Balthazor
-
Posts
307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Balthazor
-
-
16 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:
I understand the perspective that of all their songs he had to stand firm on this one, but he really should have thought harder about just how strong his case really was.
I couldn't disagree more. Everyone, outside of Spirit's scuzzy lawyer and apparently the judge, can tell that Stairway is NOT the same song as Taurus. And even if the opening of Stairway was inspired by Taurus, which itself is highly questionable, that hardly constitutes plagiarism. An artist shouldn't be expected to roll over and hand away writing credits every time someone else pops up to say hey, part of your song sounds a teeny tiny bit like part of my song! I totally think Page did the right thing in standing firm on this one, despite my fear that his lawyers may be incompetent and the jurors may well be idiotic enough to make a stupid decision. If it goes that way, I'm sure Page is likely to appeal, as well he should.
-
It appears likely that the next concert I will be attending will be Billy Idol at Summerfest in Milwaukee. I saw him way back during his Rebel Yell tour, so it'll be interesting to see him as an old coot.
-
1 hour ago, IpMan said:
Without a doubt, old Robert would go into one of his Celtic diatribes about the Welsh King Owain Glyndwr and have the court scratching their heads for hours.
Yeah that or badgeholders or something equally bizarre. Then again, if he decided to proclaim himself a golden god, that probably wouldn't play well with a jury.
-
Just now, IpMan said:
Without a doubt, and beside, what is Jimmy's problem with just saying, "...hell yes I love Spirit, great music and lovely people." What would saying so do to bolster the argument of plagiarism? By that line of reasoning any musician any other musician is influenced by is by extension a victim of plagiarism? That is stupid. So, does that mean Dave Grohl stole all of his music from the Sub-Pop lineup? If so maybe one of Darby Crash's cousins can sue Dave and get the big payoff.
Page needs to pull a Donald Trump here, get on the stand and tell the truth about how he loved Spirit and took influences from many sources, including 18th century sources for the lament bass structure for the opening chords of Stairway. Then when sleazy opposing counsel says, "well, you said here in this deposition you did not remember their music" Page just comes back and says, "In the manner you framed the question I did not remember particular songs per se since it has been decades, however I never said I did not love or appreciate their music."
BAM! Even better than the Chewbacca Defense.
Well I'd like to assume their lawyers are smarter and more knowledgeable than either of us, but still it seems like there's risk in putting Page on the stand. Plant I'm not worried about, what could he say? And besides, Plant could carry on for six minutes and nobody in the jury would have any idea what the hell he'd said.
-
9 hours ago, AnotherNewMember said:
"I recall seeing the group Spirit use one" [a theremin]
(Jimmy Page, in the book "Tangents within framework" by Howard Mylett, p. 23)And now all of a sudden he doesn't remember anything;-)
That's the kind of stuff that worries me about Page appearing in person at the trial. If he insists on the stand that he has no memory of Spirit, there's just a ton of stuff out there that could be used to discredit him there. If the scummy plaintiff lawyer starts pulling this stuff out and puts Page on the spot, it could go bad real quick.
-
17 hours ago, Badgeholder Still said:
I don't understand comparing Hendrix to others when you have such limited knowledge of his work and his story. Discrediting JH by way of listening to as little of his music as possible and not understanding the context in which he created just doesn't work.
You're making some rather unfounded assertions there, "such limited knowledge", "listening to as little of his music as possible", "not understanding the context". All I've said is " I'm not a huge Hendrix fan and so have not listened to his material as extensively as I have Zeppelin's." I've listened to most of what he's done enough times to be entitled to an opinion. And nobody is "discrediting" anyone. All I've done is challenge assertions which I considered to be, well, questionable. Such as that he "invented" rock guitar, or that he was the first to use distortion and effects (although in that case, as I mentioned above, I think it was more of a misunderstanding). People sometimes talk as though the electric guitar wasn't even a thing until Hendrix came a long and showed it to everyone, like Moses descending Mount Sinai with the tablets, which if anything discredits the work and innovation of all those who came before him. Certainly his work was massively innovative and influential, that's indisputable, but there were plenty of innovative and influential guitarists before him as well as during his time, some of which Hendrix was influenced by himself. It's well established that Hendrix admired and was influenced by the work Clapton and Beck were doing in the 60's, just as it's well established that Clapton and Beck admired him and were likely influenced by him as well. Nothing exists in a vacuum, but there's this odd attitude that before Hendrix there was this great void of nothing, then Hendrix came along and we had rock guitar, which I just think is bunk.
