Bring It On Home Question

[JohnOsbourne]

How did Willie Dixon get sole writing credit for this song (as per, e.g. the wiki site for LZII)?  My understanding is that the opening and ending are tributes/covers, but the middle section is entirely a Page and Plant composition.  So I can see (as with WLL) a shared credit, but how did P&P lose all credit for BIOH?

[Zep Hed]

The Willie Dixon lawsuit was settled out of court. Sole credit to Dixon was part of the deal. Seems the lawyers felt as though litigating the case would've likely resulted in Dixon being awarded even more money than he settled for. They must've viewed the two versions close enough -- especially lyrically - they didn't want to risk having a jury decide.

[rose62]

In my opinion, much of the Zep rip-off stuff comes as a result of the way the music industry used to (and perhaps still does) work.  In the very early days of the band, Page and Plant wanted publishing credits because they could never be sure of what would be the staying power of the band.  If you produce one or two albums that sell really well and then things taper off, well, you've still got royalties coming in from the publishing.  Especially, if you're no longer touring.  So they were keen to get their names on anything the band produced.  Certainly, Page had seen many promising musicians end up in the poor house.  Just look at  Mick Taylor, who published very few original songs despite being, IMHO, the best guitarist the Stones ever had.

[jsj]

I’m going a little off topic but Rose62 is right about Mick Taylor. At one time he was writing begging letters to Keith Richards to get some financial reward for what he’d contributed to the songwriting process but never got a credit for

[blindwillie127]

3 hours ago, jsj said:

I’m going a little off topic but Rose62 is right about Mick Taylor. At one time he was writing begging letters to Keith Richards to get some financial reward for what he’d contributed to the songwriting process but never got a credit for

 

Mick Taylor should have kept his mouth shut about songwriting credits and just ride that gravy train he was on like all the others in the band. They were already fucking huge when he joined them and he was a kid, a very lucky kid. The fact of the matter is that Taylor was a coked out mess by the time he quit the band. If there is anybody who has the right to complain about songwriting credits you'd think it would be Watts and Wyman. Look up how many credits either of them have received, you can probably count it on one hand. But guess what? They're all multi millionaire's today. Hell, I'll guarantee even Wyman's replacement, Daryl Jones,  has shit tons of $ for slumming with the Stones since 1994. 

Note: Ron Wood didn't really start receiving credits until he was about 4 albums in. Wood received zero credits for Some Girls and his contribution to that album was obviously monumental. And guess what? Never a complaint about credits because he understood the opportunity he was given. Its called foresight/ thinking ahead. Taylor was unable to understand that at the time. He could play solos like a motherfucker, but composition/songwriting abilities...not so much. Mick Taylor was kind of dumb to boot. Check out the link below where he joined up with Jack Bruce after quitting The Stones and thought he was gonna be Eric Clapton...how'd that shit work out for him, how did anything work out for him post Stones. It really was a disastrous move for him.

 

[tyler19]

31 minutes ago, blindwillie127 said:

 

Mick Taylor should have kept his mouth shut about songwriting credits and just ride that gravy train he was on like all the others in the band. They were already fucking huge when he joined them and he was a kid, a very lucky kid. The fact of the matter is that Taylor was a coked out mess by the time he quit the band. If there is anybody who has the right to complain about songwriting credits you'd think it would be Watts and Wyman. Look up how many credits either of them have received, you can probably count it on one hand. But guess what? They're all multi millionaire's today. Hell, I'll guarantee even Wyman's replacement, Daryl Jones,  has shit tons of $ for slumming with the Stones since 1994. 

Note: Ron Wood didn't really start receiving credits until he was about 4 albums in. Wood received zero credits for Some Girls and his contribution to that album was obviously monumental. And guess what? Never a complaint about credits because he understood the opportunity he was given. Its called foresight/ thinking ahead. Taylor was unable to understand that at the time. He could play solos like a motherfucker, but composition/songwriting abilities...not so much. Mick Taylor was kind of dumb to boot. 

