Jump to content

cookieshoes

Members
  • Posts

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cookieshoes

  1. 1970/09/04 for the great atmosphere and lengthy spoken introduction to Bron-Yr-Aur. 1971/09/28 for the super long intro to Going to California, and the Beatles teases. 1972/06/14 for the great performance. 1972/06/19 for the debut of Black Country Woman. All six of the LA 77 acoustic sets for being pretty badass across the board, every single night.
  2. I'd say the more likely source is Jason Bonham. You have to remember that Jason lost his father very early, and so he has a much different interest in preserving all of those live Zep moments. That's his dad on those tapes. Watch the recent Charlie Rose interview, and the surviving members even make special mention that during the O2 rehearsals that Jason kept trying to get them all to do specific improvisations on songs like he had heard on various live tapes, and that none of them really had any idea what he was talking about because to them it was just a memory from a very very long time ago. That should tell you right there who actually cares about the tapes. I know that it's very easy to assume that it's Page doing the learking since's he's the one who has historically had all of this mystery going on, but he's going to be 70 years old in another year. Really think about that. That's great-grandfather age. Feeding bootleg labels tapes on the sly can't really be the thing on his mind these days. Read the interviews with Kevin Shirley from 10 years ago regarding compiling the Zeppelin live DVD and he makes it clear that Page wasn't too concerned with the preservation of the live tapes even back then, and that he was more interested in getting the job done quickly so that he could go visit his son while he was in the states. We can only hope that Page's been sitting on the soundboards to things like Boston 69, Bath 70, Osaka 71, etc specifically for pairing with the remastered Zep releases. I hope so, but we'll have to wait and see.
  3. The EV and WT 9/23 titles use similar sources, but according to Bootledz, the EV patched more of the cuts. Wendy's Osaka 9/28 boot has a patch of Stairway to Heaven from the next night, 9/29, which is kind of weird. And it apparently has some noise-reduction noise on disc 3.
  4. I think it's possible that these things happened, but also suspect since they came from Richard Cole's recollections. As for Bonham punching Plant, they were childhood friends after all. Lots of friendships have those moments. Also, what unfortunately tends to get glossed over is that Bonham wasn't always a particularly nice person. It gets dramatized/romanticized as him turning into "the beast", or just being some rowdy kid who liked fast cars, but the reality is that he was drunk/drugged out a lot of the time in the later years, cheating on his wife regularly, and getting into physical confrontations with all sorts of people. Remember that story about Bonham nearly assaulting a flight attendant? Rock and roll lifestyle, road fever...I guess. If we're talking about things like this actually happening, sure why not. Kind of a bizarre topic to think about in any case. They were just people, after all. Plenty of people get in fights. As for why nobody beat up Page, it's pretty simple, ain't it? He was their boss back then. Including Grant's. He was the star, he put the band together, he signed the band's record contract, it was his publishing company, he paid for the first album, he produced all of the material. He was the band's bread and butter, and you don't mess with that. Ever wonder why he had the sole spotlight onstage, front and center, during the 75 and 77 tours? Funny that out of all of the people involved, it's actually Grant who was supposedly much nicer than his advertised persona would lead people to believe. Oakland 1977 aside, of course.
  5. Can't speak for 1972, but for 1971 I like the following: Sept. 23rd 1971 - Tokyo: Reflection from a Dream - TDOLZ, King of the Monsters - Fan Remaster, Flying Rock Carnival - No Label, and First Attack of the Rising of the Sun - Empress Valley Sept. 24th 1971 - Tokyo: Light and Shade - TDOLZ, Balloon Boys Rock Carnival in Tokyo - Empress Valley Sept. 27th 1971 - Hiroshima: Love & Peace Hiroshima - Bumble Bee Sept. 28th 1971 - Osaka: Osaka Woman - No Label Sept. 29th 1971 - Osaka: Fatally Wanderer Definitive Edition - Wendy (the original has too much noise-reduction), Cellarful of Noise - Noise Generator (vinyl source - incomplete but great sound)
  6. True, but I think when it comes to live recordings, we often obsess about what we don't have, when we already have most (if not all) of the known legendary performances by the band available already in some form. We always want more, and sometimes we don't really know why. So things like "soundboards" and "videos" of already circulating shows get obsessed over, even when we already have a document of the performance, and we know that it wasn't really one of the truly great shows the band did.
