Pb Zeppelin borrowed their best songs?

[harp0]

This is my first visit to this great forum. I've been a loyal fan for years now. Led Zeppelin has given this world some of the best rock and roll it will ever have. So when I hear people complaining that Zeppelin stole many of their songs, it makes them sound like nothing more then a cover band. I write articles for a guitar web site on classic rock and just wrote an article about this very subject.

Led Zeppelin article

Led Zeppelin pushed their music beyond that of anything done previously. They were unique in that they were four great musicians and they worked together better then any other band of their type. Not even the Beatles had that, sorry Ringo. Sorry I guess I'm rambling on, I'm going to go eat a hot dog.

[godhammer69]

Great article. I couldn't agree with you more.

Thanks for sharing.

[guitarmy]

This is my first visit to this great forum. I've been a loyal fan for years now. Led Zeppelin has given this world some of the best rock and roll it will ever have. So when I hear people complaining that Zeppelin stole many of their songs, it makes them sound like nothing more then a cover band. I write articles for a guitar web site on classic rock and just wrote an article about this very subject.

Led Zeppelin article

Led Zeppelin pushed their music beyond that of anything done previously. They were unique in that they were four great musicians and they worked together better then any other band of their type. Not even the Beatles had that, sorry Ringo. Sorry I guess I'm rambling on, I'm going to go eat a hot dog.

Well I thank you for supporting the cause and writing that article. But it's all common knowledge, and some of it isn't confirmed.

Page once said something like--We get our songs from a number of sources and you probably wouldn't recognize most of them.

So how about this one:

I Wish You Would-Billy Boy Arnold

I believe this evolved into something Led Zeppelin did. I mean hey, it's a former blues tune that the Yardbirds did as well. What do you think happened?

It will help if you can play both on guitar and listen to the harmonica at certain parts.

Guesses?

[Wolfman]

I get so sick of this crap. Almost all of the bands back then did this but somehow Zep were thieves and the others were not.

[harp0]

I get so sick of this crap. Almost all of the bands back then did this but somehow Zep were thieves and the others were not.

I'm on your side! I hope you didn't think that I'm saying Zeppelin stole there music. I only brought the subject up because it's a current criticism of Led Zeppelin, and it's unwarranted. Think about it another way...if art, (music, and the rest) evolved without influence, (how could it?). where would art be today? Also you said that, "Almost all of the bands back then...", my point in the article was that this has been going on in art for 100's of years well before there was blues music! It wasn't just back then. It has been going on from the time of cavemen painting on cave walls to now. The two examples I gave in the article are,

"Thefamous novel, Beowulf, was written in much that way, being a story thatwas passed down from generation to generation and improved on witheach. Arguably, the most important song in the United States, TheStar-Spangled Banner, was adapted from music written in the mid-1760sas a British drinking song."

Led Zeppelin was an amazing band, one of the few bands that I can listen to over and over and enjoy it even more then the time before. The only song they ever did that I didn't enjoy as much was, "Hat's Off To Roy Harper". Having said that I would rather listen to that tune then almost anything by bands today, with very few exceptions.

[Wolfman]

Wasn't talking about you bro.

[guitarmy]

I'm on your side! I hope you didn't think that I'm saying Zeppelin stole there music. I only brought the subject up because it's a current criticism of Led Zeppelin, and it's unwarranted. Think about it another way...if art, (music, and the rest) evolved without influence, (how could it?). where would art be today? Also you said that, "Almost all of the bands back then...", my point in the article was that this has been going on in art for 100's of years well before there was blues music! It wasn't just back then. It has been going on from the time of cavemen painting on cave walls to now. The two examples I gave in the article are,

"Thefamous novel, Beowulf, was written in much that way, being a story thatwas passed down from generation to generation and improved on witheach. Arguably, the most important song in the United States, TheStar-Spangled Banner, was adapted from music written in the mid-1760sas a British drinking song."

