Well, the main thrust of my argument assumes that it’s probably not a coincidence.
I’m always surprised how different two songs sound even when they share the same chords.
I agree Led Z lifted a rift from Taurus. But that riff wasn’t the hook for Taurus’ song. They just threw it in and did other stuff. Led Z was shrewd enough to frame an entire song around that riff. It’s a fine line they are walking. I don’t think it was outright theft of the other song.
Should Led Z settled this 35 years ago? You betcha. A 100 grand compensation in 1977 would have been the right thing to do. But Jimmy Page isn’t exactly a stand up guy. Some of his interview comments turned me off Led Z many years ago.
I wouldn’t sue either. As a judge, I might hold for the defendant, but maybe I’d be convinced otherwise. It’s a borderline case at best.
But I just noticed that the title of the OP says “ripped off” and I would definitely not use that term for this. LZ has plenty of cases where it does apply; this isn’t one of them.
Agreed.
I think it’s unanimous. 
Right, and it’s a pretty obvious chord sequence (though, it’s not in Moonlight Sonata as someone claimed above. The arpeggio pattern is, but that’s about it, other than the vague concept of a descending bass line.)
Perhaps my initial judgment was wrong. I respect the opinion of those who think they don’t have a claim.
That was me. I didn’t say it was Moonlight Sonata, but I said a similar idea (minor chord on top, descending bassline) could be found in Moonlight Sonata. Taurus’s progression goes chromatically. Beethoven’s goes diatonically. (Although there are other differences, too. once you get to the third chord.) It’s just the idea of holding a chord and lowering or raising the bassline to introduce changes to the color of the harmony is a pretty obvious and well-used technique.
Been watching this thread, but too busy/distracted to really wade in.
This argument has basically already been decided. If Randy’s heirs win, okay - LZ will pay a royalty, and will keep on being Led Zeppelin, one of the bands that will be discussed as time and history compress everything from this era into a few highlights. Spirit will be forgotten to all but a few.
I am NOT happy about how this works, but it is what it is.
The fact that folks who don’t like LZ use situations like this to heap scorn upon them is a bit of recreational outrage, nothing more. Sorry.
Oh, you have no idea. “Ballad of a Thin Man” comes from the album “Highway 61 Revisited”, which also has a song called "From a Buick 6”.
Or like Rod Stewart - ex of The Faces - who is arguably the artists with the most successful long term career of all of them. I can recall reviews of Stewart’s albums from the late 70s and early 80s which had paragraphs like “This album’s cover songs are…” in which is was expected that he’d do so and credit was given.
Stewart may not have the (laughably enough) street cred of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones, but he’s made the transition to elder statesman better than any of the others exactly by embracing the ‘song stylist’ who also writes better than any of them. That’s aging well in an industry not famous for it.
Right, like hating dead politicians. What more can any of us do to Stalin, for example?
(BTW, Stalin totally plagiarized Lenin when it came to “Crushing Slavs for personal profit”.)
I like LZ and I’m not outraged. Regardless, I don’t hesitate to criticize them for using songs written by others and crediting themselves with writing it.
And frankly, I don’t see any outrage here. Even those who think Taurus has a legit claim aren’t outraged in this case – it’s very likely that if Page did copy them, he did it unconsiously (as did George Harrison, with My Sweet Lord ala He’s So Fine).
But if you prefer your recreational fanaticism, that’s fine with me.
BTW, I like Ian Anderson’s reply when he was asked out the fact that Hotel California uses the same chord sequence as We Used To Be. He said something to the effect of, well, musicians get inspired by other music. It’s not a copy of the song, just certain elements, turning it into a completely new thing, and more power to them.
?? Have I taken any shots, let alone at you? And how am I demonstrating fanaticism? To be clear: Zep walked way too blurry a line when it came to lack of credit vs. building on influences and got nailed for it. And it is worth keeping alive as part of who they are as a band. But this won’t change their place in music history for that era.
You don’t think other posters have come in and said they are evil bad guys?
I’m not quite sure how you define “recreational outrage,” but to me anyway, the facts of the case (by which I mean Led Zeppelin’s unparalleled tendency to rip other artists off without crediting them) are perfectly clear — and exist independently of whether a given individual adores the band, hates them, or is somewhere in the middle of those extremes (as I am).
In all honesty, far more interesting than those who “heap scorn” on Led Zeppelin because they don’t like them are those who adore them and twist themselves into some amazingly silly contortions with no basis in reality trying to defend them for what they did.
To be clear, none of what I say here relies to any great extent upon the “Taurus”/“Stairway to Heaven” case, which many of us have agreed is well down the scale of notorious LZ ripoffs.
And there’s no disputing the fact that Led Zeppelin’s name will be writ large in the history of rock, while Spirit’s will be written considerably smaller. I’m just not sure what that has to do with the larger point under discussion.
