Allegations of Plagiarism

[LedNoodle]

okay, we all know about accusations of Led Zeppelin being theives and such.

I have been getting frustrated with the idiots who still think led zeppelin stole 50 songs. Its bullshit, i know.

I have getting in debates on the youtube boards (bad idea) about it.

So, just tell me whatcha think.

[pinky]

The common "stolen" songs:

Babe I'm Gonna Leave You-Credit was given and parts were origional.

Dazed and Confused-95% origional only similarities are droning main riff and title.

Black Mountainside-Traditional folk song that was turned intrumental by Page who also wrote a solo for it.

How Many More Times-Really a medley of classic blues songs like The Hunter.

Whole Lotta Love-Although sued by Willie Dixon the lyrics only bore a very SLIGHT similarity although it is an almost word for word copy of a Small Faces song. Music is all origional.

Lemon Song-A slowed down version of Killing Floor

Bring It On Home-A exact copy of a Willie Dixon song of the same name except for when the 12 bar blues section is over and the song picks up.

Moby Dick-Guitar bears a strong resembelance to a song that I cant remember as well as The Girl I love.

Rock and Roll-Drum line is from Little Richards Good Golly Miss Molly.

Stairway To Heaven-First few bars has a resemblance to Spirit's Taurus.

When The Levee Breaks-Lyrics are taken from a 30's blues song of the same name by Memphis Minnie.

Trample Underfoot-Lyrics have the same flow as The Doobie Brothers Long Train Runnin. Some say it's ripped off of Stevie Wonders Superstisious but thats total BS.

Boogie With Stu-A slowed down copy of Ooh My Head wich is a copy of Little Richards Ooh My Soul.

Nobody's Fault But Mine-Lyrics are taken from a traditional blues song.

I think thats it.

[Cactus]

Zeppelin are part of a tradition of covering 'traditional' songs. Most of what the did musically was completely original, however there are a few instances (WLL) where the lyrics were not originally properly credited

[cowbell666]

Of all of them I'd have to say WLL and Dixon's You Need Love is the best example of "plagiarism" of any of them, because the song sounds incredibly similar and it was not credited originally. the others are ridiculous.

here's the song if you haven't heard it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmZyNKBJ4pI

[guitarmy]

I wonder how many "Led Zeppelin stole music" threads have come and gone since my last post?

But seriously, as I always say in these threads...I don't care!

Someone always has some argument about how some song like "Good Times Bad Times" plagiarizes some blues artist for using the word "the".

I mean, HOW DARE THEY!

The real issue is why the influences weren't accounted for in the first place.

Even then, I still don't care!

I don't care because Led Zeppelin transformed the songs so much that it represents to me a whole new song. Yeah maybe there are some lyrics in "Whole Lotta Love" taken from "You Need Love", but do you jam to both songs the same way?

NO. YOU DON'T.

In fact, the only reason why you listen to "You Need Love" is because of Led Zeppelin.

To me, the biggest "stolen" song is "Tangerine". It never gets mentioned though, because it's not popular. Neither would have "Whole Lotta Love" if it'd never became popular (by some shift in cosmic forces).

...

oh and BY THE WAY. Music doesn't come out of someone's ass. Originality is VERY overrated. Anyone who claims to be original, just doesn't know where they've come from.

People don't come up with completely original ideas. They come up with amalgamated similes and metaphors for other things, mutated ideas really. There is no clear cut scientific way to keep track of your own ideas even.

I don't know what my point is.

[danelectro59]

I sort of remember the controversy many moons ago. Right after LZ II was released, there was a DJ on the underground FM station who was extremely critical of Jimmy and Co. and made no apologies for it. You may have heard of this fellow. His name is Jesse Crawford, better know as Brother JC Crawford, and can be heard introducing the MC5 on their "Kick Out The Jams" LP. You know, " Brothers and sisters are you part of the problem, or part of the solution." Anyway, I remember him almost refusing to play Led Zep songs because of what he, and others, thought was outright thievery of some of the most beloved blues standards. And I vividly remember him stating "they don't call it Superhype Music for nothing" in reference to their publishing company. Well, at the time, the requests for songs on the album overruled what this cat thought, and besides if he refused to play Zep on those grounds, he would have had to stop playing most of the contemporary artists of the time, including Cream, The Stones and many others. A whole bunch of English groups were taking bits and pieces from blues standards and composing their own tunes. It's just that LZ were far more successful than they were, so the spotlight was shining on them.

