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

Good article. I pretty much said thing in regards to yet another Jake Holmes thread a few months ago regarding other bands plagiarism. Zeppelin unfortunately are held to a standard that bands like Cream, The Stones, & Beatles aren't. Clapton gets away with his "borrowing", mainly due to a friendly press, because he's an authentic bluesman. The Stones constantly voicing their love of blues & R&B also gives them a free pass. The Beatles... well they're the Beatles & no one in the music press will ever bring up anything negative about them. Not so with Zeppelin. They stole "everything", which I think is horseshit. But they did steal something, & that something is "Dazed and Confused". I'll defend them on other songs like "Custard Pie" where it's just random lines from a few old blues songs thrown over original music, or having a trad. arr credit for all the band members on "IMTOD" as no one knows the original author & their version is light years away from anyone else's. They eventually did the right thing belatedly giving the proper credit with songs like "The Lemon Song", "WLL", "NFBM", & premptively with songs like "Levee" & "Boogie With Stu", so there's no need to rake those over the coals. However, "Dazed and Confused" has remained a stain on their musical ethics for too long a time & regardless of what the court decides, I'm glad to see this mess finally get cleaned up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch, harsh kaiser :o

Reasonable time frame? The law?

I was referring to your, "...whether it was a week or 40 years after the fact..." comment. The Statute of Limitations dictates this. I was saying, because of this, Holmes is not going to get the forty years worth of compensation.

Presumptious? Don't think so.

Yes. it was presumptuous. It is arrogant to claim,

...this forum would be filled with comments like "Way to go Jimmy!"..."The waves of support would be endless lol."

I can't see how you could have come to this conclusion here. Some have said "YES" and some have said "NO" to the topics question. And of course an off the wall "Jake Holmes sucks at music" comment, which only seems to be coming from one person.

Lastly, I don't think the original artist is "over it". If he were, there wouldn't be a court case.

I was a referring to the Willie Dixon settlement and using it as an analogy. Both the Willie Dixon and Zeppelin party agreed to settle; meaning whatever compensation that was given was deemed acceptable; meaning the original artist "got over it". Whenever (if ever) Holmes agrees to a settlement, then we should do likewise. Agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I think that it's now becoming more common knowledge that Page lifted the intro to "Stairway" from Davy's version of "Cry Me a River". I think a lot of people will always say that it doesn't sound the same, or they assume that Spirit's "Taurus" was the link. But both Page and the dude from Spirit were fans of Davy's. Page was a huge fan of Davy's, in fact. "White Summer" has a bunch of lifts from Graham songs in that one song, not just the main riff that Page lifted. And remember, Page gave no credit to Graham for that song either. So, no matter how much people don't like it (or how much they refuse to hear it), Page is also guilty of not having given Davy any credit for the intro to "Stairway" either.

It's a sad chunk of tarnish on Page's legacy. But I think people do themselves a disservice by persistently denying it. "Whole Lotta Love", "Dazed and Confused", and "Stairway to Heaven" are arguably Zep's three most popular and important songs in their entire catalog. And all three have heavy thievery in them (WLL lyrics, D&C riff and lyric lines, Stairway guitar melody). It sucks big time, but it is what it is. Better that we still enjoy the music, and let Page pay the damages so that he can at least get some closure on these things.

Yeah, he should just pay up and get it over with. The longer it drags out, the worse it will be for his image I think. He could help fund this by releasing some "latter days" live stuff as we're about due for some new official stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch, harsh kaiser :o

I was referring to your, "...whether it was a week or 40 years after the fact..." comment. The Statute of Limitations dictates this. I was saying, because of this, Holmes is not going to get the forty years worth of compensation.

Yes. it was presumptuous. It is arrogant to claim,

I can't see how you could have come to this conclusion here. Some have said "YES" and some have said "NO" to the topics question. And of course an off the wall "Jake Holmes sucks at music" comment, which only seems to be coming from one person.

I was a referring to the Willie Dixon settlement and using it as an analogy. Both the Willie Dixon and Zeppelin party agreed to settle; meaning whatever compensation that was given was deemed acceptable; meaning the original artist "got over it". Whenever (if ever) Holmes agrees to a settlement, then we should do likewise. Agree to disagree.

