Did Led Zeppelin really rip off other artists?

[PercyTheRoadPaver]

I was on another message board where they were bashing led zep as a bunch of ripoff

artists who took other people's songs and did not credit them. I was wondering how

credible these accusations really were so I decided to look on this site but didn't

find anything. Do these accusations really hold up?

the thread is here:

http://www.fuckedforum.com/bbs/show_topic/19163/1

[Aquamarine]

Here's what you were looking for.

http://forums.ledzeppelin.com//index.php?showtopic=7209

[chef free]

If you use one persons idea that's a "rip-off" but when you do it to everybody thats called having "influences". ALL musicians build on what they have heard.

"If I have seen farther it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

[tyedye]

A lot of rock artists used blues songs. It was a very common practice then, and still common today.

Where Zep got into trouble was not crediting the song to the rightful owner, Willie Dixon comes to mind here, but they are not the first, and certainly not the last to have done this.

They've righted the wrongs of their past by settling and crediting works.

[Communication Breakdown08]

what led zep did was take good blues written by old blues people like robert johnson and made them 10 times as good

[feather in the wind]

what led zep did was take good blues written by old blues people like robert johnson and made them 10 times as good

exactly.

[Aquamarine]

what led zep did was take good blues written by old blues people like robert johnson and made them 10 times as good

No, they made them different.

[Evster2012]

One artist's theft is another one's homage. And how many bands have grabbed a tool from the Zeppelin kit?

From the moment we're born, we learn from others. A few years ago, I didn't know what IMHO stood for. Similarly, music is a language. Led Zeppelin borrowed a few phrases, but added way more to the lexicon than they took.

[Anarchy2Howard]

Borrowing riffs and licks and lyrics and stuff is commonplace in many Blues musicians. Nobody really minds, but because Led Zeppelin is so popular, some artists who they've borrowed from take it as a chance to get in on some cash.

[chef free]

A lot of the songs we think of as being "written" by a certin blues/jazz musician were just recorded first by that person. In a time before recording, musicians didn't "own" songs.

[squeezinglemons]

No. They just took something old and improved it, they made it their own.

That's what all humans have done throughout the history of mankind. Take something old, and improve it, its how we got here now.

[misty mountain]

No. They just took something old and improved it, they made it their own.

That's what all humans have done throughout the history of mankind. Take something old, and improve it, its how we got here now.

Ain't that the truth ;Led zeppelin made the old blues singers look like the NEANDERTHAL MAN. :lol: :lol:

[ArmsofAtlas]

Should just changed the lyrics, b/c the music on the stuff they got sued for is their own.

You can tell by the songs that people put into the "theft" list that they have their own motives.

That list tends to be quite biased. Hell Zep was only sued, for what, 3 songs?

[Ronniedawg]

Borrowing, happened before Zeepelin and hasn't really stopped has it?

I was listening to the radio yesterday and thought I heard a well-known Judas Priest opening guitar riff...it wasn't Priest.

[Melanie_72]

Yawn. I am so over people complaining that Zep "ripped" off other artists. Ok they may have borrowed some riffs here and there, but who hasn't? I think the reason they get picked on for it so much is because they got so huge, selling over 300 million albums worldwide and are perhaps the biggest rock band of all time. If they weren't as popular, I bet nobody would even give it much thought.

[Otto Masson]

It really is noteworthy how often Led Zeppelin are singled out as song-thieves, as if that was specifically characteristic of the band, generally, throughout its career. Framing the question in this manner actually speaks for itself, because the focus is no longer on actual songs, but on how you see the band and its members: Are they song-thieves or not? Well, this procedure is absurd. The only way you can have an exchange of sensible arguments about the issue is to instead focus on individual songs and investigate matters thoroughly. Admittedly that won't give you sensationalist conclusions as easily, but really - who's interested in crap generalizations based on preconceived ideas and, in reality, ignorance? Why bother with that?

So please, let us rather discuss individual songs, and not jump to stupid generalizations! And the thing is, when you look into things in this way, you find that Led Zeppelin were not entirely innocent - or they did make some mistakes at least in their songwriting credits - but the instances of that all concern the first two albums, and they aren't many either. And here's the other side of the coin: they did learn from others, as everybody does, but they also went on to become one of the most truly original bands in rock history. So, that's another broad context for this discussion - and one that perhaps makes more sense than the endless ad hominem pseudo-arguments.

