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  
jpj4eva-jb-rip

Howard Stern Exposes Led Zeppelin As A Farce

Recommended Posts

yes many of them "took" from...as in were heavily influnced by...and even nicked passages from song structures /chord patterns....but Clapton credited Robert Johnson 100% for Crossroads.....yet I have a sneaky feeling Page would probably had credited himself for Traveling Riverside Blues, had they released it when it was recorded.

What lyrical passages directly taken from previously written songs by the above artists you listed....and credited solely to themselves can you really cite? :whistling:

I'm so glad that you asked.

Eric Clapton stole the intro to "Strange Brew" directly from Albert King's "Crosscut Saw", note for note. He also failed to credit Skip James as the proper author of "32-20 Blues" and the partial author of "Come On In My Kitchen" on his album Me and Mr. Johnson. (granted in this case the original theft was Robert Johnson's, but Clapton knows that full well and failed to correctly credit the song.) Clapton also failed to give a writing credit to Duane Allman for the intro and the second half of Layla.

Clapton presented Layla to the band exactly as he played it on unplugged. Everything else you hear is Duane and Jim Gordon. Gordon got a writing credit, but Duane didn't after writing one fo the most famous guitar licks of all time.

John Lennon recorded his 1975 album "Rock and Roll" in order to settle the lawsuit of Morris Levy, who claimed that "Come Together" took it's music from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". The agreement was an out of court settlement- just like Zeppelin had with the Burnett family. George Harrison was succesfully sued for plagerising "He's So Fine" on "My Sweet Lord". Furthermore, the Beatles the intro to the Beatle's "Sun King" bear more than a passing resemblance to certain works by Peter Green, at least as much as Stairway resembles Taurus.

Bob Dylan most recent album contains rewrites of Muddy Waters' "Trouble No More", "Rollin and Tumblin'" and ironically Memphis Minnie's "When The Levee Breaks" without crediting either artist. Dylan's career is filled with lyrical borrowings, though. Much like on Led Zeppelin did on their first album, he "borrowed" traditional songs that had been arranged by other artists. "House of the Rising Sun" and "He was a Friend of Mine" were both being performed in New York by Dave Van Ronk before Dylan recorded them. Here's a link to a RollingStone.Com article about Dylan's thefts:

Bob Dylan's Greatest Thefts

In the comments section you'll find a very similar debate to this one.

Bob Dylan and Paul Simon BOTH took credit for a traditional that Martin Carthy arranged. Or hadn't you ever noticed that "Girl From the North Country" and "Scarborough Fair" have rather similar lyrics?

And as far as riffs goes- if you can "steal" riffs, as you say Jimmy Page did with the Yardbirds . . . should the Stones just give all of their money to Chuck Berry now, or should they do it in installments?

Now, these are the things I can name just off of the top of my head. Given what you've just read, do you suppose with a little research I might be able to come up with more for any of the above artists? Gee, ya think?

So let's tally up. Clapton: Guilty. The Beatles: Guilty. Dylan: Guilty. The Stones: Guilty.

EVERYONE DOES IT. WHY IS IT DIFFERENT WHEN ZEP DOES IT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Howard Stern is just a Don Imus wannabe right ???

Just more absurd if thats possible :banana::chickeddance::banana:

RjK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm so glad that you asked.

Eric Clapton stole the intro to "Strange Brew" directly from Albert King's "Crosscut Saw", note for note. He also failed to credit Skip James as the proper author of "32-20 Blues" and the partial author of "Come On In My Kitchen" on his album Me and Mr. Johnson. (granted in this case the original theft was Robert Johnson's, but Clapton knows that full well and failed to correctly credit the song.) Clapton also failed to give a writing credit to Duane Allman for the intro and the second half of Layla.

Clapton presented Layla to the band exactly as he played it on unplugged. Everything else you hear is Duane and Jim Gordon. Gordon got a writing credit, but Duane didn't after writing one fo the most famous guitar licks of all time.

John Lennon recorded his 1975 album "Rock and Roll" in order to settle the lawsuit of Morris Levy, who claimed that "Come Together" took it's music from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". The agreement was an out of court settlement- just like Zeppelin had with the Burnett family. George Harrison was succesfully sued for plagerising "He's So Fine" on "My Sweet Lord". Furthermore, the Beatles the intro to the Beatle's "Sun King" bear more than a passing resemblance to certain works by Peter Green, at least as much as Stairway resembles Taurus.

