Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Recommended Posts

Does the Estate even have the money to pay the $600k tab to Warner ?

The Lawyer is not doing it out of the kindness of his heart and win-win situation for him.  He'll just drain the Estate to keep himself going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, timothy5151 said:

Not only is all of this bullshit, but if this appeal is successful and LZ loses...EVERYONE in publishing will lose. Just imagine the implications of such a broad an simplistic interpretation of "original." You will quite literally see thousands of these cases from musicians, to writers, to bloggers, and possibly from a 1st grade's complaint that a classmate three years detached, plagiarized his paper about his mommy because he used the word "mommy" somewhere within his story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How wonderful. It's the 50th anniversary and the only activity involves a rehash of a stupid lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The law and it's application is horrible at the moment. Here are two more examples that amount to copyrighting basic musical elements.

Katy Perry vs. Flame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg

Ed Sheeran vs. Marvin Gaye: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt1DXu7dlo

If musicians want to avoid being sued like this, the only option is to not make new original music. 

Edited by Sandey
clarity, links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sandey said:

The law and it's application is horrible at the moment. Here are two more examples that amount to copyrighting basic musical elements.

Katy Perry vs. Flame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg

Ed Sheeran vs. Marvin Gaye: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt1DXu7dlo

If musicians want to avoid being sued like this, the only option is to not make new original music. 

Yeah, it's horrible all around, but it's also one thing to be making new music under the current law and application, and it's another thing for a 50-year-old composition to be suing a 48-year-old composition and applying current standards...not just horrible, but ridiculous....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Sandey said:

The law and it's application is horrible at the moment. Here are two more examples that amount to copyrighting basic musical elements.

Katy Perry vs. Flame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg

Ed Sheeran vs. Marvin Gaye: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt1DXu7dlo

If musicians want to avoid being sued like this, the only option is to not make new original music. 

Sounds like some part of the powers that be in the music industry don’t want any new music and just live off catalog royalties by trying to change the law in these ridiculous copyright infringement (claims) lawsuits.

On the other side of the double-headed eagle coin, consider $16 million a day is made by the record industry from streaming (billions annually), but the artists who actually write and create the music are only paid fractions of pennies. Example: Peter Frampton only made $5k (residual streaming earnings) in 2016 from one of his multimillion best selling singles “Show Me The Way” after millions of streams. 

Something seriously has to change (legally) in order for musicians to be able to make a living in music without having to be stuck on the road (Treadmill) selling meet and greets, fan clubs, merch, selling pre-sale codes, pre-sale VIP tickets (via ticket brokers), etc indefinitely. Someone has already crunched the numbers and found ways to manipulate the system so there’s not a level playing field for most artists/bands.

Gene Simmons might have been right. Rock n Roll might be dead (from an “un”ethical/business/music sales / monetary model stand point), it’s very lucrative for those who leveraged the monies away from the artists/ bands/ creatives.

JP, RP & JPJ can help save Rock & Roll once again by defeating these evil scum opportunists hopefully once and for all. 

R😎

Edited by reids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, reids said:

On the other side of the double-headed eagle coin, consider $16 million a day is made by the record industry from streaming (billions annually), but the artists who actually write and create the music are only paid fractions of pennies. Example: Peter Frampton only made $5k (residual streaming earnings) in 2016 from one of his multimillion best selling singles “Show Me The Way” after millions of streams. 

I may be wrong, but I think it's always been like this. The majority of money made by artists is through playing live. Radio/internet play revenue mostly goes to the label. Then you factor in torrenting and album sales are practically irrelevant. Technology killed the radio star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, gibsonfan159 said:

I may be wrong, but I think it's always been like this. The majority of money made by artists is through playing live. Radio/internet play revenue mostly goes to the label. Then you factor in torrenting and album sales are practically irrelevant. Technology killed the radio star.