I don't think Holmes is looking for 40 years of compensation, I think he's looking for a co-writing credit & some payment. As I stated earlier in regards to Holmes interview with Mojo a few years back, when he tried to work out a deal with the business side of Zep in the 70's that he was not looking for any past royalties but a co-writing credit & future royalties. Now maybe a lot has changed since then & he may want some back royalties but I'm sure he would have to be realistic enough to know that he wouldn't get all of that money or that he's even trying to. Everything interview I've ever read with Holmes he's more upset about the lack of a songwriting credit than money.

Presumptious & arrogant? Ha, once again I said "if", & "if" that scenario took place "I" wouldn't have a doubt that it happen much like I said it would. That's like Chamberlain calling Churchill "presumptious & arrogant" for Churchill saying that if Chamberlain signs a treaty with Hitler allowing Germany to "peacefully" annex Czechoslavakia that Germany would take it upon themselves to "invade" other terrirtories in Europe. I guess Churchill was being a bit presumptious & arrogant in his views because could he really predict the future? No, but he could look at what Germany had done in the past & see what the most likely outcome of this Czech scenario would bring in the future. Churchill had foresight, Chamberlain liked to believe what he wanted because he had faith in the wrong people. In "this" scenario I'm Churchill, you're Chamberlain.

How did I come to my conclusion: 1) I can read & understand the English language 2) I've been on this site & the former site for a combined 8 years, reading most of the threads across the board. One tends to see patterns develop in where they will lead. This thread is no exception & I've seen enough hypocrisy on the forum to know exactly what some people who have posted specifically in this thread would write if the scenario I presented of Zeppelin suing a band years after the fact came to pass. Chalk it up to experience.

I'm sure Holmes will be "over it" once "it" is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is if in 2010 Zep pursued a court case against let's say Kingdom Come for their song "Get It On" 22 years after it's release this forum would be filled with comments like "Way to go Jimmy!", "Serves those theiving bastards right!" "There's a reason why Jimmy called them Kingdom Clone!". The waves of support would be endless lol. There are plenty of rocks to be thrown in & at the glass house known as the Led Zeppelin Forums page.

It's actually a good point to remember that Zeppelin have NOT pursued the countless people who have ripped them off. And why's that? Because they recognise that there are only limited chords/melodies/structures, and music is derivative so much of the time.

Hell even Willie Dixon ripped off other blues artists.

Buddy Guy was honest enough to say that he appreciated the exposure that bands like Led Zeppelin gave to old blues standards/artists - giving them a much wider audience (and probably MILLIONS more in records sales) than they would have otherwise had. Led Zeppelin turned ME on to those artists - and I'm one of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a good point to remember that Zeppelin have NOT pursued the countless people who have ripped them off. And why's that? Because they recognise that there are only limited chords/melodies/structures, and music is derivative so much of the time.

Hell even Willie Dixon ripped off other blues artists.

Buddy Guy was honest enough to say that he appreciated the exposure that bands like Led Zeppelin gave to old blues standards/artists - giving them a much wider audience (and probably MILLIONS more in records sales) than they would have otherwise had. Led Zeppelin turned ME on to those artists - and I'm one of many.

Great post Kneb. A lot of people who flip out about Zep and Willie Dixon would never have even heard Willie Dixon if it wasn't for Zep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting excerpt from an RP interview with Playboy - I looked for it because I thought it was the one where he mentioned the rip off of the "Heartbreaker" riff in Michael Jackson's "Bad" (only one note missing) - I couldn't find that part but thought this bit was relevant.

PB: Over the years, which band is most guilty of being a Zeppelin soundalike?

RP: Blimey. I’d probably say the Beastie Boys.

PB: Seriously?

RP: Well, that’s how they got started, isn’t it?

PB: You mean sampling Zeppelin riffs?

RP: Yeah, but I don’t think they could get all the high notes.

PB: Have you ever heard a truly great Zeppelin cover?

RP: Well, you can’t say Dolly Parton [who recently covered Stairway to Heaven], can you? No, I don’t think I have. Isn’t that sad after 30 fucking years?

PB: Sure is. Now it’s time to play “Name That Tune.” I’ll play a song that “borrows” from Zeppelin and you have tell me which song it borrows from.

RP: That’s quite imaginative, isn’t it? That’s a demo of a very early

version of Kashmir [from Physical Graffiti]. Who did that?

PB: Creed.

RP: Oh, Christ. How old is that track then?

PB: It came out last year.

RP: What’s it called?

PB: My Sacrifice.

RP: [Writing down the name of the artist and song] Fucking hell. How original can you get? All right, so you’ve been caught, boys. They all sing like the guy out of, um….

PB: Pearl Jam. Eddie Vedder.

RP: Yeah.