-
17 hours ago, IpMan said:
That's why I said "to such a degree." Hendrix was in fact, the first guitarist in the public eye to do such acrobatics and sound effects in the ways he did. At least as far as I know, I may be wrong so if someone has examples of another guitarist going what Jimi did before Jimi, please let me know.
Ok that makes sense. The way you phrased it originally I think led me to take a different interpretation than you'd meant.
-
26 minutes ago, IpMan said:
he was the first to use distortion & effects to such a degree to obtain the sound he wanted.
Well that sounds like a real stretch to me. Certainly guitarists had been using distortion and effects long before Hendrix came along, and Dave Davies' guitar tone in "You Really Got Me" practically set the standard for the rock guitar distortion sound, not to mention the pioneering guitar effects and technique utilized by The Ventures in the early 60's. You could argue that he pushed the envelope in this respect, but to say he was the first, that's grasping at straws.
-
This is all pointless anyhow. The defense should not depend on whether or not Plant was where or whether Page did or didn't own a Spirit record. Even if they did hear Taurus and go "hey that guitar part sounds cool, let's do something like that," who cares? That's not plagiarism. That's a total redefinition of plagiarism. Not only are they obviously very different songs, but the guitar part in question is even different. Heart admits to swiping the riff from Achilles Last Stand for Barracuda, but nobody cares, they're totally different songs. That should be the defense, not this piddly crap. I hope Zeppelin's lawyers don't get bogged down with this piddly crap.
-
13 hours ago, IpMan said:
To me the consummate songs which scream Hendrix at his peak are Voodoo Chile & Machine Gun.
I just listened to both twice each, and I guess it's just a matter of taste, but they just don't do much for me. Hendrix often comes off to me as noise and slop. But perhaps it's like Picasso, some people look at a Picasso and see genius, others see noise and slop.
-
On 5/5/2016 at 5:27 PM, Badgeholder Still said:
Reinvented is probably more accurate. Before Hendrix, Clapton was God. But all he really did was master Chicago blues and play it well. He wasn't and still isn't capable of the diversity and imagination Hendrix showed in 4 short years. It's not just about skills but employing originality in applying them combined with fearless delivery. Comparing Chuck's "Johnny B. Goode" with Jimi's version clearly shows the fresh ideas and approach he brought A lot of people don't hear it, but that doesn't change the facts. He set a new standard which still exists today.
Admittedly, I'm not a huge Hendrix fan and so have not listened to his material as extensively as I have Zeppelin's, but I just have never been all that blown away by him. Personally I think Jeff Beck was a much more inventive and influential guitarist than he gets credit for, probably since he never had quite as high a profile as Hendrix or Clapton or Page. But I also think that, to a certain extent, Page gets shorted as well. Everyone knows what he did with Zeppelin and the influence that had on everyone that came after, but few people know or think much about what he was doing during his studio years, helping to shape the sound of British rock from "behind the scenes" as it were. And it's also clear that Hendrix was himself influenced by what some of the British guitarists were doing during the 60's. Maybe I'm just a fanboy, but I think if we're going to say that Hendrix "reinvented" rock guitar in his time, then I think Page "reinvented" it again in his.
Totally agree with you on Clapton though. He does what he does well, but that's ALL he does. Dude bores me to tears.
-
I don't know why people keep saying Hendrix "invented" electric guitar. Seems to me like Hendrix took a lot of inspiration from both Clapton and Beck, and besides that, how can one say that Hendrix "invented" electric guitar when there's guys like Chuck Berry. Seems like a wild overstatement to me.
-
If Zeppelin wins this, which they absolutely should, then I'd love to see them turn around and sue Spirit for defamation. I doubt it'll happen, but I'd enjoy it immensely.
-
On 4/16/2016 at 5:39 AM, anniemouse said:
There is a massive and wider ranging implication if LZ loses this case. I can think of a major film director who openly cites his influences (other directors and film industries) on his entire career. Would we have director suing director. I can think of a at least one major contemporary artist in the UK who uses the work of an artist who worked in the 18th/19th century as the backdrop to their output. Classical musicians using the work of earlier artiste to inspire. Literature from all genres taking inspiration from earlier works.
Citing feel is going to be artistically stifling.
I recall reading that Stanley Kubrick had the cast and crew of The Shining watch David Lynch's film Eraserhead to "put them in the mood" because he wanted to achieve the same kind of feel for his film.