Sadly, It’s been like that way too long, yes, but now even the majority of million selling artists/bands from the 60s to current are forced to tour and the majority of people are too fickle / cheap to want to support / buy music (Physical media: cd/vinyl). It’s still the best quality over digital/streaming (over compressed/over modulated audio). The industry knew what they were doing with 360 contracts, making disposable blank media (CD-rs, dvd-r’s) , digital streaming services and now devices like Alexa available for consumers to purchase in the last 20 years to crush physical (cd and vinyl) media sales (eliminating other streams of income / jobs for record store employees, independent record labels to get bought up by the 3 remaining majors (WB, UMG & Sony) ; forcing musicians to tour non-stop). The majority of our younger culture the last 20 years see nothing wrong with illegal downloading (stealing a la Napster, Morpheus, kazaa, bit torrent & Russian sites, etc ) because, yes the industry opened Pandora’s box intentionally  (blank media/ internet) with no regulations and no security in place to stop it.

Now, we have an “entitled “ me generation (majority; not all) of so called consumers, who only care about being a celebrity instead of contributing to society built on one disposable pop /rap/crap song (a la “old town road”) after the other via a tv commercial or on YouTube video from a phone instead of album oriented (or cd; digital) quality rock n roll / classic rock as the main culture changing thing like the days of The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. The bio pic appears to be the current or last saving grace for keeping bands / music alive like Queen, Elvis, Elton John, etc.

As a music educator and musician, I work six to seven days a week to do my part to help the youth and others rediscover real music, how to play real instruments, so they can (re-)connect  with others instead of being glued to their devices (taking selfies to try to be popular in a fake world) like the rest of the walking dead. 

So, I hope Led Zeppelin (JP, RP, JPJ and those representing JB’s estate) win the lawsuit, countersue and put these opportunistic scumbags out of business once and for all. The future of music / songwriting / publishing royalties , etc are at stake here. 

R😎

Edited by reids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There were some interesting figures recently that show (Uk) vinyl still on the rise the rebirth of the cassette increased anger of the closing of music venues and the dominance of digital although there have been rumours of severe losses coming to the digital platforms(or at least some) I still to this day cannot understand how record companies lost distribution. If you think of the changes over the 20th century we went from sheet music wax cylinder's, shellac 78's vinyl cassette CD's then all forms of digital. The  moment the business went wrong was to not hold on to distribution. All through the other progressions the business model was constant.

I wonder if there could be a massive rejection of the current system. It feels like the 1950's before R&R ridged control. I cannot imagine a band daring to do what the Beatles did or Zeppelin. In the Beatles case growing from a pop band into a trippy band arguing with journalist about drugs and all sorts of other aspects while Zep barely acknowledged the traditional media. Its not that they would  not happen but it would not be allowed. They would have either been dropped or destroyed by the press.

Edited by anniemouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, reids said:

Sadly, It’s been like that way too long, yes, but now even the majority of million selling artists/bands from the 60s to current are forced to tour and the majority of people are too fickle / cheap to want to support / buy music (Physical media: cd/vinyl). It’s still the best quality over digital/streaming (over compressed/over modulated audio). The industry knew what they were doing with 360 contracts, making disposable blank media (CD-rs, dvd-r’s) , digital streaming services and now devices like Alexa available for consumers to purchase in the last 20 years to crush physical (cd and vinyl) media sales (eliminating other streams of income / jobs for record store employees, independent record labels to get bought up by the 3 remaining majors (WB, UMG & Sony) ; forcing musicians to tour non-stop). The majority of our younger culture the last 20 years see nothing wrong with illegal downloading (stealing a la Napster, Morpheus, kazaa, bit torrent & Russian sites, etc ) because, yes the industry opened Pandora’s box intentionally  (blank media/ internet) with no regulations and no security in place to stop it.

Now, we have an “entitled “ me generation (majority; not all) of so called consumers, who only care about being a celebrity instead of contributing to society built on one disposable pop /rap/crap song (a la “old town road”) after the other via a tv commercial or on YouTube video from a phone instead of album oriented (or cd; digital) quality rock n roll / classic rock as the main culture changing thing like the days of The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. The bio pic appears to be the current or last saving grace for keeping bands / music alive like Queen, Elvis, Elton John, etc.

