Led Zeppelin weren't thieves, were they ?

[tazulike88]

OK i know i post lot of topics but i read something that made me quite upset .... Led Zeppelin weren't thieves, were they ????

Apparently some of the songs were mere covers for older songs .. and that's ok and happens all the time .. what i don't understand is why people are sure they were bastards and thieves and robbers .... are there any clues that led zepp really stole that stuff .. or were they just covers ???? no matter what, they made a load of stuff that characterized them as led zeppelin like kashmir, which got covered loads of times by the way .... and Achilles last stand ... So were they thieves or the like ????

these're the "STOLEN" stuff

• "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant."
  
• "Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch.
  
• "Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson).
  
• "Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown."
  
• "Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy."
  
• "Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes).
  
• "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down."
  
• "How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter."
  
• "In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut).
  
• "The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court.
  
• "Moby Dick" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker.
  
• "Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues.
  
• "Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar.
  
• "Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is apparently from "Taurus" by Spirit.
  
• "White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair."
  
• "Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love."
  

[Anjin-san]

and barbarians too!

[Otto Masson]

This has been discussed on here so often through the years, and if you searched around you would find many threads devoted to this topic. But caution is needed with generalizations.

First of all, it's extremely important to keep in mind that musical development and legal distinctions are two separate things, and even in a case where there's some kind of infringement it does not necessarily mean that the whole thing was just stolen. Actually, in some such cases the "borrowing" was extremely fruitful in terms of musical development. I am not just talking about Led Zeppelin here, I am speaking in terms of generalities. The question of ownership is a legal issue superimposed on how popular music has always developed over the ages, important mainly because Rock & Roll quickly became a big business. Borrowing can be very fruitful and creative, and it may lead to fresh musical discoveries, so to speak.

Secondly, you have to be careful because once you start to believe in a general statement, such as "They would always steal things, left and right" or conversely, "That's just bullshit, from people who are jealous of their success", it will affect how you interpret the individual cases, because you immediately start to see the particular examples in terms of proving or disproving the general statement you already presuppose. That leads into a blind alley, and the discussion will get nowhere.

Now, Led Zeppelin was formed in great haste, and literally had to go on tour right away, as Jimmy Page had obligations left over from The Yardbirds to play some Scandinavian dates. Moreover, Jimmy didn't want to lose any time, and decided to use his own money to record an album just 3 months or so after the band had been formed. After that, very obviously, they then needed a record deal and to start touring again. This means they never had much time to spend on the songwriting, and the second album was really written and recorded on the road. What I mean is not that this circumstance is an "excuse" in cases where they may have lifted other people's ideas - it isn't by any means. What I am getting at is simply that in order to discuss this topic in general you will have to keep in mind how things actuallt happened - what were they trying to do, when, what were the circumstances, etc.

They were trying to build on some older musical legacies to form a new distinct identity. One of them was the American blues. The blues was a natural part of both Jimmy's and Robert's musical mode of expression; they were now trying to work through those influences together, and with two others that didn't really share that strongly blues-based background (both of whom were extremely strong musicians, however). No time to think. Just get up on that stage and play - improvise, quote the things that come to mind, see what happens! Folk influences were also integral to the idea, if in a different and more subordinate way than the blues, and they had to get to work on that too very quickly.

The upshot of all this is that they wanted to create something new, and they knew it would have to come from somewhere, from a reworking of older things. It was a huge ambition, and they thought the best way to do it was to just get to work playing live and recording music. So that's what happened. The musical development side of things becomes understandable when seen against that background. Their albums, while not reducible to their live playing by any means, still mirrored it in some ways ... the quoting of bits of music and lyrics, how they would leave in minor flaws, etc. Those characteristics of their albums were very deliberate, a part of the whole idea itself. Which is why they never stopped doing things that way.