Led Zeppelin was an amazing band, one of the few bands that I can listen to over and over and enjoy it even more then the time before. The only song they ever did that I didn't enjoy as much was, "Hat's Off To Roy Harper". Having said that I would rather listen to that tune then almost anything by bands today, with very few exceptions.

Yeah I'm with you on the art thing. I'm kind of an extremist when it comes to this stuff. I don't think one should be able to own rights to music or words or lyrics. Mostly because accurately tracing how you came up with an idea is almost impossible because we don't know how our brain works.

[#1fan]

Well I thank you for supporting the cause and writing that article. But it's all common knowledge, and some of it isn't confirmed.

Page once said something like--We get our songs from a number of sources and you probably wouldn't recognize most of them.

So how about this one:

I Wish You Would-Billy Boy Arnold

I believe this evolved into something Led Zeppelin did. I mean hey, it's a former blues tune that the Yardbirds did as well. What do you think happened?

It will help if you can play both on guitar and listen to the harmonica at certain parts.

Guesses?

trappled under foot to be honest.

[Aquamarine]

I'm on your side! I hope you didn't think that I'm saying Zeppelin stole there music.

From your article:

"the point is that in all the examples, Led Zeppelin has improved the songs they stole"

[Deborah J]

This is my first visit to this great forum. I've been a loyal fan for years now. Led Zeppelin has given this world some of the best rock and roll it will ever have. So when I hear people complaining that Zeppelin stole many of their songs, it makes them sound like nothing more then a cover band. I write articles for a guitar web site on classic rock and just wrote an article about this very subject.

Led Zeppelin article

Led Zeppelin pushed their music beyond that of anything done previously. They were unique in that they were four great musicians and they worked together better then any other band of their type. Not even the Beatles had that, sorry Ringo. Sorry I guess I'm rambling on, I'm going to go eat a hot dog.

Hello HarpO,

Why must journalist keep reporting on this in the manner of "They Stole the Music". This band still in a lot of cases get no break. Print an article about their music and the impact it has had for four generations.

I am not here to bash all of your article, it's just really very tiring with the media when it comes to Led Zeppelin.

[harp0]

Hello HarpO,

Why must journalist keep reporting on this in the manner of "They Stole the Music" This band still in a lot of cases get no break. Print an article about their music and the impact it has had for four generations.

I am not here to bash all of your article, it's just really very tiring with the media when it comes to Led Zeppelin.

Journalists keep reporting on this in the manner of "They Stole the Music" because of the incredible impact and lasting appeal of Led Zeppelin. I think that is it plain and simple. My son as an example is only 9 years old and already a Zeppelin fan for a few years. New fans are being made every day and some of them are like us, die hard fans. Many of these people are reading about this issue for the first time. I think that my take on this whole issue is refreshing because it's honest, and as unbiased as possible at least to the best of my knowledge.

It's true that this issue has been beaten into the ground, but what Led Zeppelin topic has not been covered in this way? For me at least I wanted to show another side of this issue, that many people have overlooked. I've read quite a bit on this issue and it almost always ignores the point that though Zeppelin took some songs, this was and has always been a part of creating new art, music, etc. These people I'm referring to are obviously not Zeppelin fans, they are people unfamiliar with this topic and have read or heard misinformation. Why not try and set the record strait?

[harp0]

From your article:

"the point is that in all the examples, Led Zeppelin has improved the songs they stole"

Sorry about my word choice, and I can see how you would take it the wrong way. I thought about it when I wrote the article and I decided that it was the correct words to use. I'm trying as hard as I can to be unbiased.

In my article I make it as clear as possible that I would leave it to the reader to decide the crime if any. There are many ways to look at this if your being honest. If these songs that Led Zeppelin took were copyrighted and not in the public domain then in the view of the law they stole the music in question. Willie Dixon for one would and did take this side of the argument. On the other hand I don't take this view personally due to the fact that these songs, (with possible exceptions, I'm not sure), should have never been copy-written in the first place. Obliviously this will continue to be a debated issue.

[SteveAJones]

Willie Dixon for one would and did take this side of the argument.