As a music educator and musician, I work six to seven days a week to do my part to help the youth and others rediscover real music, how to play real instruments, so they can (re-)connect  with others instead of being glued to their devices (taking selfies to try to be popular in a fake world) like the rest of the walking dead. 

So, I hope Led Zeppelin (JP, RP, JPJ and those representing JB’s estate) win the lawsuit, countersue and put these opportunistic scumbags out of business once and for all. The future of music / songwriting / publishing royalties , etc are at stake here. 

R😎

Well, that was an inspiring rant and all, but what does it have to do with the specifics of the claim (by Randy California's estate against Zeppelin)?  How does the (unquestioned) venality of record labels relate to P&P's shooting themselves in the foot (by being evasive over their familiarity with Spirit's music)?  How will a settlement in Zep's favor have any bearing at all on the nature of the music business today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Well, that was an inspiring rant and all, but what does it have to do with the specifics of the claim (by Randy California's estate against Zeppelin)?  How does the (unquestioned) venality of record labels relate to P&P's shooting themselves in the foot (by being evasive over their familiarity with Spirit's music)?  How will a settlement in Zep's favor have any bearing at all on the nature of the music business today?

Have you Read the previous 45 pages in this thread or better yet the actual lawsuit (claims) research for yourself to catch up???  Re: Venality example: see recent UMG / Vivendi  sale of 50% (overstating value of their portion of company to perspective buyers like Google, YouTube, etc) after not disclosing original losses to thousands of their artist roster and / or surviving family members / beneficiaries from UMG / Universal Studio archive lot fire in the 2007 Los Angeles almost 12 years ago, but collecting millions in insurance money  (that’s another, but related case, which a huge class action lawsuit is in the works). Coverdale Page are included, due to Geffen being sold to UMG years ago. Hopefully, CP Anniversary reissue w/ bonus material will see the light of day if in JP’s archives. 

I simply stated how this lawsuit tries to affect the band, the listeners and those of us in the music industry (composers, educators, etc)., since there are already 45 pages of documented historical accounts covering all of that, fans / forum conjecture and rants (as you call them). Some people can’t or don’t want to recognize the facts: (or are possibly busy trying to Troll others online).

1) Randy California did not sue Led Zeppelin during his lifetime and was on record stating these are two very different compositions, which go in two directions thematically. He understood the history of recorded music, knowing his song used common themes, progressions and movements previously used within a line cliche in the key of A minor. (see video example)

He was a peer of P&P, knowing they were all inspired from these same line cliches used over the past 600 years w/ common elements. P&P responded to not being familiar with Spirit’s entire catalog. “Taurus” was not a popular song from their self titled debut album. Those representing California’s estate confirmed this piece of music was not a hit single, was only performed live in concert if at most a few times, wasn’t performed in concert when the two accounts of a festival date where Zeppelin appeared on the same bill during opening slot (so, chances are nil to non-existent).

Song not listed in any ‘67 set list online:

(example) no songs from debut album, Spirit, performed in 1968 (year after recording)

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/spirit/1968/anaheim-convention-center-anaheim-ca-13ee9569.html

It wasn’t until 1969, the song was performed twice (one instance being):

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/spirit/1969/devonshire-downs-northridge-ca-2bc7dcaa.html 

That same date, Led Zeppelin performed in the U.K. 

https://www.ledzeppelin.com/show/june-20-1969

... then “Taurus” was dropped from set:

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/spirit/1969/dallas-international-motor-speedway-lewisville-tx-6bdd9ae6.html

2) Those filing the claims against Led Zeppelin waited after all these years (post Randy California’s life) speaks volumes of their greed (trying to cash in on Zeppelin’s Masterpiece). 

3) The prosecution continues to refile suits over and over again even after losing with the overwhelming evidence proving these are two completely different songs w/ Am chords and commonly used line cliches, progressions prior to either songs were created, recorded or performed speaks volumes for them being opportunists only interested in the money and songwriting credit.

4) Music experts have proven the sheet music comparison of the two songs are completely different using common progressions, themes like fanfare used by hundreds of other composers historically. Experts have also proven (and are on record: see video below) performing the two compositions demonstrating the differences in both introductions. The two songs are entirely different, which is why Led Zeppelin have won these court cases. 