This means that they had to take care with the credits; and the fact is that they didn't always. Black Mountain Side is one of the worst instances, perhaps, based on Bert Jansch's take on a traditional tune. They didn't credit tradition. That doesn't mean it wasn't a creative idea - it was: You were suddenly confronted with a two minute instrumental that sounded like a mixture of Irish, Arabian and Indian music. In the way it built on tradition, it simultaneously broke with that same tradition, and created a whole new frame of musical meaning (while the "Page's CIA" idea was prefigured in some ways by Davy Graham, it was more radical). They also "stole" Jake Holmes's riff for Dazed and Confused. It would take a deaf person to not perceive musical development in that case however. Often what the issue is about is quotes of snippets from elsewhere, and in such cases it's not always obvious what the credting should be. Very often it wasn't the music but the lyrics - but that was Robert being the kind of performer and musician he was. Listen to the shows; what's on the albums reflect what he did live all the time, quoting things on the spur of the moment (with the whole band sometimes joining in immediately).

Lastly, be careful, because they did do the right thing with the credits quite often - and still get criticized for stealing those ideas. To sum up, it has been blown out of proportion in my view, and many of the accusations forget that you need to discuss the matter in terms of what the musical ambition was. Others stole things too - that's not an excuse, but the way Led Zeppelin are often portrayed as the big thiefs in Rock & Roll is based on ignorance. Deep Purple don't get these accusations ... and yet they were quite blatant (especially the Black Night riff).

[Rock Historian]

Good Post...thanks for taking time and energy to explain that to the fellow member.

[seaweed gate]

On the other hand, Jimmy wasn't that much credited for his guitar playing on hundreds of studio sessions where he appeared in England way back in the sixties.

Most of the time, I believe he was contractual obliged to keep his involvement secret in these sessions.

This has always led me to think that Jimmy had approached the beginning of his LZ's career with a strong sense of revenge.

[Jahfin]

On the other hand, Jimmy wasn't that much credited for his guitar playing on hundreds of studio sessions where he appeared in England way back in the sixties.

Most of the time, I believe he was contractual obliged to keep his involvement secret in these sessions.

This has always led me to think that Jimmy had approached the beginning of his LZ's career with a strong sense of revenge.

Robbing the blues greats of their much deserved credit would hardly do anything to assure that Page was properly credited on those early sessions. There's absolutely no logic in that.

[Otto Masson]

Agreed, Jahfin.

[swandown]

Most of the accusations against Zep are either untrue or they're grossly exaggerated. Some of Zep's critics are hung up on the fact that they took writing credits for traditional songs (instead of crediting the song as "Trad"), but those accusations are based on ignorance of the law. The fact is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between crediting a traditional song to yourself or to "Trad". You are legally entitled to keep 100% of the royalties in either situation.

It's also completely hypocritical when people accuse Zep of stealing from people like Ritchie Valens, or Bert Jansch, or the Small Faces -- while totally ignoring the fact that Valens, Jansch and the Small Faces DID THE EXACT SAME THING.

"How dare they steal a song that Ritchie Valens stole first!!" Gimme a break.

[GeorgeC]

I concur with Otto's and Swandown's posts. Here's a quick rundown of the thievery allegations cited by tazulike88:

"Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - Mistakenly thought by LZ to be in the public domain, following the credits of the 1962 Joan Baez version. Accidental / inadvertent.

"Black Mountain Side" - Instrumental version of a folk song previously played by (but not credited to) Bert Jansch and Annie Briggs.

"Bring It On Home" - Adapted from Sonny Boy Williamson's 1963 version of a Willie Dixon song.

"Communication Breakdown" - Other than the title, no relation to the Eddie Cochran number.

"Custard Pie" - Contains lines from Bukka White, Sleepy John Estes, Hammie Nixon, Sonny Boy Williamson and Blind Boy Fuller.

"Dazed and Confused" - Directly taken from Jake Holmes' version, notwithstanding the fast middle section in the Zeppelin performance. Probably the most egregious of the LZ steals; Holmes has filed legal action.