[dedled]

Here's the thing...what most people miss is simply this. Zep brought awarness to the old blues singers. I didn't know who Willie Dixon was until I found out he was credited with Bring It On Home. Through Zep I found a whole new avenue to explore and enjoy. The old blues men owe a debt of gratitude to the guys for bringing once forgotten names back to light. I couldn't get enough I just had to hear the music that inspired the greatest rock band of all time.

[EpicForest]

Sure LZ and many others took ideas, expounded and ran with them, but You Shook Me has a funny twist.

This is a Blues classic that had been recorded by Muddy Waters. It was written by Willie Dixon, who sued Zeppelin for using his song and was awarded a substantial amount.

Dixon co-wrote this song with J.B. Lenoir, an American Blues guitarist, singer and songwriter, but the very first version was recorded by Muddy Waters because Dixon was his bass player.

Jeff Beck released a version of this a few months earlier (on his album Truth) than the Zep version of their debut album. He accused Led Zeppelin of stealing his idea.

So Jeff Beck did the first "rock" version, then Jimmy Page improved further on it just about immediately after JB's version and it steamed him. Kettle calling the Pot black? Could be.

As much as I enjoy Truth, LZ's version make's JB's sound thin in comparison. The proof is in the rice pudding.

[beatbo]

Sure LZ and many others took ideas, expounded and ran with them, but You Shook Me has a funny twist.

This is a Blues classic that had been recorded by Muddy Waters. It was written by Willie Dixon, who sued Zeppelin for using his song and was awarded a substantial amount.

Dixon co-wrote this song with J.B. Lenoir, an American Blues guitarist, singer and songwriter, but the very first version was recorded by Muddy Waters because Dixon was his bass player.

Jeff Beck released a version of this a few months earlier (on his album Truth) than the Zep version of their debut album. He accused Led Zeppelin of stealing his idea.

So Jeff Beck did the first "rock" version, then Jimmy Page improved further on it just about immediately after JB's version and it steamed him. Kettle calling the Pot black? Could be.

As much as I enjoy Truth, LZ's version make's JB's sound thin in comparison. The proof is in the rice pudding.

willie dixon and arc music did not sue zeppelin for recording "you shook me". he was credited as writer and paid royalties. zeppelin as a band or any individual members were not credited with co-composition. willie dixon was also crdited for his other composition released on the album: "i can't quit you, baby".

i'm gonna repost even though the link was provided above:

Jul 30 2008, 02:06 PM Post #26

QUOTE (Meg Ireland @ Jul 26 2008, 08:01 PM)

Why was Led Zeppelin brought up in a non-music forum?

Have you read Dixon's autobiography I Am the Blues: the Willie Dixon Story? Dixon admits in it that he was thankful that Led Zeppelin settled out of court because there was a good chance given the length of time it took for him to file the complaint (16 years) that the court might not allow it to proceed. I got the feeling that the people wanting to take court action the most was the record label, and not Dixon who seemed somewhat laid back about it all. They could only settle on the issue of lyrics as they could not prove that the music of both songs were the same.

Meg

willie had also brought suit against ARC music (the music publisher at chess) along with muddy waters almost a decade before and even though they both won, they collected very little. some of that money was earned when groups like zeppelin righteously covered their material.

zeppelin mostly had to deal with robert throwing every blues pastiche he knew into songs-HMMT is a fine example (as well as 'lemon song').

what did the music have to do with robert's version of willie's lyrics (or steve marriots, for that matter)? jimmy's riffs are pretty much his own.

it is known that before zep2 was put out the group met to discuss the copyright-and thought they would be alright. after reading all the interviews and court documents, i am of the opinion that if it was questionable, peter grant might have recommended that more money might be made after the fact with a settlement, than with sharing a questionable copyright upfront.

willie dixon is not a naive innocent, either. several of his songs have lyrics and musical figures that can be traced back to library of congress field recordings, which, if made today, would be the same as a copyright. the first bluesmen to publish their music were really taking credit for some songs passed down in the folk song tradition. bob dylan went through much the same thing....and paid.