Documented Source: “The trial concluded on June 23, 2016, with the jury, after one hour of deliberation, finding that Led Zeppelin was not guilty of copyright infringementdetermining that while Plant and Page had access to “Taurus”, the song’s riff was not "intrinsically similar" to the opening of “Stairway.””

These ridiculous lawsuits (and others like the recent Katy Perry one) could hinder/destroy the very fabric / integrity of what remains in the basic foundation of music; the composition (line cliches, sequence of chords, progressions, tempo, key, dynamic, etc would not be avail as an artistic choice / palate if every element was under a microscope to the Nth degree for scrutiny).

Thankfully, 127 + artists / bands are on record supporting Led Zeppelin in their fight to have this (and hopefully last) lawsuit thrown out. Led Zeppelin need to countersue for harassment and their time being wasted. A settlement in P&Ps favor would hopefully squash  similar copycat lawsuits from rearing their ugly heads and set the standard / precedent / reference for music copyright related cases.

Here’s proof the two are not at all related and use line cliches used in other earlier songs like “My Funny Valentine” , Duke Ellington’s 1939, “In A Sentimental Mood”, The Beatles’ 1967 Sergeant Pepper Classic, “Fixing A Hole” as well as many more classical and popular pieces. If Ellington’s Estate, Sir Paul McCartney, etc and every other composer who wrote line cliches in the same key decided to sue everyone after them it’d be a dark day in music. Thankfully, they had enough common sense. Sadly, “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense” - Frank Lloyd Wright

(watch specifically from 1:39 to 2:20)

R😎

Edited by reids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, anniemouse said:

I cannot imagine a band daring to do what the Beatles did or Zeppelin. In the Beatles case growing from a pop band into a trippy band arguing with journalist about drugs and all sorts of other aspects while Zep barely acknowledged the traditional media. Its not that they would  not happen but it would not be allowed. They would have either been dropped or destroyed by the press.

I can. It is possible that sooner or later some very talented kids will be lucky enough to be born in the same area and cross paths. They will not only have the immense musical skills but a shared love of blues/psychedelic rock and deep appreciation of '70's rock and the underpinning blues from earlier times. And if they possess the work ethic and hunger to produce really good original music based on the music they obsess about on they'll go. Just writing and playing. They will not give any fucks about why they can't do anything - they will get together and create and play. And if they are lucky enough that everything aligns just right for them and they happen upon a manager that really works for them - then why not a resurgence of great rock music? It could happen. One band that kills it live and quickly gains a huge reputation on a scale like any of the really big past names (Zep, Floyd, Queen, etc, etc) could easily spark interest in '70's style rock and how good it is. And if the public has all but forgotten about it - it may well be like a bushfire taking off when the bush is long dry from the drought.

Sooner or later I see this as being inevitable.

Sorry - nothing to do with law suit - except that if the suit is successful it may well kill any chance of my ponderings even being possible.

Edited by rm2551

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that this is off track of the original post, One thing that puzzles me is that bands seemed to have let their managers make poor deals in regards to streaming. Could you imagine Epstein and Grant letting their bands make virtually nothing of an income stream. RM you are correct but this lawsuit, managers in general and badly thought out strategies from labels need to change for the sake of music. Oh well all we need is the new Elvis and Lonnie Donegan to set things going again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What money-grab suits like this really show is there is a bunch of people who've given up trying to make anything new or creative in the world of music; instead the future will be lawsuits to try and squeeze revenue away from big selling song catalogues.

I bet as I type this there are lawyers looking at massive radio play songs (the biggest back catalogue earners) and seeing if there are any similarities that previously (pre Blurred Lines judgment) wouldn't have been worth considering. I also predict this process will accelerate as the baby boomer musicians pass on; inevitably some of their heirs will not be so involved and will just pay up rather than fighting the case. Grim business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, 76229 said:

What money-grab suits like this really show is there is a bunch of people who've given up trying to make anything new or creative in the world of music; instead the future will be lawsuits to try and squeeze revenue away from big selling song catalogues.