"Hats Off to (Roy) Harper" - Adapted from Bukka White, but containing lines from Mississippi Fred McDowell and Howlin' Wolf.

"How Many More Times" - Adapted from Howlin' Wolf's "How Many More Years," but includes lines from Albert King, Jimmy Rodgers, and the folk song "Steal Away."

"In My Time of Dying" - Adapted from Blind Willie Johnson's "Jesus Make Up My Dying Bed," itself derived from various African-American spirituals.

"The Lemon Song" - Adapted from Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor," but containing lines from Robert Johnson and Albert King.

"Moby Dick" - A similar riff to "Watch Your Step," which itself grew out of Dizzie Gillespie's "Manteca." Not a Sleepy John Estes composition ("The Girl I Love..." was an early tryout of the "Moby Dick" line). And see also the Yardbirds' "I Wish You Would" for comparison.

"Nobody's Fault But Mine" - Adapted from Blind Willie Johnson (1928) and British guitarist John Renbourn (1966), credited to Renbourn.

"She Moved Through the Fair" - Instrumental version of a folk song from the British Isles, earlier played by Davey Graham.

"Since I've Been Loving You" - The opening lyric is derived from Moby Grape's "Never."

"Stairway to Heaven" - The introductory guitar line is similar to that for Spirit's "Taurus," but is played with a different fingering. Probably accidental.

"Whole Lotta Love" - Lyrics adapted from the Small Faces' (uncredited) cover of Muddy Waters' rendition of Willie Dixon's "You Need Love." Also quotes Dixon's "Shake For Me" and "Back Door Man." Out-of-court settlement reached.

There are other LZ cuts that have come under fire for plagiarism, but these are the usual suspects. For a fuller consideration of the issue, I suggest spending some quiet time consulting the Good Book, Chapter 17, "Love Some Other Man Too."

[Wolfman]

I find it funny how the Stones, Cream, Dead, Beatles, etc. did the same but are never accused of being thieves!

[Otto Masson]

Very useful overview, George, thanks. A minor correction however: She Moved Through the Fair actually isn't traditional - it's by Count John McCormack, although long believed to be an Irish folk song. It came to the knowledge of the English revivalists through a traveler, Margaret Barry, who when asked clarified where she got it from - a record, and not a folk one at that!

Again, my viewpoint is that you have to make a strict distinction between musical development on the one hand, and the legal framework superimposed on musical development, the latter mainly important because music has become a business and there have to be rules and regulations to direct the money flows in as just a manner as possible. Credits are a part of that framework, and in our modern world they are also a way of simply acknowledging where the ideas derive from. If you go back into history all that wouldn't really have applied to popular music as it was; it developed through borrowing and stealing, if you like to use the terms of ownership, but it was really just out there. Nobody owned the traditional songs. To not acknowledge tradition however is not just about money, as it also avoids acknowledging where things come from.

Music still tends to develop very much like it always has, and I don't think that will change. Even where credits are dubious, the "theft" may be very fruitful, creative and interesting, and the musical result really good. So, for the purposes of analysing musical development it's always worth the trouble to inquire exactly how things happened, as it's intersting in it's own right and also very often makes the individual cases a lot more comprehensible. However, to see that as an excuse in the legal framework doesn't make much sense (hence my agreement with what Jahfin said). A lot of artists have ripped others off, and often enough made great music in precisely those cases - but they still shouldn't do it. As for Led Zeppelin they are not entirely innocent either, but it has been blown out of proportion as Swandown pointed out, no doubt partly because they became so big, but also because of the specific kind of musical ambition they had ... it made for grey territories quite often.

[tazulike88]

thank you guys ... to spend that time and energy to explain all that with this wonderful detail to a newbie asking a question that already been asked and answered is just generous ... i agree with you that most of these accusations, if not all of them is either hateful exaggeration or blind and false ... even if they were thieves, which they're not ... i don't think there were any thieves that made something as great as Kashmir or Achilles last stand ... and for me ... that's Enough

[seaweed gate]

Robbing the blues greats of their much deserved credit would hardly do anything to assure that Page was properly credited on those early sessions. There's absolutely no logic in that.