PB: Here’s another.

RP: All My Love [from In Through the Out Door] mixed with That’s the Way [from Led Zeppelin III].

PB: This was a Grammy Award-nominated song by Wyclef Jean called Gone Till November.

RP: [Writing down the name of the artist and song] Christ. I can go skiing in the winter.

PB: We’re relatively sure you’ve heard this one.

RP: I saw Eddie Vedder in Oslo the night before that really unfortunate accident in Roskilde [the June 30, 2001 Pearl Jam show when nine fans were crushed to death], and we share the agent, not carnally, but literally, in Europe, and so I went backstage and was introduced to him. Nice guy, nice band, good people. I said, “How’s that song doing that we wrote?” He said, “Ah, it’s coming along fine.” So I stood at the lighting desk and I was enjoying the show and he got to that song and he said, “Here’s a song that we wrote for a guy out there somewhere in the dark.” It’s very close [to Going to California from Led Zeppelin IV], isn’t it?

PB: Here’s a curveball.

PB: When you first heard it, what’d you think?

RP: Well, it had to be sent to me, hysterically, for my approval afterwards. It’s like that TV ad. It works.

PB: So you don’t mind it?

RP: I don’t care. No, because it works. The riff is great. It’s Jimmy’s riff. It put Jimmy in a different place, which is exactly what I do with Strange Sensation [his touring band]. I think it’s what music is all about. So much energy and creatively over the years and I don’t give a hoot which way it works, so long as when it’s working we all know what the game is. And if people sample stuff, that’s fine, provided that they own up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post(s) Knebby thanks, I just wish I could show it to all the Zep-haters online who insist on calling Zeppelin plagiarists, and Jimmy unoriginal with no talent. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post(s) Knebby thanks, I just wish I could show it to all the Zep-haters online who insist on calling Zeppelin plagiarists, and Jimmy unoriginal with no talent. :angry:

Hey thanks - and don't worry - it is their loss! Don't waste your time on it - they either get it or they don't. :) x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a good point to remember that Zeppelin have NOT pursued the countless people who have ripped them off. And why's that? Because they recognise that there are only limited chords/melodies/structures, and music is derivative so much of the time.

Hell even Willie Dixon ripped off other blues artists.

Buddy Guy was honest enough to say that he appreciated the exposure that bands like Led Zeppelin gave to old blues standards/artists - giving them a much wider audience (and probably MILLIONS more in records sales) than they would have otherwise had. Led Zeppelin turned ME on to those artists - and I'm one of many.

I'm quite aware that Zeppelin haven't pursued litigation against other artists that have either been influenced by Zep or outright ripped Zep off. You're right in part that Zep are musicians who realize that there are only so many chords, melodies, & structures, but I would also imagine they have far more to lose than to gain by suing other artists. Firstly they would be labeled as hypocritical for all the songs 7 artists they, ahem, borrowed from without giving due credit of authorship & finacially ( how many song writing credits would be on "How Many More Times" alone if the seperate artists that Zep "borrowed" from chose to pursue litigation against them & won?) , & secondly the artists who have outright ripped off Zep are far less successful than Zeppelin ever were so Zep would come off as a big corporate bully trying to get the few monies that bands like Kingdom Come & Zebra made. Kingdom Come, the most famous ripoff, did not sell many albums. Their song "Get It On" or whatever it was called may have gotten them the attention they wanted at first but then there was a huge backlash & their career went in the toilet. Where would be the incentive to sue them? Zep rightfully could but they would lose more than it's worth.

As far as Creed, a band I hate, their song may have a guitar sound similar to "Kashmir", as does Eminems "Lose Yourself", but it's not a direct rip of "Kashmir". There's a difference between influence & theft. Pearl Jam, well Zep could make some money off of them as the chords & vocal melody to "Given To Fly" are practically the same as Zep's "Going To California". Would it be worth it for Zep to sue though or are they just sympathetic that these similarities sometimes occur? Probably both, but I'm sure they wouldn't advertise the former to much. It's just business. I'm aware of the Michael Jackson & Wyclef thing as well & quite frankly I don't hear it. And I've listened very hard. There may be elements but it's a stretch.

Willie Dixon ripped off other artists? Name one. I'm not saying he didn't, just name one. It's a popular thing to say that blues artists ripped off other blues artists on this site yet no one ever gives examples. It's like a mantra from a religious cult. What people also forget or don't know is that these blues artists didn't make much money so why are they going to sue each other for something neither one has. They're going to sue for the other guy's cadillac that record company bought them off with instead of the money they were promised lol? There was nothing of any substantial value for these guys to sue each other over. Led Zeppelin on the other hand has lots of lovely money.

