Pb Zeppelin borrowed their best songs?

[Mr E]

Some people tend to exaggerate Led Zep's 'thieving'. Calling them a cover band is just ridiculous. I think there's only actually about 10 songs where one could accuse them of plagiarism. Out of about 80/90 songs that ain't that bad, especially compared to many other far less talented bands out there who have stolen just as much if not more than Zeppelin.

[harp0]

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

I agree with that totally, sorry if I implied anything different.

[harp0]

Some people tend to exaggerate Led Zep's 'thieving'. Calling them a cover band is just ridiculous. I think there's only actually about 10 songs where one could accuse them of plagiarism. Out of about 80/90 songs that ain't that bad, especially compared to many other far less talented bands out there who have stolen just as much if not more than Zeppelin.

Yes I agree calling Led Zeppelin a cover band is just ridiculous. Though the actual number could be closer to 20 then 10. Here are some of the songs in question:

How Many More Times

Whole Lotta Love

Babe I'm Gonna Leave You

Black Mountain Side

Whole Lotta Love

White Summer

Stairway To Heaven

Bring It On Home

Communication Breakdown

Since I've Been Loving You

Custard Pie

Dazed And Confused

TrampledUnderfoot

Nobody's Fault But Mine

Moby Dick

Hats Off To Roy Harper

In My Time Of Dying

The Lemon Song

There might be some others that I should have listed and there could be a few that shouldn't be on this list, I don't claim to be the know all. Some of these songs sound close, (lyrically and/or musically), to other songs, and some don't sound close at all. One thing I do know though is that most, (maybe not all), of the songs in question should have been in the public domain. Most of the rest of the songs in question are only inspired by others music. What is left is very few that could be considered anything like plagiarism. That being said with the few in question it could be argued either way.

I remember seeing a CD, quite a few years back, that I think was a bootleg. It had a bunch of tracks by, "original artists" of some of the songs I have listed. Time and time again I think this is where some people get this topic wrong. The original songs in many of the cases were not original to the artist that claims credit to them, and would be nearly impossible to figure out who should have the credit.

[Mr E]

Yes I agree calling Led Zeppelin a cover band is just ridiculous. Though the actual number could be closer to 20 then 10. Here are some of the songs in question:

How Many More Times

Whole Lotta Love

Babe I'm Gonna Leave You

Black Mountain Side

Whole Lotta Love

White Summer

Stairway To Heaven

Bring It On Home

Communication Breakdown

Since I've Been Loving You

Custard Pie

Dazed And Confused

TrampledUnderfoot

Nobody's Fault But Mine

Moby Dick

Hats Off To Roy Harper

In My Time Of Dying

The Lemon Song

There might be some others that I should have listed and there could be a few that shouldn't be on this list, I don't claim to be the know all. Some of these songs sound close, (lyrically and/or musically), to other songs, and some don't sound close at all. One thing I do know though is that most, (maybe not all), of the songs in question should have been in the public domain. Most of the rest of the songs in question are only inspired by others music. What is left is very few that could be considered anything like plagiarism. That being said with the few in question it could be argued either way.

Yeah, personally I only think half of those songs could be accused of plagiarism. To me, most of them have a few influences or references to old blues songs, nothing to shout about. The Stairway To Heaven accusation is the one I find most laughable. Yes, Jimmy Page obviously took the opening chords from Taurus by Spirit but he turns it into a completely new song! Something totally new and original and groundbreaking! Really not enough to warrant plagiarism imo.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

OK, I'd like to see all of you guy's interested in this subject to do some research on what we are talking about here. Don't just listen to what some one (anyone, including me) tells you or what you think is right or wrong.

You do remember what you said about your brain Guitararmy?

There is a lot more than words and guitar chords to look at when your talking about producing an original song.

And there is always some thing new just on the verge of getting known, most just don't think about doing it until they hear/see someone else do it.

[guitarmy]

OK, I'd like to see all of you guy's interested in this subject to do some research on what we are talking about here. Don't just listen to what some one (anyone, including me) tells you or what you think is right or wrong.

You do remember what you said about your brain Guitararmy?

There is a lot more than words and guitar chords to look at when your talking about producing an original song.

And there is always some thing new just on the verge of getting known, most just don't think about doing it until they hear/see someone else do it.

My research is in Anthropology/Linguistics which tells me all language and forms of communication did not drop from the sky. They all came from somewhere or someone since humanity emerged from it's ancestors.

Music is a form of communication that naturally follows the same pattern.