Sorry, but I think you don't get it.

What I was trying to say has nothing to do with logic.

It deals with the mind, with the psyche. I mean what can you expect on an ethical level of a young session musician who wasn't properly credited for his work on countless hours of studio work ? How do you feel inside when you know you've greatly helped to shape a session but you will NOT get the approval to be recognized for the merits of your work by the public eye ?

Ok, Otto is perfectly right when he says they shouldn't have done it and there's no excuse for their behaviour but they shouldn't have done it with Jimmy too.

What I was trying to express is to get things and facts in perspective.

Allright, Led Zeppelin have borrowed big time without giving proper credit BUT there's another side to the story, as always ...

[Jahfin]

What I was trying to say has nothing to do with logic.

Exactly.

[swandown]

Sorry, but I think you don't get it.

What I was trying to say has nothing to do with logic.

It deals with the mind, with the psyche. I mean what can you expect on an ethical level of a young session musician who wasn't properly credited for his work on countless hours of studio work ? How do you feel inside when you know you've greatly helped to shape a session but you will NOT get the approval to be recognized for the merits of your work by the public eye ?

Ok, Otto is perfectly right when he says they shouldn't have done it and there's no excuse for their behaviour but they shouldn't have done it with Jimmy too.

What I was trying to express is to get things and facts in perspective.

Allright, Led Zeppelin have borrowed big time without giving proper credit BUT there's another side to the story, as always ...

I don't buy this argument. Jimmy knew the rules of the session world before he joined it; if he was upset about not being credited, he could have just returned to Neil Christian (or another band) in 1964. Besides, there was nothing preventing him from going public with the details of his session work. But he CHOSE to remain silent -- partly because he would have lost work if he went public, and partly because he didn't want to be stereotyped as a "session musician".

Also, it doesn't make sense to take vengeance on on famous artists by punishing unknown blues singers (who had nothing to do with Jimmy's session career).

[seaweed gate]

if he was upset about not being credited, he could have just returned to Neil Christian (or another band) in 1964.

He was subject to health issues each time he hit the road in those days, I believe. I remember reading somewhere that he caught glandular fever.

Besides, there was nothing preventing him from going public with the details of his session work. But he CHOSE to remain silent -- partly because he would have lost work if he went public, and partly because he didn't want to be stereotyped as a "session musician".

If he would have lost work if he went public about the details of his "secret" studio sessions with well known artists then it means that he wasn't REALLY free to expose the merits of his work to the public. There's an apparent paradox in what you're saying. OK, jimmy got good money from his studio work and avoided the rigors of touring but what a frustrating process for him. We have different interviews where he expresses his embarrassement of being imposed by producers to musicians who didn't approve his presence in the studio at all.

Also, it doesn't make sense to take vengeance on on famous artists by punishing unknown blues singers (who had nothing to do with Jimmy's session career).

I've never said so. Why focus on blues rip-off ? The biggest non credited borrowing being Jake Holmes's "Dazed & Confused" for me. It became an icon of Jimmy's use of bow technique on electric guitar and one of the highpoints of each show for the better part of LZ live career.

Yes, recreate the conditions of injustice in which you have been firstly a victim and then you'll become later guilty is unfortunate but REAL and it could certainly shed light on Jimmy's behaviour, imho. It's a well known and observed psychological fact nowadays. It has more to do with the unconscious part of the mind than with logic.

[yeldd]

Nicking others music without credit has gone on forever, but it is true that Led Zeppelin and the Brits repackaged American music and sold it back to them hook, line and sinker. Can you imagine what it was like for the Stones when asked wow your music is amazing and them saying go down the road (America) and you have got it all there, and people would look shocked.....The Brits helped The Blues artists of America be known and given credit...Zeppelin came along and decided nah we take credit...maybe thats why they became so big, buisness is buisness........But Zeppelins take on it is so much better than the originals that I forgive them for their selfish behavior, but it goes on to this day in music and also other arts too.

