Bob Dylan: Borrower or thief?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (59 of them)
Pablo Picasso to thread.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Much ado about nothing, IMO. Everyone knows where Bob Dylan is coming from and there are no royalties being stolen. To deduct a half of star from a rating is especially dumb. Does this person add stars if the album credits are especially detailed?

Mark (MarkR), Thursday, 24 August 2006 19:15 (seventeen years ago) link

TS: File-sharing vs. Song-sharing

Alicia Titsovich (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 August 2006 19:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Professionally, I can see getting annoyed by this--if Dylan puts some sort of claim on a public domain song, then if someone goes to cover said song later Ram's Horn could conceivably make a fuss about it and you might have to clear it with them first, pay royalties, etc. It muddies the waters, is the point.

Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 24 August 2006 20:51 (seventeen years ago) link

(That said, Dylan's publishing companies are actually very pleasant to deal with.)

Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 24 August 2006 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link

you know, this probably isn't true anymore, but it used to be that case that although rock bands would list the authors of old blues tunes as "trad." or something similar, the authors or their heirs were in fact still alive--son house's widow was alive as of a few years ago, but there are a few cases where bands slapped a "trad." (or worse, their own credit) on covers of "death letter" or whathaveyou.

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 August 2006 21:55 (seventeen years ago) link

considering "You Need Love" by the Small Faces is almost exactly the same, gets me

erm, i don't think the small faces is who led zep was ripping off here.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 24 August 2006 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Professionally, I can see getting annoyed by this--if Dylan puts some sort of claim on a public domain song, then if someone goes to cover said song later Ram's Horn could conceivably make a fuss about it and you might have to clear it with them first, pay royalties, etc. It muddies the waters, is the point.

This isn't remotely correct. "Rollin and Tumblin" already has umpteen composer registrations (check BMI's database) based on variations of the blues tune, whose original composer is likely lost to time. Dylan is just doing the same thing that's already been done over and over. The waters have been muddy since long before Muddy Waters.

Roy Kasten (Roy Kasten), Friday, 25 August 2006 15:32 (seventeen years ago) link

considering "You Need Love" by the Small Faces is almost exactly the same, gets me
erm, i don't think the small faces is who led zep was ripping off here.

-- fact checking cuz (factcheckingcu...) (webmail), Yesterday 11:21 PM. (later) (link)

I'd argue that they were. If 'ripping off' equals stealing a song and an arrangement, they certainly had. If the Small Faces had not recorded it, Led Zep would not have a song called "Whole Lotta Love".

mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 25 August 2006 15:34 (seventeen years ago) link

i think the point was that the small faces were covering a muddy waters song (written by willie dixon). dixon sued and got a co-writing credit on "whole lotta love." i assume the small faces probably credited the song correctly.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 25 August 2006 15:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Let's just say that if you sat down and heard all three songs
consecetively (the zeppelin, the small faces, and the muddy
waters original) you'd have no doubt that zeppelin was
imitating the small faces, not waters.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 25 August 2006 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

a good if poorly written summary of the situation here:

"Whole Lotta Love" opens Led Zeppelin II. As mentioned earlier, Steve Marriott and the Small Faces figure into the Led Zeppelin saga. That mod foursome were known for a killer live version of the Muddy Waters "You Need Love." The following paragraph is from "Small Faces: The Young Mods' Forgotten Story" by Paolo Hewitt (1995, Acid Jazz Books).

'A few years later, one of the LP's outstanding tracks, the Marriott/Lane 'You Need Loving,' cropped up again to create rock history, albeit in a different format. '"Whole Lotta Love" by Led Zeppelin was nicked off that album,' Marriott pointed out. 'Percy Plant was a big fan. He used to be at all The Small Faces gigs. We did a gig with The Yardbirds which he was at and Jimmy Page asked me what that number was we did. "'You Need Loving'," I said, "it's a Muddy Waters thing" which it really is, so they both knew it, and Percy used to come to the gigs whenever we played in Kidderminster or Stowbridge, where he came from. He was always saying he was going to get this group together. He was another nuisance. He kept coming into the dressing room, just another little Mod kid. We used to say, "That kid's here again." Anyway we used to play this number and it became a stock opener after that album. After we broke up they took it and revamped it. Good luck to them. It was only old Percy who'd had his eyes on it. He sang it the same, phrased it the same, even the stops at the end were the same, they just put a different rhythm to it.' He laughs. 'For years and years I would hear it come on the radio while driving in America, and I would think, "Go on, my son," until one day I thought, "Fucking hell, that's us, that is. The bastards!"'

"Whole Lotta Love" is obviously, as Steve Marriott pointed, a direct nick of the Small Faces take on "You Need Love." The lyrics are basically the same as the Muddy Waters version. Further, Robert Plant's vocal stylings are indeed modeled directly on Marriott's delivery. One listen to the Small Faces version will lay any doubt aside. Unfortunately, the Small Faces songwriting credits made no mention of Willie Dixon. Of course, neither did Led Zeppelin.

