Led Zeppelin now in court over Stairway

miroslav said:
So you're saying that NO ONE can ever use the same chords as House of the Rising Sun with that arpeggio strum...???
Click to expand...

I feel like even with chords there is a limit, because there's other factors besides the chords themselves. Song tempo, duration of each, strum syncopation, arpeggios....quite a lot of stuff factors into it besides just the 3 measly notes. That Spirit song meshes up with Stairway in that sense pretty well if you ask me. It's definitely not gonna be like "well I copyrighted the I-V-vi-IV pattern so screw you all" if the judge rules against Zeppelin. Tons of metrics play into it.
 
Page may or may not have lifted a small segment of that song. It wouldn't be surprising, he and Plant damn sure lifted a lot of other shit along the way. But even if he did lift from "Taurus"....it doesn't resolve the same...AND, StH has simultaneous descending and ascending lines. That small section of Taurus only descends.

One thing seems certain. If both of those guys were playing the same song, somebody's ass best tighten up, somebody playin' it wrong! Case dismissed!

Just curious: If some nobody did something similar to Back in Black, the whole E-D-A thing, but instead of doing that descending lick starting on the first string they did some blues type lick ascending from the open A 5th string, would it be the same song worthy of copyright infringement?

Or, is it only copyright infringement when someone takes some half assed song that 99.9999 percent of people have never heard of and makes it so much better and familiar to virtually everyone that they go on to make millions?
 
I would think if the chord progression is a signature of the song then it's copyrightable. In other words, the progression itself is the melody. It would depend on whether the judge got a nut off the night before making his ruling....

With LZ and Spirit, that little riff is really key to both songs. I would be willing the judge rules in favor of the Spirit guy's estate. Unless Jimmy and Robert get him laid the night before.

Really, I don't understand why this wasn't settled out of court. Was there any reason given in the news?
 
Mick Doobie said:
Page may or may not have lifted a small segment of that song. It wouldn't be surprising, he and Plant damn sure lifted a lot of other shit along the way. But even if he did lift from "Taurus"....it doesn't resolve the same...AND, StH has simultaneous descending and ascending lines. That small section of Taurus only descends.

One thing seems certain. If both of those guys were playing the same song, somebody's ass best tighten up, somebody playin' it wrong! Case dismissed!

Just curious: If some nobody did something similar to Back in Black, the whole E-D-A thing, but instead of doing that descending lick starting on the first string they did some blues type lick ascending from the open A 5th string, would it be the same song worthy of copyright infringement?

Or, is it only copyright infringement when someone takes some half assed song that 99.9999 percent of people have never heard of and makes it so much better and familiar to virtually everyone that they go on to make millions?
Click to expand...

Fandom ^^^^
 
Sky Blue Lou said:
Kid Rock had that hit a few years back but he name checked Sweet Home so there were probably concessions.
Click to expand...
Kid Rock sampled "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Werewolves of London" in that song. He obtained permission to use those 2 songs and publicly said that he combined samples of those 2 songs
The writers or ...their estate in Zevons case....gave permission and got paid.
That's a far cry from claiming it all as your own creation.
 
jimistone said:
Kid Rock sampled "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Werewolves of London" in that song. He obtained permission to use those 2 songs and publicly said that he combined samples of those 2 songs

That's a far cry from claiming it all as your own creation.
Click to expand...

Right. Far be it from me to defend that piece of shit kid rock, but he was legit about it. Same with rappers and crap. They sample and borrow, but these days they pay up for it. They're not trying to hide anything or pass it off as their own.
 
Chili said:
In other words, the progression itself is the melody.
Click to expand...

Sorry man...there's no melody there.

In STH when Plant starts singing...THAT is the melody on top of those chords.
I've listened to "Taurus" about 5 times now...and I've not been able to find any identifiable melody anywhere in that song...never mind over the three chords.