None of us are angels.

[Jahfin]

Nicking others music without credit has gone on forever, but it is true that Led Zeppelin and the Brits repackaged American music and sold it back to them hook, line and sinker. Can you imagine what it was like for the Stones when asked wow your music is amazing and them saying go down the road (America) and you have got it all there, and people would look shocked.....The Brits helped The Blues artists of America be known and given credit...Zeppelin came along and decided nah we take credit...maybe thats why they became so big, buisness is buisness........But Zeppelins take on it is so much better than the originals that I forgive them for their selfish behavior, but it goes on to this day in music and also other arts too.

None of us are angels.

I love Led Zeppelin as much as the next person but I'll take the original compositions by Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf and Robert Johnson over Zeppelin's versions any day of the week.

[Stryder1978]

Seaweed Gate - The difference is, Jimmy was PAID for being a session guitarist, whether he was credited or not is immaterial. The blues greats that he borrowed from and did not give credit to were NOT paid for the their contributions to the Led Zeppelin songs.

Although almost every muscian tends to borrow from artists of the past at some point, Led Zeppelin does seem to get beaten up more than most!

[yeldd]

Seaweed Gate - The difference is, Jimmy was PAID for being a session guitarist, whether he was credited or not is immaterial. The blues greats that he borrowed from and did not give credit to were NOT paid for the their contributions to the Led Zeppelin songs.

Although almost every muscian tends to borrow from artists of the past at some point, Led Zeppelin does seem to get beaten up more than most!

Yeh thats true, blues is a very limited musical form that cliches and plagerism is almost a certainty and they do get beaten up more than most, it could be because they became the biggest rock band of all time its easier to notice, but they did do it.

[tazulike88]

Yeh thats true, blues is a very limited musical form that cliches and plagerism is almost a certainty and they do get beaten up more than most, it could be because they became the biggest rock band of all time its easier to notice, but they did do it.

Completely agree, Zeppelin were so Phenomenal that they overwhelmed everybody ... Critics and press ... they were years ahead of their time, that only the audience was able to understand them, but because critics were so involved in their time and had a narrow idea of what tomorrow's music is gonna be, they were frustrated by zeppelin's outstanding Success, that they started fighting them, and picking on them ... "Plagiarism" is one of the weapons they used, and they were sort of successful, as lots of people now refuse to listen to zeppelin, because they were thieves. those really drive me mad, and i tend to stay away from them, for my health.

i always think of their "thefts" as, songs they heard, loved, and wanted to add their own touch on them, someone says: they "stole" because they weren't creative and had nothing new. ... i say what about, Achilles last stand, kashmir, carouselambra, black dog, rock n' roll, battle of evermore, tea for one, the crunge, dancing days, immigrant song, wanton song, rover, custard pie, in the evening, in the light, and the list goes on and on and on .... name one artist that made hits more than zeppelin and them come talk about plagiarism and creativity. those who tend not to understand what zeppelin was about, i tell them to Fuck Off.

[yeldd]

Yeh agree with you there, I tend to just accept they did it and best to talk about it, where as some like to shun that they did do this.

[zepmama]

This has been discussed on here so often through the years, and if you searched around you would find many threads devoted to this topic. But caution is needed with generalizations.

First of all, it's extremely important to keep in mind that musical development and legal distinctions are two separate things, and even in a case where there's some kind of infringement it does not necessarily mean that the whole thing was just stolen. Actually, in some such cases the "borrowing" was extremely fruitful in terms of musical development. I am not just talking about Led Zeppelin here, I am speaking in terms of generalities. The question of ownership is a legal issue superimposed on how popular music has always developed over the ages, important mainly because Rock & Roll quickly became a big business. Borrowing can be very fruitful and creative, and it may lead to fresh musical discoveries, so to speak.

