Led Zeppelin now in court over Stairway
- Thread starter ido1957
- Start date
jimistone
long standing member
"Generic blues songs"
I guess that means blues songs written by black people. They were getting ripped off for decades before they were awarded any civil rights. Led Zep was just doing what had already been done for years. It was wrong. Saying that the LedZep songs were better than the original songs that they plagerized is debateable. Insinuating that by refining and improving on a song somehow justifies stealing ideas from the original author and claiming them for your own is laughable.
I respect the Rolling Stones. They did those old blues songs and gave credit where credit is due....to the original artists and writers. It helped to create a blues resurgence and resurrected the careers of a few washed up blues artists. Ditto on Stevie Ray Vaghn. He resurrected the careers of Albert King and Lonnie mack to some extent. The Beatles did the same for Chuck Berry and Little Richard. George Harrison did get sued over "My Sweet Lord" but that was a pretty basic 50s chord change and vocal style than many songs shared. I never agreed with that lawsuit outcome.
Bottom line...
Instead of celebrating and lifting up the blues artists they were "borrowing" from, like their peers did, Led Zep claimed the ideas as their own.
As for this stairway to heaven lawsuit....
The only thing that is simular is the intro chord progression. That being said, the intro chord progression is a HUGE part of the Led Zep song. Couple that with the fact that Led Zep toured with Spirit. I can imagine Page and Plant listening to them do that intro and saying "man, that is cool!". The years later, when nobody even remembered who the fuck Spirit was...revisiting the cool intro that "what's their names" had in whatever the fuck the name of that "generic" song was.
my 2 cents
I guess that means blues songs written by black people. They were getting ripped off for decades before they were awarded any civil rights. Led Zep was just doing what had already been done for years. It was wrong. Saying that the LedZep songs were better than the original songs that they plagerized is debateable. Insinuating that by refining and improving on a song somehow justifies stealing ideas from the original author and claiming them for your own is laughable.
I respect the Rolling Stones. They did those old blues songs and gave credit where credit is due....to the original artists and writers. It helped to create a blues resurgence and resurrected the careers of a few washed up blues artists. Ditto on Stevie Ray Vaghn. He resurrected the careers of Albert King and Lonnie mack to some extent. The Beatles did the same for Chuck Berry and Little Richard. George Harrison did get sued over "My Sweet Lord" but that was a pretty basic 50s chord change and vocal style than many songs shared. I never agreed with that lawsuit outcome.
Bottom line...
Instead of celebrating and lifting up the blues artists they were "borrowing" from, like their peers did, Led Zep claimed the ideas as their own.
As for this stairway to heaven lawsuit....
The only thing that is simular is the intro chord progression. That being said, the intro chord progression is a HUGE part of the Led Zep song. Couple that with the fact that Led Zep toured with Spirit. I can imagine Page and Plant listening to them do that intro and saying "man, that is cool!". The years later, when nobody even remembered who the fuck Spirit was...revisiting the cool intro that "what's their names" had in whatever the fuck the name of that "generic" song was.
my 2 cents
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...that's exactly how many of the blues songs that you now know of as "songs", were written...by derivative/additive composition.
One black guy would come up with some lick...then others would add their own lyrics, and then another would formalize it into what us white folk called a "song"...all that over many years and iterations...and each one improved on the original idea and made it better. NO different than any other kind of "folk" music all over the world.
It wasn't until the black guys started getting recorded and paid, did formal blues song writing by one black author become more common.
Willie Dixon certainly figured that out quick, that there was money in the writing, not just the playing and recording.
Illsidgus
Desiccated Member
I think that Johnny Rivers should sue the Randy California estate for using the intro of 'Summer Rain' in 'Taurus'. The 'Summer Rain' intro is faster than the bit in 'Taurus' but it sounds very similar. For that matter, I think that 'Taurus' sound more like 'Summer Rain' than 'Stairway to Heaven' sounds like 'Taurus'. In addition to that, 'Summer Rain' (the single) came out in 1967 and 'Taurus' came out in 1968, so it is possible that Randy California had heard that intro and used it for himself.
jimistone
long standing member
right....