Buddy Guy's a gent. It's nice that he's gracious enough to focus on the positives rather than the negative aspects of the bands that came after him that genuinely loved him & his music, but it also would have been nice if he got paid as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie Dixon ripped off other artists? Name one. I'm not saying he didn't, just name one. It's a popular thing to say that blues artists ripped off other blues artists on this site yet no one ever gives examples. It's like a mantra from a religious cult. What people also forget or don't know is that these blues artists didn't make much money so why are they going to sue each other for something neither one has. They're going to sue for the other guy's cadillac that record company bought them off with instead of the money they were promised lol? There was nothing of any substantial value for these guys to sue each other over. Led Zeppelin on the other hand has lots of lovely money.

So, it is about the money, after all. I was getting dizzy after all the talk about moral and principles in the few related threads I watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call Zep's Dazed And Confused a complete rip off, they did shake up the song adding in different sections and of course on the whole the lyrics are different.

Calling the song and including the Dazed and Confused lyric did them no favours however.

There are of course many similarities in pieces of music. One example I can think of is a section Pink Floyd's Echoes and the main riff of Andrew Loyd Webber's Phantom Of The Opera. Apparently Roger Waters thinks he intentionally ripped it off.

Edited by Hand_Of_Omega_91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think...songwriting credit than money.

Regardless what anyone thinks the reasons might be, the fact is Holmes is not going to get what he could have. I was also responding to the Henry Hill analogy. So sorry Henry, that person you're talking about is not going to legally get all of their "entitled" money if they happen to claim it 40 years after the fact.

Presumptious & arrogant?...Chalk it up to experience.

You made an assumption on a bias with no basis, presumptuous and arrogant yes. This thread has some people saying "Yes" and some saying "No" (which includes half "Yes's" and half "No's"), neither nor is overwhelming. This contradicts your perception. As for Churchill, his warning wasn't without basis, not a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are of course many similarities in pieces of music. One example I can think of is a section Pink Floyd's Echoes and the main riff of Andrew Loyd Webber's Phantom Of The Opera. Apparently Roger Waters thinks he intentionally ripped it off.

Ah, but there, Waters is right. Webber lifted toooooons of stuff from other songs, and put them in his musicals. His biggest hit "Memory" from Cats was a copy of another obscure song from the 30's or 40's that escapes me at the moment. Webber has made a career out of lifted songs, and unlike pop groups, where a much wider audience know the tunes, very few have actually been aware of Webber's thefts, and very very few of those who Webber stole from are even alive anymore.

As the plaigirism discussion has evolved over the years, I think one thing in particular becomes clearer with each generation....that 19-27 year olds usually do not have the ability whatsoever to write "original" music. It's as if the brain hasn't finished developing, or the conscience of the person hasn't really kicked in completely. Or chalk it up to the fact that the kid hasn't been alive long enough to have actually acquired that developed of a musical appreciation and ear. As if they couldn't possibly have yet lived long enough to have spent the hours it takes to get through that many other artists work. Especially when it comes to the lyrics and subject matter. Bob Dylan singing about hard times when he was just a kid in his 20's? Please. Peter Green singing about the hardlife blues as a 23 year old kid in London? Again, please. The music that comes out is almost always a re-work of those sounds that the kid was most heavily influenced by from being a music fan listening to it as a kid. It's not until any of these offenders have reached their 30's where you hear them actually perfecting a style and doing anything close to "original". Cases in point: Chuck Berry, James Brown, Howling Wolf, John Lee Hooker, etc. The music they made in their 30's and older is far more developed and original than anything that they had done in their youth.

Young people are too busy shamelessly copying and reworking the songs of their favorite artists. Because their first priority is getting validation through fame, and then the money that comes with it. But they were kids, so how can you blame them? The Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, and the many other bands who came before and after are no exception. Buckets of thievery in the music. But for them, I'm sure it was a hell of a ride.

Edited by cookieshoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi T Y'All,

I just had this image of a phone conversation between Jimmy and Jake, it goes like this.

Jimmy. "Take it easy baby, let them say what they will."

Jake. "Will your tongue wag so much when I send you the bill?"

