Jump to content

Discrepency over Black Mountain Side / Blackwaterside claims


Recommended Posts

False. I challenge you to show exactly where I was "denying that Page took anything at all". Re-read the thread and point out my exact words.

Back up your claims with some evidence.

I can defend my reputation and my statements. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to make exaggerated claims and then run away when challenged.

Reputation? Geez, now comes the drama. No thanks, I'll pass this round. The OP's already gotten his answer in the form of plenty of examples I've posted. That you don't see it means nothing.

And, exaggerated claims? Not a one. Running away when challenged? I don't even know what that even means. If anything, I'm responding to too many of your distracting posts. The examples and explanations are there. Any way you want to cut it, in the end you're either tonedeaf or you really do know very little about the pieces of music involved beyond being blinded by fanyboydom. Either way, it don't matter.

Cue another round of meaningless hairsplitting. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm inclined to agree with cookieshoes. The evidence is in the songs themselves, just listen to the music/lyrics. There are numerous examples: Trampled Underfoot, When The Levee Breaks, Black Mountainside, Dazed and Confused, In My Time of Dying, Nobody's Fault But Mine...

Albeit, in all the songs aforementioned that are old bues tracks the music is different but the lyrics remain the same as the original blues songs. To say that Page didn't know he was lifting lyrics and music from songs he had heard or seen others play is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks, I'll pass this round.

Of course you will. That's your game. You make misleading (or flat-out false) claims, then run away when challenged to back them up. You pass off your own opinions as fact, then ignore any verified facts presented against your claims. Then you act indignant and resort to name calling when things don't go your way. It's textbook Internet Trolling 101.

You've been caught in at least a dozen lies or false claims, not that it slowed you down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you will. That's your game. You make misleading (or flat-out false) claims, then run away when challenged to back them up. You pass off your own opinions as fact, then ignore any verified facts presented against your claims. Then you act indignant and resort to name calling when things don't go your way. It's textbook Internet Trolling 101.

You've been caught in at least a dozen lies or false claims, not that it slowed you down.

:rolleyes:

The irony is in there someone dude, keep looking... :slapface:

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon now, can't we all just get along :-) I have been a musician since age 10, mostly as a hobby, though I was in a band back in the 80's for about a year. Anyway, Page was not doing what many other artists of the day were also doing. Page's real crime was being the most successfull at it. If the Scmuck Bros. did the same thing but could not arrange the songs into something worth listening to no one would care. Was Page wrong? Without a doubt yes, especially when it comes to Dazed and Confused and to a certain degree BMS. The Stairway to Heaven melody is a bit of a stretch. I heard the song Davey Graham did back in 59' and there are about four or five bars which are similar in mood and composition, however the pattern is revesed in Graham's song. Was there an influence? Oh yeah, without a doubt. Would that be considered stealing to a court of law or any sane person? No, that's why nothing ever came of it. D&C and BMS should add Jake Holms and Bert Jansch respectively. One last unrelated point, Jansch may play guitar like Apollo but didn't anyone ever tell him he can't sing for shit??? I bought his latest album and any song he sings in is completely horrible. I wish I could remove his vocals from the mix, the album would be perfect.

So, case closed. Verdict: Page knowingly stole riffs and ideas from obscure songs which Zeppelin re-crafted, re-arranged and made famous as their own. Sidebar: Many artists since the demise of Zeppelin have stolen Zeppelin riffs, ideas, and virtually whole songs and no one from Zeppelin ever complained or sued. At least you can't call them hypocrites ;-)

Edited by Sagittarius Rising
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

*Sigh*

Here's the most poignant example I've ever been able to come up with why any argument against Page (et al.) is ridiculous:

Muddy Waters "(I'm Your) Hoochie Coochie Man" >> Bo Diddley "I'm a Man" >> Muddy Waters "Mannish Boy."

Now, look at every other damn blues or folk song - including all the many songs covered and "written" by Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, and whoever else - and tell me that they aren't all thieves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sigh*

Here's the most poignant example I've ever been able to come up with why any argument against Page (et al.) is ridiculous:

Muddy Waters "(I'm Your) Hoochie Coochie Man" >> Bo Diddley "I'm a Man" >> Muddy Waters "Mannish Boy."

Now, look at every other damn blues or folk song - including all the many songs covered and "written" by Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, and whoever else - and tell me that they aren't all thieves.

But, I think you are actually proving that they were in fact all thieves. And just because they all were doesn't excuse Page or Lennon/Hendrix/Clapton/Beck/Richards/Jagger and all the rest. It merely sums up that all of those famous artists were thieves in one way or another and that they shared a perception that since many of the bluesmen and rock and rollers before them were thieves that it somehow allowed them to be thieves as well. They were wrong in that regard, for the simple fact that many artists did not steal, before or after them.