Interestingly enough, Willie Dixon's own daughter, Shirley, brought it to her father's attention. As reported in the October 8, 1994's edition of The Los Angeles Times by Steve Hochman, Shirley Dixon first heard Led Zeppelin's version when she was thirteen. She played it for her father, who agreed it was his song. Willie Dixon was receiving no royalties from it. In 1985, Dixon sued Led Zeppelin for royalties to "Whole Lotta Love." The case was settled out of court two years later, with a generous settlement to Willie Dixon. Today, Shirley Dixon heads the Blues Heaven Foundation (established by her father), which helps blues artists recover their royalties and rights.

what amazes me is that nobody bothered to play that song for willie dixon until 1985.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 25 August 2006 21:22 (seventeen years ago) link

What's the point, really? As an aging bluesman, he's
probably not real big on white rockers who wish they were
aging bluesmen. Zep and the Small Faces were good at what
they did
(I've bought CD's by both) but I think even they'd agree they're
not in the same league as Waters & Dixon.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 25 August 2006 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Can I share a little secret?

I don't want to upset you but... the music business ain't all that honest.

Really...

Thanks for the Zep-Faces anecdote. Truely cool factoids. Somewhere I have an old Rolling Stone wherein they mention in the Random Notes section that the Yardbirds were changing their name to Led Zep.

As long as we're sharing, what about the one where Ry Cooder claimed that the Stones ran tape of him messing around in the studio and ripped off his licks for most of Let It Bleed?

factcheckr (factcheckr), Friday, 25 August 2006 23:20 (seventeen years ago) link

the yardbirds did change their name to led zep (more or less).

who is this factcheckr person?

fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 25 August 2006 23:26 (seventeen years ago) link

as for the other people on here who factchecked me, thank you and you're the ones who should be calling yourselves factcheckrs!

fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 25 August 2006 23:29 (seventeen years ago) link

That Ry Cooder allegation is interesting. Wonder if it's
true. Although Keith seems perfectly capable of coming up with
good riffs on his own. And if they had Cooder in the studio, how
come they foolishly neglected to get him on the album?

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 25 August 2006 23:59 (seventeen years ago) link

uh, because they didn't? he plays on Let It Bleed and is credited.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Saturday, 26 August 2006 00:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Cool.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Saturday, 26 August 2006 01:01 (seventeen years ago) link

I thought this thread was going to be about the novel he ripped off for lyrics a few years ago...

Telephonething (Telephonething), Saturday, 26 August 2006 03:35 (seventeen years ago) link

If a song is in the publc domain then Dylan's publishing co has a legit point. The other thing that one needs to consider is context. First, there's a lot of anecdotes about bluesmen picking up songs/styles/riffs as they worked the circuits, so while one person may have recorded and published a song (no doubt by a publisher that probably fucked them over, as was common thru the 50's and into the 60's) but did they actually right it or just happened to be the one that laid a stake in the ground (so to speak) This doesn't justify rip-offs down the road, but it just highlights how complicated this all can get. Second, who knows how savvy people like Plant, Page, Lane, Marriot or Clapton (I believe Cream's Crossroads was credited to Clapton for years, although to his credit I think he sorted that out on his own initiaitve w/ Robert Johnson's estate -- someone pls correct me if I got that wrong) Anyway, maybe they relied on their publishnig cos/lawyers or advice and told them it was cool.... Then on the other hand, they may have all been thieving rat bastards who knowing robbed the blues artists...

Bass-man (bassguy), Saturday, 26 August 2006 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

The thing about Robert Johnson is, his estate is still getting ripped off, or at least it was a few years ago, when the last U.S. edition of "Mystery Train" was published.

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Saturday, 26 August 2006 20:27 (seventeen years ago) link

question: what sort of "estate" does robert johnson have, since he died young and childless? did he have brothers and/or sisters that claimed his estate?

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Greil Marcus: "Johnson's surviving sisters in Baltimore."

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Marcus: " . . . on 'The Complete Recordings,' all of Johnson's compositions were presented as protected by [Steve] LaVere's new copyrights . . . "

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link

are they still surviving????

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Robert Johnson's estate was a real mess - a lot of people went after it. Yes, he died a pauper, but the royalties that amassed after his death were worth around a million USD in 2000, when the Mississippi Supreme Court designated "a retired gravel truck driver whose mother had a fling with the musician in 1931" as sole heir.

Bass-man (bassguy), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:12 (seventeen years ago) link

he could prove that rbt johnson was his father?

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Apparently, some women testified seeing this guys mother and RJ having sex, and this fellow was borne nine months later... How this stood up is beyond me... must have been a memorable session...