As for your point about a song not consisting of guitar chords and lyrics--you're right. I'm sure Steve could pull out a quote where Page mentions riffs and lyrics and how Plant was supposed to change more of the lyrics and they didn't get nailed on the guitar parts.

But such a quote would underline the main reason why artists get charged for plagiarizing---lyrics!

Where are the cases where artists are charged based on musical content?

My argument is that since there is so much more to music than lyrics or chords for that matter, how come we have little legal authority to enforce the reuse of actual non-lyrical part of music.

I think it's because it's hard enough to trace words, and tracing the many sources of music is impossible.

Either we need a better legal system to objectively judge this stuff or it's all fair game to "steal".

[mstork]

trappled under foot to be honest.

I don't hear that at all. One harmonica phrase sounds a bit like Plant's opening scream on Immigrant Song. Which also sounds a bit like the melody to "Bali Hi" from the musical South Pacific. But nothing any reasonable person would consider a "ripoff"...

[guitarmy]

I don't hear that at all. One harmonica phrase sounds a bit like Plant's opening scream on Immigrant Song. Which also sounds a bit like the melody to "Bali Hi" from the musical South Pacific. But nothing any reasonable person would consider a "ripoff"...

Yeah I don't think it's ripoff either. But how do you define a ripoff? These things are not so easily stated when you try to spell them out. They either just are or they aren't, and we decide this if we "hear it" or not. Hardly a science.

So the rhythm of the riff is not the same and neither are the notes. But there's more to a song than the rhythm or the notes. There's patterns and progression and any number of other attributes that make a song unique. You can take something already established, play around with it, and come up with something entirely different.

Here's the tab of the main riffs:

Immigrant Song

E|----------------|----------------|

B|----------------|----------------|

G|----------------|----------------|

D|----4-------4---|----4-------4---|

A|----------------|----------------|

E|2-22-2-22-22-2-2|2-22-2-22-22-2-2|

I Wish You Would

E|----------------|----------------|

B|----------------|----------------|

G|--4-2-4---44-2-4|--4-2-4---44-2-4|

D|----------------|----------------|

A|2-------2-------|2-------2-------|

E|----------------|----------------|

But that's not the same! I didn't say it was. I am just noting how similar or different it is. Similarities:

• Structure: Visual pattern looks similar
• Accent same note: The 2's on the lower strings are the same notes as the 4's on the higher strings between each other (not between riffs).
• Fret: played at second fret
• Riff repeats throughout the song and is the driving force

Differences:

• Between riffs, the notes are different.
• Rhythm - write them both out using musical notation and you have 2 different beats
• String played on - IS is on 6th/4th. IWYW on 5th/3rd
• Immigrant Song's riff is slightly more "simple"

So I think it's possible to be "ripping off" certain elements of a song without compromising the whole thing. The question is, what level of granularity is acceptable before you are really "ripping off" the whole song? We may never know if Led Zeppelin took what they found in I Wish You Would and fashioned it into Immigrant Song. But what if someone within the band came out and said this was the case. Would you call that stealing if it was different enough? How much is enough? What do you think? ... Sometimes I'll break up Immigrant Song like this:

E|----------------|

B|----------------|

G|----------------|

D|----4-----44-2-4|

A|----------------|

E|2-22-2-22-------|

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

Guitararmy, As I asked you to do but, you have still not listened, I will have to spell it out for you.

There is a big library up in Washington, DC called, "The Library of Congress", that is where all the copy written thing's are stored. It is also where they decide ether too or not too give some one a ligament copyright for their creative work(s).

This is where you should start if you want to find out more or wish to petition your government on how this system work's.

I think It work's fine but that's just my own thought's.

[BIGDAN]

"All Property Is Theft"

As said by

Carl Marx

who stole it from

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

who coined the phrase in 1813

"Cryin' won't help you

prayin' won't do you no good "

as said by

Me

Today

Robert Plant

in 1971

And

Kansas Joe McCoy and Memphis Minnie's

in 1929

http://www.thecultofblog.com/?p=74

Theft would include all Music and Lyrics

Regards, Danny

[Nathan]

guitararmy, the problem with your suggestion is that musicians have to make money. It is, after all, their job/career/life.

This is why we have things like covers and such... you can fill out a form that will, essentially, transfer a portion of the copyright of a song over to you. You simply sign your name, name the original artist your CD, and voila, you're still making money (and so are they).

... It's obviously not that simple... I just simplified for the purposes of this post. There are also fees and stuff that have to be paid, some annoying but necessary red tape, and so on...