The difference in the blues guys building upon each others ideas and Led Zep is that Led Zep were borrowing from published songs that had been formally recorded by record labels and copyright registered.
Big difference.
They probably thought that since they were British rock stars they could.get away with it....I mean come on....like a country bumpkin black artist/songwriter ....commoner....like Willie Dixon could challange them in court. More laughable would be that a flash in the pan band like Spirit could challange them in court.
They just couldn't see it in the culture of the late 1960s/early 70s, took liberties with copyrighted lyrics.
Times changed though and here we are.
IMHO
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
The author was alive until 1997 I believe...and there were many other copyright lawsuits between the late '60s and late '90s...yet he made NO effort to sue LZ...which to me is a major point, and I think it's because he didn't think there was enough there that was the same, and the most important thing...it's about a chord progression...which is not copyright-able.
What you have now, is an estate executor (Michael Skidmore)...looking for a way to cash in. I'm sure he'll be willing to take a financial settlement...without any copyright admissions, and that kind of stuff has happened before...paying someone to just go away and end the discussion.
AFA the old blues guys....
So do you feel that a bunch of old blues guys "borrowing" from each other is OK...and only the last guy in the line, who officially filled for copyright, is entitled to claim 100% authorship...?
Not defending LZ from taking entire songs and claiming they wrote them...just making the point again that most of the old Blues songs were derivative and probably partially authored/changed by many over the years, until they become formal songs.
I bet it's because he was just stoked that such a huge band totally ripped off one of his songs. He was probably a fan and proud of it.
jimistone
long standing member
On the Spirit tune.... I said that I could imagine Page and Plant listening to Spirit do that song and think the intro is cool. Years later, after Spirit basically disappeared from the rock scene, I think they incorporated that chord progression into stairway to heaven. A chord progession with no melody or lyric isn't enough to go to court with and win IMO. It will shock me if Led Zeppelin loses this.
As far as the old blues guys....
It's all a case of "He said she said" in those early days.
Only the one who finally applies for copyright registration with the library of Congress and gets the song published has a case in court. That's why many early songs are credited to "author unknown". when a work says "words and music by Willie Dixon" you may get sued if you claim it as you own and make a lot of money with it.....even if you are a big rock star.
Concerning LZ...
Jackie Gleason said it best in "Smokey and the Bandit";
"What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for da law!"
guitaristic
prophet of Dave
Wow, there are some really butthurt Led Zepp fans in this thread. 
it's ok, you know, to admit that the band you love blatantly stole from several different musicians over their career. You can know and accept that and still be a fan!
it's ok, you know, to admit that the band you love blatantly stole from several different musicians over their career. You can know and accept that and still be a fan!Wow, there are some really butthurt Led Zepp fans in this thread.
That's what I'm saying. I'm not calling them butthurt, but their fandom is clearly on full display.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
At this point...the judge has been asked to rule if the plaintiff has demonstrated copyright infringement, or who owns the copyright to "Taurus"...which they have not...
...before LZ even begins their defense, and before it goes to the jury.
This could end without any jury verdict.
This isn't about "fandom"...it's about setting precedent.
If someone can copyright a chord progression, then it will open a can of worms. Per copyright rules, chords like song titles are not copyright-able.
The other thing...it's trying to imply that you can copyright "influences"...so if something you heard ends up influencing what you then write, and you happen to use the same style of chord progression/strumming (for 3 lousy chords)...you would be in violation of copyright...which is absurd.
The songs that they out and out "stole" and it was proven..they paid for it. No one is arguing against that in some blind "fandom".
I think as much, there is this drooling going on by a lot of people simply because the WERE such a big band, and lot of people get pleasure in seeing a Goliath go down...especially those who don't much like LZ and their music.
...before LZ even begins their defense, and before it goes to the jury.
This could end without any jury verdict.