Bob Dylan most recent album contains rewrites of Muddy Waters' "Trouble No More", "Rollin and Tumblin'" and ironically Memphis Minnie's "When The Levee Breaks" without crediting either artist. Dylan's career is filled with lyrical borrowings, though. Much like on Led Zeppelin did on their first album, he "borrowed" traditional songs that had been arranged by other artists. "House of the Rising Sun" and "He was a Friend of Mine" were both being performed in New York by Dave Van Ronk before Dylan recorded them. Here's a link to a RollingStone.Com article about Dylan's thefts:

Bob Dylan's Greatest Thefts

In the comments section you'll find a very similar debate to this one.

Bob Dylan and Paul Simon BOTH took credit for a traditional that Martin Carthy arranged. Or hadn't you ever noticed that "Girl From the North Country" and "Scarborough Fair" have rather similar lyrics?

And as far as riffs goes- if you can "steal" riffs, as you say Jimmy Page did with the Yardbirds . . . should the Stones just give all of their money to Chuck Berry now, or should they do it in installments?

Now, these are the things I can name just off of the top of my head. Given what you've just read, do you suppose with a little research I might be able to come up with more for any of the above artists? Gee, ya think?

So let's tally up. Clapton: Guilty. The Beatles: Guilty. Dylan: Guilty. The Stones: Guilty.

EVERYONE DOES IT. WHY IS IT DIFFERENT WHEN ZEP DOES IT?

Great post!!! And the answer to your last question........because we are on a Zep site. (I'm sure these things come up on Dylan/Clapton/Beatles boards too. Just so happens...this whole deal came in the same time as the onset of the 07 Zep hype. It's to be expected. I still feel pretty strongly about citing due credit....and I feel the same about the other artists you mentioned. As far as Layla.....that's between the band members. Same way Lennon was given credit on sole Macca songs...and vise versa....it's their business. Besides...the initial idea/structure/lyrics hold more composition weight over the icing on the cake ala Duanne's contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As soon as I see his name, I just turn off whatever it is. He is such an asshole.

I fully agree with you. Stern brought up the subject to profit from sensationalism. It's a pity that he had nothing else to think of at that moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Howard Stern is just a Don Imus wannabe right ???

Just more absurd if thats possible :banana::chickeddance::banana:

RjK

Now thats funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it has to do with the times we live in. The modern era has stacked up quite a nice bit of recordings in the last 50 yrs. Some shred of decency has to be upheld for the sake of original art. Just because someone plays a different version of the song...the chords, the arrangement, the lyrics...they are present.

to what extent are the chords, arrangement, and lyrics similar in the Dylan and Hendrix versions?

50% the same? 25% the same? more/less?

what/how much does Hendrix add to the song?

how much Dylan material does Hendrix not use?

don't you see how it's not as simple as those three dimensions that you mentioned? it's almost infinite, and that's the problem. there's no way to legally address the infinite dimensions of music.

so as a default, we have adopted a stricter policy on plagiarism. This both hinders and helps creativity in different ways.

It hinders artists because certain materials may not be called their own.

It helps artists because constraints such as these often promote creativity, for the artist to come up with something "new". When the artist has less options, they are more likely to transform an option of their own to express their works.

What you are saying about Hendrix giving himself credit is not even thinkable. It's just the same song in a different genre.

I guess that statement of mine was because I hadn't heard the Dylan version at that point. I have since listened to it. There is just so much that Hendrix adds to the subject matter. So much feeling. The song is in the same mood, but maybe the Hendrix version is more urgent. Let's not forget the guitar solos that Hendrix adds. The intro is different, Jimi does a lot of ad libbing. The lyrics are completely the same.

No matter what genre this is, Jimi makes this song his own because he has transformed it enough to do so.

What if it were a reggae version, or a big band. Still the same song....even if it sounds different.

Unfortunately, this is the type of thing where you "just know" by comparison. What happens when someone covers Jimi's version? Who gets cited then? Dylan? Probably not. So then perhaps it was Jimi's after all?

Let's remember, when you write your college thesis, and you copy anything without giving credit, you are promptly expelled. If you publish a book and are found guilty of plagerism, the book gets pulled and all monetary advances are owed back to the publisher.

Yes those are all the current practices in defining plagiarism but it doesn't make them right. It just means that those are the best methods we have right now to deal with people stealing other's work.

