minneapolisgenius said:

it's true!

MikeMatronik said:

It really isn't.

Cloudbuster said:

I don't much of Zep beyond some songs...

Cloudbuster said:

I don't think he meant it all that seriously. He was the one presenting the award to Zeppelin and that was part of his speech/introduction to them.

minneapolisgenius said:

minneapolisgenius said:

Brian May's hair is FABULOUS!

MikeMatronik said:

Tell me about it.



He's pretty damn flexible too.

minneapolisgenius said:

Led Zep puts me in a weird place. On the one hand, I really dig most of what I've heard from them. Houses of th Holy is an album that I listen to often. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the blues artists that they ripped off are either flat broke, or barely making it(financially). Meanwhile, back at the mansion... SO yeah, the tunes are good, but its real fucked up. And so it goes, right?

MikeMatronik said:

wow; you obviously aren't much of a music fan
[Edited 6/27/07 12:03pm]

icke4presidant said:

I'm your regular asshole! I'm not a poser who says he's the massive fan of a certain group just to fit in quorum of a certain forum. Yes, I believe that Queen are vastly superior to Led Zep...


And u?
[Edited 6/27/07 13:31pm]

I remeber when I found this out. It disgusted me and still does for that matter. At least the Stones went to the South side of Chicago and recorded at Chess records and gave respect where respect was due but that was in '64 so...

The difference to me was the press hated Zeppelin and trashed the first 3 albums but the live show is where the started causing a stir and became popular. When the 4th album came out, FM radio got on board and the arenas started selling out.

As far as a live band, there was only one Bonham, when Zep was on, what a show. When they were off, not so much.

As a comparison to Queen, they were a studio band first. While they wrote some amazing music and Brian May's tone is distinct, they weren't known as a live band that were selling out arenas in the 70's.

Babe I'm gonna leave you was actually by Anne Bredon, Black Mountain Side is a traditional folk instrumental that was performed by other people before Bert Jansch I believe, and How Many More Times actually combines elements of Albert King's The Hunter as well as How Many More Years. And they did actually give credit on the Willie Dixon tunes.

The backing riff on the opening section of Stairway To Heaven was lifted from Taurus by Spirit. Whole Lotta Love is ripped from You Need Loving By The Small Faces (and plant's vocal performance is a near carbon coby of Steve Marriot's) which was itself a cover/semi-ripoff of You Need Love by Muddy Waters.

I will come to Zep's defense by pointing out that lots of people have adapted other people's material into their own songs without giving proper credit. Hell, in a way it's a fundamental part of the creative process; modifying and combining information from other sources to create something new, it's just a matter of degrees of adaptation or ripping off.

Many of Ray Charles seminal early soul songs were just old gospel tunes with new lyrics and with a jazzier arrangement: I Got A Woman, This Littls Girl Of Mine etc.

Chuck Berry will tell you that his classic guitar intro is really just a transcription of Louis Jordan's piano players' opening riffs (Maybelline, the first guitar rock song ever was also loosely based on the bluegrass tune Ida Red).

Even many of Robert Johnson's and Leadbelly's signature tunes were adapted from previous sources, there's even a compilation called The Roots Of Robert johnson that reveal just how many of his songs weren't totally original.

Many of Charlie Parker's and Dizzy Gillespie's early be-bop tunes were just contrafacts (melodies based on the same chord progressions) of early swing and tin pan alley songs.

thank you jacktheimprovident. I really don't care who steals what (denying the theft is a different story, however) as long as the final product is amazing.

Zeppelin could have been a straight cover band and they'd still be one of the all time greats, and what they contributed in terms of overall sound has always been more important than the details.
[Edited 6/27/07 16:14pm]

jacktheimprovident said:

Nice post. In response to the comment about many other bands taking bits and pieces of songs and using them to add to their own work, I agree totally.

It's no different these days, and it's been going on forever. I'm sort of obsessed with figuring out what songs sound like another, and who was influenced by who (whom? ), so I listen for these things all the time. There are countless examples and we could really sit here all day and come up with more and more of them, like:

- Prince's "Empty Room" sounds EXACTLY like the last half of 10cc's "Feel The Benefit" (from '77 and with the guitar solo and everything) which in turn has the exact intro to The Beatles' "Dear Prudence" in the beginning.

- Jeff Buckley's "What Will You Say" sounds like Prince's "The Cross".

- Certain Heart songs sound very much like Zeppelin, Joni Mitchell, and Pink Floyd songs.

- The intro to Jane's Addiction's "Then She Did" sounds very much like Zeppelin's "What Is and What Should Never Be".

- "R.O.C.K. In The U.S.A." by John Mellencamp and "What I Like About You" by The Romantics are basically the same song musically.

- And the riff on Chicago's "25 Or 6 to 4" is the very same as in Zeppelin's "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" which in turn, and was already mentioned, is a Joan Baez song.


Now I'm pretty sure the artists in these examples didn't give credit for these similarities. (I have to check into that 10cc one to be sure though because DAMN the "Dear Prudence" intro is exact!)

And what about all the bands we have around these days that base their entire image and sound on other bands from the past? So many bands today sound just like Joy Division or Iggy Pop or The Clash or The Jam or the MC5 or Motorhead, etc. I guess it's ok for them. Is it because we don't really expect anyone to be totally original these days anymore?

The thing is, Zeppelin and many other bands from that same time period really WERE being original I believe. I mean, before the rock music scene just blew up back in the mid-late 60s, rock music didn't sound like that up until that point. They took the blues, incorporated some traditional folk music into it as well, made it heavy, loud, fast, and with a crazy energy arranged it in a way that wasn't heard before and it must have been really exciting to hear it first hand. (well, for some people anyway ) Just like any new genre of music that emerges and evolves out of something that came before it, it wasn't just a rip off. It truly had innovation I believe. I would have loved to have been around back then when there was so much creativity just spilling out everywhere from all sorts of different artists. Amazing.

