Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Conneyfogle

Did Led Zeppelin Rip Off a Folk Singer?

Recommended Posts

It's no coincidence that Holmes resurfaces when the Yardbirds and Epic are trying to package the Page era recordings. This is more about McCarty getting Page to relinquish on "Dazed" so that he can make a buck than it is about Holmes "rights."

See, it doesn't matter how much you think Holmes' reappearance is a "coincidence". Of course Holmes' objective is money. That's what punitive damages are. The point of the court case isn't to get Page whipped or thrown in jail. The point of the case is to get Holmes name on the credits and to claim damages in the form of money.

But Holmes' objective is not the subject of any of these threads. The focus has always been whether Page took from Holmes. Which, anyone with even remedial knowledge of music can hear.So, to that end, it doesn't matter what Holmes objective or intentions are. Attempting to correct a wrong from 40 years ago, or from 1 year ago. Just because Holmes waited this long doesn't erase the fact that the original thefts occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you...... Listen for yourselves

You forgot to add a caveat to your post stating "....and when you listen to this clip, pretend that you can hear this performed on a steel string guitar, with arpeggiations, improvised cadences, distinct fingerpicking technique, rhythmic invention, and unique syncopation which Jansch would create as a guitar-based variation of the melody that he regularly played with Briggs in London venues"

You're only reaffirming your own heartbreak, dude. For Pete's sake, there isn't even a GUITAR on the Cameron track.

See? The links are there between Page and Jansch. Jansch had a unique variation on the melody and Page copied it note-for-note. And the parts he didn't copy from Jansch instead came from Davy Graham. So there is no direct link from Page back to Briggs or Cameron, no matter how much Page or tonedeaf fanboys like you want to claim. The link is Briggs->Jansch, and then Page ripped Jansch's version. And Jansch's version has as much in common with Briggs or Cameron's as Christina Aguilera's version of Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl has as to do with Hendrix's version of the song at Woodstock. In all cases it doesn't matter, because Jansch's version was the ONLY basis for Page's "version".

I know you desperately want there to be a link somehow exonerating Page here. There isn't one.

Give it a break dude. Posting that clip only helps reaffirm that you're blinded by fanboydom. ANYBODY with ears can hear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joined: Today, 12:25 PM

...I've had my share of internet arguments over the years, but I can't imagine being so insane and desperate that I'd resort to creating fake accounts to agree with myself!!! :hysterical:

Well you've already displayed how insane and desperate you are, so there's not too much left to imagine about you....

But if your post was some silly attempt at implying that I've been posting with an alias, well then you really are crazy. Responses to you take too long as it is, since it requires re-posting facts and examples that you somehow didn't get the first time.

Nice try at another desperate attempt to pretend that you know anything at all about what the topics in this or the Black Mountain thread are about.

Leeeeeeet itttttt goooooo. You are only making yourself more of a sore loser.

Please, by all means sweetie, ask the mods yourself.

Edited by cookieshoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the entire thing is ridiculous, because the excuses keep being made that it was some "okay" that Page did the thefts he did. "Leaving what's Jimmy Page's to Jimmy Page" sums it up, because you keep leaving out the fact that what Page started with was not his. Page can use Holmes' lack of lawsuit after all these years to mean that Holmes somehow "walked away" from having written a song. Holmes released "I'm Confused" a year before Page put "Dazed and Confused" on Zep I. The Yardbirds ripped Holmes off, and then Page followed with the theft. That is the focus.

Yet, this keeps getting wrangled back into the "Because Page made x number of awesome changes to the Holmes melody, Page now owns the song, and Holmes never existed". That's nonsense. The theft is still there in "Dazed" no matter how ornamental Page dressed it up.

The law is the law, and it's hardly nonsense. Because Page made "x number of awesome changes to the Holmes melody" does make Page's claim unique and leaves Holmes with what is Holmes' -- the copyright for his own work. If you were to record an arrangement of chords and hum it me at a bus stop where Jim McCarty happens to also be, and I were to rework it, making significant changes and additions, record it with people who know only my interpretation and changes, you would not be allowed any remuneration for my efforts, even if you dragged McCarty into court as a witness to back up your claim to those chords in question. And I certainly would NOT ever give you credit as a collaborator, as your copyright doesn't give you sole license to that arrangement or rights to infringe on my work. The law says you would have to be content with your own work and that you must leave me with mine.