Regards, Danny

PS, "Isn't it Ironic" oops, so sorry Alanis, no need to involve the Lawyers, yet. :lol:

Edited by BIGDAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuits like this could easily be avoided. Why didn't Page just give Holmes a co-writing credit at the time and just be done with it? It's pretty clear to me that this is blatant. Why not just give credit where credit is due to begin with? Zeppelin's version soared but clearly it was based on Holmes original.

I won't even get into "Taurus"...........

Holmes will get money out of this though, like Willie Dixon did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it is about the money, after all. I was getting dizzy after all the talk about moral and principles in the few related threads I watch.

In part it's about money. It's an incentive. As someone else wrote earlier, lawyers cost money. Even if you have a case against someone it doesn't mean when the case is resolved that you will recieve any monetary compensation & you are still responsible for legal fees. Sometimes the cost of suing someone may leave you off poorer than when you started. That's part of the reason these bluesmen didn't sue each other along with the fact America was still a segrated nation at the time, most of these artists were from the south, & didn't have great faith in the legal system considering that they couldn't even play certain places because of the color of their skin much less drink out of a public water fountain. There were a lot of variables at play.

But not all civil cases are based on money alone. When the Goldman's & Brown's sued OJ Simpson in civil court they did so because they felt justice wasn't served to their murdered loved ones in the criminal case. They were awarded a money settlement in the civil case that they won, which they never saw as OJ declared bankruptcy, but that wasn't the point of their case. They wanted the court to acknowledge OJ's guilt in the murder of their loved one's since the criminal court failed to do so. There are different motivations for everyone.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless what anyone thinks the reasons might be, the fact is Holmes is not going to get what he could have. I was also responding to the Henry Hill analogy. So sorry Henry, that person you're talking about is not going to legally get all of their "entitled" money if they happen to claim it 40 years after the fact.

You made an assumption on a bias with no basis, presumptuous and arrogant yes. This thread has some people saying "Yes" and some saying "No" (which includes half "Yes's" and half "No's"), neither nor is overwhelming. This contradicts your perception. As for Churchill, his warning wasn't without basis, not a good example.

Who said Holmes is going to get what he could have? I certainly didn't. He may not get anything at all. Once again, Chamberlain, you see only what you want to see. Once again, the Henry Hill analogy was directed at "myself", not Jake Holmes, & how I would feel if I felt money was owed to "myself" but by putting "myself" in Holmes situation. Understand now?

Firstly, my bias has basis whether you see it or not. I'm not going to "quote" other people in this thread who didn't "quote" me, dissect what they had to say on the matter, & get into a personal war with them as you have done with me, just to please you. I've explained my basis for what I believe would happen provided the scenario I gave, which we both know that scenario probably wouldn't happen as Zeppelin is unlikely to sue anyone who plagiarised them because it would cause them more grief than any rewards they'd get from it. Secondly, "condradicts your (my) perception"? I said those that are in the anti Holmes contigent would be supportive of Zep suing someone years after the fact & I stand by that. Did I give numbers as to whether there were more people in support or against Holmes? No, I simply said those who don't support Holmes actions would most likely support Zep if they chose to make a similar decision & it would come off as hypocritical if one was making their arguments based on time limitations. Where's the contradiction? You don't follow to well do you. Thirdly, Churchill's warning had basis mainly due to the benefit of hindsight as he could not see into future anymore than anyone else could have. Hitler could have easily stopped after annexing Czech, avoiding war with England & France, & history would have shown Churchill to be presumptious & arrogant in that scenario and Chamberlain would have been declared a hero by pursuing peace with Germany avoiding yet another large scale war. But there are no what if's in history, just results. What Churchill had was a hunch, as I do in regards to hypocrites on this site based on past history. Churchill's hunch was right, mine in the scenario I gave remains to be seen.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuits like this could easily be avoided. Why didn't Page just give Holmes a co-writing credit at the time and just be done with it? It's pretty clear to me that this is blatant. Why not just give credit where credit is due to begin with? Zeppelin's version soared but clearly it was based on Holmes original.

I won't even get into "Taurus"...........

Holmes will get money out of this though, like Willie Dixon did.

I agree. Even if Page hadn't done the right thing by giving Holmes a writing credit at the time of Zeppelin's first release, surely there's been enough time to rectify that matter by now as he has done with other artists by giving them co-writing credits for various reasons. Page even gave the writing credits where they were due on the "BBC Sessions" & "How The West Was Won" premptively to other artists whose songs were mixed in with Zeppelin own... with the exception of "Dazed and Confused" of course. Oh wait, he did credit the passages of "The Crunge" & "Walters Walk" in "D&C" on "HTWWW" lol. It's bizarre. How much ill will has this song caused simply by not doing the ethical thing. Jimmy Page said in an interview in the 70's that he was reaping his karma heavily & he certainly is today in regards to this song. The orgins of "Dazed" are no longer a dirty little secret & hasn't been for well over 25 years.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zep Head you don't play guitar, do you? Because if you did you would know that Taurus and the intro to Stairway are not the same. They sound similar because the same notes of the same chords are being played but they are not played in the same order. Any lawsuit over this would lose, and justifiably so. After hearing Cry Me A River I have no doubt the genesis for the intro for Stairway comes from there. After learning the song Jimmy played around with it - slowed it down and added additional notes and came up with the intro. And then he sped it up and added additional notes to tie the intro to the electric section. Stairway is not a copy of River but River is obviously the seed for Stairway. There are no grounds for a lawsuit there, either. I'm also thinking you don't know much about the history of the Blues. It is well known the Bluesmen of the early and mid 20th Century lifted from each other. It was an accepted part of the genre. Authorship wasn't as important until record companies got involved mid-century because it meant money was involved. Until the 60's there just wasn't much money in music so why sue to get something of nothing? If lifting from others was part of the culture of the Blues why is it safe to assume Willie Dixon didn't because nobody on this board has a strong enough knowledge of his catalog and of the mostly obscure songs he was exposed to during his career? I would be very surprised if there were any musicians from the last 100 years at least who didn't have some thievery in their songs. I just wish the boys in Zep had given proper credit so that instead of them being condemned for stealing they could instead be praised for turning mediocre songs into great ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish the boys in Zep had given proper credit so that instead of them being condemned for stealing they could instead be praised for turning mediocre songs into great ones.

Perfectly said! Your whole post was great but the final sentence hit the nail right on the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said Holmes is going to get what he could have? I certainly didn't. He may not get anything at all. Once again,Chamberlain, you see only what you want to see. Once again, the Henry Hill analogy was directed at "myself", not Jake Holmes,& how I would feel if I felt money was owed to "myself" but by putting "myself" in Holmes situation. Understand now?

You said,

And even if his[Jake Holmes] motivation is money, so what. If someone owed me money, let's say an Employer who didn't see it necessary to pay me for work I had done for him/her, whether it was a week or 40 years after the fact, if I still haven't gotten paid for my services I have the right to pursue those unpaid monies no matter how much time elapsed. Whether I would recieve it or not through the courts is another thing, but if I were labeled "money hungry" by those who didn't like my course of action, to bad, it's not money owed to you but unpaid to me. To paraphrase Henry Hill in "Goodfellas": Your house burned down? Fuck you, pay me. Trouble with the wife? Fuck you, pay me.

This is what I was refering to.

In your hypothetical "If his [Jake Holmes] motivation is money,so what." scenario you used yourself as example, then used Henry Hill to exemplify your "so what" proclamation. Your "so what" goes hand in hand with "it doesn't matter" which is when I stepped in and said it does matter. If someone owed you, Jake Holmes, or whoever Henry Hill was talking about money and you/they decide to complain the wrong doing forty years after the fact, you not going to get all (if any) of what you could have. No matter if you are entitled or not, the Statute of Limitations dictates all of this. You said "so what" I said "so everything".

Firstly, my bias has basis whether you see it or not. I'm not going to "quote" other people in this thread who didn't "quote" me, dissect what they had to say on the matter, & get into a personal war with them as you have done with me, just to please you.

I didn't say your bias, I was refering to your perception of the "Led Zeppelin forums bias" which you claimed...

...if in 2010 Zep pursued a court case against let's say Kingdom Come...this forum would be filled with comments like "Way to go Jimmy!", "Serves those theiving bastards right!" "There's a reason why Jimmy called them Kingdom Clone!". The waves of support would be endless lol. There are plenty of rocks to be thrown in & at the glass house known as the Led Zeppelin Forums page.

No basis to claim that the Led Zeppelin forums would be - "filled with [biased] comments like..." - from - "The waves of endless support [of such bias]". This is not a personal war, just because I am contradicting you doesn't mean I'm attacking you. I'm trying the best I can to respectfully correct misunderstandings/misconceptions. I have to use the quotes for convenience and to prevent confusion to what I'm replying to.