  7. Unfortunately, I think even if Houston 77 was ever released, there would be a very high likelihood that most people would watch it once and then continue on to waiting for the next big thing. Happens to so many shows, including all of those 75 soundboards. We already have the soundboard for Houston, and we have a rough audio from Pontiac. Both shows have video out there, but because neither show is regarded as being particularly legendary (Bonham's drumming at Houston, and the attendance record at Pontiac aside), I think that that video would quickly go the way of Seattle 77. People had been waiting decades for Seattle, sharing all of those brief song segments in varying quality, and then it finally got released and all people could talk about was how bad the performance was. Even for the more common videos out there, how often does the average person really watch Earls Court or Knebworth?
  8. I think of all of the various medleys, the number one of all time has to be "How Many More Times" from Memphis in 1970/04/17. All of the Japan 1971 medleys are great, and monsters as well. But the Memphis 70 version is completely unscripted and unexpected. HMMT from Bath 1970 has a decent one, but it honestly isn't as good as the HMMT from Memphis. The Long Tall Sally encore at Bath is a great version though. San Francisco 1969/04/27 is a legendary show, and both the As Long As I Have You and How Many More Times medleys are amazing. Blueberry Hill 1970/09/04 has a medley in both Whole Lotta Love and Communication Breakdown which are both stunners. 1972 has a great medley in Whole Lotta Love at Seattle 1972/06/19. 1973 was a more structured medley, but the ones from Europe from March are all great. Vienna 3/16, Munich 3/17, Berlin 3/19, Hamburg 3/21, Essen 3/22. For 1975, the last year of anything resembling a medley, I'd go with Whole Lotta Love from Long Beach 1975/03/12.
  9. So, to wrap it up....Jimmy in the 1970s was the equivalent of Tom Cruise in the 2000s. Both spent lots of money and time aligning themselves with a controversial (dare one say cultish) religion founded by guys who had created their form of spirituality by writing their own books and selling them. The books usually dealt with how to tap into one's inner power, so that you can get what you really want in life (how novel), and leaned on a supposed history of the world (which nobody but them knew about of course), which usually included heavy use of symbols, language, and rituals that were created/invented by using the surface aspects and aesthetics found in the culture of another people, and usually taken completely out of context and made to mean something else entirely. The culture that does get credited as being the "source" of the divinity or power of the religion tended to just so happen to be among a shortlist of topics which were currently popular in the author's home country at the time. In the case of Crowley, the translation of the Rosetta Stone and all of the English explorers digging in Egypt and bringing back all of those artifacts had put the topic into many households in the UK. No coincidence that Egypt "magic" and rituals were even showing up as plot devices in things like Sherlock Holmes stories. In the case of Hubbard, Science Fiction was all the rage in post WWII. Add in Roswell, alien sightings, UFOs, etc. Ultimately, Jimmy saying that his use of Talismans and Magick "worked" for him isn't any different from Tom Cruise crediting his success as an actor to Scientology, or Tim Tebow or Lionel Messi doing their gestures and thanking their version of "God" when they score for their sports teams. And yet, all of these successful, talented people who keep attributing their success to their version of God or their spirituality never seem to notice that there is usually someone just as successful as they are, who is usually thanking a completely different God. Hmmmm..... So Jimmy put silly symbols from the zodiac and random books on his pants and his amp and swore that they were the source of his great power. I wonder why then they didn't help the band get good reviews in the press? Was there a rule in the Crowley literature that said "The user who puts this symbol on their album cover will get great sales, amass vast wealth, and will be adored by millions. But as far as favorable press coverage goes...sorry." or was it more like "Do what thou wilt...or whom thou wilt...including 13 year olds".