In Page's case, you can still insist whatever you want and go on blogs and accuse him of theft, but that doesn't mean he has to pay out to Jake Holmes or help Jim McCarty make a buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if your post was some silly attempt at implying that I've been posting with an alias, well then you really are crazy.

If I'm crazy, then this forum's webmaster must be crazy too -- because he banned your alias account after it was exposed.

All of your past, present and future postings will now be looked at in a different light. I'm sure there will be some posters who will actually have a higher opinion of you now.

As for me? I'm just gonna sit back and :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is the law, and it's hardly nonsense. Because Page made "x number of awesome changes to the Holmes melody" does make Page's claim unique and leaves Holmes with what is Holmes' -- the copyright for his own work. If you were to record an arrangement of chords and hum it me at a bus stop where Jim McCarty happens to also be, and I were to rework it, making significant changes and additions, record it with people who know only my interpretation and changes, you would not be allowed any remuneration for my efforts, even if you dragged McCarty into court as a witness to back up your claim to those chords in question. And I certainly would NOT ever give you credit as a collaborator, as your copyright doesn't give you sole license to that arrangement or rights to infringe on my work. The law says you would have to be content with your own work and that you must leave me with mine.

In Page's case, you can still insist whatever you want and go on blogs and accuse him of theft, but that doesn't mean he has to pay out to Jake Holmes or help Jim McCarty make a buck.

Yes, but if the original Dazed & Confused recording of both the Yardbirds and Zeppelin were both credited "Holmes/Page" as they should have been, then any subsequent embellishments, jamming, or re-workings that Zeppelin did would have been to the original Holmes/Page composition. Holmes would have always had his cut, no matter how many times Zep re-released it or changed it. It's not like in '76 when they released the Song Remains the Same soundtrack, Page could have said "yeah, but this is a 30 minute extended jam so I don't have to credit Holmes any more."

Holmes just has to show the simple sequence of events, if he can prove them - He and the Yardbirds played in the same club on the same night. Page and the Yardbirds went out and bought Holmes' record the next day and learned his song (which the Yardbirds freely admit). They then recorded "Dazed & Confused". Page then took the song to Zeppelin and they re-recorded it, changing it a bit more. They kept on expanding it and recording and releasing new iterations. But they should have been credited to Holmes/Page from day 1.

I could be wrong, but I've not heard Page deny this. In an interview once, he was directly asked about it and he got very uncomfortable and defensive, saying "What's he (Holmes) saying, he came up with the riff or whatever?" He didn't say "I don't know what you're talking about, I wrote that song and it has nothing to do with Holmes." or "Jake who?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to BMS, yes, that would be a major rip off and Page should have credited it: trad./Jansch,Page. Regarding D&C, not so sure. The songs are completely different, Holmes does use a decending bass line but it is different and not prominent. Other than that and Robert singing Dazed & Confused the only other similarity is overall tone. Is this enough to deserve a song writing credit? In my opinion no, however copyright law may have differing criteria. Also, Jansch and Page knew each other and Jansch was familiar with the Zeppelin music from day one. Why did Jansch not sue Zeppelin back in 69' or 70'? Same with Holmes, why didn't he sue back in the day? Again, not saying Page was right, he was not, but he is also not what I would consider a theif. Except for BMS that is :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm crazy, then this forum's webmaster must be crazy too -- because he banned your alias account after it was exposed.

All of your past, present and future postings will now be looked at in a different light. I'm sure there will be some posters who will actually have a higher opinion of you now.

As for me? I'm just gonna sit back and :lol:

Ask him yourself weirdo...if he banned somebody, it certainly wasn't anything to do with me or any whacko theory you have about me having an alias.