As you and others have said, the implications for this could potentially be huge. Imagine George Lucas suing anyone who made a movie which involved spaceships, or Steven Spielberg suing any movie which depicted dinosaurs. It sounds ridiculous, but that is essentially what's being said here in this suit. The music scene is in bad enough shape as it is, but a ruling like this one could all but kill it.
-
If ambiguous notions like "concept" and "feel" are going to be the determining factors in musical copyright cases, rather than the actual notes, chords, and structure, then I see no reason for Led Zeppelin to NOT sue practically every hard rock band that came after them.
-
18 hours ago, timothy5151 said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/led-zeppelin-copyright-trial-1.3531641
According to the article, "Skidmore was able to overcome statute-of-limitations hurdles to sue over Stairway to Heaven because the song was remastered and re-released in 2014." , does this mean they can only go after the royalties for STH from the 2014 remasters? Legal jargon confuses me. If this is the case, I can't imagine the $$$ to be that much.
That is my understanding of it, that they would only be able to go after royalties that fall within the statute of limitations, such as the 2014 re-release. I'm no legal expert, but that's what I'd read.
-
Here's a pic where I used some silly app to merge a picture of myself with one of Mr. Plant.
-
-
I've been watching the Hulu miniseries 11.22.63, which so far has been decent, and I've been on a second watch-through of Archer, which is one of the funniest damn shows I've ever seen.
-
I was probably around 13, in the mid-80's, and I knew I enjoyed music but I wasn't sure exactly what. I'd heard Stairway of course, they'd play it three times at every middle school dance, but I didn't really know who played it. Anyhow, my parents had bought me some Beatles albums, and they were cool, but not really my thing. I spent some time listening to Billy Joel, and again, while it was cool, it just wasn't what I was looking for. I ran through a few other bands but nothing really grabbed me. Then I was at a friend's house looking at his older brother's record collection. He had Led Zeppelin, AC\DC, Ozzy, all that stuff. I asked him to recommend something good, and he gave me Led Zeppelin IV. That really hit the spot.
Afterwards I went from Zeppelin to Black Sabbath, Rush, Aerosmith, Ozzy, Dio, then onto Metallica, Megadeth, and the other late 80's metal bands, then onto all kinds of modern metal like Opeth and Devin Townsend. I spent a few decades listening to practically everything I could get my hands on. But in the end I came back around to Led Zeppelin, because no matter what I listened to, whether it was thrash metal or prog metal or whatever, in the back of my mind I'd still be hearing hints of Led Zeppelin buried deep within. Like yeah this is cool...but Zeppelin already did this.
-
9 hours ago, Kiwi_Zep_Fan87 said:
By underrated, I meant that in some pockets of the world, people know who Rush is. But in other pockets of the world, Rush sadly, remains pretty unknown, even today. Ask Geddy Lee. He himself, stated this very very clearly, in an interview, fairly recently. Can you honestly tell me that the same can be said about bands like Led Zeppelin and The Beatles?! Even I did not know about Rush until June of last year, considering the fact that I have discovered so many other bands from the 60's and 70's (all thanks to my dad's and mom's music collection), through the decades like Led Zeppelin, Cream, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Blind Faith, Traffic, Queen, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Who, CSNY, The Rolling Stones, The Sonics, The Stooges, MC5, Uriah Heep, The Baker Gurvitz Army, Derek And The Dominos, The Allman Brothers Band, Fleetwood Mac, Jethro Tull, Yes and countless and virtually unknown 60's Garage Rock bands. Had you asked my dad at the beginning of last year, who Rush is, my dad would have blinked and said he doesn't have a clue! This is coming from a guy who has been a fan of Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and all those other bands that I have mentioned, for 30 odd years.
Oh and I think it's absurd to dismiss all of Rush's albums, after Signals. But hey, we can agree to disagree.
Ok, I understand what you're saying there. It's probably a factor of Rush's 70's albums not really seeing much commercial success until well after the 70's. As to the other thing, I'm sure there's people who love those albums, and even those who prefer them to the 70's hard rock sound. And maybe there's some really good stuff there, but I think it's fair to say that the majority of Rush fans...well let's just say that if they were asked to list their top 5 albums I doubt Roll the Bones or Test for Echo would appear on that list.
-
On 2/26/2016 at 1:41 AM, Kiwi_Zep_Fan87 said:
The band that I am speaking of, remains pretty underrated even today and has been regarded as a cult band for quite a while because of its song themes (apart from other things) and has been declared by some to be an acquired taste.