I bet as I type this there are lawyers looking at massive radio play songs (the biggest back catalogue earners) and seeing if there are any similarities that previously (pre Blurred Lines judgment) wouldn't have been worth considering. I also predict this process will accelerate as the baby boomer musicians pass on; inevitably some of their heirs will not be so involved and will just pay up rather than fighting the case. Grim business.

 

^ This and bottom feeder vultures (representing protection royalty organizations aka PROs : ASCAP, BMI & SESAC) going after start up / mom & pop businesses with outrageous regular threats, fees & fines just for playing live music (either from people or music devices for background/ entertainment).. they’re not giving new business / live music venues time to build their businesses and increase volume before making threats all the while most of these PROs don’t pay $ out their legacy artists squat. I have a few musician friends who have been in multimillion selling, Grammy award winning groups and now many only get “royalty checks” for $5 or less while they’ve sold tons of physical albums,, but the industry is trying to kill Physical media (like purposely delaying new release CDs & vinyl in the Midwest USA / heartland where 80% of sales are traditionally made in first few weeks)  & move everything to streaming.  You can thank these streaming services (like Spotify, tidal, etc), PROs and the remaining major record labels, their attorneys, etc for trying to kill the future of live music from up and coming artists/bands . EOR. Now, back to our story already in progress.

R😎 

BD41F20B-7E7D-400C-8B31-32E20F9D35D2.jpeg

Edited by reids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, reids said:

Have you Read the previous 45 pages in this thread or better yet the actual lawsuit (claims) research for yourself to catch up???  Re: Venality example: see recent UMG / Vivendi  sale of 50% (overstating value of their portion of company to perspective buyers like Google, YouTube, etc) after not disclosing original losses to thousands of their artist roster and / or surviving family members / beneficiaries from UMG / Universal Studio archive lot fire in the 2007 Los Angeles almost 12 years ago, but collecting millions in insurance money  (that’s another, but related case, which a huge class action lawsuit is in the works). Coverdale Page are included, due to Geffen being sold to UMG years ago. Hopefully, CP Anniversary reissue w/ bonus material will see the light of day if in JP’s archives. 

I simply stated how this lawsuit tries to affect the band, the listeners and those of us in the music industry (composers, educators, etc)., since there are already 45 pages of documented historical accounts covering all of that, fans / forum conjecture and rants (as you call them). Some people can’t or don’t want to recognize the facts: (or are possibly busy trying to Troll others online).

1) Randy California did not sue Led Zeppelin during his lifetime and was on record stating these are two very different compositions, which go in two directions thematically. He understood the history of recorded music, knowing his song used common themes, progressions and movements previously used within a line cliche in the key of A minor. (see video example)

He was a peer of P&P, knowing they were all inspired from these same line cliches used over the past 600 years w/ common elements. P&P responded to not being familiar with Spirit’s entire catalog. “Taurus” was not a popular song from their self titled debut album. Those representing California’s estate confirmed this piece of music was not a hit single, was only performed live in concert if at most a few times, wasn’t performed in concert when the two accounts of a festival date where Zeppelin appeared on the same bill during opening slot (so, chances are nil to non-existent).

Song not listed in any ‘67 set list online:

(example) no songs from debut album, Spirit, performed in 1968 (year after recording)

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/spirit/1968/anaheim-convention-center-anaheim-ca-13ee9569.html

It wasn’t until 1969, the song was performed twice (one instance being):

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/spirit/1969/devonshire-downs-northridge-ca-2bc7dcaa.html 

That same date, Led Zeppelin performed in the U.K. 

https://www.ledzeppelin.com/show/june-20-1969

... then “Taurus” was dropped from set:

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/spirit/1969/dallas-international-motor-speedway-lewisville-tx-6bdd9ae6.html

2) Those filing the claims against Led Zeppelin waited after all these years (post Randy California’s life) speaks volumes of their greed (trying to cash in on Zeppelin’s Masterpiece). 