The Dixon case pertained strictly to lyrical content and was settled in 1983.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

So, no one can have any rights to anything they create? This is why we live in a free (basically) and just world. While this is not always the case, its painful to see people writing such thing's as "I can't have the right to own a song that I put my life into".

If I wrote a song and some act wanted to cover it I would be over joyed but, I still want my share of the song. Even if they don't want me in the act I still deserve to get a small bit of the pie.

If you have ever tried to do the right thing and found out how difficult it can be to do the right thing, you would understand how difficult it can be to do.

Have you ever tried to get permission from a publishing company and song writer to do a published song on your own project? It's not an easy process to go through, all most makes one want to take the risk of getting in trouble for infringement (but not me).

If you have ever tried to do this or even had any creative thought's of your own, you would not have said, "I think that no body should ever own right's or ever share song's with anyone that like's any song so much that they want to cover it and give that person there due".

It's not an easy road for a musician or band to walk down but we still do it anyways.

Edit:

It is true that a lot of band's do borrow from one another. I'm sure most have been guilty of this at one time or another but, making a statement that I or anyone can't have any right's is just out of bounds for me.

[harp0]

The Dixon case pertained strictly to lyrical content and was settled in 1983.

Ture, not sure that is in contrast to what I was saying though?

[harp0]

So, no one can have any rights to anything they create? This is why we live in a free (basically) and just world. While this is not always the case, its painful to see people writing such thing's as "I can't have the right to own a song that I put my life into".

If I wrote a song and some act wanted to cover it I would be over joyed but, I still want my share of the song. Even if they don't want me in the act I still deserve to get a small bit of the pie.

If you have ever tried to do the right thing and found out how difficult it can be to do the right thing, you would understand how difficult it can be to do.

Have you ever tried to get permission from a publishing company and song writer to do a published song on your own project? It's not an easy process to go through, all most makes one want to take the risk of getting in trouble for infringement (but not me).

If you have ever tried to do this or even had any creative thought's of your own, you would not have said, "I think that no body should ever own right's or ever share song's with anyone that like's any song so much that they want to cover it and give that person there due".

It's not an easy road for a musician or band to walk down but we still do it anyways.

Edit:

It is true that a lot of band's do borrow from one another. I'm sure most have been guilty of this at one time or another but, making a statement that I or anyone can't have any right's is just out of bounds for me.

The following comment is only in reference to songs that have been passed down, like many / most blues songs.

Songs that have been passed down from one generation to another and adapted should not be copy-written period. Regardless if I put my heart and soul into it. I could change a couple words or the music slightly of a song in the public domain and then copyright it, essentially removing it from the public domain. Of course original songs / music should be able to have the rights protected. Isn't this a no brainier? Don't get me wrong though I don't think the system is perfect and flawless, and there could be exceptions just like in almost anything. This is why we have lawyers, and judges.

If someone writes a song and doesn't reserve it's rights for any reason, the song should be in the public domain forever. How is it fair that I could take a song you wrote but didn't reserve it's rights and then turn around and adapt the song and reserve it for myself? Also keep in mind that if you perform a song in the public domain, your specific performance is protected.

[guitarmy]

So, no one can have any rights to anything they create? This is why we live in a free (basically) and just world. While this is not always the case, its painful to see people writing such thing's as "I can't have the right to own a song that I put my life into".

If I wrote a song and some act wanted to cover it I would be over joyed but, I still want my share of the song. Even if they don't want me in the act I still deserve to get a small bit of the pie.

If you have ever tried to do the right thing and found out how difficult it can be to do the right thing, you would understand how difficult it can be to do.

Have you ever tried to get permission from a publishing company and song writer to do a published song on your own project? It's not an easy process to go through, all most makes one want to take the risk of getting in trouble for infringement (but not me).

If you have ever tried to do this or even had any creative thought's of your own, you would not have said, "I think that no body should ever own right's or ever share song's with anyone that like's any song so much that they want to cover it and give that person there due".

It's not an easy road for a musician or band to walk down but we still do it anyways.