So explain then why those chords with descending bass line were found in a song from like a couple of hundred years earlier...and some other tunes..?
That's what makes the claim of copyright over just the 3 chords, pretty absurd. I mean...what about the rest of "Taurus"...it has NOTHING to do with either those three chords or any similarity with the rest of STH...it's just a lot of rambling of sounds.
Those chords occur twice in the whole song...and they don't really carry the song in any way.

Too many people here want to see LZ lose, just because they are so big...it's the classic David VS Goliath thing...root for the little guy and all that. :D
 
Within 5 notes of the start of STH played by anyone, on anything, everyone knows what song it is. That is a melody.

This is Miro from the old days. Loves to argue... :thumbs up:
 
Right...and everyone else posting in this thread, including you, is doing what....sipping tea and talking about the weather?

:D

Why do you often play the "likes to argue" card when you run out of steam? ;)
It's just a discussion...there's no argument. For any comment/view that I've made...3-4 other people counter with their views. Don't get all uptight about it....I don't.

You, like some others, are stuck on what a song "reminds" you of as some proof...which has nothing to do with what is or isn't copyright-able.
 
Is anything truly new? When I'm doing stuff on the piano, I know what chord will work next. However, I'm aware that I frequently use a 3rd in the bass, does this mean that Elton John will take me to court? So C Major, with C in the bass followed by G Major with a B followed by A minor with an A is stealing one of Elton's songs?
 
Hairs can be split over what is or is not copyright protected.

Or...

We could just take the lead from Led Zeppelin and thumb our noses at it all and use whatever we feel like using and sign our name to it.

In the grand scheme of things it's worked pretty damn well for them hasn't it?
:)
 
jimistone said:
Hairs can be split over what is or is not copyright protected.

Or...

We could just take the lead from Led Zeppelin and thumb our noses at it all and use whatever we feel like using and sign our name to it.

In the grand scheme of things it's worked pretty damn well for them hasn't it?
:)
Click to expand...

In hindsight it's easy to see that LZ had many things going for them. One, their era. Rock and roll was still relatively young and there was plenty of room to expand and be something new. And they were physically relatively young to take advantage of rock and roll's relative youth. They were good players. John Bonham is still, to this day, the gold standard that all rock and roll drummers have to measure up to in one way or another. People still talk about and dissect his beats. And maybe most importantly, there was no internet, therefore no competition, and no way to easily find out they stole everything. :D
 
Armistice said:
Within 5 notes of the start of STH played by anyone, on anything, everyone knows what song it is. That is a melody.
Click to expand...

Agreed. To me the arpeggio of those chords IS the melody. I feel like whatever the ruling on this case ends up being (if it gets one), it will have some very legal-ese speak regarding chords vs arpeggios.
 
I disagree that the descending bass line could or should be considered the melody. If anything it would be the ascending notes played on the 1st string, the E string, which could or should be considered the melody. Taurus lacks those melodic notes. In StH, the descending bass line leads somewhere, it resolves itself with the final G to Am. Taurus does not resolve, it just hangs there. Listen to it, it's like an incomplete thought. In fact the entire song sounds like an artsy fartsy collage of incomplete thoughts all thrown together in an effort to make a song.

As a huge Led Zeppelin fan, I mean huge, this whole thing is making me very angry. :mad:

:D
 
Mick Doobie said:
I disagree that the descending bass line could or should be considered the melody. If anything it would be the ascending notes played on the 1st string, the E string, which could or should be considered the melody. Taurus lacks those melodic notes. In StH, the descending bass line leads somewhere, it resolves itself with the final G to Am. Taurus does not resolve, it just hangs there. Listen to it, it's like an incomplete thought. In fact the entire song sounds like an artsy fartsy collage of incomplete thoughts all thrown together in an effort to make a song.

As a huge Led Zeppelin fan, I mean huge, this whole thing is making me very angry. :mad:

:D
Click to expand...

:D

:thumbs up:
 
Mixed a live gig last night, after the last band I put Taurus by Sprit over the PA, someone in the crowd had to say it, "Hay, That sounds like Stairway to Heaven!"

LOL

Alan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top