You can connect a dotted line to pretty much all of the influences between all of the British Blues revival groups in the 60's. For the most part, not an original idea in the whole lot. A bunch of British and American white kids imitating African Americans from the Delta, or the Rock and Rollers in the South. Singing with the dialect and the accents, and copying the subject matter. Somehow the shock value of the silliness of that kind of cultural appropriation has gotten completely lost in the decades since. Nevertheless, it's what those groups all managed to evolve into that began their own paths to developing a truly unique style for themselves. But straight across the board, for most of those groups, their origins were still as kids who unabashedly stole the music of the people they were imitating. Doesn't excuse any of them for the simple fact that their habits of thievery were actually unique to their generation, or that many of their peers were also stealing. Other groups weren't taking as liberally from each other as those groups were. And those that did cover other songs at least had sense and integrity enough to credit their sources. Yes, there is such a thing as original evolution of music. It just seems to have been eclipsed by that generation in the 60's and the 70's who were so complacent in copying their peers and those that came before them. But, it's not hard to see how that same spirit of copying bluesmen wouldn't also extend to copying others, such as Page's actions with Jansch and Graham. Because, if it's okay to copy the work of bluesmen, why not folkmen and instrumentalists too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I think you are actually proving that they were in fact all thieves. And just because they all were doesn't excuse Page or Lennon/Hendrix/Clapton/Beck/Richards/Jagger and all the rest. [...] Because, if it's okay to copy the work of bluesmen, why not folkmen and instrumentalists too?

I think you're being far too harsh on the popular groups of the '60s and '70s - blues and folk music are notorious for stealing from each other, so my only point was to show how ridiculous it is for those same people to cry foul when others do it (albeit more successfully) to them.

And I also think you're being a bit too harsh in general - music (as a whole) seems to really be about adaptation and reinterpretation of what you've heard. More intelligent and knowledgeable musicologists have pointed out clear instances of "borrowings," as we might call them, from Mozart in the works of Beethoven and others. That list goes on, of course, and refutes your point that "others weren't doing it"...actually, it's been done throughout the history of music by just about anyone. Hell, have you ever listened to anything where someone hasn't said "doesn't this sound like...?" Even if it isn't outright thievery, everyone has their influences and it shows...it all gets muddier when you deal with less rigid and more "folk" types of music, because just about everything has been recycled and reused, with attributions to this or that artist. A big part of the anger at your comments, as far as I'm able to see, was that you weren't including everyone else - including the blues and folksmen (and women) - in your cries of "Thief! Thief Baggins!"

The whole "it's okay to copy" thing is itself muddy, though, from some sort of "moral" point-of-view...but it all seems like bull to me, really.

Btw: Peter Green credited "Hellhound on My Trail," a song considered to be a Robert Johnson original (though not without its influences), as "Trad., arr. by P.A. Green" on the Fleetwood Mac debut in 1968.

Edited by Melcórë
Link to post
Share on other sites

A big part of the anger at your comments, as far as I'm able to see, was that you weren't including everyone else - including the blues and folksmen (and women) - in your cries of "Thief! Thief Baggins!"

Include "everyone else" for what reason? This is a Zep forum, and the thread is about Page and Black Mountain/Waterside. How much broader does it need to be? Besides, in any case, I did include them, both those that did/didn't steal, by pointing out that what made many of those people different from Page was that they A ) Cleared themselves by crediting things properly, or B ) Didn't commit lifts which were note-for-note copies of the work of others. There is a difference between being inspired by a piece or genre of music, and copying the work of others. Play in a "rock" style using 4/4 time or specific instrumentation (i.e. guitar/drums/bass) vs lifting bars upon bars of someone else's lyrics or melodies and calling it your own.

It's still backwards to use the "everyone was doing it" argument, because that just wasn't the case. Collectively the Beatles/Stones/Zep did not make "everyone". It seems that the only thing the passage of time has done in that regard is that it has made a lot of people complacent with the thieving habits of the 60's-70's. Your example of classical music actually reinforces this. Bach was a true original who had developed his own style over years and years of composition and refining his own technique. Mozart may have been inspired by Bach's music, but he never lifted a passage from one of Bach's works. He instead wrote some pieces of his own in a counterpoint style, which anyone who heard them could hear was "Bach-like". And he did this in the same way that many other composers wrote works "in the style of" or as a "variation of". If Beethoven directly lifted passages from Mozart, well then, guess who was the thief there? Stravinsky openly admitted how he took from others. Doesn't mean you can lump Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Stravinsky into one category and say that they were "all" thieves. Because some of them were, some of them weren't. There is a difference in being "inspired" by another artist, and lifting passages from their music.

Edited by cookieshoes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is ever accused of being a thief until somebody makes some money off of a thing. I don't see the Black Muntain Side thing as a good example of being a thief. Now the Beach Boys complete rip off of Chuck Berry while he was in jail was like stealing his car out of his own driveway. But some of this other stuff was just the blending of musical ideas and styles by artists who were evolving themselves.

Hi Brad,

If Jimmy had called it " Black Muntain Side " then maybe there wouldnt have been an issue dont you think? ;)

Regards, Danny

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh!:o

I mean "O" as in please insert.