  10. Complete 1969 Texas Pop. Large chunks of this exist, and circulate. If the complete film is out there, that would be great to see given that this was a great show and has a soundboard already available. Complete available footage for 1st night (7/27) at Madison Square Garden 1973. This was the best performance of the three, imo, and it's the only one we haven't really heard in its entirety from any collection of audio sources. It would be nice to have it alone, without being patched with the other nights, as in TSRTS and the DVD release. Bath 1970. I'm really only marginally interested in this film. The performance is good, and it's a historic event, but in all likelihood the footage is probably mediocre, and not even the complete show. The "Bath film" is waaaaay too overhyped. I'd much rather have the soundboard, if it's available in any good quality. Even the soundboard is way overhyped. Memphis 1970 a few months before, and especially Blueberry Hill and New York evening performance are all better than Bath. Montreux 1970 or 1971. If the venue did film the band in 1971, that would be a huge piece of history given the shape of Plant's vocals at the time. Not at all interested in anything else from 1975 or 1977, unless it's more footage from the 1977 LA run. If there is more from 6/23/77 that would be great. Pontiac or Houston proshot videos don't really interest me at all. Yes, the performances are both better than the Seattle vid we have, but not THAT much better, and the reality is that most people would watch it once and be done with it.
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
  12. Include "everyone else" for what reason? This is a Zep forum, and the thread is about Page and Black Mountain/Waterside. How much broader does it need to be? Besides, in any case, I did include them, both those that did/didn't steal, by pointing out that what made many of those people different from Page was that they A ) Cleared themselves by crediting things properly, or B ) Didn't commit lifts which were note-for-note copies of the work of others. There is a difference between being inspired by a piece or genre of music, and copying the work of others. Play in a "rock" style using 4/4 time or specific instrumentation (i.e. guitar/drums/bass) vs lifting bars upon bars of someone else's lyrics or melodies and calling it your own. It's still backwards to use the "everyone was doing it" argument, because that just wasn't the case. Collectively the Beatles/Stones/Zep did not make "everyone". It seems that the only thing the passage of time has done in that regard is that it has made a lot of people complacent with the thieving habits of the 60's-70's. Your example of classical music actually reinforces this. Bach was a true original who had developed his own style over years and years of composition and refining his own technique. Mozart may have been inspired by Bach's music, but he never lifted a passage from one of Bach's works. He instead wrote some pieces of his own in a counterpoint style, which anyone who heard them could hear was "Bach-like". And he did this in the same way that many other composers wrote works "in the style of" or as a "variation of". If Beethoven directly lifted passages from Mozart, well then, guess who was the thief there? Stravinsky openly admitted how he took from others. Doesn't mean you can lump Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Stravinsky into one category and say that they were "all" thieves. Because some of them were, some of them weren't. There is a difference in being "inspired" by another artist, and lifting passages from their music.
  13. But, I think you are actually proving that they were in fact all thieves. And just because they all were doesn't excuse Page or Lennon/Hendrix/Clapton/Beck/Richards/Jagger and all the rest. It merely sums up that all of those famous artists were thieves in one way or another and that they shared a perception that since many of the bluesmen and rock and rollers before them were thieves that it somehow allowed them to be thieves as well. They were wrong in that regard, for the simple fact that many artists did not steal, before or after them. You can connect a dotted line to pretty much all of the influences between all of the British Blues revival groups in the 60's. For the most part, not an original idea in the whole lot. A bunch of British and American white kids imitating African Americans from the Delta, or the Rock and Rollers in the South. Singing with the dialect and the accents, and copying the subject matter. Somehow the shock value of the silliness of that kind of cultural appropriation has gotten completely lost in the decades since. Nevertheless, it's what those groups all managed to evolve into that began their own paths to developing a truly unique style for themselves. But straight across the board, for most of those groups, their origins were still as kids who unabashedly stole the music of the people they were imitating. Doesn't excuse any of them for the simple fact that their habits of thievery were actually unique to their generation, or that many of their peers were also stealing. Other groups weren't taking as liberally from each other as those groups were. And those that did cover other songs at least had sense and integrity enough to credit their sources. Yes, there is such a thing as original evolution of music. It just seems to have been eclipsed by that generation in the 60's and the 70's who were so complacent in copying their peers and those that came before them. But, it's not hard to see how that same spirit of copying bluesmen wouldn't also extend to copying others, such as Page's actions with Jansch and Graham. Because, if it's okay to copy the work of bluesmen, why not folkmen and instrumentalists too?
  14. Reputation? Geez, now comes the drama. No thanks, I'll pass this round. The OP's already gotten his answer in the form of plenty of examples I've posted. That you don't see it means nothing. And, exaggerated claims? Not a one. Running away when challenged? I don't even know what that even means. If anything, I'm responding to too many of your distracting posts. The examples and explanations are there. Any way you want to cut it, in the end you're either tonedeaf or you really do know very little about the pieces of music involved beyond being blinded by fanyboydom. Either way, it don't matter. Cue another round of meaningless hairsplitting.
