Conneyfogle Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/29/led-zeppelin-dazed-and-confused-jimmy-page-lawsuit-jake-holmes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yupter Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 A little late to the party? I had no idea it hadn't been settled already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuforte Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Someone is needing $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matjaz1 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Someone is needing $$$ Everybody is!! The chord progression and vocal melody are identical!! I certainly think writing new lyrics, a few riffs , solos and power chords is also songwriting, so Jimmy has some right to it, but the basic structure that makes the song is stolen!! I'm just getting scared that Randy California might eventually sue for the Stairway intro. It will not be a problem of cash(Jimmy's got plenty), but a problem of reputation, because then a lot more people will know about it!! I remember Jimmy going to court a few years ago, to sue some bootleger, it seems now he is going to be in a different role. Oh well, he is used to it, he was sued in the seventies for Whole lotta love, which really is only lyrically similar and for Bring it on home, where the middle section is entirely original! Who cares, he is still the greatest and wrote some tremendous songs!! When people say Page is a thief, they should first think of the incredible songs he wrote completely by himself, like The rain song, Kashmir, Ten years gone, Heartbreaker and the list goes on and on!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 This feels like deja vu all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hecube Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 He has no grounds. Led Zep's might have been inspired by it but plagiarism? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Great. More fuel for the haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdh Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Rip off? Let the courts decide. Was there deceit? Only if Jake Holmes and Jimmy Page had some pre arranged deal. Other than that, its the old blues phrase of "borrowing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cousinlouie Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 LOL My Favorite song, by my favorite band!!!!!!!! Of course they ripped it off, LOL The first 2 Zeppelin albums, are nothing but "borrowed" songs LOL Whole Lotta Love, what more can you say? Led Zeppelin borrowed many songs! I could never FATHOM the drum beat on Fool In The Rain, and loved John Bonham for it, then maybe 2 years ago I heard Burnie Purdie and realized, even on the last album, Led Zeppelin borrowed many things! Go on Youtube and type in Burnie Purdie or The Purdie Shuffle!!!! And dont forget the similarities between Superstitious by Stevie Wonder and Trampled Underfoot! Led Zeppelin was a very impressionable young band, I think they are the best but facts are facts! I love Zep, but even as we wait for Plant's new CD, I hear it's all covers, lol Lets say they take in the society around them, and give it back to us, LOL But they did have some original ideas, and a driving force, and UNBELIEVABLE musicianship!!!!! No offense to anyone I'm the biggest Zep fan I know, except for everyone on this forum!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Hi Y'all Seems the Statute of Limitations gives him only 3 years dosh max, i can hear the fluttering of moth wings as we speak. "Decades after the song’s release, Holmes has, for some reason or another, decided to now file a lawsuit against Page, reports TMZ. Holmes, who says he owns the copyright to the song, can only sue for damages from the last three years, however, due to the statute of limitations. Decades after the song’s release, Holmes has, for some reason or another, decided to now file a lawsuit against Page, reports TMZ. Holmes, who says he owns the copyright to the song, can only sue for damages from the last three years, however, due to the statute of limitations." http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarticlesynopsfullart.aspx?csid1=115&csid2=844&fid1=47775 Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Hi all, Jake remember what you said? KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanelectroGod Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 It's all about $$$. Who cares? I remember when George Harrison got sued for "My Sweet Lord" for ripping off "She's So Fine". In most cases, the suing party should be thankful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Hi all, Jake remember what you said? KB Hi Kev, Spill the beans mate, Heinz if you can get em. Very Kind Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom kid Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Great. More fuel for the haters. Pretty much. A mate of mine loves to rip at me about Zeppelin just because I listen to them so much and he can't fathom how I can do it. He's said to me before that they ripped off pretty much all of their songs or something along those lines. I know half of the time it's just a rark up but I don't get how he will refuse to even listen to them anymore just because I listen to them a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Most of the "stolen" stuff was always overhyped, a few blues lines being quoted as thundreds of bands did in the era being painted as entire songs being stolen by a xenophobic american media(honiestly the only "claim" white americans have on the blues is causing them ). This is clearly one case where Page was a little bit naughty though, yeah he added alot himself in the Yardbirds and Zep BUT large parts of the track are still near identical to Jake Holms original and did clearly deserve a co writters credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdr Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 External link from another forum: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=220589 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsj Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 holmes once remarked that he feels one of the reasons jimmy wont concede to a credit or even part credit is because its a song that is so closely attached to jimmy through it containing his bow repertoire and how it was such a main chunk of the set, particulalry in the earlier years. i remember he's also said he's wrtten to him over the years to ask him for a part credit out of fairness but has always been ignored. i think i'm right to say that he has wanted to sue before at times but didnt have the funds to do so. of course it's a steal. other yardbirds members have stated how they saw homes play the number and then went and got his album to check it out. oh, and then mysteriously they came up with a song that sounded very much like it, but hey it must have been coincidence? come on.... it doent make me dislike the song, band, or page in particular any less because of this. maybe jimmy should have paid