Spelling Nazis are everywhere :bagoverhead:

No worruies Brad, we all make mistokes when it cums to spolling, ;)

But surely Jimmys mistake was in not giving credit to what both he and Robert "Borrowed" from? no theft at all as nothing can be judged as being missing, Fraud maybe but not Theft, just my view you understand?

Regards, Danny

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. And if I recall, didn't they give a credit to Ritchie Valens on a song only to be sued by his mother for all the rights to the song.... and in reality the song was somthing Valens "borrowed" from someone else anyway.

I don't recall all the details of that story, but didn't it happen that way?

That is correct and the song was Boogie with Stu, a reworking of Oh, My Head by Valens. Valens was credited on the song so Ms. Valens would receive part of the royalties but Ms. Valens sued anyway. Just goes to show what happens when you do the right thing. Let no good deed go unpunished.:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct and the song was Boogie with Stu, a reworking of Oh, My Head by Valens. Valens was credited on the song so Ms. Valens would receive part of the royalties but Ms. Valens sued anyway. Just goes to show what happens when you do the right thing. Let no good deed go unpunished.:blink:

I would surmise that the gang unilaterally decided what would be Valens' part in the song without consulting the interested party. A failure to resolve the situation amicably would result in a lawsuit...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Isn't it kind of unfair to compare composers from two to three hundred years ago to today? There were far fewer genres and far fewer songs then so wouldn't it be significantly easier to have a unique style and create something completely original? And even though this could never be proven do we know for a fact that they didn't lift anything from unknown local musicians? Remember there wasn't an established publishing or recording industry back then so I'm thinking it would be easy to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to Dazed and Confused I would say its a different situation to Black Mountain/Waterside, Jansch interpreted the original melody on guitar where as Page added a unique and wholey original middle section to Dazed. I'd say the ideal credits would be both tradisional for Black Water/Mountside and Holmes/Page for Dazed and Confused.

You can connect a dotted line to pretty much all of the influences between all of the British Blues revival groups in the 60's. For the most part' date=' not an original idea in the whole lot. A bunch of British and American white kids imitating African Americans from the Delta, or the Rock and Rollers in the South. Singing with the dialect and the accents, and copying the subject matter. Somehow the shock value of the silliness of that kind of cultural appropriation has gotten completely lost in the decades since. Nevertheless, it's what those groups all managed to evolve into that began their own paths to developing a truly unique style for themselves. But straight across the board, for most of those groups, their origins were still as kids who unabashedly stole the music of the people they were imitating. Doesn't excuse any of them for the simple fact that their habits of thievery were actually unique to their generation, or that many of their peers were also stealing. Other groups weren't taking as liberally from each other as those groups were. And those that did cover other songs at least had sense and integrity enough to credit their sources. Yes, there is such a thing as original evolution of music. It just seems to have been eclipsed by that generation in the 60's and the 70's who were so complacent in copying their peers and those that came before them. But, it's not hard to see how that same spirit of copying bluesmen wouldn't also extend to copying others, such as Page's actions with Jansch and Graham. Because, if it's okay to copy the work of bluesmen, why not folkmen and instrumentalists too?[/quote']

A couple of points I'd make though is firstly that immitation and "theft" were just as if not more common place in Blues, RnB etc and secondly that Page/Zep seem to be singled out far more than anyone else. I'v always found the second point rather distasteful as for me it seems to hint towards white americans trying to claim the music as "theirs" just because they happened to live in the same country.

Edited by greenman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can make up anything on the fly I guess. White Americans such as myself who actually grew up in the 60's found out about "our" blues roots via English rock musicians, so you can throw that argument out the window. Really now, ripping off an entire song melody, adding a middle bridge and claiming it as your own? Seriously? That hasn't got anything to do with national pride, that's just blatant theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can make up anything on the fly I guess. White Americans such as myself who actually grew up in the 60's found out about "our" blues roots via English rock musicians, so you can throw that argument out the window. Really now, ripping off an entire song melody, adding a middle bridge and claiming it as your own? Seriously? That hasn't got anything to do with national pride, that's just blatant theft.

Are you talking about Bring It On Home?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
  • 1 year later...

Al Stewart had seen both Jansch and Anne Briggs perform "Blackwaterside" at the coffee bars in early 1966, before either one of them had recorded the song. Then in June 1966 Stewart did a session with Page and taught the song to Page (according to Stewart).

By the way, Jansch claims that he got the song from Briggs, who claims that she got the song from a traveling Irish folk singer named Mary Doran. However, this is almost definitely wrong. Jansch's version is actually a note-for-note copy of a 1962 version by Isla Cameron.

I always thought it was ironic that the Bert Jansch fans have criticized Page for copying Jansch, yet no one ever criticizes Jansch for copying Isla Cameron.

Isla Cameron's version is acapella. "Blackwater Side" is a traditional song. If Jansch had renamed the song and credited it to himself it would have been considered sneaky. The point in question is this: did Jimmy Page knowingly copy Jansch's guitar part for Blackwater Side and credit himself with its creation? Answer: Yes. Did Bert Jansch copy Blackwater Side and try to pass it off as his own? No - he openly performed a version of a song he knew from his 'scene' and credited it as 'traditional'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...