The Everything is a Remix series started with music and connected all kinds of other things from literature to tech. Part 1 talks about Led Zeppelin, a lot.
Yeah, that’s the one I was thinking of.
I don’t understand why this is an issue.
Is it because it’s uncreative of them? I don’t agree with this at all, the songs that are inspired by other songs are way different, and better.
Is it because bands shouldn’t make songs that sounds even somewhat like other songs? I disagree with this. I like those songs, why wouldn’t I want to listen to them?
Is it because they didn’t give credit? I somewhat agree, but is that really an important thing 40+ years later? The culture about such things was probably different back then.
It’s because the original artist should be compensated. You want to use my original work in your work? Fine. Acknowledge me as contributing to the creation, and compensate me accordingly. You can’t just steal someone elses original material without compensating them.
Well, for most of human history you could.
Do you think that Led Zeppelin is uniquely against compensation and credit of other artists, to a higher degree than was common for the time they released those albums? I doubt that’s the case. Are they today fighting to prevent these people from getting whatever the rules say they should? I don’t think so either.
Is it a general critique about how the culture of compensation was in the 60s? Fine, but why go so hard at Led Zeppelin for this? And is that really what’s contained in “a bunch of plagiarizers”.
Just recently Robin Schultz remixed “Prayer in C” (not even based another song on, just a remix), and released it as a free download. Why not critique that instead of some vaguely disagreeable actions that happened 40 years ago.
Yes. I do.
That doubt could be erased simply by looking at the album covers. When the Doors recorded Willie Dixon and Bo Diddley songs, they credited them as such. When Cream recorded Robert Johnson and Howlin’ Wolf songs, they credited them as such. When the Rolling Stones recorded Muddy Waters and Slim Harpo songs, they credited them as such. And those bands all put their own unique stamps on those songs, every bit as much or more than Zeppelin did with the songs they “borrowed.” But Led Zeppelin seemed to feel that there was no need to acknowledge, for example, the person who provided them with the words, the tune, and the guitar lick to “Whole Lotta Love.”
Uh, that’s exactly what’s happening right now, with the Spirit/“Stairway to Heaven” lawsuit. Zeppelin have been sued time and again for their thievery over the years, and the result is often that they tack on a credit to the original songwriter. Which is pretty feeble justice, since credits like “Plant/Page/Jones/Bonham/Dixon” or “Plant/Page/Jones/Bonham/Memphis Minnie” still mean that the band is getting 4/5 royalties for their arrangement of someone else’s song.
My take on it is this:
How much cash Zep owes, and to whom, is perhaps a matter for lawyers.
However, acknowledging the debt owed by giving credit where credit was due is a matter of simple professional courtesy.
Even at the time, other artists were giving credit when they borrowed. Zeps’ failure to do so was notable, and lamentable.
They were great musicians, but lousy in this respect.
Led Zep was unique in that they refused to even acknowledge their borrowing. People like Eric Clapton would cover a song, and then track down the heirs of dead artists in order to make sure they got their fair share.
The group was criticized for this from the start (my previous paragraph’s source is Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia, which was published in 1969), so it obviously was not common practice.
Here’s another egregious example (ignore the lyrics). The song was traditional (even if Page cribbed the arrangement from Jansch), but Page claimed credit, even though it was just stolen.
Look at it this way: when the Dixie Dregs did a cover version of “Kashmir” in 1992, the royalties went to Page, Plant, and Bonham. I don’t see Page or Plant* saying they never cashed the checks from this, or from anyone else who covered one of their songs. They’re willing to take music from others and not pay them, but don’t object when others pay them for their music.
*Bonham was in no position to complain.
Hint: it’s a good idea to actually read the posts in the thread you’re commenting in before you chime in with a statement that makes you look like a fool.
As I noted in the second post in the thread:
This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. You’re welcome to try to prove otherwise, which is what you’ll have to do to demonstrate that your “doubt” is well-founded.
It was Led Zeppelin who blatantly flouted the rules 45 years ago. Had they followed them at that time and in the years that followed, there would be no “fight” to wage on anyone’s part.
I’m not aware of any decade, at least since the establishment of copyright law, in which it was OK to steal others’ works without credit or compensation.
Your question has already been answered. The characterization that forms the title of this thread is an accurate one. Obviously, Led Zepplin didn’t plagiarize ALL of the work that appeared under their name…just a far greater percentage of it than any other artist that can be named.
“Vaguely disagreeable”…LOL!
I’m not familiar with the Robin Schultz case, but I don’t have to be. Let’s say his actions are every bit as reprehensible as Led Zeppelin’s (which, obviously, they’re not). How does that impact the case of Led Zeppelin’s multiple thefts? Are you contending that if you point out a wrong over here, that makes the wrong over there OK?
We’re in Cafe Society, not the Pit – it’s okay to disagree with what someone says, it’s not okay to insult them personally. You’re skirting that line – dial back the snark, pls.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Zep blew it with respect to credit and royalties from the people they were stealing from. But with that said, this was full artistic stealing, not mere mimicry. Their arrangements and playing were amazing.
I believe you but was unaware of this. Can you point me to something that says he did this?
It never occurred to you that people can upload videos produced before 2005?
It’s in my original post: from Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia. It’s possible I’m misremembering it was Clapton, but Roxon did mention artists who did this.
1977 edition of “The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock” compiled by Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden of NME p.137 in an entry that praises Led Zeppelin extravagantly
“This (Whole Lotta Love) was essentially a revamp of Willie Dixon’s You Need Love, and raises one inhibiting factor which must always occur in any appreciation of Led Zeppelin’s undoubted talents. Unlike some contemporaries, e.g. Eric Clapton when he used Skip James’ I’m So Glad not only gave the since-deceased bluesman a songwriting credit but also saw to it personally that James got his royalties, Page and Plant have for some reason (hardly need of cash) been reluctant to acknowledge and credit their sources.”
I didn’t know any of that. I’m disapointed.
Good use of citations, Jim’s Son and RealityChuck.
I’ve known for years that Zep stole without attribution, but I did not know of the extreme contrast between them and Clapton.
Quite shameful. Demonstrates once again that good artists are not necessarily good people.
Throwing one thought out there-
LZ came from an English background, and in the UK/Ireland there is a long and proud folk tradition of gleefully adopting good songs by other people as your own (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery). There are TONS of folk songs that are claimed by England, Ireland, Northern Ireland AND Scotland at the same time.
Some of those songs actually originated in America or other places. One of the sillier examples is a “traditional ballad” called The Belfast Mill, which actually came from The Aragon Mill, a New York hippie protest tune from the 1970s.