The Led Zeppelin Plagiarism Compendium

do you really need specific examples? there's so many to choose from

if you want to know how and from whom the beatles, stones, oasis, dylan, the ramones and nirvana dd their stealing, just ask them. they would be happy to tell you. except oasis. you might have to pry it out of oasis with whips and tasers.

So just for fun, let's compare the Beatles (we can even limit their output to pre-1965) and, say, the Yardbirds. If you had to name one of these bands plagiarizers and the other borrowers, how would you assign them?

Congrats on not understanding the TS Eliot quote

My point is that the meme itself is just plain dumb, reductive, and serves no other purpose than to make the person who repeats it sound like they have some profound insight into the nature of reality.

welcome to the internet

seems to me that the burden of proof is on you. in what way do any of those NOT borrow liberally from their peers and predecessors

xp

The point isn't which word you use, it's that everyone takes from other artists, but the best ones make something new and/or improved out of it, while the weaker artists sound like they're just copying or "imitating."

You're right; I don't understand the TS Eliot quote. But that's because it's stupid and falls apart under scrutiny, unless you constantly apply ad hoc rationales to when things count as borrowing and when they count as stealing, so that your previous view of certain artists can be maintained under this theory.

your reading of the quote is very uptight and literal

Shakey, I don't dispute that nearly everyone borrows liberally.

"Hard Day's Night" was actually largely cribbed from obscure blues musician Mango Taft's "Bitch of a Week"

how does "Gangnam Style" fit into all of this

well if yr complaint is that Eliot implies some sort of literal grading system I think yeah you are missing the point. To varying degrees, some artists make something interesting out of what they borrow, while others do not. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

xp

your reading of the quote is very uptight and literal

Maybe-- but then the phrase itself is fairly meaningless as far as "imitating" and "stealing" go. What are the definitions of these words in this sentence? Perhaps someone can explain in a way that doesn't require a circular and/or tautological reading (i.e. "'stealing' is when it's done well, and 'imitating' is when it's done badly).

when i withdraw $80 from the bank after seeing my friend andy do the same, that's imitating. when i withdraw $80 from the bank even though i didn't have $80 in my account, that's stealing. when i spend that $80 on a jake holmes LP at a thrift shop, that's cratedigging. when i import that LP into pro tools and make a new song out of it, that's either sampling, remixing, postmodern or lame, depending on which plug-ins i use.

throw some reverb on that jawn let's get wild

Maybe-- but then the phrase itself is fairly meaningless as far as "imitating" and "stealing" go. What are the definitions of these words in this sentence? Perhaps someone can explain in a way that doesn't require a circular and/or tautological reading (i.e. "'stealing' is when it's done well, and 'imitating' is when it's done badly).

― Poliopolice, Monday, February 10, 2014 4:53 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's the whole point of the quote. You're being really dense, it's not analytical philosophy.

lol fcc

i honestly never knew what "tautological" meant but whenever i see it, it seems like a sign ilx is having some debate that's disappeared up its own butt

tautological = disappears up its own butt

disappearing up your own butt = original

disappearing up someone else's butt = borrowing

what if it's a taut butt

they say that butts can be taut. but originality...

i honestly never knew what "tautological" meant but whenever i see it, it seems like a sign ilx is having some debate that's disappeared up its own butt

I don't know about other conversations where this word was pulled out, but I think it's perfectly appropriate here. Here's a helpful paragraph from the wikipedia page on tautology. It seems to perfectly describe the TS Eliot statement.

In rhetoric, a tautology is a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another, the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable.

1) truth of the statement guaranteed? check.
2) words defined in a way that can't be disputed? check.
3) no useful information conveyed? check.
4) unfalsifiable? check.

That, my friends, is a tautology. It is an annoying aphorism that provides absolutely no insights whatsoever.

You are an annoying aphorism that provides absolutely no insights whatsoever

(i'm sorry for the tirade. It is one of these phrases that I've heard repeated so many times in bullshit circumstances that I just snapped)

You are an annoying aphorism that provides absolutely no insights whatsoever

nyah nyah!

this only works as a dismissal of eliot if we assume there is no other rubric by which we can assess the quality of an artist's output (hint: there probably is!)

"Basically I think it diminishes them as people that they didn't give co-writing credits in at least some of these cases. About 10% of them or so are really egregious cases of stealing, e.g. Dazed and Confused. At the same time, Jake Holmes's version kind of sucks compared to Led Zeppelin. So they're diminished as people but not as a kick ass band.

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2)"

i think it diminishes them more as people that they were horrible human beings through most of the '70s, myself. fortunately for me when i listen to a record i very seldom stop to wonder what i think of the musicians as human beings.

Jesus christ, has anyone ever escaped the past unscathed? Any artist? Any anyone?

Just Tom Hanks.

*reads about the mud shark incident*

"NOT YOU TOO ZEP! NOT YOU TOOOOOO!!!!!"

josh: william butler yeats got out of lincoln park okay, at least.

in re the OP list -- so there's no plagiarism at all on Houses of the Holy?

"D'yer Mak'er" is a reggae rip-off of "Angel Baby" by Rosie & The Originals. (They even put "Whatever happened to Rosie & The Originals?" on the lyric sheet.)

And, of course, "The Crunge" is a James Brown pastiche.

And, of course, "The Crunge" is a James Brown pastiche.

It doesn't exactly steal from any specific James Brown tracks though, does it?

Can't think of any JB tracks in 5/8 time or whatever it is. Plant does namecheck a coupla Otis Redding song titles though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27497950

this one seems particularly lazy. the music is just a basic groove - no huge rip there. just write some lyrics, robert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaXA_Hr0CE8&feature=kp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvKGM93yoCI

Zep actually co-credited this one to Ritchie Valens' mother, who I believe was originally credited on "Ooh! My Head."

oh carry on then led zeppelin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

Given that it's literally the only instance in their entire catalog of voluntarily giving co-credit, it's understandable that someone would think otherwise.

I thought "When the Levee Breaks" was co-credited to Memphis Minnie? It is on my LP.

Whoops, you're right, it is!

can't forget Charles Obscure

i'm kind of torn between thinking copyright laws should allow significantly more reuse and thinking that it's shitty to not give credit to artists you're borrowing from. complicated also by the historical power inequities that are at play when white artists steal from black artists.

what's the copyright situation in jamaica? listening to a lot of reggae recently and thinking about such a remix-heavy culture, with "version upon version" of tunes i can only imagine were not created w/ permission from copyright holders, if there were even clear owners to begin with

tealing from the (relatively) rich seems OK and sometimes laudable, stealing from the (relatively) poor feels wrong - but it can't work one way and not the other, can it?

Throwing Randy California's estate a bone seems like the right thing to do - but honestly don't know if he deserves a songwriting credit even though Page almost certainly ripped off Taurus a lil bit.

lol this thread. 2010 was a different time.

I think criticizing them for not crediting it is very reasonable. Criticizing them for not being "original" or something just seems totally ignorant of the entire history of music.

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, February 10, 2014 2:59 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'll criticize you for being one of the biggest fucking idiots of all time. The toilet plunger plunged up your fucking afterbirth after your mother sat on it, but somehow you miraculously survived.

― Prince Kajuku (Bill Magill), Monday, February 10, 2014 3:03 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

say what you want about Bill but this is ace

what's the copyright situation in jamaica? listening to a lot of reggae recently and thinking about such a remix-heavy culture, with "version upon version" of tunes i can only imagine were not created w/ permission from copyright holders, if there were even clear owners to begin with

This is a p interesting subject actually. No sheet music industry/history! And thus no solid copyright precedents.