This isn't about "fandom"...it's about setting precedent.
If someone can copyright a chord progression, then it will open a can of worms. Per copyright rules, chords like song titles are not copyright-able.
The other thing...it's trying to imply that you can copyright "influences"...so if something you heard ends up influencing what you then write, and you happen to use the same style of chord progression/strumming (for 3 lousy chords)...you would be in violation of copyright...which is absurd.
The songs that they out and out "stole" and it was proven..they paid for it. No one is arguing against that in some blind "fandom".
I think as much, there is this drooling going on by a lot of people simply because the WERE such a big band, and lot of people get pleasure in seeing a Goliath go down...especially those who don't much like LZ and their music.
jimistone
long standing member
I'm a huge Led Zeppelin fan. I think they probably got the intro for stairway from the Spirit song. But, I agree that a chord progression can't be copyrighted. Zz top lifted the La Grange riff from John Lee Hooker...everyone knows it. How many 100s of songs have been done to the Chuck Berry Johnny b Goode style boogie guitar? How many blues songs are copyrighted that are just different lyrics over the same worn out 12 bar blues progression?
It's when the lyric is plagerized, or the same chord progression has the same melody as another song (my sweet lord...he's so fine) that copyright infringement has a win able case in court.
It's when the lyric is plagerized, or the same chord progression has the same melody as another song (my sweet lord...he's so fine) that copyright infringement has a win able case in court.
Cool. So I'll just write new words and melody over famous riffs and progressions. It's all good! Maybe I'll use Stairway to Heaven as a bed for something better. I like Led Zeppelin, but I hate that song, so there's no fandom here.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Riffs are like melody lines...so if there's a signature riff, that's different...but feel free to write a Punk tune using the same chords as Stairway to Heaven, no copyright infringement there.
You can call it Stairway to Hell.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I don't think they will lose...but, they may settle to end it.
Even if they lose, it will be some set amount...I mean, I don't think they need to figure out how many times the song was played and generated profits...etc.
I really don't care if LZ loses...justr 'cuz they are LZ. It's not about that.
Again...for me it's about setting a precedent so that a standard chord progression, that's been used by others...is now copyright protected.
So like...no one could ever use those chords in that order again....kinda dumb, and would make no sense.
jimistone
long standing member
What about the 3 chords that start off sweet home alabama?
Or the 2 chords that kick off Claptons "cocaine"
Or the links "you really got me"
Or the kickoff to the Beatles "I want to hold your hand"
Sometimes the chords are the riff.
Could one lift those chord combos and be in safe waters?
Or the 2 chords that kick off Claptons "cocaine"
Or the links "you really got me"
Or the kickoff to the Beatles "I want to hold your hand"
Sometimes the chords are the riff.
Could one lift those chord combos and be in safe waters?
Riffs are like melody lines...so if there's a signature riff, that's different...but feel free to write a Punk tune using the same chords as Stairway to Heaven, no copyright infringement there.
You can call it Stairway to Hell.
I wouldn't care if it was a copyright infringement. I'll infringe day and night if I feel like it. Stealing stolen property from thieves is a victim-less crime.
But hold up. So how is a riff any different than a chord progression? How is Stairway to Heaven just a generic chord progression that anyone can use, apparently, but a "riff" is "signature" and therefore untouchable? A chord progression can be just a mess of chords, or it can be a signature identifiable part of the melody and song. Again, like House of the Rising Sun. That song is all about the chords. It's not a riff, it's not a repeating lead lick, it's not a melody, it's just the chords. You can hear that progression on any guitar without the vocals and know what it is. There's too much gray area and loopholes in this shit.
This ^^^^
It's just chords, but those are signature identifiable simple progressions that make you know what those songs are. If you stole the intro to Sweet Home Alabama, and somehow got some success off of it, I'd expect you could get sued. You might win, you might lose, but I wouldn't be surprised if some copyright lawyer came after you. Then you can say "it's just chords motherfucker!"
Last edited: