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

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, your post could have used more Churchill & Henry Hill references for my tastes, but I enjoyed it all the same lol.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is what I was taught middle school. When quoting long passages you use "..." between the beginning and the end of said passage to say you are quoting the entire passage. It prevents uneeded writing by physically shortening the quote, but not excluding what was said. Other "..." usage can be included to highlight the quotes main point, ridding it from redundancy/irrelevance. Which again reduces uneeded writing. On top of which, all of the quotes from you, have been sourced with time and date. Any doubts about what the quotes say can be rectified by referring to the time and date of said quotes.

Are you saying he doesn't have a right to pursue this case & should be chastised for doing so whatever his motivations are?

(A good example of me quoting what's important and not including all that irrelevent rambling)

My answer is no, nowhere did I say otherwise.

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.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

This is what I was referring to. I'm not saying you/Jake Holmes don't have the "...right to pursue those unpaid monies..." , I was stating that the law is going to dictate whether "those unpaid monies [you pursue]..." forty years after the fact is going to get paid in full or not.

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.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

This is not what I'm doubting

You think there wouldn't be?...protect your viewpoint by any means necessary.

(A good example of me ridding redundancy and not ignoring what was said)

It saddens me that you believe I'm "Splicing, altering, and doctoring" what you are saying, please refer to my first response within this comment about why I quote the way I do.

"This forum"?...whatever your agenda is.

(A good example of me ridding redundancy and not ignoring what was said) Here's another problem, it's not that I didn't understand, it's that you were unclear. You said filled as in "filled to the brim" nothing is after the brim. When something is filled it means full with no room for anything else. This is then strengthened by examples which portray a possible bias with no examples of possible retorts, which makes it a complete bias (filled). That is why I concluded what I concluded.

Where did I ever say Churchill's warning was based in "hindsight"? Please quote where I did.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

Ok,

Thirdly, Churchill's warning had basis mainly due to the benefit of hindsight...

(An example of me ridding redundancy)

??? There it is.

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.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

People cannot look into the future, you've stated this as well. He did not look into the future to form his basis, no one can. He used what had happened and what was happening to form his basis.

"In hindsight" his basis ... Well, we'll only know for sure in hindsight.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

I'll Private Message (PM) you on how this Churchill example does not help you. It will also include additional WW2 talk

In summation, please don't take any of this as a personal attack, these are just clarifications to some misconceptions. That is all, please understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

You should be forced to turn in your ledzeppelin.com membership card for statements like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be forced to turn in your ledzeppelin.com membership card for statements like this.

Hmmm. Jimmy Page was in a band called the Yardbirds that appropriated a song called "Dazed and Confused" by a folk singer named Jake Holmes. They kept the the bassline & title of Jake Holmes song while changing the guitar riff slightly. Jimmy Page while in the Yardbirds played this song with them during his tenure, when the Yardbirds broke up he took this song with him & performed it with his new band Led Zeppelin, changing the lyrics slightly as had the Yardbirds with the Jake Holmes original, but keeping the bass line, guitar riff, title, & the added bow interlude that Page had performed on the Yardbirds version of the song. Yes, I must be turn in my ledzeppelin.com card membership right away superfan. Either you have a great sense of humor, which I'm hoping you do, or you're so delusional that no amount of therapy & medication will help you see otherwise how these songs are almost identical. Sorry that I have to keep this short, but I have a stalker on this site/thread to address at the moment. Toodles till then...

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's saying that because your statement that he quoted seems to imply that The Yardbirds were already playing I'm Confused before Page joined the band instead of the fact that Jimmy was in the Yardbirds and therefore is one of the original "Lifters and Rearrangers". Since he (probably) did the bulk of the rearranging, when he brought it into Zeppelin it would naturally sound close to The Yardbirds version. You could look at it as if he spent a year-and-a-half reworking and perfecting it. Jimmy, how hard would putting ,Holmes after your name under the song title have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, especially JP himself, knows the score here. Just pay the man, Jimmy, ok?

That aside, who gives a fuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, especially JP himself, knows the score here. Just pay the man, Jimmy, ok?

That aside, who gives a fuck?