[Hickory Man]

I sort of remember the controversy many moons ago. Right after LZ II was released, there was a DJ on the underground FM station who was extremely critical of Jimmy and Co. and made no apologies for it. You may have heard of this fellow. His name is Jesse Crawford, better know as Brother JC Crawford, and can be heard introducing the MC5 on their "Kick Out The Jams" LP. You know, " Brothers and sisters are you part of the problem, or part of the solution." Anyway, I remember him almost refusing to play Led Zep songs because of what he, and others, thought was outright thievery of some of the most beloved blues standards. And I vividly remember him stating "they don't call it Superhype Music for nothing" in reference to their publishing company. Well, at the time, the requests for songs on the album overruled what this cat thought, and besides if he refused to play Zep on those grounds, he would have had to stop playing most of the contemporary artists of the time, including Cream, The Stones and many others. A whole bunch of English groups were taking bits and pieces from blues standards and composing their own tunes. It's just that LZ were far more successful than they were, so the spotlight was shining on them.

That section should be made to automatically come up when this subject is broached.

[BIGDAN]

okay, we all know about accusations of Led Zeppelin being theives and such.

I have been getting frustrated with the idiots who still think led zeppelin stole 50 songs. Its bullshit, i know.

I have getting in debates on the youtube boards (bad idea) about it.

So, just tell me whatcha think.

Hi All,

Well here's me two pennath.

Boys and Girls, we all have a tendency to love and support Led Zeppelin, what ever the truth is. I am also guilty of this, its only natural when you become a "FANATIC" of something, you tend to only see what you want and wont have a word said against it, under pain of death to that person who is only trying to point out the truth to you via the facts.

And the facts are plain to see, if you can just open your eyes wide enough or take off the blinkers for a second.

Led Zeppelin are only guilty of not crediting the artist's whom they borrowed music and lyrics from, thus denying them the credit and the money for using there work, totally guilty.

We all know that Willie Dixon was successful in his lawsuit against Led Zeppelin, but where did Mr Dixon get his "Music and Lyrics" from? Did he credit the people that he borrowed from on his recordings or did he use their work uncredited?

Many Blues players did this, which is why the Led Zeppelin Boys thought it OK to behave the same way as the Blues Men did, only difference is Led Zeppelin made million's upon million's of $'s and £'s where as the Blues Men remained not so well off financially. May be just being jealous, who knows? But the boys should have credited them anyway, in my opinion.

Now we all think of "The Blues" as the "Black man's" music, but wait a minute, didn't the "White man" bring music to America before the "Black man"? So isn't the music of the "The Blues" much borrowed from the White American's. Gospel music, from where The Blues is very much influenced came to America from England with the Pilgrim Fathers.

As Robert Plant once said "This song came over with the Pilgrim Fathers, then became a Black song, and then we turned it in to this, Gallows Pole". Since then Led Zeppelin have been influenced by many cultures, Indian, Arab, The Black Americans and the White ones.

To me they have blended the worlds music in to one, we call it "Led Zeppelin", and it is the greatest music I have ever heard. I say this because they have taken me on a trip through music genres that until I heard "Led Zeppelin", I would never have listened to or liked. Willie Dixon never did that for me, nor has any other band or artist, only "Led Zeppelin".

Weather at home, in the car or on the computer, Led Zeppelin are always in my ear and heart.

So I say this, forgive them their mistakes because they have given the world a truly unique experience in music.

God bless them and all that listen too them.

Regards, Danny

[kirchzep27]

anyone could have been a blowjob...think about that.

[MisterMcLov1n]

Did they plagarise? Yes.

Do I respect them as muscians? Not as much as I would if they credited the original artists.

Are they bad musicians? Fuck no. Even though Whole Lotta Love and such are stolen they're still awesome songs and better than the originals.

And if you think about it, their best songs are original. The Rain Song, Misty Mountain hop and Achilles Last Stand are a few good examples of this.