Here's the thing about Led Zeppelin:

4, maybe 5 of their songs can actually count as legal plagiarism (Whole Lotta Love, The Lemon Song, Bring it on Home, Black Mountain Side, and Dazed and Confused). The rest they "stole" were reworked to the point of non-recognition. The songs became originals. Now, legally, this counts as "derivatives". What a lot of people don't really understand is that when Led Zeppelin was doing this, there was no derivative law. So at the time, Zeppelin's "versions" were so original they could legally call them original. This is not the case anymore, and it did change in the 70's (late 70's I believe). So there are, in their entire catalog, only about 4 or 5 truly offending songs.

As to why Led Zeppelin gets blasted for it:

For some fucked up reason, our societies love tearing down what is... I guess... famous.

Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, and Jason Bonham are on the level of being the gods of music. Granted, that is an opinion, but you can also look at that objectively to see how popular Led Zeppelin is... practically every musical artist around today (who sprang up after 1980, that is) finds a way to say they were inspired Led Zeppelin (even if it means being inspired by Bonzo's "When the Levee Breaks" beat, which, as we have been told by many a wannabe, helped to "inspire" rap).

They are the who's who of music, known to everyone. Every single person alive in America, in the UK... hell, probably across the world... has heard Stairway to Heaven at least once, though most likely more then once (and many of us enough times to never want to hear it again). Stairway to Heaven has the distinction of being the most overplayed song. It is one of, if not the only song in history to get to the point of being just too popular for just too long.

Led Zeppelin reached a pinnacle not even Pink Floyd... not even Jimi Hendrix... can claim (we're talking numbers and popularity alone... personal opinions will inevitably vary).

But Led Zeppelin is just too big for most people. A lot of people just can't handle the idea of Led Zeppelin's fame. So, as society is wont to do, they find as much dirt as they can and call the boys out for it.

"Oh my God! That riff in 'Immigrant Song' sounds a little like that riff in 'I Wish You Would'! The thieving magpies!" (Not calling you out, guitararmy... just using your example because it's the one on this page... )

Led Zeppelin cannot be perfect. They cannot be all good. Otherwise society just wouldn't be able to handle them. So society finds what they can to tear Led Zeppelin down.

To society's dismay, however, Led Zeppelin- like Hendrix, Floyd, the Beatles, the Who, Clapton, and Beck (and maybe some others)- is seemingly immune to even the most biting criticisms. Maybe it's because Led Zeppelin has one of the largest, most loyal fan-bases of any band/artist, and that fan-base isn't plagued by fans fighting amongst themselves over which member is best (anyone just watched a Pink Floyd board lately?). We are a generally tolerant, peace-loving bunch (well... some on this site make me wonder just how true this is... I still think this site is the ultimate reason Plant decided against the reunion tour ). And this gets society's panties all knotted in a bunch, especially because the plagiarism accusation is all they have. So they constantly use it, over and over again, for no other reason then to try, and ultimately fail, the tear Led Zeppelin down.

Anyways... that's my $0.02 (USD).

[harp0]

...And this gets society's panties all knotted in a bunch, especially because the plagiarism accusation is all they have. So they constantly use it, over and over again, for no other reason then to try, and ultimately fail, the tear Led Zeppelin down.

Anyways... that's my $0.02 (USD).

Maybe some people just want to discuss the issue. Music copyrights and the law are in the news like never before today, with plagiarism and other issues. It happens all the time. Maybe some people have an alternate opinion of this issue. To be fair when you say things that assume that everyone who discusses this are tearing Led Zeppelin down is not fair and untrue.

As I've said before there are new fans everyday, that have never heard of this issue and are curious. My opinion is that Led Zeppelin were in the right to use the songs they used. I know and accept that others will have different views, but to say that they are trying to tear down Led Zeppelin is a bit over the top, and not based in reality but only in emotion. Of course there are some who will tear down but not all, and I doubt most.