The fact that you need to claim this isn't surprising given how all of your other posts have been nothing more than clutching at straws. Believe whatever you want dude, you're already making plenty of sh*t up with regards to the topics as it is.

Why you perpetuate the drama element in this is completely all yours, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I've not heard Page deny this. In an interview once, he was directly asked about it and he got very uncomfortable and defensive, saying "What's he (Holmes) saying, he came up with the riff or whatever?" He didn't say "I don't know what you're talking about, I wrote that song and it has nothing to do with Holmes." or "Jake who?"

I don't know how this was done or by whom, but I was watching a video of Robert when he gave those series of interviews at SXSW in the 90's. He was asked point blank about allegations of "borrowing" from other artists. Robert begins to answer, and then the video "cuts" to another part of the interview...his answer is clearly cut out. dry.gif I think there were ten parts to the interview. I watched all of them, and that was the ONLY one with a discernable cut. Also, last year while browsing through You Tube, i came across the videos again. I remember one poster complaining that a part of the interview couldn't be found...

I LOVE led zep and I always will, but that bothered me big time. Despite all the legal stuff (which I frankly don't understand) isn't it really the public that decides the legacy??? I mean most people, besides us junkies, wouldn't even know about the outcome of the lawsuit.

Just my two...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Maybe it was better for Robert Plant to limit his comments at the time, especially if there was pending copyright litigation? There was a time when Whole Lotta Love and the Dixon estate pursued a copyright issue. I forget when it was resolved.

As for 'the legacy" and the public, I guess you could define legacy but it might veer from the question of the topic (Did Led Zeppelin Rip Off a Folk Singer?). And yeah it may be a rip-off, but it probably did not infringe on the copyright. It arguably was one of those allowable rip-offs in the world of intellectual property. We may need another thread for the legacy and the public topic.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I've not heard Page deny this. In an interview once, he was directly asked about it and he got very uncomfortable and defensive, saying "What's he (Holmes) saying, he came up with the riff or whatever?" He didn't say "I don't know what you're talking about, I wrote that song and it has nothing to do with Holmes." or "Jake who?"

It was Musician Magazine in 1990. A subsidiary of Bomp! Records had just released "James Patrick Page: Sessions Man, Vol. 1" and made the special addition of Holmes' "Dazed" to the record -- so by 1989-90, Page enthusiasts had heard the track. Here's what Page said:

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Musician Magazine in 1990. A subsidiary of Bomp! Records had just released "James Patrick Page: Sessions Man, Vol. 1" and made the special addition of Holmes' "Dazed" to the record -- so by 1989-90, Page enthusiasts had heard the track. Here's what Page said:

It had been a long time since Jake Holmes opened the show seen by the Yardbirds way back in the 1960s.

furious.com/revised

furious.com

On August 25, 1967 the Yardbirds caught an acoustic act fronted by Jake Holmes at the Village Theatre in New York's Greenwich Village. Holmes and his two sidemen played a song about a love affair gone dreadfully wrong. The song was called "Dazed & Confused." It's often been described as a song about a bad acid trip. Jake Holmes set this author straight in a 2001 interview.

"No, I never took acid. I smoked grass and tripped on it, but I never took acid. I was afraid to take it. The song's about a girl who hasn't decided whether she wants to stay with me or not. It's pretty much one of those love songs," Holmes explained.

Asked whether he remembered opening for the Yardbirds, Holmes laughed.

"Yes. Yes. And that was the infamous moment of my life when 'Dazed & Confused' fell into the loving arms and hands of Jimmy Page," he said. With its descending bass line, jittery lyrics and dramatic caesuras, the Yardbirds knew they were onto something. The very next day Jim McCarty bought Holmes' album, The Above Ground Sound of Jake Holmes.

We played with Jake in New York and I was struck by the atmosphere of 'Dazed and Confused.' I went down to Greenwich Village and bought his album and we decided to do a version," McCarty said. "We worked it out together with Jimmy contributing the guitar riffs in the middle. Don't you think he's the riff-master?"