  15. Read the order of posts, friend. The name-calling came from others first. I kept it civil the whole way through until the comments from the fanboys got sensitive. And the royalties comment....keep it in context. I posted that Page knew that he would've had to pay royalties to Jansch in reference to why Page did the Black Mountain thefts the way he did. Not out of some argument that Page owes "x" amount of $ to Jansch. Once again, the money is neither here nor there. The bulk of the posts here, including all of yours, have been attempts at denying that Page took anything at all, along with all of the other nonsense excuses about "everyone was doing it" or that Page had no reason to credit Jansch since the song was "traditional". Those are all just excuses that are beyond the point of the original topic here, which is whether or not Page stole music. He did. Thousands upon thousands of people know that. It's Zep 101. Again, read my posts for the examples. Clear. As. Day.
  16. Are you kidding? Or is that your way of pretending like you didn't come off as a prick in your previous posts? I'm providing information, based on facts, and like any thread where newbies get their eyes opened to the Zep thefts, there is bound to be a chorus of people in denial who create all the noise about how Page was justified, or that it didn't happen, etc. Newsflash, I'm a fan too. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. I see the thefts for what they are, but I can still get passed them and enjoy the resulting music. The trouble is, it seems that every time that someone like me points out the true history of these things, that's when all the smart-ass responses come out of the wood work. So, the only thing that ends up being consistent is that people like you get reallllly bent out of shape when you get given the facts. So you resort to the name-calling, etc. Not my fault that Page did what he did. Take it up with him.
  17. What does it matter when I heard Jansch? That makes Page any less a thief? There were probably several people who checked the examples I posted and found out the same truth about Page. What, they waited too long to find out, so somehow Page is no longer guilty? Put it in a time capsule for all I care. What Page did in the 60's and 70's doesn't hold any less relevance if you talk about it today or if you talk about it in 100 years. Besides, despite your ridiculous attempt at "smack talk" your post just completely proved my point, genius. You're right, if someone saw a clip of Slash playing Hendrix's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at the Superbowl, plenty of people would tell their kids "Hey son, that version he played was Hendrix's version". Because people know better these days. Funny, that's the exact point that all of you fanboys seem to miss when talking about Page's theft of Jansch and Graham. But let's take it a step further detective, to make it completely equal to what Page did, Slash would not only have to play the Star Spangled Banner like Hendrix, but he would STILL have to have the balls to then try to sell that rendition on an album and credit it to "Slash". Not only that, but he would have to give interviews over decades saying that the version was his own interpretation and was his idea. Only then would it be equal to what Page did on Zep I. And what do you think people would say? They'd say that he was copying Hendrix. Thanks for proving my point. Check my posts friend. Where did I mention that Page owed Jansch's estate a cent? I never did. I could care less what financial restitution (if any) Page provides. The bigger restitution is the acknowledgement. If for no other reason than to shut you fanboys up from constantly apologizing for Page's thefts. These threads are always the same. A bunch of people who drown themselves in the supposed legal standings of the parties. I could care less about whether Page gets sued or not, because it doesn't make him any less of a thief. OJ got acquitted. Didn't make him any less of a murderer. So, keep spinning yourself silly. The question has never been what/how much/if Page owes Jansch money. The question has always been whether or not Page took from others or not, just as this thread brought up in the very first post. Answer: he did. Lots of times, and lots of music. Yet, every response here is the same spectrum of poorly thought out attempts at justifying Page's theft. Read my posts again and spend some time with the examples I mentioned. You might actually learn something kid.