The question is how much money should Jimmy pay him? He didn't just lift the original, but completely transformed it into another song that was commercially successful. I'm sure Holmes knows that he was incapable of producing a sound like Jimmy, and the end result is 100% Zeppelin. I agree that Jimmy should pay him something, and give him some credit, but Holmes didn't write the Zeppelin version of the song, and he didn't make it the success it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's saying that because your statement that he quoted seems to imply that The Yardbirds were already playing I'm Confused before Page joined the band instead of the fact that Jimmy was in the Yardbirds and therefore is one of the original "Lifters and Rearrangers". Since he (probably) did the bulk of the rearranging, when he brought it into Zeppelin it would naturally sound close to The Yardbirds version. You could look at it as if he spent a year-and-a-half reworking and perfecting it. Jimmy, how hard would putting ,Holmes after your name under the song title have been?

Jimmy was already in the band when they started playing "Dazed and Confused/I'm Confused". Jimmy joined the Yardbirds in 66' & Holmes original came out in 67' I think. Also the Yardbirds always performed it under "Dazed and Confused" not "I'm Confused". "I'm Confused" became the title when "Live At The Anderson Theatre" came out, I guess funnily enough to avoid a lawsuit lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was taught middle school. When quoting long passages you use "..." between the beginning and the end of said passage to say you are quoting the entire passage. It prevents uneeded writing by physically shortening the quote, but not excluding what was said. Other "..." usage can be included to highlight the quotes main point, ridding it from redundancy/irrelevance. Which again reduces uneeded writing. On top of which, all of the quotes from you, have been sourced with time and date. Any doubts about what the quotes say can be rectified by referring to the time and date of said quotes.

(A good example of me quoting what's important and not including all that irrelevent rambling)

My answer is no, nowhere did I say otherwise.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

This is what I was referring to. I'm not saying you/Jake Holmes don't have the "...right to pursue those unpaid monies..." , I was stating that the law is going to dictate whether "those unpaid monies [you pursue]..." forty years after the fact is going to get paid in full or not.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

This is not what I'm doubting

(A good example of me ridding redundancy and not ignoring what was said)

It saddens me that you believe I'm "Splicing, altering, and doctoring" what you are saying, please refer to my first response within this comment about why I quote the way I do.

(A good example of me ridding redundancy and not ignoring what was said) Here's another problem, it's not that I didn't understand, it's that you were unclear. You said filled as in "filled to the brim" nothing is after the brim. When something is filled it means full with no room for anything else. This is then strengthened by examples which portray a possible bias with no examples of possible retorts, which makes it a complete bias (filled). That is why I concluded what I concluded.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

Ok,

(An example of me ridding redundancy)

??? There it is.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

People cannot look into the future, you've stated this as well. He did not look into the future to form his basis, no one can. He used what had happened and what was happening to form his basis.

(Another example of highlighting the point I am referring to)

I'll Private Message (PM) you on how this Churchill example does not help you. It will also include additional WW2 talk

In summation, please don't take any of this as a personal attack, these are just clarifications to some misconceptions. That is all, please understand this.

This is my last response to you. I'm not even going to acknowledge what you wrote & quoted from me in your last post as I am done enabling & encouraging your OCD. You crossed the line by personal messaging me. You offered an invite in an earlier post, I did not accept it, but you took it upon yourself to send me a personal message of your rambling. I have no desire to continue a discussion with you on this thread much less in private. I don't know you, I'm not interested in knowing you, & I don't have a misunderstandings or misconceptions... you do & I'm not interested in clearing them up for you. World War 2 is my favorite subject historically & I have no desire to go over every little bit of minutiae from 1918 -1945 and after with you. Also you're more concerned with cherry picking quotes from my original post & splicing them up then actually discussing the topic at hand, that being Jake Holmes case against Led Zeppelin. You would rather quote me & put your spin on my words to befit your agenda as I'm sure you recognized yourself in my original post & it offended you somehow. If you don't understand my meaning in my original post, that's your problem & it's no longer going to be mine. In my eight years of posting on both forums I've had my share of heated discussions & disagreements with other members but I never acquired a stalker until now. It ends now. Show some self control & refrain from personal messaging me & quoting me on this or other threads or I'll have to take some sort of action with the mods, which is something I have never had to do before. Discussion over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

It's unfortunate you couldn't understand what I was trying to clarify. It's also unfortunate that we couldn't carry this over to Private Messaging to avoid the hijacking of this thread.

I'm sorry that Private Messaging offends you, it would've been curtious to tell me so before I had done so. Now I know.

I accept that we end this now as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is turning out to be rather unpleasent. I thought I'd join this forum and meet fellow Zep fans like myself, I didn't expect to see so much vindictive behaviour (this comment isn't aimed at anyone in particular but refers to the general atmosphere on this thread). I just hope this case doesn't go to court and give members here even more ammunition to use against each other.