The ethics of taking credit for something you didn’t create have nothing to do with the relative popularity of the two entities involved.
All of this sounds reasonable. I am not seeking to defend Zep - I just don’t know what to do with their ethical lapses. History is written by the victors, if you will, and Zep won - their music, on its own, has stood the test of time so far and likely for some time to come.
This boils down to the “what if an artist is a bad person” debate. Picasso ripped off other artists, Wagner was anti-Semitic, etc. Zep didn’t credit other writers properly and waffled about it until sued. People still listen to Zep - now what?
That’s the only reason I refer to this as “recreational outrage” - I don’t know what will be different if everyone agrees that Zep cross the line too far.
Well I think what it comes down to is the fact that only a relatively small percentage of the total music-listening audience actively CARES about such matters to begin with.
In my many years of posting on boards that deal exclusively with music, I have frequently had to remind participants that we are not typical music listeners — we’re music freaks. The typical listener looks upon music as a pleasant background to their lives and isn’t interested in digging any deeper than this.
Proof of this lies in the playliss of an Oldies or classic rock stations, which consist of the same 300 or so songs repeated ad infinitum. The majority of listeners don’t want to get out of their comfort zone, and their comfort zone does not encompass knowing a whole lot of background.
I’d wager that the majority of listeners to such stations believe that George Thorogood is the composer and first performer of “Move It on Over,” “Who Do You Love” and “One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer.”
I suspect their eyes would glaze over, or at most they would react with offended disbelief, if told that “Dazed and Confused” didn’t spring fully formed from the loins of Jimmy Page.
So yeah, most people will continue to listen to Led Zep and remain supremely untroubled by this entire issue. They don’t know…and don’t really want to know.
Yeah, we’re music geeks. And I know about Zep - and I want to know about how they approached songwriting credits and royalties and think they were dicks for what they did. I just also think they sound great and listen to them when I am looking for what they can deliver. Just like I enjoy looking at some of Picasso’s works and enjoy many of Hemingway’s stories even though he was a complete asshole in many respects.
I have no idea how to reconcile all of that, but such is the human condition.
This all started with Spirit and whether Taurus ?= StH. Bottom line is that Randy’s family will pursue this and they may get some form of compensation, but it could go either way.
I personally think of the situation as: I don’t need to be friends with my artistic influences, and they don’t need to be angels.
Does LZ’s propensity to lift lyrics and parts from others’ songs diminish their accomplishment? Absolutely. Does it diminish my listening pleasure? Not very much.
Originality is hard to come by, no one was going to believe they invented the blues, and they could have avoided this in most of these cases with a license which is a whopping 9 cents a copy today. On top of that, I’m imagining they paid more than that out of court in past cases, otherwise the other party would have probably continued to court. It’s just a bad move in the long run, it almost doesn’t matter how you come at it. The one silver lining is that I very well might not know who Willie Dixon was without their plagiarizing him. I play bass, and I can’t name another blues bass player from that era.
To draw from the two most recent threads we’ve both participated in, and grab from a third: Sondheim doesn’t have to align with my standards of professionalism for me to enjoy his music, and fame is a complete crapshoot. Zeppelin skipped on paying royalties/credit more often that their contemporaries, but they were far from the only ones who did it. It’s thoroughly not cool, but I can think of worse out there.
ETA: And to toss in a bit from another thread running around right now: If Page was in the audience, I’d hesitate for a second before I played an original of mine. Then I’d charge right into it, and do it as well as I could. Who knows, if he likes it, maybe I’ll get to sue him and become far more famous than I am now through it. 
I recalled this fact after the edit window had closed, but in the interest of full disclosure:
I didn’t learn Dixon’s name from LZ, plagiarizing him, though. I learned it by reading the songwriting credit for “Little Red Rooster” by the Doors. I clearly remember the moment I read his name for the first time. So, I would almost certainly know who he was without LZ.
I finally heard the song (it was taken off YouTube for a few days) and definitely hear the resemblance.
That being said, I don’t know how I feel about a lawsuit. Had it been filed by the actual creator, then I’d say let him have his day in court. But his heirs? Nah.
Not to pile on here, but I would LOVE to hear who you have in mind.
Who in all of popular music committed thefts that were:
a) more blatant?
and
b) more numerous?
Please be as specific as you can be, so we can do a fair comparison.
Well, I’m not going to bother finding more numerous. There was an entire style of music which had un-credited samples as its primary instrument during the 80s. I think it was quite popular. Even though you couldn’t get more blatant, it did a very good job of illustrating that the line between influence and plagiarism is blurry. Perhaps you have heard of it?
The meanest example I can think of is Paul Simon’s dispute with Los Lobos. Zeppelin at least didn’t do it to their face. And as I said before, their response isn’t usually “see ya in court!”