  18. And your point is? Page talked about Davy Graham too, and guess what, he stole from him as well. So, you wouldn't have heard of Bert Jansch without Page? Well, that's your own lack of music history. Doesn't excuse Page's actions whatsoever. Which is funny, because it's that very fact which people who copy the work of others bet on when they commit thefts. "No one will ever know...." Trouble is, plenty of people had heard of Jansch and Graham before Jimmy ripped them off. Neil Young, Paul Simon, Stephen Stills, to only name a few. In any case, what difference does Jansch's level of fame make? Because Jansch wasn't a superstar like Page, somehow he deserved to have his efforts copied with no credit? That seems to be the only common thread that people get back to, trying to excuse Page because of some made-up "lacking" on Jansch's part, or the law. That's completely backwards mentality. The same silly argument is used again and again with each lift that Page committed. The "Dazed and Confused" rip of Jake Holmes' work only brings the same type of responses from the same people. "Couldn't have been Jimmy's fault, because Zeppelin was AWESOME! And who IS this Jake Holmes clown anyway?" People just don't want to believe it. It's like tearing apart millions of adult males' fairy tale about the greatest rock band ever. So, as a defense, cue the experts on 1) Copyright: claiming that technically since Page didn't break a law, somehow the thefts therefore doesn't exist nor should ever be mentioned as thefts, 2) The make-believers who think that somehow Zeppelin was part of some kind of "oral tradition" just like the bluesmen from the 20's (aka Everyone was doing it!), and 3) the people who apparently are so tone-deaf that they still insist that they "don't hear it". The thefts are clear as day. When Briggs spoke about the goodness of "influencing" each other, she wasn't talking about taking someone's act and making it your own. She was talking about a culture of musical influence, where people play the same style of music. Not copy people's variations on songs and say that you not only wrote them yourself, but that the interpretation is your own as well. She was out to make money like anyone else. There is a big difference between inspiring or influencing someone to start playing music similar to yours (and by "similar", meaning in a style, not the same songs note-for-note), thereby creating a local music scene (we all play folk, we all play blues, we all play rock, etc.), with the act of repeatedly taking someone's interpretations of songs outright and claiming them as your own. In the midst of the great music he was able to come up with on his own, Page was also a master collage maker using rip-offs of the work of others. That he got away with the ones he did is because people just don't realize that what they think was Page's was in many instances the work of others which he copied and re-arranged to fit his purposes. Some thefts are better than others. But this is allllllll old news. The examples are out there. There are several which have already been posted in this thread, which are IN ADDITION to Page's theft with Black Mountainside. But with each example it's the same old excuses. It's never the realization from people that you can still be a fan of Page or Zeppelin while still accepting that they committed the thefts that they did.
  19. It's "recent" as in, since the 1950s. Not "recent" as in the 1980s when Page and Company started getting lawsuit threats, See, the history of copyright law may work in favor of excusing the Delta bluesmen from borrowing from each other as part of the oral tradition of the 1920s. But copyright and publishing was very much alive in the 1960's and 1970's. Which is why Page created Superhype, so that he could make royalty money just like all of the other people who were copyrighting songs were. You don't just get to lump Page into some copyright "dark ages" and claim that it existed from 1920-1980, because that simply isn't the truth. Like I said before, you couldn't get away with the things Page did in the 60's and 70's today. But the real point is that those laws were already in place in the 60's, so Page SHOULDN'T have been able to get away with the thefts he made. Again, see Harrison's legal troubles in 1971 with "My Sweet Lord". Too often the "but everyone was doing it" argument gets used as if the period between 1920 and 1970 was just one big free for all, where nobody knew how to publish songs, or how to collect money from royalties.
  20. That's the point now? Because rock musicians frequently ripped off each other, then it shouldn't be handled in an honest manner? Classical musicians handled it that way, because the art form and the ethics behind it were long established. Not to mention, it was far more difficult to pass off another's work, because the very nature of classical music revolved around development of melodies and music theory, which is not easy to simply copy without someone noticing. Rock was a new format as of the 50's, and was predicated mostly on white people ripping off the music of African-Americans, just as they had done with Jazz. Soon enough, the rock acts were mostly just teenagers and twenty-something copying each other, which is where managers came in to really make the money. So, no wonder they were able to clumsily get away with so much theft and copying. Nobody was watching, and nobody cared. It took until the 1980's for a lot of these things to come to light, and now the instance of these types of thefts isn't nearly as obvious, and whenever they occur you can be sure that artists will be taken to court over it. Try doing a straight-copy of someone's song today. Try copying "Hey Jude" and retitling it "Hey Judy" and see how fast you get sued out of existence by the Beatles estate. Ever hear about the case with The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony"? That song was a global hit, and the only real breakout hit the Verve ever had. The song used a small sample from Andrew Oldham's orchestrated version of the Rolling Stone's "Last Time". As a result of the uncredited use of the sample, and the resulting lawsuit, the ENTIRE songwriting credit of "Bittersweet Symphony" is now assigned to Jagger and Richards. Had Page done what he did in the 60's today, he would've suffered the same fate on several Zeppelin tracks. As it was, his contemporaries were already getting sued. Just look at George Harrison's lawsuit over "My Sweet Lord" in 1971. Even John Lennon commented later that Harrison essentially deserved the lawsuit because he wasn't "smart" enough to have changed parts of the song. See, Page was smart enough so that it would take years to find many of his thefts. And even now, he's protected by the fact that people like Jansch or Graham are either already deceased, or wouldn't waste their time. It's amazing that Jake Holmes finally got the nerve to go after Page.