I guess some challenge was made based on lack of DNA evidence, but no one is sure where Johnson is bureid, so that was tossed.

Bass-man (bassguy), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:22 (seventeen years ago) link

pardon the bad pun in the previous post...

Bass-man (bassguy), Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:23 (seventeen years ago) link

The edition of MT I quoted from came out in '97.

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Sunday, 27 August 2006 00:16 (seventeen years ago) link

In the article I was reading there was reference to relatives of a deceased half-sister of Robert Johnson trying to make claim... I guess their story wasn't particularly convincing. Like I said, the whole deal seemed pretty messy and confusing... Link this inheritance clusterfuck to the songwriting discussion above and maybe we get back to the point... Who's really the "father"? Not always an easy answer...

Bass-man (bassguy), Sunday, 27 August 2006 01:46 (seventeen years ago) link

99% of my records are in storage (snif) so if someone else could (fact)check their Let It Bleed, "cuz" the whole thing is about publishing. Did Cooder get songwriting credit?

This actually goes back to the heart of the original question: who wrote the song, and who got paid for it?

And to the points above:

A - "bluesmen" were ripping each other of for years before the English white boys came around to really cash in, and

B - How clued were Dylan, Clapton, Page, et al regarding the mechanics of copyrights, how old were they, how powerful was their management, and even who owned their publishing? Publishing companies and artist management is very powerful in these situations and it's more than possible that these guys had no say in it whatsoever.

Or it could be that they were pricks, and only too happy to rip off their heroes.

And to my fact checking cuz... what''s in a name anyway?

factcheckr (factcheckr), Sunday, 27 August 2006 10:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Nice recap, factcheckr!

I don't have a copy of Let It Bleed (anymore...) but the Ry Cooder geek sites seem to indicate that he played on Beggar's Banquet (uncredited: mandolin), Let It Bleed (credit: mandolin) and Sticky Fingers (credit: guitar on Sister Morphine). The common story (uncertain how accurate, if at all) is that he was messing aroudn with open tunings and showed Keith how ot use them (which he certain did after, not sure before -- guitar geeks out there???) The story continues that he either played the intro to Honky Tonk Women on recrod or that he did it in the studio just messing around and the lads nicked it.... in the fine tradition noted above...

Bass-man (bassguy), Sunday, 27 August 2006 12:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Shakespeare never paid any royalties either

Lynco (lync0), Sunday, 27 August 2006 16:25 (seventeen years ago) link

i thought of this thread today when i was listening to Blind Willie McTell's "Death Cell Blues" and recognized the verses from Willie Dixon's "Third Degree."

I first listened to McTell a couple years back when I heard Dylan's "Willie McTell," which has the same tune as "St. James Infirmary Blues."

Anyway, did David Johansen give Dylan an "arrangement" credit on his Harry Smiths version of "Delia," which was Dylan's combination of McTell's "Delia" and Reverend Gary Davis' "All the Friends I Ever Had Are Gone" from World Gone Wrong?

to sum up: thieves, all of 'em.

p@reene (Pareene), Sunday, 27 August 2006 18:54 (seventeen years ago) link

How clued were Dylan, Clapton, Page, et al regarding the mechanics of copyrights, how old were they, how powerful was their management, and even who owned their publishing? Publishing companies and artist management is very powerful in these situations and it's more than possible that these guys had no say in it whatsoever.

dunno 'bout dylan and page, but cream (more jack bruce than clapton, it would seem) actually went to some lengths to make sure the correct people were credited and actually received royalties. they had personal contact with skip james and saw to it that he got $ from "i'm so glad." skip saw them play the song shortly before his death, and his widow sent a letter of gratitude to jack bruce.

Lawrence the Looter (Lawrence the Looter), Sunday, 27 August 2006 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

Re "Honky Tonk Women": Hear Ike Turner's 1970 "Takin' Back My Name," which borrows several licks from the record.

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Sunday, 27 August 2006 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Again, this is a little off teh intent of the original thread, but I think still is germain to the discussion. I believe that Jogn Lee Hooker sued ZZ Top for La Grange as a ripoff of (I think) Boogie Chillun... If I recall the recall the challenge correctly (and plese, blues people, kick my ass if I'm wrong) it was based on the used of the boogie riff (...I'm mean, c'mon... his lawyers were reachin' on that one) and that they used the singature Hooker catch phrase ("how how how how") I beleive that the case got tossed. I suspect that the ZZ Top guys (who are fuckin geezers themselves and been aroudn long enough to know how bad people have been boned, prob'ly themselves included at some point) were simply doing a boogie tune and thought it would be cool to quote the Hooker phrase (a common practice in jazz) So, the question is at what point does a quote become a ripoff? Leave that to the lawyers, maybe...

Bass-man (bassguy), Sunday, 27 August 2006 23:39 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.