could zeppelin have avoided alot of court time and chinks in their cred? of course they could have, but who was to know what would still be selling 35 years from now. had zep2 sold 100,000 copies, no one would have noticed....

the beatles, the worlds biggest pop songwriters ever, tried everything to invest in their future with their prolific songwriting and still ended up getting screwed out of 51%. figure that out. many other sixties bands without giant songwriters (like the yardbirds) toured for years at a time and went home with no money at the end of the day.

zeppelin's management made a firm decision right when the band first started-nobody screws this band. and sometimes to keep from being screwed, some got screwed. grant tried his best not to dirty his artists hands. for that they loved him and did what he said.

myself, if robert had never written any good lyrics (he has), and had filled the entire zep catalogue with stolen snatches of his favorite tunes, well, then that would be another story...

another:

Jul 30 2008, 02:14 PM Post #27

QUOTE (Detigers09 @ Jul 24 2008, 02:18 AM)

I've never really posted on this topic before, but I have a few thoughts on it. Covering a song is fine in the world of music; you just have to give credit to the original artist. Several of Zeppelin's early songs are covers of Howlin' Wolf/Willie Dixon: You Shook Me, I Can't Quit You, How Many More Times, Whole Lotta Love, The Lemon Song, Bring it On Home...and no credit was given.

both 'you shook me' and 'i can't quit you, babe' were credited correctly.

HMMT....who do you pay? wolf? albert king? jeff beck (bolero)? the orgins of "steal away" are old, old traditional gospel.

bring it on home-the royalty was corrected without a lawsuit, and credit changed on later pressings. anyway, not evn a simple case of plagerism. after the sonny boy verse, it's all zep-over 3 minutes! do you give sonny boy that because you led off with a cover for one verse? some bad advice there. they should have filed for two seperate songs, i think...

soooo...if you own a copy of led zeppelin 1, look at the credits, please. PLEASE!

thank yew...

[widget]

Beatbo, do me a favour. Don't cut and copy my comments from another thread. And Dixon did receive a financial settlement plus credit.

Meg.

PS. I can't be bothered responding further to anything said in this thread. It's been done to death on this forum already.

[EpicForest]

I should have made clear my post's emphasis was on the Jeff Beck irony. How he was so upset at Led Zeppelin for outdoing him on his rock version of You Shook Me.

That was the twist I was getting at.

[beatbo]

Beatbo, do me a favour. Don't cut and copy my comments from another thread. And Dixon did receive a financial settlement plus credit.

Meg.

PS. I can't be bothered responding further to anything said in this thread. It's been done to death on this forum already.

sue me....

[59LesPaul]

soooo...if you own a copy of led zeppelin 1, look at the credits, please. PLEASE!

thank yew...

Or,look at a copy of Led Zeppelin II -or better yet,two separate copies-one from (around)1969,and one from now.....

[dezel_nipple]

Were they influenced? Positively. Did they borrow without permission? Absolutely. Most bands are influenced. Gene Simmons/Kiss stated that he based his song "Deuce" on the Rolling Stones tune "Bitch". The Wilson sisters/Heart said their galloping intro to "Barracuda" was based on LZ's "Achilles Last Stand." John Lennon reportedly played "Norwegian Wood" for Bob Dylan and Dylan tried to best him by writing "Fourth Time Around."

Unfortunately, I must admit that I believe that Page/Plant nicked......no, gouged many of their earlier tunes. I'm sure that Jake Holmes (Dazed And Confused), Bert Jansch (Black Mountain Side) would agree with me.

It can be argued that if Page HAD NOT recorded HIS version of Dazed And Confused that the masses would have never heard this unearthly tune and Jake Holmes name would languish in even deeper obscurity. No one would have heard this song.

Here is a website you might want to check out concerning this subject turnmeondeadman.net and post your comments here.

Let me finish by saying that I am still a big fan of Zeppelin and love their music....no matter who wrote it.

[59LesPaul]

It can be argued that if Page HAD NOT recorded HIS version of Dazed And Confused that the masses would have never heard this unearthly tune and Jake Holmes name would languish in even deeper obscurity.

...obscure maybe,but still rich.