3) The prosecution continues to refile suits over and over again even after losing with the overwhelming evidence proving these are two completely different songs w/ Am chords and commonly used line cliches, progressions prior to either songs were created, recorded or performed speaks volumes for them being opportunists only interested in the money and songwriting credit.

4) Music experts have proven the sheet music comparison of the two songs are completely different using common progressions, themes like fanfare used by hundreds of other composers historically. Experts have also proven (and are on record: see video below) performing the two compositions demonstrating the differences in both introductions. The two songs are entirely different, which is why Led Zeppelin have won these court cases. 

Documented Source: “The trial concluded on June 23, 2016, with the jury, after one hour of deliberation, finding that Led Zeppelin was not guilty of copyright infringementdetermining that while Plant and Page had access to “Taurus”, the song’s riff was not "intrinsically similar" to the opening of “Stairway.””

These ridiculous lawsuits (and others like the recent Katy Perry one) could hinder/destroy the very fabric / integrity of what remains in the basic foundation of music; the composition (line cliches, sequence of chords, progressions, tempo, key, dynamic, etc would not be avail as an artistic choice / palate if every element was under a microscope to the Nth degree for scrutiny).

Thankfully, 127 + artists / bands are on record supporting Led Zeppelin in their fight to have this (and hopefully last) lawsuit thrown out. Led Zeppelin need to countersue for harassment and their time being wasted. A settlement in P&Ps favor would hopefully squash  similar copycat lawsuits from rearing their ugly heads and set the standard / precedent / reference for music copyright related cases.

Here’s proof the two are not at all related and use line cliches used in other earlier songs like “My Funny Valentine” , Duke Ellington’s 1939, “In A Sentimental Mood”, The Beatles’ 1967 Sergeant Pepper Classic, “Fixing A Hole” as well as many more classical and popular pieces. If Ellington’s Estate, Sir Paul McCartney, etc and every other composer who wrote line cliches in the same key decided to sue everyone after them it’d be a dark day in music. Thankfully, they had enough common sense. Sadly, “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense” - Frank Lloyd Wright

(watch specifically from 1:39 to 2:20)

R😎

So, basically, nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

So, basically, nothing?

??? It’s sounds like someone is either on the side of Spirit’s money grubbing lawyers and / or just a forum Troll. Just go away, If you can’t respond in a mature manner. The overwhelming evidence has been revealed & the courts have ruled in Led Zeppelin’s favor each time. The odds are greatly against Spirit’s “Taurus” and most likely Nothing will change.

R😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 10:04 PM, reids said:

??? It’s sounds like someone is either on the side of Spirit’s money grubbing lawyers and / or just a forum Troll. Just go away, If you can’t respond in a mature manner. The overwhelming evidence has been revealed & the courts have ruled in Led Zeppelin’s favor each time. The odds are greatly against Spirit’s “Taurus” and most likely Nothing will change.

R😎

You're just being a mindless fanboy here.  Otherwise, you would know that this case has nothing to do with the (unquestioned) commonality of the underlying chord progressions across many other songs besides STH and Taurus.  So bringing up how many other artists have employed similar musical devices is completely irrelevant.  And for someone who claims to carry the banner of the common musician against corporate greed, it's amusing that you ignore the fact that maybe one reason Randy California didn't bring suit during his lifetime is because he lived in poverty and had no means to do so.  And not that I give two shits what you think, but in fact I don't think this suit has much merit, although P&P should be called out for their evasiveness when asked about their familiarity with Spirit's music, the optics there were just terrible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

You're just being a mindless fanboy here.  Otherwise, you would know that this case has nothing to do with the (unquestioned) commonality of the underlying chord progressions across many other songs besides STH and Taurus.  So bringing up how many other artists have employed similar musical devices is completely irrelevant.  And for someone who claims to carry the banner of the common musician against corporate greed, it's amusing that you ignore the fact that maybe one reason Randy California didn't bring suit during his lifetime is because he lived in poverty and had no means to do so.  And not that I give two shits what you think, but in fact I don't think this suit has much merit, although P&P should be called out for their evasiveness when asked about their familiarity with Spirit's music, the optics there were just terrible.  