There's just got to be a better systematic way to compare these things. The problem is that since creativity is involved, whatever system will also have to be creative to address the dynamic world of art.

...

They were really folk songs...and if you can site multiple versions from various blues artists....even if they gave themselves credit....the song should IMO be considered "traditional". And I have always been perfectly fine with <"traditional, arranged by "______">. It's when lyrical phrases are copied verbatim...and not even a footnote is cited

Maybe the problem is that there is no standardized system to determine whether a song should be <"traditional, arranged by "______"> or whether it should be something like <"Dixon/Page"> or some another options applying to another situation.

It seems like there is no way to say "I got the idea from so-and-so but I transformed it enough that it's mostly mine"

There just aren't enough options out there. Artists have to cite after the song title and have space for 4 words. It's not a lot of space to cite something that is more complicated than what 4 words could possibly describe.

...

Even old time classical composers wrote pieces titled "Variations on "insert composer here". Not that there was such thing as recordings and publishing and everything internet related...from tabs to complete scores to lyrics to easy guitar chord charts. At least they were true to the art.

There are many cultures that laugh at the idea of owning anything! Whether it be a broom, or an idea, or their own artwork. Some Native American cultures didn't think that the land should be owned by individuals, but that the land belonged to everyone. To some extent, but not completely, I have this feeling toward art and music. How are we to determine what is true to art and what is not, if art is the ultimate input for our own creative output?

Edited by guitarmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post!!! And the answer to your last question........because we are on a Zep site. (I'm sure these things come up on Dylan/Clapton/Beatles boards too. Just so happens...this whole deal came in the same time as the onset of the 07 Zep hype. It's to be expected. I still feel pretty strongly about citing due credit....and I feel the same about the other artists you mentioned. As far as Layla.....that's between the band members. Same way Lennon was given credit on sole Macca songs...and vise versa....it's their business. Besides...the initial idea/structure/lyrics hold more composition weight over the icing on the cake ala Duanne's contribution.

Thanks! Wow, I didn't expect that, usually people who ask me for the facts aren't as open minded about this argument. Kudos for that.

I agree that it comes up on other boards. But I do think the 'Zep as thieves' thing is more pervasive. It even got a quote on the Simpsons, for Christ's sake. It is just one part of a satellite of bullshit about the band's success being somehow counterfeit, a product of "hype". It's dogged the band since the beginning, and it's long since time that it was over.

I think it has to do with the timing of the band; the icons of the 60's were flagging: Dylan had retreated from performing and recording; the Beatles were falling apart; the Stones were reeling from the death of Brian Jones and Altamont; the Yardbirds had broken up; Clapton was sliding into addiction; Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison and Allman died . . . and Zeppelin stepped in and owned. It isn't surprising that the old guard rebelled at the thought of their icons being brushed aside and made up reasons why Zeppelin wasn't (couldn't be!) more successful than their guys on Zep's own merit. Yardbirds fans and Clapton fans, this means you.

BTW, also have to disagree with you about Duane Allman. Icing on the cake? Think about it, man, that riff isn't just the intro, it's the chorus! It's the hook! The moment he brought that to the song, Clapton's original part sounds like it was simply chords written to flesh out the real part. People have received a writing credit for far, far less.

His slide playing on the outro is more what I would call icing- Gordon wrote the piano hook that is the backbone of that section of the song. But his parts aren't just soloing, he performed a doubletracked duet with himself and created repeated harmony parts that are counterpoint to Gordon's piano. Again- people have received writing credits for far, far less.

And what about the guitar solos? He played just about all of them as well. Sometimes people get writing credits just for that! Plenty of people out there think of that song as principally Eric's accomplishment, and I think the improper accreditation on the song contributes to obscuring just how much he shares it with Duane.

Off topic, sorry, off the soapbox. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Yardbirds' song called "I'm Confused" is right;

They never called it by that name, sorry.

"Boogie With Stu" was indeed partially credited to Mrs. Valens

The Wikipedia article didn't say "partially credited".