Apparently, Page also bought the album the same day. According to Yardbirds historian Greg Russo, a certain John Alusick witnessed Jimmy Page purchasing it at Bleecker Bob's Record Store on Bleecker Street. The Yardbirds quickly set about adapting the song that had captured their collective imagination. Yardbirds singer Keith Relf tinkered with the lyrics while drummer Jim McCarty and Jimmy Page expanded the song structure itself. The song stuck to the original arrangment until the bridge. Even at this point, the fret-tapping acknowledged Holmes' original. Then Page threw in some eerie effects, bowing his guitar like a violin. Whereas a violin's neck is curved, a guitar neck is flat. Consequently, Page was only able to bow a couple strings at a time to produce an bizzare melody. When he bowed all six strings, the effect was startling. Strange moaning and whooping sounds were produced. This was a gimmick he had incorporated into his bag of tricks back in his studio days. He had first used it on two tracks on the Little Games LP, "Glimpses" and "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor."

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask him yourself weirdo...if he banned somebody, it certainly wasn't anything to do with me or any whacko theory you have about me having an alias.

The fact that you need to claim this isn't surprising given how all of your other posts have been nothing more than clutching at straws. Believe whatever you want dude, you're already making plenty of sh*t up with regards to the topics as it is.

Why you perpetuate the drama element in this is completely all yours, dude.

Sir, I have read this entire thread and you are the one who consistently sounds like someone who needs to be committed. People here have made good points on both sides but you have incessantly made remarks that seem a bit off. The mods here are very strict because this forum is very near and dear to many of us, so please either leave or calm the heck down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These topics bring out the worst from fans because they deal with topics that....wait for it....represent the worst in Page.

I have to disagree. Jimmy Page did some of his best work with Dazed And Confused. Perhaps it would help to understand that artists are allowed to "steal" in limited circumstances. But the criminal law doesn't really apply in this case, intellectual property law does. "Theft" is a misnomer. "Copyright infringement" is the civil question at the moment.

Page took the old Dazed And Confused car apart, reassembled it to make it different, painted it several other colors, and now arguably it's a whole new car, totally within his artistic license. If not for the characteristic descending bass line, you would not guess it was the same car. But is use of the descending bass line without permission and credit enough to add up to copyright infringement? The copyright may be mostly concerned with the lyrics, which he substantially changed.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. Jimmy Page did some of his best work with Dazed And Confused. Perhaps it would help to understand that artists are allowed to "steal" in limited circumstances. But the criminal law doesn't really apply in this case, intellectual property law does. "Theft" is a misnomer. "Copyright infringement" is the civil question at the moment.

Page took the old Dazed And Confused car apart, reassembled it to make it different, painted it several other colors, and now arguably it's a whole new car, totally within his artistic license. If not for the characteristic descending bass line, you would not guess it was the same car. But is use of the descending bass line without permission and credit enough to add up to copyright infringement? The copyright may be mostly concerned with the lyrics, which he substantially changed.

Yeah, but he never paid for the original car. If someone stole my car, stripped it, and rebuilt it and said "see, it's a whole new car, what are you mad about?", I'm pretty sure I'd still be mad and figure he owed me a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but he never paid for the original car. If someone stole my car, stripped it, and rebuilt it and said "see, it's a whole new car, what are you mad about?", I'm pretty sure I'd still be mad and figure he owed me a car.

But he has an artistic license that allows him to "steal" the car, as long as he transforms it sufficiently into a different car. If he keeps driving the car without substantially changing it, he must get permission and credit the owner of the copyright. That's the beauty of the intellectual property law, which is different from the criminal law. The question is, did he change the car enough? If he changed the car substantially enough to transform it into a new and different car, he owns it free and clear.

Someone else could try to "steal" the Dazed And Confused car, but again they would have to break it down and build an all new car to secure their own copyright and not infringe on the existing ones.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but he never paid for the original car. If someone stole my car, stripped it, and rebuilt it and said "see, it's a whole new car, what are you mad about?", I'm pretty sure I'd still be mad and figure he owed me a car.

Matt. it wasn't a car -- it was a tricycle that Page transformed into a Ferrari. Copyright law says that is OK.