Now, as for ripping off lyrics from another song, THAT I can see why people would sue. It's just more blatant I suppose.


Oh, and someone correct me if any of the artists I mentioned above have actually sued over this. Because then I'd be wrong in some cases.
[Edited 6/28/07 7:33am]

Those Charlie Parker's tunes are a perfect example. They literally take the background to one song, add a new melody and title, and there's a new song.

And even though it's acknowledged borrowing of others' material, he was adding to it in a way that made it original.

You can't actually copyright chord changes, so there are thousands of examples of people using the same chords. Especially something like guitar, where the instrument lends itself to playing certain phrases in certain keys. Sure, you can steal (either consciously or unconsciously), but it's also not inconceivable that two guitar players would come up with the same riffs.

NDRU said:

I don't play guitar, but I liken it to anything in the art world: you're not creating in a bubble. I see it all the time in choreography, and also in art and design. Everyone is influenced by what's around them whether it's conscious or not, and also whether it's something from way in the past, or something more recent.

minneapolisgenius said:

Absolutely, that's what defines the times.

And it's not just the influences, styles, & trends, but it's the tools of the trade. When you're dancing, you have arms & legs that you can only move certain ways. Why wouldn't two dancers come up with the same moves?

Someone recently was talking about thinking vs. stealing and used this example: If there's a billboard on the freeway that says "Jumbo Shrimp" is one driver who makes a joke about it stealing from another driver who made the joke first?

And again, that doesn't mean that people don't openly steal because we all know they do.
[Edited 6/28/07 10:23am]

NDRU said:

Yeah for sure.

And as for choreography, with classical ballet, there really are only so many combinations of set movements that you can do. They're all just placed in different orders so the outcome is different.

But even in the modern dance world, there are pioneers and also current trends, and if one choreographer's style is really popular and in, countless others will "bite" from them with their own works. I've seen it done really blatantly, and also in a more subtle way. And then people say things like, "Oh, that was just a Mats Ek rip-off". (Mats Ek being a popular choreographer who has really influenced a huge portion of modern dance choreographers that are out there right now) That's just one example.

And in art/graphics/design, it's the same thing. Sometimes I even do it though I don't think consciously. I'll use a certain type font or try to evoke a particular style or look in something, and then all of the sudden I'm seeing it everywhere. I start wondering if I even thought of it on my own then!

minneapolisgenius said:

well, damn it, we agree!!

I'd so love to complain about how everyone was stealing my moves!! It's hard when you're creating, especially in this world where we're completely bombarded by images, sound, etc. It feels like it's all been done before. And in a way, it has. It simply needs to be reinterpreted.

NDRU said:

I think about that all the time actually: HAS everything been done already? In music, art, dance, etc. We compare everything to everything these days, so it's hard to just watch or listen to something just on its own I think.

Until recently, I really hated new bands and newer music (rock music especially) because I couldn't get past who they sounded like and who they were influenced by. But then I realized that that sort of thing has always been going on (granted, even more so nowdays than in the past) and I just said "Fuck it! I think I actually LIKE this band! "

So now I'm trying to get into newer music and all that.

minneapolisgenius said:

That's how I first felt about Lenny. I thought "what is this bullshit?!" all the while actually liking it.

I remember thinking about the painting that's a white square on a white background--that the painting was essentially saying that this was the final step, or "It's all been done now!"

I don't know if that's true, but I do think that a clear movement in painting has kind of disappeared. I don't see that for music, but there are only 12 notes afterall, so maybe it's all a repeat, too.

NDRU said:

When I see the master artists' works from hundreds of years ago, I am just blown away by how absolutely genius they were. I can't even wrap my head around it. Just beyond talented. "Talented" doesn't even begin to cover it. Hardly anyone can even do anything like that anymore. People have gotten lazy.

The same w/ architecture. When you see what's been done throughout history: the cathedrals, castles, etc. it's just beyond comprehension how much skill, time, and effort went into them. I mean, people didn't even live to see the end result of what they started. And the detail! Everything nowdays is just insta-buildings. I mean, they make strip malls out of superhard Styrofoam. Pretty soon we'll just have to add water, and a foam parking ramp will pop up. God they must be turning in their graves.

As for music, I don't know. Sometimes I think, "There's GOTTA be some sort of sound or new genre that hasn't been tried yet. I wonder what it will sound like."

I totally forgot about Lenny Kravitz. I should put one of his albums on. It's been years actually.

minneapolisgenius said:

Yeah it's tough to compare to the days before television! Everyone's all gaga over Jack White because he actually uses melodies 'n' stuff!! I loved Nirvana, but I always admitted that EVERY band should be AT LEAST that good. They just aren't.

You're right, the sheer amount of technical skill in older art can't be touched by many of todays post TV artists. To think of the number of hours Michelangelo spent on his back, and I don't mean on the casting couch, I mean painting a ceiling.

NDRU said:

Casting couch.

This is probably true, but look at the ripped off shite nowadays, at least Led Zeppelin rocked..

wow.. this is an eye opener for me
thanx for this thread you guys

aforementioned... I don't really care
the music is still as great as it was
before I came in this thread

I guess this means The Beatles and The Rolling Stones must suck to.

Zepp took from a lot of different sources, sure. But there is no denying that Zepp OWNS the keys to the Power and the GLORY of all rock majesties. Simply put; they HAD something that no one else had or has had since, in a band.

lilgish said:

well you said it not me