This kind of thing also happened to Led Zeppelin. Ever hear the song by Chicago, 25 Or 6 To 4? Here is an excerpt from song facts:

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1197

Thewhole Zeppelin v. Chicago fiasco is interesting to me so I did someresearch and found some info for those interested:Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" was recorded Aug 1969 and released June 1970Zeppelin's "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" was recorded Oct 1968 andreleased in January 1969So Zeppelin not only recorded BIGTLY earlier they released it beforeChicago had recorded 25r624. There is a strong possibility Chicago wereinfluenced by listening to Zeppelin on the radio since BIGLY would havebeen on the airways for atleast 7 months! So yeah Chicago ripped ofZeppelin, but I would expect not intentionally. Maybe they felt thatriffs wern't something that belonged to one group but the whole musiccommunity.what about BIGLY itself? Was it ripped of another artist? Well, dependon what part your talking about. The lyrics were taken from anothersong by that sounded nothing like BIGLY. The MUSIC however is originalto Jimmy Page. In fact it was one of the songs he was working on beforeforming zeppelin and worked with other artist in brief.We also have to keep in mind that Jimmy Page was a studio sessionguitarist before his fame, where he was employed by a LOT of bands toplay guitar in studios, and he is unoffically credited with a LOT ofriffs that upcoming bands used in their songs but never gave him creditor royalties. Maybe he is entitled to use some of theriffs...don'cha'think?

- Schain, Austin, FL

In the end to me this is just an interesting issue to discuss. I'm happy that Chicago recorded 25 Or 6 To 4, one of the very few songs I really care for by them. I don't really care that it sounds quite a bit like another song I like even more, but it's an issue just the same.

[Nathan]

^I was talking specifically about those who use the plagiarism aspect as a way to tear down Led Zeppelin. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (I thought I was) but I think it's quite obvious that Zeppelin fans won't be discussing plagiarism to tear Led Zeppelin down. Their critics do it, not their fans.

Again, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear... I am shit with words, so sometimes I tend to not be clear...

[harp0]

^I was talking specifically about those who use the plagiarism aspect as a way to tear down Led Zeppelin. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (I thought I was) but I think it's quite obvious that Zeppelin fans won't be discussing plagiarism to tear Led Zeppelin down. Their critics do it, not their fans.

Again, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear... I am shit with words, so sometimes I tend to not be clear...

No need to be sorry. I should have been more clear as well. I write articles, my reason for starting this thread was because of an article I posted on Led Zeppelin, stealing songs. If you want to read it there is a link at the start of this thread.

I try to be as unbiased as possible, like a critic should be. I try and pretend that I don't like or dislike Led Zeppelin, when I was writing it. I was trying to show that there is other ways of looking at this topic other then that Led Zeppelin were song thieves or just a very popular cover band or nonsense like that. I didn't write it that way because I'm a fan of Led Zeppelin, (true though it is), but because I'm convinced that my side of the argument is the right side, and I would say the same about any band in the same position. Not all critics tear down Led Zeppelin, it's possible to be a fan and also believe that Zeppelin stole songs even though I don't.

[Nathan]

No need to be sorry. I should have been more clear as well. I write articles, my reason for starting this thread was because of an article I posted on Led Zeppelin, stealing songs. If you want to read it there is a link at the start of this thread.

I try to be as unbiased as possible, like a critic should be. I try and pretend that I don't like or dislike Led Zeppelin, when I was writing it. I was trying to show that there is other ways of looking at this topic other then that Led Zeppelin were song thieves or just a very popular cover band or nonsense like that. I didn't write it that way because I'm a fan of Led Zeppelin, (true though it is), but because I'm convinced that my side of the argument is the right side, and I would say the same about any band in the same position. Not all critics tear down Led Zeppelin, it's possible to be a fan and also believe that Zeppelin stole songs even though I don't.

Would it be better if I said "negative critics and haters"?

You wrote a brilliant article, by the way. I do like it. I was just trying to answer the question of why this topic is constantly brought up, and I know it's most often brought up by negative critics of Led Zeppelin. I wasn't talking about you or fans or such... just negative critics and, I guess, "haters".

[glicine]

To society's dismay, however, Led Zeppelin- like Hendrix, Floyd, the Beatles, the Who, Clapton, and Beck (and maybe some others)- is seemingly immune to even the most biting criticisms. Maybe it's because Led Zeppelin has one of the largest, most loyal fan-bases of any band/artist, and that fan-base isn't plagued by fans fighting amongst themselves over which member is best (anyone just watched a Pink Floyd board lately?). We are a generally tolerant, peace-loving bunch (well... some on this site make me wonder just how true this is... I still think this site is the ultimate reason Plant decided against the reunion tour ). And this gets society's panties all knotted in a bunch, especially because the plagiarism accusation is all they have. So they constantly use it, over and over again, for no other reason then to try, and ultimately fail, the tear Led Zeppelin down.

How true, remember this?

I have never respected post-Zep Plant.

I just don't like post-Zep Plant. I never have, and I never will.

I've never had much respect for Plant's musical career or many of the statements he makes, and I probably never will.

Who says Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones, with Jason Bonham on the drums, can't foray into new musical territory? Who says they can't "try new things?