  21. What I said made perfect sense. In every case, they were sued, and they lost by way of agreeing to settling. They had sense enough to admit to their errors, and they paid up. So, whether or not you want to believe that "settling for millions" doesn't mean "losing" is your own interpretation. You can bet that Page didn't see it as "winning" to have to add Burnett and Dixon as co-authors to tracks on Zeppelin II.
  22. Are you kidding? All three of those companies were set up by Epstein and James for the Beatles. Got anymore of the "dozens" you can name? MANAGERS set up the publishing companies, because that's where the money was. From the royalties. That was the typical. Page knew this, which is why he took the step of setting up Superhype himself, and which is why he consistently credited himself on pieces when he should've been crediting bluesmen and people like Jansch and Graham. Stick to the facts you can support, don't just make stuff up.
  23. Uh, they never had to lose a case, because in every instance they settled out of court. In the cases of Jansch and Graham, neither man took Page to court. That only reflects on them for not having bothered, and doesn't make Page immune to his thefts in any way. Up until recently, Jake Holmes hadn't bothered. Now he has. Whether or not the other people Page stole from take him to court is not the issue. If a person steals a car and no one catches him, that doesn't make him any less of a thief. So, now you want to try and focus on the the fact that since they were never handed down "guilty" verdicts by a court, while ignoring that they themselves paid out millions to the likes of Dixon and others to avoid such conclusions, that somehow that makes it to mean that they didn't commit the wrong? All you've provided are the same apologist responses, and in the same circular manner. And you haven't addressed the multiple examples I've pointed out, instead using the same downward spiral of logic. This is typical in this matter. Because people simply hate accepting the fact that Page did what he did. So each example gets the same cycle of denial responses. Point out that Page showed a lack of integrity in what he did, and the response is that "everyone" was doing it. Point out that in fact few people made a career out of copying other's work without paying credit, and then the response becomes "Well, it was a traditional song anyway". Point out that even IF it's a traditional song, then you should credit it as Traditional. Not, "James Page". What's more is that in the case of Black Mountainside, it's even more appropriate to put "Traditional, arranged in the style of.... " or "a la", which is what Classical musicans and composers have done for years when re-interpreting or covering the work or versions of others. But still to even this, the response gets reduced to "Well, Jansch was covering someone else" so, Page was just doing the same thing, and making his "own" version. This response is the most absurd, because Jansch credited his version as traditional, and there is no mistaking the fingerpicking guitar playing that Jansch created for the song, which Page copied outright, uncredited. Again, see Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner at Woodstock, and compare that to Christina Aguilera doing the same song at the Super Bowl vocally. No comparison between the two. What's more is that this is not the ONLY thing that Page took from Jansch or Davy Graham, and the examples are numerous and well-known. And yet, finally, once all of the many examples get brought up, which prove all of Page's numerous thefts, then the response goes back to "Well, everyone was doing it".
  24. Uh, no. Those that did the same thing got the same result that Page and Plant got. They got sued, and lost. And guess what, at the time there were plenty of great artists out there who weren't copying other people's work and claiming it for their own. So, repeating that age-old myth that "everyone was doing it" is pointless. Case in point: Davy Graham. So, it doesn't matter how many people were copying each other, there were still a lot of great players and songwriters choosing an honest path. Lifting from another artist without crediting them is what hacks do when they can't come up with their own ideas. Theft is still theft. Call it borrowing or whatever you want. Sure, copying Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and putting it on the ceiling of a local Church claiming it as your own original work doesn't make the effort in painting any less impressive on a technical level. But on an integrity level, claiming someone else's ideas and technical creativity, obviously that's where the problem lies. Page and Plant were extremely high on a technical level, but in many cases displayed very little integrity with crediting the things they "borrowed".
×
×
  • Create New...