile of money). If anyone finds material in some of my music that they think they can use for their own purposes, they're entirely free to do so. No problem at all. No lawyers will ever be called into action.

_


----------



## impressions (Jun 2, 2014)

> It seems to me you prefer mediocre or bad music provided it has 'artistic integrity' (as you define the term) and consists of nothing but totally original ideas, rather than good music but which you consider suspect regarding the source of its material. Whereas I much rather reserve my time for great music, not caring in the least if it contains material which the composer found somewhere else or not.



ok.
I'll try to make it as clear as possible-
I think i've mentioned that influence is crucial for music more than a few times, almost in every response.
what my argument with you is about, that I, as a working musician, consider my musical ideas, my property. for survival reasons.

and not only me-everyone else in the industry-including led zepplin.

now, there is nothing wrong with someone taking my ideas and using at as an "influence." again, you can find influence in any music on the planet. i've said its crucial part of the evolution in music. 

But-

It's wrong to make a cover for a song that is considered by anyone as his IP, and publish it without at least asking consent, and most probably giving percentage of any profit made.
I dont know why you think it is okay, in the "name of music".

that's my whole argument. there is nothing wrong with the music itself led zepplin did. they were good performers, especially the drummer.
but there is plagiarism in the history of music and plenty of it. and its wrong. not because of the taking of ideas but because of the abuse of artists who were trying to survive with their craft. so its NOT wrong to take ideas or making covers-as long as you do the composer/writer credit and justice if needed. hope thats more clear now.

there is a line which should be drawn for anyone who is trying to make a living out of music. because it is already nearly impossible. its called IP, intellectual property, which i'm sure you know and researched the term.




> To answer your question how I might respond if someone pinched some stuff from me, I wouldn't mind in the least. Honestly. My pride and pleasure in having written the thing in the first place is all the satisfaction I need. And I also have way too much self-confidence — in my talent and in my capabilities to come up with some more of these ideas — to be even in the slightest disturbed should an idea of mine ever end up in the work of somebody else (even if it were to make them a big pile of money). If anyone finds material in some of my music that they think they can use for their own purposes, they're entirely free to do so. No problem at all. No lawyers will ever be called into action.



Then perhaps you have reached a phase in your musical career where you have enough money to sustain yourself, and your family.
myself? i have a very long way until that comes, if ever. so people protect themselves.
oh, and by the way led zepplin were already rich and famous when they stole. and they would be very much angry and summon dozens of lawyers if someone took one of their masterpieces without crediting and paying them. 
you say what of the progress in the name of music? you can still do all of what you said above and be able to be nice to the guy you are making a cover of his song, by crediting him or paying him, both is best. it is very common and it is usually enforced by the law, I cant see why you oppose that, or think that I put the border of music in only original ideas.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 2, 2014)

I consider this thread (exacerbated by the usual suspect) to be a most horrendous example of how what should be civil debate descends into the kind of demeaning name calling that I only see on the Internet, never, or at least very very rarely, in day to day life. Should it exist to any large degree outside this medium, the triage units of hospitals would overflow, not to mention the drunk tanks.

Psychologically, this kind of chitchat could be construed as emanating from short-statured males with genital insecurities. That would mere theorizing however, and I don't put much store in the suppositions of nascent sciences. 

Sadly, it seems unlikely that the opportunity will ever arise to give an adult a time out and send him to bed without his supper, but I can dream.

Effluvia, meet punchbowl.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 2, 2014)

> Psychologically, this kind of chitchat could be construed as emanating from short-statured males with genital insecurities.


Oh,no he didn't !!!!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## re-peat (Jun 2, 2014)

impressions @ Mon Jun 02 said:


> (...) I, as a working musician, consider my musical ideas, my property. For survival reasons. (...)


I do too, but not for survival reasons, and I absolutely don’t mind if someone else finds good use for them. I really don’t. (All I hope for is that they use them well, cause I had it happen once that a melody of mine, which I wrote for a pre-school kids tv-series, got adapted into a song by “a professional songwriter” ― this anecdote has got nothing to do with plagiarism, by the way ― and the results, I felt, were so bad that I asked to erase my name from among the writers. Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible, for copyright reasons, as I was already credited as the composer of the theme as part of the music for the series. The whole thing meant some extra income, yes, but I’d much rather have been without that bonus, if it had also meant not being associated with this dreadful song.

And no, I don’t have reached a stage where I’m free of money worries. But I don’t need more than I need, and there’s plenty of other things which matter *much* more to me.

Anyway, I’m not an advocate of plagiarism, should some of what I wrote previously make you think that. But I’m still not convinced, and never will be, that what Led Zeppelin did falls under the header ‘evil, lazy, opportunistic, self-serving plagiarism’. I’ll accept that, strictly technically speaking, it must be called plagiarism, but I think of it more as “musicians carried away by their enthusiasm and their admiration for their heroes”. Of course, for lawyers and for those plagiarized (and for you as well, it seems), this distinction doesn’t make one bit of difference. It does to me though. A little.

I have far more problems with someone like Joel McNeely. When I’m listening to “Young Indiana Jones and the Phantom Train Of Doom” (to name just one of many examples), I’m often wondering how this third-rate derivation of “Hook” was ever allowed to be released.

I think that's what makes all the difference to me: if the one who plagiarizes appears to be wanting to pose and strut about with the talent and the achievement of someone else (the one plagiarized), I get as annoyed with it as you do. But if the borrowing/appropriation is first-and-foremost a mere trigger for new and exciting music (as I feel is very much the case with Led Zeppelin), I have no problems with it whatsoever.

But again, strictly speaking, I accept and agree that you have the law, the lawyers and the victims on your side.

_


----------



## Arksun (Jun 2, 2014)

The more successful you are, the higher the risk of some other artist coming out the woodwork to say you stole their idea (even though they didnt).

In other shock news today, the world discovered that only 12 different notes exist in the western musical scale. 5 million lawsuits are to follow...


----------



## impressions (Jun 2, 2014)

> if the one who plagiarizes appears to be wanting to pose and strut about with the talent and the achievement of someone else (the one plagiarized), I get as annoyed with it as you do. But if the borrowing/appropriation is first-and-foremost a mere trigger for new and exciting music if the one who plagiarizes appears to be wanting to pose and strut about with the talent and the achievement of someone else (the one plagiarized), I get as annoyed with it as you do. But if the borrowing/appropriation is first-and-foremost a mere trigger for new and exciting music (as I feel is very much the case with Led Zeppelin-*but i'm not*), I have no problems with it whatsoever.


same here.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 3, 2014)

Son House died broke, his last job was cleaning in a high school in Rochester or something. I mean, c'mon Jimmy, Robert and gang, you knew you owed him (of all Delta masters) a castle.

The best thing that could happen to a young musician, IMO, would be to go from liking Stairway to discovering the great Blues artists.


----------



## SergeD (Jun 9, 2014)

I'm a fan of Led Zep and Jimmy Page is one of the greatest composers of the last century. But sadly, on that side of things, as a human being, he does not match Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60c1mD1HzDs


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 9, 2014)

I thought you were going to say, sadly, as a human being, he and his mates in the 70s were often real a**holes. What can I say? I read The Hammer of the Gods. Sexual abuse, beatings, bullying, etc, etc. Bonham was the greatest drummer and the worst drunk.


----------



## SergeD (Jun 9, 2014)

As for John Lennon, which is described as a real a** in this this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon


----------