I first heard Holmes' version more than 20 years ago, and even then, thought that Holmes would have a difficult time with any suit. Page utterly, significantly and beyond Holmes or anyone else's imagination, altered that piece and has been quite firm on that point. He also did it without infringing on Holmes' copyright. Holmes can do whatever he wants with what belongs to him, but he has to leave what belongs to Jimmy Page to Jimmy Page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is use of the descending bass line without permission and credit enough to add up to copyright infringement?

NO. Of course not.

And everything else you've said on this has been very imformative. An artist can actively take something, rework it and put it in a different context and call the work his own. It is legal, it is good, and it is what makes music what it is -- an ever-evolving thing that takes on new life and new form.

On the surface this seems like an easy case against Page. In reality it challenges the core of what Led Zeppelin was -- a group of four people that sounded so unique together the world can never get enough of it.

So Jake Holmes (and Jim McCarty) want a piece of it. Sorry boys, Jimmy Page says it's not yours and you're out on the tiles.

Edited by Mercurious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt. it wasn't a car -- it was a tricycle that Page transformed into a Ferrari. Copyright law says that is OK.

I first heard Holmes' version more than 20 years ago, and even then, thought that Holmes would have a difficult time with any suit. Page utterly, significantly and beyond Holmes or anyone else's imagination, altered that piece and has been quite firm on that point. He also did it without infringing on Holmes' copyright. Holmes can do whatever he wants with what belongs to him, but he has to leave what belongs to Jimmy Page to Jimmy Page.

Yes, Page EVENTUALLY transformed it beyond recognition. But you have to look at the whole sequence of events. Listen to Holmes' version and the Yardbirds version below, the Yardbirds didn't even change the lyrics. Right then it should have been a Holmes/Page composition. Every change Page and Zep eventually made would have been to the Holmes/Page version.

Listen to these both, it couldn't be any more cut and dry - same title, same lyrics, same everything. Page just added a couple of guitar flourishes and a bow solo. Not enough to make the song uniquely his.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mQvW0ROag

Edited by Mattmc1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all this time I thought Jake Holmes was a Brother from Mississippi. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Armadillos live in Mississippi, too. :)

Yes, Page EVENTUALLY transformed it beyond recognition. But you have to look at the whole sequence of events. Listen to Holmes' version and the Yardbirds version below, the Yardbirds didn't even change the lyrics. Right then it should have been a Holmes/Page composition. Every change Page and Zep eventually made would have been to the Holmes/Page version.

Listen to these both, it couldn't be any more cut and dry - same title, same lyrics, same everything. Page just added a couple of guitar flourishes and a bow solo. Not enough to make the song uniquely his.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=58mQvW0ROag

So maybe Holmes could ask for compensation based on copyright infringement for the value of this single live performance only, because the lyrics are the same. That is if he held a copyright at the time and there were no waivers for the live performance. You would need to look at the date of the copyright, if there was one then, and any relevant contracts that may have been signed in regard to the performance. But Holmes did not produce the sound that Jimmy Page did, even with the characteristic descending bass line. Listen to the guitar and it's Jimmy Page magic. And you can only compensate Holmes for Jake Holmes magic.

Otis Redding did several live renditions of Satisfaction by the Rolling Stones when they toured together. I don't recall hearing of any disputes in that situation.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Armadillos live in Mississippi, too. :)

So maybe Holmes could ask for compensation based on copyright infringement for the value of this single live performance only, because the lyrics are the same. That is if he held a copyright at the time and there were no waivers for the live performance. You would need to look at the date of the copyright, if there was one then, and any relevant contracts that may have been signed in regard to the performance. But Holmes did not produce the sound that Jimmy Page did, even with the characteristic descending bass line. Listen to the guitar and it's Jimmy Page magic. And you can only compensate Holmes for Jake Holmes magic.

Otis Redding did several live renditions of Satisfaction by the Rolling Stones when they toured together. I don't recall hearing of any disputes in that situation.

You're reaching and splitting hairs. Do you still honestly believe that the song didn't originate from Holmes, and wasn't taken by Jimmy Page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...