You're also right... Plant is not my cup of tea. Never was.

[Nathan]

How true, remember this?

I never excluded myself from that, did I? Did I say "except me"? No. I didn't.

[harp0]

Thanks for the kind words about the article. As for:

"...I was just trying to answer the question of why this topic isconstantly brought up, and I know it's most often brought up bynegative critics of Led Zeppelin. I wasn't talking about you or fans orsuch... just negative critics and, I guess, "haters"."

The root of what your talking about is more likely based on money then hate. Not that it's any better, just different. Negative critics especially the people who write the, "tell all", kind of books are often doing it for nothing more then a paycheck. I'm sure there are a few people who hate Led Zeppelin without the influence of cash, but the anti-zeppelin militant haters I think are few and far between.

Many years ago when I read Hammer of the Gods, and later with Richard Coles book, sorry I forgot the title and I'm lazy to look at my book shelf. In some sections I had that feeling of some of it being motivated by large sums of cash. *Mudshark anyone? I did enjoy both books, Hammer much better, but that was what I think. Money is the root of all evil, is almost always true. The rise of the third reich, slavery, and Zeppelin Haters. Ok well maybe now I'm going a bit over the top. Sorry.

[guitarmy]

Guitararmy, As I asked you to do but, you have still not listened, I will have to spell it out for you.

There is a big library up in Washington, DC called, "The Library of Congress", that is where all the copy written thing's are stored. It is also where they decide ether too or not too give some one a ligament copyright for their creative work(s).

This is where you should start if you want to find out more or wish to petition your government on how this system work's.

I think It work's fine but that's just my own thought's.

Research? I don't want to have to do work! But I suppose you are right.

One of my pet peeves is people who complain and don't want to contribute to fixing something they think is a problem.

I'll get back to you guys.

[#1fan]

I don't hear that at all. One harmonica phrase sounds a bit like Plant's opening scream on Immigrant Song. Which also sounds a bit like the melody to "Bali Hi" from the musical South Pacific. But nothing any reasonable person would consider a "ripoff"...

the rythm seems to be trapled only slighty diffrent to me, didnt say it was a rip off askred what song it could be and it reminds me of tuf, not even close to the is imo.

[guitarmy]

the rythm seems to be trapled only slighty diffrent to me, didnt say it was a rip off askred what song it could be and it reminds me of tuf, not even close to the is imo.

what? I do not understand.

[dazedcat]

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:3cfoxqw0ldfe

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:3cfqxz90ldte

What Page did to Willie Dixon was inexcusable, sorry but it was. Zeppelin came a long long way from the first two albums...........but they should have credited the people whose songs they 'remade'.

Just my humble opinion....flame away.

Regards;

[#1fan]

what? I do not understand.

Im alittle sick and my grammar is bad right now, but it dont take as genius to get the jist of it, your insult to me , makes me question your intellegence.

The songs rhythm seems to be trampled under foot, but with a slightly different twist to it, I didn't say it was a rip off, We were asked, what song it could be and it reminds me of trampled under foot, it is not even close to the is immigrant song Imo, well the mouth harp a little , but the main riff is very close to the feel of trampled under foot.

Thats what a ment to say and any one with a brain could have figured it out, at least i could if the roles were reversed.

[harp0]

Im alittle sick and my grammar is bad right now, but it dont take as genius to get the jist of it, your insult to me , makes me question your intellegence.

The songs rhythm seems to be trampled under foot, but with a slightly different twist to it, I didn't say it was a rip off, We were asked, what song it could be and it reminds me of trampled under foot, it is not even close to the is immigrant song Imo, well the mouth harp a little , but the main riff is very close to the feel of trampled under foot.

Thats what a ment to say and any one with a brain could have figured it out, at least i could if the roles were reversed.

Though this wasn't aimed at me, I have a few comments on it.

Intelligence is a funny thing some people are smart but have no social skills some maybe to the point that they are antisocial. . Also just curious what your illness is that affects grammar? At least I can hear, I would be devastated if I couldn't hear music anymore. Can anyone imagine never hearing Led Zeppelin again? I happen to be legally blind in both eyes, I use a variety of different tools to help me be able to see well enough to write and read online. I might be able to help you if that is your issue. Though my grammar is far from great I think that most people can at least understand what I'm writing. For my articles I write I have an editor that takes care of it for me. Anyway I hope your feeling better soon.

[djzoso]

great article

Yes zeppelin were the four best musicians to ever come together on this side of the galaxy (but i'm preachin' to the choir)