No. You miss the complete point, here. With all the research and facts, It has everything to do with it.

Another example: The Edge (U2) stated he’s a big fan of Led Zeppelin in “It Might Get Loud” (documentary film featuring The Edge (Real name Dave Evans), JP & Jack White). U2’s, “Sunday Bloody Sunday” (early 1980’s) has a similar line cliche in Am, too, (some play it in Bm), but you don’t see anyone who wrote a song with a similar line cliche prior to U2’s song suing them (and they’ve got plenty money from sales). Line cliches are used all the time. Led Zeppelin were targeted by Randy California’s Estate, due to jealousy and greed, because Zeppelin have amassed tons of accolades being perennial fan favorites in radio and magazine polls,  as well as made loads of money from sales over the past 48 years. If the California Estate wanted to be taken seriously, they could have pursued Zeppelin a long time ago (in early to mid 70s and worked out a deal with their own lawyer for compensation (percentage) for representation and/or based on a win. 

California knew he didn’t have a case, so he didn’t pursue (regardless of money or not).  Those who choose not to see the facts, have a vendetta against Zeppelin, because of other songs in their catalog having been in question (most of the time due to RP’s choice to use phrases “borrowed” from other blues based compositions where there were not clear copyrights / question of being traditional or under public domain.

That is not the case with STH. Plant didn’t rip off / “borrow” any lyric, JPJ worked well with JP in the arrangement while JP used a popular line cliche in Am and several classical-based fanfares to guide the listener through the eight plus minute audio journey. It’s become perhaps the most famous song of the past half century. 

STH goes in a completely different and magnificent direction thanks to the three songwriters/arrangers (JP, RP & JPJ).

Case closed (hopefully soon).

R😎

Edited by reids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, reids said:

No. You miss the complete point, here. With all the research and facts, It has everything to do with it.

Another example: The Edge (U2) stated he’s a big fan of Led Zeppelin in “It Might Get Loud” (documentary film featuring The Edge (Real name Dave Evans), JP & Jack White). U2’s, “Sunday Bloody Sunday” (early 1980’s) has a similar line cliche in Am, too, (some play it in Bm), but you don’t see anyone who wrote a song with a similar line cliche prior to U2’s song suing them (and they’ve got plenty money from sales). Line cliches are used all the time. Led Zeppelin were targeted by Randy California’s Estate, due to jealousy and greed, because Zeppelin have amassed tons of accolades being perennial fan favorites in radio and magazine polls,  as well as made loads of money from sales over the past 48 years. If the California Estate wanted to be taken seriously, they could have pursued Zeppelin a long time ago (in early to mid 70s and worked out a deal with their own lawyer for compensation (percentage) for representation and/or based on a win. 

California knew he didn’t have a case, so he didn’t pursue (regardless of money or not).  Those who choose not to see the facts, have a vendetta against Zeppelin, because of other songs in their catalog having been in question (most of the time due to RP’s choice to use phrases “borrowed” from other blues based compositions where there were not clear copyrights / question of being traditional or under public domain.

That is not the case with STH. Plant didn’t rip off / “borrow” any lyric, JPJ worked well with JP in the arrangement while JP used a popular line cliche in Am and several classical-based fanfares to guide the listener through the eight plus minute audio journey. It’s become perhaps the most famous song of the past half century. 

STH goes in a completely different and magnificent direction thanks to the three songwriters/arrangers (JP, RP & JPJ).

Case closed (hopefully soon).

R😎

The point is that you misunderstand copyright law.  California's estate is not claiming monopoly rights over these common chord progressions for time immemorial (and have themselves noted differences between the two songs).  They're claiming P&P were influenced by Taurus in writing STH and failed to properly attribute credit.  So it's completely irrelevant how many other musicians have used those progressions, or if Davey Graham used them back in the 50's, or whether the lawyer is a sleaze bag, etc.  It's also irrelevant whether the case has merit or what Randy California would have thought about it, then or now.  P&P have themselves given a lot of ammunition to the plaintiffs by not being forthright to start, and it could very well come back to haunt them.

Share this post


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...