The beginning of "Bring It on Home" is a deliberate send-up of Williamson's version,

Look up Willie Dixon's "Bring It On Back" and then get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's a comedy radio talk show, they make fun of and knock everyone, including each other......I remember listening to this segment when it aired and sort of getting pissed at first, but then realizing what this show is all about....no need to get in a twist about it

The main problem with this is that Howard has a lot of influence on people...esp. those listeners that worship him (some will believe whatever Howard says is gold)....I recently ran into one of these nuts who just went on and on with me about what thieves Zep where....quoting that scumbag with Howard...obviously having no idea what he was talking about....I agree that we shouldn't care what Howard thinks but some people are looking at Zep poorly for all the wrong reasons because of him...that does bother me!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They never called it by that name, sorry.

And yet it appeared that way on the back of a live album; the citation wasn't based on whether or not this had been the Yardbirds' intentions, but rather as a mere reference to the version that the reader might've heard (or seen reference to in other prose about Zeppelin). It was an obvious copyright-infringement dodge, even if this was due to someone acting on behalf of the band, rather than the band members themselves.

The Wikipedia article didn't say "partially credited."

Nor did it say "fully." Perhaps you might've initially elaborated a bit more, to avoid coming off inaccurately (and quite arrogantly, although that probably wasn't your intention).

Look up Willie Dixon's "Bring It On Back" and then get back to me.

"Bring It on Home" was recorded by Sonny Boy Williamson in 1963, and can be heard on the Chess Box, the album called His Best, and the various-artists compilation Led Astray.

Robert Plant's very obviously copying Williamson's vocal delivery in the opening bit, rather than Dixon's (listen to both). I always considered it a tribute, rather than theft. A lot of people had heard Williamson's rendition, so there's not much chance the lads were trying to "sneak it by" anyone. They just forgot to credit Dixon, the writer (or thought it wasn't a large enough segment of the song to indicate copyright issues).

Doesn't really matter; I'd rather hear Zeppelin's version than Williamson's somewhat pedestrian blues any day of the week. That goes for Jake Holmes' original version of "Dazed and Confused," vs. the highly superior rip-off on Zeppelin I. The whole point is my ears, not some courtroom. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit...

Black Mountain Side sounds like a direct lift, and Pagey should have credited the original artist.

And the fact that Stairway's opening line was 'inspired' by Spirit's song is disappointing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's a comedy radio talk show, they make fun of and knock everyone, including each other......I remember listening to this segment when it aired and sort of getting pissed at first, but then realizing what this show is all about....no need to get in a twist about it

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Well said. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet it appeared that way on the back of a live album; the citation wasn't based on whether or not this had been the Yardbirds' intentions,

But that's exactly what the article implies. The bottom line is that the Yardbirds never called the song "I'm Confused" -- and when the Wikipedia article fails to clarify that, it only furthers the negative propaganda.

"Bring It on Home" was recorded by Sonny Boy Williamson in 1963, and can be heard on the Chess Box, the album called His Best, and the various-artists compilation Led Astray.

I was specifically referring to the Wikipedia claim that the song was partly based on Willie Dixon's "Bring It On Back".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. Yeah, I admit that you definitely have a point there. Wikipedia pages present themselves as accurate bastions of currently known info, so I suppose it is a bit irresponsible for the writer (or writers) not to make sure all the details are in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Words and music are tools of the common man.

Wrong. The common man should have nothing to do with making music. That's the problem with music today. Everyone thinks they can do it. This is false.

are simply taking lyrics plagiarizing?

are simply taking riffs plagiarizing?

Yes. Yes. That is the definition of plagiarism: taking credit for something written by someone else.

Perhaps the worldly accepted definition of plagiarism changed with the times of the releases?

Nope. It's still the same. If you try to take credit for someone else's work you're breaking a law.

I don't think I've heard Dylan's version, but if it's as different as you describe, then I think Hendrix should have taken full credit.

There are only a few lyrical changes, but the words are about 98% the same... And they're still Dylan's property. And if Hendrix had taken credit for it I'm sure Dylan would have sued as fast as he could've. Especially considering how big the song got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeppelin had no problem stealing from other people and taking credit for it !! They are a little guilty as charged !! I do find it funny how everybody says that all the bands that came after Zeppelin ripped them off !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do some people make such a huge deal about Zeppelin stealing a few songs? Do you all think that just because they were so successful that some people can't give it a rest? Haven't alot of other artists done that at one time or another? Anyways, didn't Zep go back and credit the artists later though? Just seems like old news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howard Stern has every right to call them a cover band 'cause to be honest, I think that's what they are. They did more cover songs a lot more than originals.