Edit:

It is true that a lot of band's do borrow from one another. I'm sure most have been guilty of this at one time or another but, making a statement that I or anyone can't have any right's is just out of bounds for me.

Well yeah that's what I meant by being an extremist. I believe that it is impossible to "be original" or to write an original work that wasn't influenced in some conscious or unconscious way from someone else or something else. Tracking the conscious is hard enough because some will choose to hide their influence or not care at all. Tracking the unconscious is a lot worse because you can't ask some to keep a record of something they are not aware of.

I didn't invent language and yet I use it every day without worrying that I will be sued. I mean, shouldn't we all be paying royalties to the modern descendants of the first people who wrote down words?

...

If anything, we need a better system to determine if something is stolen, shared, improved on, added to, or in fact original. We need a way to judge how much of a work contains influence from all tracks

Essentially we need a scientific way to assess art. Last time I checked, that was pretty hard to do as well.

Which is why I think it's all fair game and I don't care what the laws say. Laws are just what we currently hold to be true and can be changed.

[guitarmy]

trappled under foot to be honest.

Thank you for playing!

I think it's Immigrant Song.

The beat is not the same, and the songs don't even feel the same...but the striking pattern used for the main riffs are very similar.

Certain harmonica parts sound like the vocal intro to Immigrant Song

Page said we probably wouldn't recognize them.

Let's assume that I'm right. Is this stealing? Is this degree of borrowing worth citing? How much is too much and how much is just under the radar?

[Wolfman]

Page has also said they were paying homage to their blues heroes but in hindsight, they should have given them credit. Again, I don't get how Zep were thieves but bands like the Stones, Cream, etc. were not. Yes, they might have listed who they "borrowed" from but isn't it the same thing? That they wrote a lot of hits based on older blues songs. The whole thing is lame to me.

[tom kid]

I get so sick of this crap. Almost all of the bands back then did this but somehow Zep were thieves and the others were not.

Makes me laugh that Clapton had a dig at Zeppelin about it, even though he did the exact same thing but didn't really change the songs and they were just boring imo.

[ally]

Well yeah that's what I meant by being an extremist. I believe that it is impossible to "be original" or to write an original work that wasn't influenced in some conscious or unconscious way from someone else or something else. Tracking the conscious is hard enough because some will choose to hide their influence or not care at all. Tracking the unconscious is a lot worse because you can't ask some to keep a record of something they are not aware of.

I didn't invent language and yet I use it every day without worrying that I will be sued. I mean, shouldn't we all be paying royalties to the modern descendants of the first people who wrote down words?

...

If anything, we need a better system to determine if something is stolen, shared, improved on, added to, or in fact original. We need a way to judge how much of a work contains influence from all tracks

Essentially we need a scientific way to assess art. Last time I checked, that was pretty hard to do as well.

Which is why I think it's all fair game and I don't care what the laws say. Laws are just what we currently hold to be true and can be changed.

I agree with what you are saying here GA. How does anyone in the modern era claim anything totally original. ? Everyone is doing a partial cover of someone elses music and that will continue. Sounds and stage acts may vary but in the end, The Song Remains The Same

[barrios]

yawn

[#1fan]

I agree with what you are saying here GA. How does anyone in the modern era claim anything totally original. ? Everyone is doing a partial cover of someone elses music and that will continue. Sounds and stage acts may vary but in the end, The Song Remains The Same

mr bungle is damn original.

[barrios]

I agree with what you are saying here GA. How does anyone in the modern era claim anything totally original. ? Everyone is doing a partial cover of someone elses music and that will continue. Sounds and stage acts may vary but in the end, The Song Remains The Same

..very well eloquently put, why analyse so much ? every artist has been influenced by someone, passing on their desire and passion to another generation; hearing an influence in music has always happened. oterwise they would be no musicians. this really is a silly thread. cant believe ive wasted 2 min of my life writing this

[SteveAJones]

Ture, not sure that is in contrast to what I was saying though?

Just highlighting there is a distinction between "lyrical content" (words) and "melody" (song).