I'm a big Rush fan myself, at least of their older, better albums; but I think it's absurd to say Rush is underrated today. If anything Rush is somewhat overrated today. They're great musicians, no doubt about that. And they did have a string of excellent records. But that string ended with Moving Pictures, or arguably SIgnals, and they've been largely irrelevant ever since. Oh I'm sure there's a few fans who go to Rush concerts really hoping they'll rock some Time Stand Still, but the thousands of fans surrounding them are hoping for some 2112. Few other rock bands could release decades worth of mediocre albums and still be regarded as a premier rock band. Even the mighty Black Sabbath, who was indisputably more successful and influential during their heyday than Rush could ever dream of, is largely considered a second-tier band these days after a similar span of mediocre and irrelevant albums. While I wouldn't call Rush a cult band, their following is definitely a rabid one.
I will however suggest that Alex Lifeson is underrated. People always genuflect over Lee and Peart and don't seem to even know Lifeson's name. I think Alex Lifeson and John Paul Jones should start a band and call it The Forgotten Ones.
-
I think part of the problem is that rock music has subdivided into a million little genres with very little cross-pollination among their fans. They're like warring clans in Game of Thrones. So collectively, there's probably more fans of rock and metal than there were back in the 70's and 80's, but they're split into such small groups with their favored niche style that no one band can ever amass a large enough following to catch the attention of the record industry. Opeth, for example, are huge within their niche, but yet they seem lucky to scare up a few hundred fans for a concert. It's like during the 80's when you had the metal heads at war with the hair bands, only now instead of two genres at war, it's two hundred genres at war. Back then we could still have Metallica or Guns n Roses drawing huge crowds, but today's "premier" rock and metal bands can barely fill a bar. And as long as that's the case, the recording industry will continue to ignore rock and metal.
So it's kind of a catch-22 there. Without demonstrating an ability to draw more than a few hundred fans, rock and metal bands are ignored by the industry; yet without the promotion and support of the industry, some excellent rock and metal bands go completely unnoticed by the mainstream audiences. It seems possible that a rock or metal band could break out of that trap and achieve big success, but there'd almost have to be a perfect storm of circumstances in order for that to happen. They'd need to have a style which is unique enough to not sound like a copycat of something else, but not so unique as to be inaccessible to the mainstream audience. A huge hit single would definitely help, as would at least one or two attractive members. Pop culture is shallow and fickle, and ugly bands seldom go anywhere. They'd need to have members that can actually work together, unlike the aforementioned Guns n Roses. When I think of all that would have to happen for a rock band to reach a Led Zeppelin level of success and influence in today's pop culture climate, it seems like a pretty tall order.
-
On 2/26/2016 at 1:40 AM, rm2551 said:
Nirvana I thought could have set the world alight if not for Kurt succumbing to his demons. They seemed to be positioned to be exactly that 'next monster rock band' that could have been as great and even as diverse as Zeppelin.
I know opinions are like assholes, but mine is that Nirvana was quite possibly the most overrated band in the history of popular music. But I realize I'm probably in the minority on that one. However, as an aside, I did find this interesting quote on Wikipedia:
Nirvana used dynamic shifts that went from quiet to loud. Cobain had sought to mix heavy and pop musical sounds; he commented, "I wanted to be totally Led Zeppelin in a way and then be totally extreme punk rock and then do real wimpy pop songs".
Lawsuit over Stairway to Heaven
in News
Posted
You're exactly right, and the same argument was made in regards to the Robin Thicke Blurred Lines case, although the Stairway case does I think take it to a new level. If "feel" or "style" become elements of plagiarism, then like I've said before, couldn't Led Zeppelin sue virtually every hard rock band that came after? Couldn't Black Sabbath sue every heavy metal band that ever existed? Couldn't the Beatles sue practically every British Invasion band? In any other artistic pursuit, this isn't even a thing. Directors are openly talking about their desire to capture the "look" or "feel" of someone else's movie. An entire genre of fiction literature tries to capture the "feel" of Lord of the Rings. The old Battlestar Galactica TV show was obviously trying to dovetail off the Star Wars phenomenon. But in music, this is something we're going to call plagiarism?
I strongly hope that Spirit and their scuzzy lawyer lose this one, not just for the sake of Zeppelin and Stairway, but because it establishes what is really an unhealthy precedent. Music, and in fact really any creative endeavor, has always been about taking what's been done before and expanding it, building on it, and making something new out of it. But now we're going to say that musicians are legally prohibited from doing so? Might as well kiss the music business goodbye, although it's not like it's much of a loss given what passes for popular music nowadays.