Put the bong down, you're embarrassing yourself. :rolleyes:

As for Jimmy needing to credit Bert Jansch for Black Mountain Side, it wasn't a Bert Jansch song, it just resmbled Jansch's interpretation of an older tune.

As for Howard Stern, back in the early 90s, I was living on a friend's couch. Every morning he would put on Stern in the living room. I listened to that show from start to finish, every morning for three months. Howard Stern is, as was said so eloquently before, a douchebag. If god hadn't created breasts he'd be sweeping floors. Of course that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put the bong down, you're embarrassing yourself. :rolleyes:

As for Jimmy needing to credit Bert Jansch for Black Mountain Side, it wasn't a Bert Jansch song, it just resmbled Jansch's interpretation of an older tune.

'resembled' is excellent use of understatement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. The common man should have nothing to do with making music. That's the problem with music today. Everyone thinks they can do it. This is false.

What I mean to say is that words and music are really owned more so by the culture than the individual. There is more to music than just hearing it. The common man should try to develop music, otherwise we couldn't develop any musicians from them! What a terrible world you would create.

Creating music is for everyone. It's just that not everyone is capable of a professional release.

Yes. Yes. That is the definition of plagiarism: taking credit for something written by someone else.

That's a very strict definition of plagiarism because there is more to music than words and riffs.

Nope. It's still the same. If you try to take credit for someone else's work you're breaking a law.

And what laws can't be changed? I don't think it's right for an individual to claim a part of the entire culture. Whatever that individual releases is their burden. If they did not want to give it to the world then they shouldn't have released it and kept it for themselves.

There are only a few lyrical changes, but the words are about 98% the same... And they're still Dylan's property. And if Hendrix had taken credit for it I'm sure Dylan would have sued as fast as he could've. Especially considering how big the song got.

So what was the point then of Hendrix doing the song then? If he wanted to credit Dylan then he should have just used Dylan's exact recording instead of making one of his own. Didn't Hendrix perform the song? Didn't he add material? I guess what you're saying is that what Hendrix did with the song doesn't count for anything.

Shouldn't Hendrix get more credit than he gave himself, especially since he made it popular? What do you think would have happened if Hendrix had made an almost identical cover of the Dylan's version? No one would have liked it, that's what would have happened.

But that's not what happened. What happened was that Hendrix changed the song enough to make it his own. He transformed the previous material into something new, and that's what creativity is all about--applying something in one subject area to another subject area.

...

I'll ask this question again:

What happens when someone covers Hendrix's version of the song? Who gets credit? Dylan? Hendrix?

The whole plagiarism debate falls apart here, because someone might be covering a part that Hendrix added and still be crediting Dylan? That's silly.

You seem to be very narrow minded about how people develop music. From the way you describe plagiarism, all musical works are plagiarized in some way. But the thing is, this is really human creativity at work. Most ideas are just slight variations of other ideas.

Check out some articles on creativity by Margaret Boden and apply it to a musical context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'resembled' is excellent use of understatement.

It doesn't matter if the song "resembled" Jansch's song or if it was a note-for-note copy. Either way, Jansch was rightly omitted from the album credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first two albums were basically a recorded presentation of their live act. To me the first two albums were (for the lack of a better word) Demos. It just represented the way they played because they were a live act first and foremost. We are not talking about anything after LZII. I always like how they always explain the first two albums as old blues songs injected with steroids. It seems to me after the first two albums they started to give credit on the few songs they did borrow. but i think we can all agree that their best stuff is after LZII.

Anyways Beth O looks like a Horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'resembled' is excellent use of understatement.

My point was that it wasn't Jansch's song. How should the credit read?

"Jimmy Page. Based on an arrangement by Bert Jansch of a song written by who knows whom, sometime we cannot be certain of." ASCAP :lol:

Otto Masson did a truly in-depth anaysis of this on the old board. Hopefully he'll catch this thread and reproduce it. It's quite well researched and enlightening! :beer:

Edited by Evster2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was that it wasn't Jansch's song. How should the credit read?

"Jimmy Page. Based on an arrangement by Bert Jansch of a song written by who knows whom, sometime we cannot be certain of." ASCAP :lol:

Otto Masson did a truly in-depth anaysis of this on the old board. Hopefully he'll catch this thread and reproduce it. It's quite well researched and enlightening! :beer:

I understand that...

But what's actually worse than not crediting an artist is "resembling" an existing cover version...

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...