Absolutely disagree. There was no reason other than ego and greed for Jagger and Richards to not give songwriting credit where due. How much adulation and money is enough for those two.

[PeaceFrogYum]

18 hours ago, Zep Hed said:

The Willie Dixon lawsuit was settled out of court. Sole credit to Dixon was part of the deal. Seems the lawyers felt as though litigating the case would've likely resulted in Dixon being awarded even more money than he settled for. They must've viewed the two versions close enough -- especially lyrically - they didn't want to risk having a jury decide.

That is strange indeed as the only parts of BIOH they took from Dixon were the intro and outro. The main section of the song was 100% original. What I don't understand is why did Zeppelin not either 1. Credit Dixon for the intro & outro only or 2. Just change up the melody slightly and use different lyrics, a very easy feat as both passages were repetitive, short, and lyrically simple.

From what I read they only added the intro & outro as a nod to Sonny Boy Williamson (the guy who played and sang the song), but they still should have credited Dixon. But for Dixon to get sole writing credit for a song he contributed roughly 10% to is just wacky.

Edited May 21, 2020 by PeaceFrogYum

[JohnOsbourne]

1 hour ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

That is strange indeed as the only parts of BIOH they took from Dixon were the intro and outro. The main section of the song was 100% original. What I don't understand is why did Zeppelin not either 1. Credit Dixon for the intro & outro only or 2. Just change up the melody slightly and use different lyrics, a very easy feat as both passages were repetitive, short, and lyrically simple.

From what I read they only added the intro & outro as a nod to Sonny Boy Williamson (the guy who played and sang the song), but they still should have credited Dixon. But for Dixon to get sole writing credit for a song he contributed roughly 10% to is just wacky.

Exactly, this is the part I'm not getting.  What real risk could P&P have faced if the case went to court?  I can't see what leverage Dixon would have had over them.  Definitely he deserved partial credit, but certainly not sole credit.  There has to be something else going on behind the scenes here.  Unless it's something mundane like the royalties for the song not being worth fighting over (unlike, say STH), but even then, Page (especially) and (to some degree) Plant have been very jealous about guarding Zep's legacy, it's very curious they would have relented here.

[pluribus]

The middle section of Bring It On Home wasn’t 100% original. The signature riff was a reworking of James Brown’s “Think”:

 

[Mr. Snrub]

The song is credited as a medley on HTWWW: half Zep original (written by Page/Plant/Jones/Bonham), half Willie Dixon cover. I wonder if that royalty arrangement is still in place?

[hummingbird69]

On 5/21/2020 at 5:25 PM, PeaceFrogYum said:

That is strange indeed as the only parts of BIOH they took from Dixon were the intro and outro. The main section of the song was 100% original. What I don't understand is why did Zeppelin not either 1. Credit Dixon for the intro & outro only or 2. Just change up the melody slightly and use different lyrics, a very easy feat as both passages were repetitive, short, and lyrically simple.

From what I read they only added the intro & outro as a nod to Sonny Boy Williamson (the guy who played and sang the song), but they still should have credited Dixon. But for Dixon to get sole writing credit for a song he contributed roughly 10% to is just wacky.

I'll tell you why,   They felt they were playing "Blues Standards"  stuff that was played by everyone and their sisters.  

[Buford T Justice]

On 5/21/2020 at 7:31 PM, tyler19 said:

Absolutely disagree. There was no reason other than ego and greed for Jagger and Richards to not give songwriting credit where due. How much adulation and money is enough for those two.

I would suggest this comment is applicable in many cases. Simply supplement “Jagger and Richards” for other names, including two much closer to home.

[pluribus]

10 hours ago, Buford T Justice said:

I would suggest this comment is applicable in many cases. Simply supplement “Jagger and Richards” for other names, including two much closer to home.

Exactly. They were all stealing from those blues and early rock guys. They did it for the publishing money and the prestige that went with it. That sort of thing still happens today, where famous singers like Beyoncé require their name to be included in the list of Songwriters for each song that appears on her album.