Secondly, you have to be careful because once you start to believe in a general statement, such as "They would always steal things, left and right" or conversely, "That's just bullshit, from people who are jealous of their success", it will affect how you interpret the individual cases, because you immediately start to see the particular examples in terms of proving or disproving the general statement you already presuppose. That leads into a blind alley, and the discussion will get nowhere.

Now, Led Zeppelin was formed in great haste, and literally had to go on tour right away, as Jimmy Page had obligations left over from The Yardbirds to play some Scandinavian dates. Moreover, Jimmy didn't want to lose any time, and decided to use his own money to record an album just 3 months or so after the band had been formed. After that, very obviously, they then needed a record deal and to start touring again. This means they never had much time to spend on the songwriting, and the second album was really written and recorded on the road. What I mean is not that this circumstance is an "excuse" in cases where they may have lifted other people's ideas - it isn't by any means. What I am getting at is simply that in order to discuss this topic in general you will have to keep in mind how things actuallt happened - what were they trying to do, when, what were the circumstances, etc.

They were trying to build on some older musical legacies to form a new distinct identity. One of them was the American blues. The blues was a natural part of both Jimmy's and Robert's musical mode of expression; they were now trying to work through those influences together, and with two others that didn't really share that strongly blues-based background (both of whom were extremely strong musicians, however). No time to think. Just get up on that stage and play - improvise, quote the things that come to mind, see what happens! Folk influences were also integral to the idea, if in a different and more subordinate way than the blues, and they had to get to work on that too very quickly.

The upshot of all this is that they wanted to create something new, and they knew it would have to come from somewhere, from a reworking of older things. It was a huge ambition, and they thought the best way to do it was to just get to work playing live and recording music. So that's what happened. The musical development side of things becomes understandable when seen against that background. Their albums, while not reducible to their live playing by any means, still mirrored it in some ways ... the quoting of bits of music and lyrics, how they would leave in minor flaws, etc. Those characteristics of their albums were very deliberate, a part of the whole idea itself. Which is why they never stopped doing things that way.

This means that they had to take care with the credits; and the fact is that they didn't always. Black Mountain Side is one of the worst instances, perhaps, based on Bert Jansch's take on a traditional tune. They didn't credit tradition. That doesn't mean it wasn't a creative idea - it was: You were suddenly confronted with a two minute instrumental that sounded like a mixture of Irish, Arabian and Indian music. In the way it built on tradition, it simultaneously broke with that same tradition, and created a whole new frame of musical meaning (while the "Page's CIA" idea was prefigured in some ways by Davy Graham, it was more radical). They also "stole" Jake Holmes's riff for Dazed and Confused. It would take a deaf person to not perceive musical development in that case however. Often what the issue is about is quotes of snippets from elsewhere, and in such cases it's not always obvious what the credting should be. Very often it wasn't the music but the lyrics - but that was Robert being the kind of performer and musician he was. Listen to the shows; what's on the albums reflect what he did live all the time, quoting things on the spur of the moment (with the whole band sometimes joining in immediately).

Lastly, be careful, because they did do the right thing with the credits quite often - and still get criticized for stealing those ideas. To sum up, it has been blown out of proportion in my view, and many of the accusations forget that you need to discuss the matter in terms of what the musical ambition was. Others stole things too - that's not an excuse, but the way Led Zeppelin are often portrayed as the big thiefs in Rock & Roll is based on ignorance. Deep Purple don't get these accusations ... and yet they were quite blatant (especially the Black Night riff).

[zepmama]

I appreciate this thread. I've been listening and loving Zepp for 35 years. I wondered -- as a teen -- about the way that the credits read on the original LPs...and I have become really upset by the accusations that seem rampant on the internet. It is disturbing to think of the genius of Jimmy Page as being unoriginal. But I got some clarity and comfort from the comments posted here. So, thanks!