Secondly, "condradicts your (my) perception"? I said those that are in the anti Holmes contigent would be supportive of Zep suing someone years after the fact & I stand by that. Did I give numbers as to whether there were more people in support or against Holmes? No, I simply said those who don't support Holmes actions would most likely support Zep if they chose to make a similar decision & it would come off as hypocritical if one was making their arguments based on time limitations. Where's the contradiction? You don't follow to well do you.

Here's the problem then, where did you state that in here...?

The funny thing is if in 2010 Zep pursued a court case against let's say Kingdom Come for their song "Get It On" 22 years after it's release this forum would be filled with comments like "Way to go Jimmy!", "Serves those theiving bastards right!" "There's a reason why Jimmy called them Kingdom Clone!". The waves of support would be endless lol. There are plenty of rocks to be thrown in & at the glass house known as the Led Zeppelin Forums page.

You did not say anything about the "..anti Holmes contigent(?)", you did not say "some from this forum", you did not say "majority (opposition to minority) of this forum", you flat out said "...this forum..." meaning all of this forum. A claim which is strengthened by using examples of possible biased remarks with no examples of possible retorts.

Thirdly, Churchill's warning had basis mainly due to the benefit of hindsight as he could not see into future anymore than anyone else could have. Hitler could have easily stopped after annexing Czech, avoiding war with England & France, & history would have shown Churchill to be presumptious & arrogant in that scenario and Chamberlain would have been declared a hero by pursuing peace with Germany avoiding yet another large scale war. But there are no what if's in history, just results. What Churchill had was a hunch, as I do in regards to hypocrites on this site based on past history. Churchill's hunch was right, mine in the scenario I gave remains to be seen.

Confusing, you said you had basis; used Churchill as example for having basis; now saying Churchill's basis was hindsight. Hindsight is not basis because "...he could not see into future anymore than anyone else could have." I agree with your definition of hindsight.

Hitler despised the Versailles Treaty and was very open about it as far back as when "Mein Kampf" was written. He would later include this many times in his speeches and talked about how the treaty wrongfully enabled seizure of Germany's land. Which, by the late 30's, he decided it was time to reclaim this land as it was rightfully Germany's to begin with. On top of which having, military presence right on the border of said lands. This was Churchill's basis, and this is why it is not viewed as arrogant nor presumptuous on his part. An example that does not help you. With that being said, I suggest we both take any further WW2 talk to private messaging.

Edited by Yupter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said,

This is what I was refering to.

In your hypothetical "If his [Jake Holmes] motivation is money,so what." scenario you used yourself as example, then used Henry Hill to exemplify your "so what" proclamation. Your "so what" goes hand in hand with "it doesn't matter" which is when I stepped in and said it does matter. If someone owed you, Jake Holmes, or whoever Henry Hill was talking about money and you/they decide to complain the wrong doing forty years after the fact, you not going to get all (if any) of what you could have. No matter if you are entitled or not, the Statute of Limitations dictates all of this. You said "so what" I said "so everything".

I didn't say your bias, I was refering to your perception of the "Led Zeppelin forums bias" which you claimed...

No basis to claim that the Led Zeppelin forums would be - "filled with [biased] comments like..." - from - "The waves of endless support [of such bias]". This is not a personal war, just because I am contradicting you doesn't mean I'm attacking you. I'm trying the best I can to respectfully correct misunderstandings/misconceptions. I have to use the quotes for convenience and to prevent confusion to what I'm replying to.

Here's the problem then, where did you state that in here...?

You did not say anything about the "..anti Holmes contigent(?)", you did not say "some from this forum", you did not say "majority (opposition to minority) of this forum", you flat out said "...this forum..." meaning all of this forum. A claim which is strengthened by using examples of possible biased remarks with no examples of possible retorts.

Confusing, you said you had basis; used Churchill as example for having basis; now saying Churchill's basis was hindsight. Hindsight is not basis because "...he could not see into future anymore than anyone else could have." I agree with your definition of hindsight.

Hitler despised the Versailles Treaty and was very open about it as far back as when "Mein Kampf" was written. He would later include this many times in his speeches and talked about how the treaty wrongfully enabled seizure of Germany's land. Which, by the late 30's, he decided it was time to reclaim this land as it was rightfully Germany's to begin with. On top of which having, military presence right on the border of said lands. This was Churchill's basis, and this is why it is not viewed as arrogant nor presumptuous on his part. An example that does not help you. With that being said, I suggest we both take any further WW2 talk to private messaging.

Finally you know how to quote a whole a whole passage of mine rather than splicing it up to throw in your projections of what I actually said. Nice start, still you obviously don't understand words very well.