As Knebby like to quote so often, 'Does anybody remember laughter?'. :)

I'm done with reading this read. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ignoring all that was off topic, this thread wasn't all that bad :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make this clear to my fellow forum members, personal messaging does not offend me as one person would have you believe, however creepy & stalkerish behaviour do offend me. I've recieved personal messages throughout the years from numerous forum members either asking about some Zep info that they weren't aware of that I could shed some light on, sharing thoughts on other music that we may have had in common outside of Zep, & also because we may have shared a few laughs on various threads. Some of these exchanges even led to phone conversations so I'm hardly offended by personal messages as all of those past exchanges with other forum members all had one thing in common & that was that they were all of a pleasant nature & with the acceptable social skills. Creepy & stalkerish behaviour is not something I will tolerate & I wouldn't expect anyone else to tolerate it as well. In my last post I requested that the person in question show some self control & not even quote me again, & once again this person showed no self control & did not respect my very public request. This person doesn't actually quote any words of mine just a "..." to get off on a technicallity that I'm not actually "quoted" in his/her true passive agggressive stalker way. Enough on that. Once again my fellow forum members, all but one, feel free to personal message me as it does not offend me, but creepy & stalkerish behaviour does. Now back to Jake Holmes & Led Zeppelin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Knebby like to quote so often, 'Does anybody remember laughter?'. :)

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

Errrm......I don't think I've EVER quoted that :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I read somewhere that Mr. Holmes once said: "Let him, (Page) have it."Now?Is the bloke, broke?

KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I read somewhere that Mr. Holmes once said: "Let him, (Page) have it." Now?Is the bloke, broke?

KB

He did say that. But his lawyers informed him of his lack of cash.

He had to back down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that Mr. Holmes once said: "Let him, (Page) have it."Now?Is the bloke, broke?

This quote has never been sourced or verified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I read somewhere that Mr. Holmes once said: "Let him, (Page) have it."Now?Is the bloke, broke?

KB

So what if he is broke. Maybe that is the reason for the lawsuit. It really doesnt matter, though, the man is clearly entitled to a payout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

Errrm......I don't think I've EVER quoted that :blink:

Sorry Knebby for the misquote. Someone else said it on the Zeppelin filler thread which got rather acrimonious, obviously it wasn't you. :unsure: Anyway, the quote still stands, people should lighten up. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a blatant rip-off IMO, and Holmes is totally justified in making a claim.

As to why he didn't do so in 69 or soon after, only he can say. Maybe he was scared of the heavy mob. But in terms of the past 20 years or so, the timing makes perfect sense. With the 3-year limitation, he's capturing the period since mid-2007. What happened in 2007? The 02 show, where D&C was played live for the first time in over 30 years. Mothership. And the re-issue of TSRTS in mutliple formats. A no-brainer. If he'd done it immediately in 2007, he might have been perceived as a mercenary SOB. Maybe that's why he's waited until now.

So he's getting the best 3 years' retro-action he could possibly hope for, plus a share of all future earnings. And I'd say he's entitled to it. If JP hadn't heard Holmes's song, D&C would not exist. Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

Listen to the cover "You Need Lovin'" by The Small Faces. That's where Zeppelin got the idea for the song. Stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it Zep is the only band to get bashed? They take a snippet of a song, add a ton of stuff to it, and yet, it's a ripoff. Lots of other bands like the Stones, Cream, and Beatles have done similar things yet they are cherished. I'm sick of this "thieving" bullshit!!!angry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to the cover "You Need Lovin'" by The Small Faces. That's where Zeppelin got the idea for the song. Stolen.

First of all, The Small Faces didn't "cover" You Need Lovin, they fucking stole the entire song note for note and claimed full writing credits. They changed the title from Love to Lovin, thats it.

Don't believe me? Compare the two links below and get back to me.

I love it, Led Zeppelin stole the idea for Whole Lotta Love from The Small Faces, fucking please.

Willie Dixon could have sued the shit out of the Small Faces theft of You Need Love, but he didn't because it just wasn't worth it, Plant on the other hand nicks some of his lyrics (as usual)and its time to pay.

You Need Love by Muddy Waters - written by Willie Dixon

You Need Lovin by Small Faces - 'written' by "Lane/Marriott"

Now, you wanna talk about "Stolen", that was it.

Edited by snapper

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...