[jabe]

To me,look no further than You Tube posters emulating LZ I, II, et III.To see virtual note by note,lick by lick,just blows me away.Page,JPJ,Plant and Bonham,what?23,24 years old and younger?creating and recording music of this magnnitude?

If plagiarizing,LZ turned a dusty gravel road into the Autobahn,if plagiarizing,LZ turned a mud shack leanto into a pyramid.

Influences?Yeah, but Zep was grounded on their own foundation.

[DragonOfDarkness]

I've always loved this topic and found it to be downright hilarious at times. There are very few artists out there who haven't covered other artist's music. And at the very same time not giving credit or simply referring to the song as "traditional" or "traditional, arranged by". Case in point... Grateful Dead. I've been a fan of their music almost as long as Zep. They made their bread and butter off of the backs of other musician's work. Do I have issues with it? Hell no! Covering other people's work follows along the lines of the slogan "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery".

It's still funny to me that people actually take the time to bitch and moan about Zeppelin "ripping people off" and at the same time dismissing countless other bands who've done the exact same thing.

You can't fix stupidity.

[Detigers09]

I've never really posted on this topic before, but I have a few thoughts on it. Covering a song is fine in the world of music; you just have to give credit to the original artist. Several of Zeppelin's early songs are covers of Howlin' Wolf/Willie Dixon: You Shook Me, I Can't Quit You, How Many More Times, Whole Lotta Love, The Lemon Song, Bring it On Home...and no credit was given. Willie Dixon and, to a certain extent, Howlin' Wolf, were probably two of the greatest blues lyricists of all time. Imagine that you provided the lyrics and the basic song structure for a band, who then takes this and uses it to get rich and become one of the most famous bands in history. Not only do you not see a cent from this, you are also not recognized as the writer who made it all happen. If I were Willie Dixon, I would have sued also.

The fact is that yes, many of these blues lyrics have been thrown around throughout the years, many originating early on with the men of Robert Johnson and Son House's era. However, when you take an entire song and label it as your own, that is wrong. Many artists put out amazing covers of blues songs while still crediting the original artist: The Allman Brothers, Cream, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Johnny Winter, the Rolling Stones (I can't find any specific info on the Stones, but I believe they did), Aerosmith even, etc.

That said, does it take away from Zeppelin's musicianship? I don't think so. The band really transformed these songs out of straight blues into rock and roll, and nothing can take away from that. They also wrote some of the greatest rock songs ever written, which shows they are not the hacks many people believe them to be. However, I think that to deny credit where credit is due, just so that you can make an extra $.03 per song, or whatever the law was, seems unprofessional to me. Either way, to me it doesn't really matter; what's done is done, and the world got some great music!

[widget]

Robert Palmer has stated in the liner notes to the Box Set in 1991:

"It is the custom, in blues music, for a singer to borrow verses from contemporary sources, both oral and recorded, add his own tune and/or arrangement, and call the song his own"

[LedNoodle]

What bugs me the most is these idiots seem to like ignoring the other great songs of totally original stuff, which makes up 97% of their songs...

I think another reason they borrowed lyrics early on, is because none of them were totally developed as lyricists yet. Plant's first song he wrote was Thank You.

[Dancin'Days]

I listen to a streaming radio station called 3WK and they play old rock. I can't count the times that I have heard old songs that I always assumed were other, newer bands original songs. What I am trying to say is that rock must be damned good to keep those original songs going even through cover versions. Also look at the amount of rap songs that have been segwayed into their music.

[widget]

Rapper Lil Wayne is being sued by The Rolling Stones for plagiarising their song "Play with Fire":

http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/25...ing_stones_song

I listen to a streaming radio station called 3WK and they play old rock. I can't count the times that I have heard old songs that I always assumed were other, newer bands original songs. What I am trying to say is that rock must be damned good to keep those original songs going even through cover versions. Also look at the amount of rap songs that have been segwayed into their music.

[JTM]

anyone could have been a blowjob...think about that.

WTF ? .......... I'm sittin and thinkin' ............ still don't get what your point is.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Well,someone on another site,that had nothing to do with music,brought up these same *points* about Led Zeppelin.How the Vikings hoards pillaged and how other artist,showed their respect.I did not respond,keeping the ammo ready for a more important battle,... What did the 'middle section' of WLL have to do with Willie Dixon?Why did Willie,settle out-of-court?Mmmm,....