him off behind the scenes to avoid this happening and it going public. i think most the zeppelin "steals" claims were mostly due to planty using standard old blues songs as starting points for his singing rather than musical steals. just my two pennuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mell Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 June 30, 2010, 11:43 am Bad Times, Worse Times: Led Zeppelin Sued for Copyright Infringement By DAVE ITZKOFF Neil Zlozower/Rhino Records Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin in an undated photo. Led Zeppelin historians have chronicled the creation of that rock band's early hit "Dazed and Confused" for so long it's understandable if fans can no longer tell what's true about its authorship. One thing is for certain: Jake Holmes, a folk singer who asserts he recorded a similar song, also called in 1967, says that he is the song's creator and has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Led Zeppelin and its guitarist, Jimmy Page, as well as the band's record labels and Mr. Page's publishing company. According to court documents filed on Monday in United States District Court in California and reported by TMZ.com, lawyers for Mr. Holmes say his "Dazed and Confused" was first copyrighted in July 1967, and its copyright renewed in December 1995. The song was later covered by the Yardbirds, the blues-rock band in which Mr. Page performed before Led Zeppelin, and the Zeppelin song was recorded in 1968 and released on the band's self-titled debut album in 1969. Mr. Holmes's suit says Mr. Page copied the song "without authorization or permission" and "knowingly and willfully" infringes on his copyrights. A management company listed for Mr. Page said it no longer represented him, and a press representative for Led Zeppelin at Atlantic Records did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swandown Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 i think i'm right to say that he has wanted to sue before at times but didnt have the funds to do so. This claim has been reported on numerous occasions, but it doesn't pass the sniff test for several reasons: 1. Holmes made a VERY good living as a jingle writer. Anyone who grew up in the '70s and '80s will recognize some of the jingles that he wrote. 2. for a case as obvious as this, there should be no shortage of lawyers POUNDING ON HIS DOOR to work on contingency. There were literally millions of dollars at stake. 3. who says he needed to hire a lawyer in the first place? Anne Bredon never hired a lawyer. She simply contacted Jimmy and informed him that she was the correct author of BIGLY, and Jimmy immediately rectified the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snapper Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Personally, I think if it weren't for the same title and vocal melody, Holmes wouldn't have a case. Musically, its way too different, even the descending guitar/bass line is (which is the only musical similarity) is quite different. I think Jake Holmes deserves a co-writing credit (thanks to Plant, once again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Why should they be sued for the intro to Stairway? It's only 3 chords and the notes are different. Stairway is an ascending arpeggio and Taurus is descending. Unless it can be proven that that chord progression was never played before Taurus was written (highly unlikely) what grounds for a lawsuit are there? The thing about the accusations of ripping off that annoys me is that if you know where to look most songs could be considered stolen. Art (music, literature, painting etc.) has been around for as long as we have been. Everything we see, hear and read are reinterpretations of what came before. The only originality is in new genres or in giving something a different twist. Zeppelin didn't do anything that every other band hasn't done themselves. I believe one of the biggest reasons Rock is essentially dead is that most of what could be reworked into new material has already been used. The main riff of Dazed was lifted from Jake Holmes so he should have been given partial songwriting credit (although Jimmy did come up with an entirely different song with the riff). Why did the dummy wait so long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matjaz1 Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Why should they be sued for the intro to Stairway? It's only 3 chords and the notes are different. Stairway is an ascending arpeggio and Taurus is descending. Unless it can be proven that that chord progression was never played before Taurus was written (highly unlikely) what grounds for a lawsuit are there? The thing about the accusations of ripping off that annoys me is that if you know where to look most songs could be considered stolen. Art (music, literature, painting etc.) has been around for as long as we have been. Everything we see, hear and read are reinterpretations of what came before. The only originality is in new genres or in giving something a different twist. Zeppelin didn't do anything that every other band hasn't done themselves. I believe one of the biggest reasons Rock is essentially dead is that most of what could be reworked into new material has already been used. The main riff of Dazed was lifted from Jake Holmes so he should have been given partial songwriting credit (although Jimmy did come up with an entirely different song with the riff). Why did the dummy wait so long? Oh yes i absolutely agrre stairway intro is quite different from taurus, but there are still some similarities. Anyway zeppelin made en epic song, that is the sum of all of it's parts, not just the intro and even the intro is pretty much original, but it might just be enough similar to taurus, to make a case. I also aboslutely agrre that all (great) artists steal! it's normal that some of the things form the past get recycled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yupter Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Quite a touchy subject, but the similarities of DnC is hard to deny. It's not just the riff but the vocals as well; Jimmy should've known better. An out of court settlement is most likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Hi Y'all If nobody ever lifted a lyric or a lick then we would still be whistling Dixie, or playing Greensleeves on a Harpsichord, , Perish the thought. Regards, Danny PS, and its mostly the Record Companies who go after Plagiarists (or Pagerists, ) not the original artists, now that says something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsj Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 In 1990, Musician magazine quizzed Page on the subject, asking if Holmes was the original composer. "I don't know about all that," Page replied. "I'd rather not get into it because I don't know all the circumstances. What's he got – the riff or whatever? ... I haven't heard Jake Holmes so I don't know what it's all about anyway. Usually my riffs are pretty damn original." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.