When I said "so what" I meant it & still do. Who cares if Jake Holmes motivations are money because it doesn't matter as he has a right to pursue this case regardless of his motivations being money, a co-writing credit, or some other type of compensation. Are you saying he doesn't have a right to pursue this case & should be chastised for doing so whatever his motivations are? If so, you are wrong. Led Zeppelin has a song called "Dazed and Confused" which is credited to Jimmy Page that is very similar to a song that Jake Holmes wrote called "Dazed and Confused" that came out 2 years prior to Led Zeppelin's, on top of that Jimmy Page was in a band called the Yardbirds who also played a song called "Dazed and Confused" that is almost identical to the Led Zeppelin version of the song & 2 members of the Yardbirds at the time are alleged or even admitted to buying the Jake Holmes album featuring his "Dazed and Confused" & the Yardbirds started to perform their version of the song shortly after, which was never called "I'm Confused" for the record, and the former members of the Yardbirds weren't particularly happy when Page took the song from the Yardbirds & brought it along with him in his new band Led Zeppelin. I think all of this is a basis for Holmes to pursue a case against Led Zeppelin in regards to "Dazed and Confused". You apparently have a problem with this. Once again, to make this perfectly clear Holmes has the right to pursue this case & pursue as much as compensation as possible, but that is up to the courts to decide what that compensation is if he gets any at all. Clear? Understood? I never ever said he would get everything or even anything & if I did how about quoting where I said that he would. You can't because I never said it. My "so what" was about people on the forum questioning his motives for pursuing the case, not what he may get. So your "so everything" has nothing to do with anything I actually said. Learn how to read then make a comment before jumping to your own conclusions.

There is basis to my my belief that people would support Led Zeppelin in a similar scenario if they chose to purse litigation against a band many years after the fact that they felt had plagiarised them, many of those people being those who are against Holmes case against Zeppelin. You think there wouldn't be? Well buddy, I'd rethink that. People here who I could quote, but I won't as I said because I have no personal beef with them & they are entitled to their viewpoint, have already stated their endless support to a band they love that are also against the Holmes case would not support Zeppelin if they shoe were on the other foot. Also, you're trying to correct "misunderstandings & misconceptions"? Ha! All you have done is splice up passages of mine & attribute what you think I meant or even said for your own convenience. That's hardly correcting misconceptions & misunderstandings but outright adding to them. I haven't spliced, altered, or doctored a single passage of yours, but you have done so with mine as you must feel that my full passages could not stand on their own & fully explain my full viewpoint. Nope, you splice & alter to further you're own agenda which is to protect your viewpoint by any means necessary.

"This forum"? Once again, learn how to read & understand the meanings of words in their context. "This forum would be filled with comments..." and it would be given the scenario I presented. "Filled" does not mean "all" or even "full", it means "to spread throughout", & in the sentence you quoted I used in it's proper context, as in those comments I believe could see happening would be "spread throughout" this forum not "all" the forum as in every comment would be what I provided in "all" the forum. Once again, manipulate the meanings of words to an extreme once again to support whatever your agenda is.

Where did I ever say Churchill's warning was based in "hindsight"? Please quote where I did. "In hindsight" his basis was proved correct because what he warned came to pass. He looked to the past, he was looking at the then present, & he looked to future to form his basis of what he thought might occur. He had no solid proof, just a hunch & to many he was being "presumptious", which is to be "excessively forward, arrogantly so". Are you saying his detractors didn't think he was being "presumptious"? Well in the end his presumptions proved his detractors wrong. I can relate. Once again, I'm Churchill, you're Chamberlain.

I'm well aware of Hitler's motivations, but like anyone else he could have stopped & of course he didn't. Chamberlain wanted to believe Hitler would stop, he needed to believe that he would because that fit Chamberlains world view. Unfortunately, Chamberlain was living in a fantasy world of passive aggressive meglomania whose agenda didn't pan out. Sound familar? Well, we'll only know for sure in hindsight.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, this discusion shure went way, way, way too far!! I mean it's all so simple, you can just write in three short points!!:

1. No matter what, Led Zeppelin still wrote tons of totally original material

2. If the similiraties in songs are only small in terms of little details or bits of lyrics, its not a problem and zep should not be sued and in most cases they were not!!(your time is gonna come, how many more times, moby dick, Hat off, Rock and roll, Stairway, custard pie, in my time of dying, nobody's fault but mine)

3. if the similarity becomes too big, music or lyrics wise, it should be credited or they should get sued

That's all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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...