Great posts everyone!

KB(I ain't foolin')

KB

[widget]

Why was Led Zeppelin brought up in a non-music forum?

Have you read Dixon's autobiography I Am the Blues: the Willie Dixon Story? Dixon admits in it that he was thankful that Led Zeppelin settled out of court because there was a good chance given the length of time it took for him to file the complaint (16 years) that the court might not allow it to proceed. I got the feeling that the people wanting to take court action the most was the record label, and not Dixon who seemed somewhat laid back about it all. They could only settle on the issue of lyrics as they could not prove that the music of both songs were the same.

Meg

Hi all,

Well,someone on another site,that had nothing to do with music,brought up these same *points* about Led Zeppelin.How the Vikings hoards pillaged and how other artist,showed their respect.I did not respond,keeping the ammo ready for a more important battle,... What did the 'middle section' of WLL have to do with Willie Dixon?Why did Willie,settle out-of-court?Mmmm,....

Great posts everyone!

KB(I ain't foolin')

KB

[guitarmy]

The real issue is why the influences weren't accounted for in the first place.

Any takers on this one?

I think it is pretty important to know why credit wasn't given. Some people say it was Peter Grant who did XYZ or Jimmy Page who did ABC.

Do we have any official reasons as to why credit wasn't given? I'd like to know, because that would surely shape my opinion.

I'd like to hear from you guys on as many angles (pro/con) as possible.

[widget]

You say it's important to know yet earlier you said "I don't care". Perhaps you should ask Page your question because to state a position or motives on behalf of another person is hardly fair. My opinion on Led Zeppelin hasn't changed regardless of out-of-court actions or what not, nor what is said here. If you're going to stop listening to music because of credits, you're probably listening to music for the wrong reasons.

Any takers on this one?

I think it is pretty important to know why credit wasn't given. Some people say it was Peter Grant who did XYZ or Jimmy Page who did ABC.

Do we have any official reasons as to why credit wasn't given? I'd like to know, because that would surely shape my opinion.

I'd like to hear from you guys on as many angles (pro/con) as possible.

[guitarmy]

You say it's important to know yet earlier you said "I don't care". Perhaps you should ask Page your question because to state a position or motives on behalf of another person is hardly fair. My opinion on Led Zeppelin hasn't changed regardless of out-of-court actions or what not, nor what is said here. If you're going to stop listening to music because of credits, you're probably listening to music for the wrong reasons.

It's important to know for a different reason. I don't care about the credits because I believe the music was transformed enough to call it their own.

However, I do realize that this is frowned upon, and that a lot of people don't think it's different enough (music or lyrics). So I do care why the decision was made to go against the norm.

What I didn't do was state a position on behalf or Page or anyone having anything to do with Led Zeppelin, nor did I say I wasn't going to listen to music because of the credits. I'm not sure if you were addressing this to me, but I think you were just speaking generally.

My point is that "WHY?" is a very important question in this matter. Knowing why certain credit wasn't given may sway the people who don't think enough credit was given.

Just because it was done isn't the final say in a matter. Knowing why something was done helps provide understanding. I think in general, in the "shock-media" world, a lot of people focus too much on WHAT was done, rather than WHY it was done.

Perhaps people assume the WHYs too often, inferring bad intentions?

...

And if I had Page's ear, this wouldn't be the first thing I'd ask him.

[widget]

You're asking people here who weren't there when the songs were lodged with ASCAP and BMI, for an answer. How would we know "why", weren't not Jimmy Page, Peter Grant or their attorneys so you're asking the question in the wrong direction. Any reasonable person can see that.

[guitarmy]

You're asking people here who weren't there when the songs were lodged with ASCAP and BMI, for an answer. How would we know "why", weren't not Jimmy Page, Peter Grant or their attorneys so you're asking the question in the wrong direction. Any reasonable person can see that.

Yeah I'm sure no one in this forum was in that meeting (except for Jimmy when he peaks into the forums).

Otherwise, you'd be surprised how much people know or at least think they know around here.

Some know a lot and some just speculate.

A lot of this forum is speculation as it is anyways, so I don't see the harm in asking "why?".'

It's a very important question don't you think?