Led Zeppelin now in court over Stairway

cawner

There's got to be something similar to Godwin's Law, when discussing legal matters at some point the OJ case will make an appearance.

Lots of stuff sounds like lots of stuff. I have a friend who no matter what I play always says "that sounds like". He'll twist himself into a pretzel to prove what i've come up with has actually already been done, or "sounds like" something else already done by somebody else. Just for the fuck of it I one time just made up something on the spot. The most convoluted chord changes unimaginable. He's asked that I play it again, which was a bit difficult to repeat because I was pulling bullshit out of my ass. He focused on one chord....one chord. "That....that sounds like....!"

In our discussion on the matter, I pulled up and played this Taurus vs Stairway thing for him. His opinion, "Well, a little bit, maybe. But c'mon, those songs are nothing alike!"

Finally we were in agreement.
 
Greg_L said:
I don't buy the "you can't copyright a chord progression" defense. Maybe in a court of law that stupid line of thinking will hold up, but in the real world we know better, don't we? Some things are just untouchable now. Take an A minor, C, D, F. Play those chords. What does it sound like? House of the Rising motherfucking Sun.
Click to expand...

Well then...your favorite band probably ripped off every song they ever wrote if chord progressions are good enough to copyright a song!

:p ;)

It's always the melody that defines the purpose of the chords. Chords alone don't make a song.
You might be reminded of some song just by the chords...but that's you and how you are hearing it...otherwise, there's no absolute song defined by chords alone.
If you think that a particular way of strumming chords makes for copyright...it's still not good enough.

Signature lines/riffs do come into play because they provide the melody on top of the chords.

Also...when you throw in the lyrics...that certainly makes it easy to know if something is stolen. I mean, anyone can/will pick out a lyric that was taken from another song.
 
miroslav said:
Well then...your favorite band probably ripped off every song they ever wrote if chord progressions are good enough to copyright a song!

:p ;)

It's always the melody that defines the purpose of the chords. Chords alone don't make a song.
You might be reminded of some song just by the chords...but that's you and how you are hearing it...otherwise, there's no absolute song defined by chords alone.
If you think that a particular way of strumming chords makes for copyright...it's still not good enough.

Signature lines/riffs do come into play because they provide the melody on top of the chords.

Also...when you throw in the lyrics...that certainly makes it easy to know if something is stolen. I mean, anyone can/will pick out a lyric that was taken from another song.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not siding with the plaintiffs here. I just don't see why everyone is quick to take LZ's side when this type of thing has surrounded them for decades. Why is it okay for LZ to "borrow" at the expense of the little guy?

I do know that everything sounds like everything else and we are totally out of musical ideas. It's been that way for a long time. I don't even care. I'm just not gonna defend Led Zep simply because they're an iconic rock band. This stuff has surrounded them for too long. It's not even "hating" because no one hates Led Zep. It's not like people murdering Nickelback. This is Led fucking Zeppelin. There must be something to this if that band can never shake the claims of plagiarism.
 
I'm not defending LZ because they are an iconic rock band...but I think everyone would agree that even for the songs that they allegedly "stole"...every damn one of them is like 10 times better than the song they "stole" from, and frankly, substantially different.

IOW...they took a couple of chords or some riffs that were nothing...shit that no one knew or cared about...
...and came out with songs that the whole Rock world knows and loves.
So I think they deserve a lot more credit than this "greatest cover band" and that they "stole everything" kind of BS that some of their haters are saying.
There's a TON of originality in their songs...that pales the so-called "stolen" parts.
 
Willie Dixon should have gotten songwriting credits on most of "Led Zeppelin's" early lyrics. They did eventually settle out of court with his widow.

 
miroslav said:
I'm not defending LZ because they are an iconic rock band...but I think everyone would agree that even for the songs that they allegedly "stole"...every damn one of them is like 10 times better than the song they "stole" from, and frankly, substantially different.

IOW...they took a couple of chords or some riffs that were nothing...shit that no one knew or cared about...
...and came out with songs that the whole Rock world knows and loves.
So I think they deserve a lot more credit than this "greatest cover band" and that they "stole everything" kind of BS that some of their haters are saying.
There's a TON of originality in their songs...that pales the so-called "stolen" parts.
Click to expand...

Right, I said that myself. They did more with the stuff they stole than the creators of the stuff they stole. But that doesn't mean that the creators of the stuff they stole can't have a legitimate beef about it. If LZ and some nobody were on tour, and all of the sudden LZ has hit song that "borrowed" from the nobody they toured with, then he'd naturally have a problem with that. Anyone would. I think LZ has been able to get away with it for all these years because they have a lot of good-will popularity and the means to lawyer-up and settle litigation better than their opposition. Money buys verdicts, and they, as individuals and as an organization, have enough money to buy any verdict they want. And they made that money in part by ripping people off. :D
 
I think we should have a "House of the Rising Sun Chord Sequence Riff Contest"
 
Since he references Aerosmith's "Cryin'" during his Pachelbel Rant...

Just the other day there was a some mention about the 22-year reunion of the the two ladies in the "Crazy" video - Liv Tyler and Alicia Silverstone, and also those three Aerosmith videos that have Alicia Silverstone in them (Cryin', Amazing and Crazy)....though Liv is also in the "Amazing" video, but not featured as much.

OK...it's off topic...but who didn't love those two girls in the third one, "Crazy" (heck, I've always had a thing for Liv Tyler, and it started with that music video). :o

 
I don't know, I think those vids are best viewed with no sound. 90s Aerosmith ballads pretty much make me wanna kill something.
 
Well...I was mainly looking at the two girls...and I think most guys were. :)

You mean there was music too? ;)
 
So what's that now... every single song Led Zeppelin ever recorded that they've been sued by someone for? I think I'm beginning to notice a pattern.
 
kcearl said:
My wife drives an xterra
Click to expand...

What do you drive...a Prius? :D

I also have a 2016 Passat...for my more elegant days. ;)

What's real funny...my old Mum drives the Xterra when she's up here with me, and needs to go shopping or what have you.
I thought it might be too intimidating for her...but then when she's down in FL, she drives a fucking boat!
One of those big-ass Mercury Grand Marquis. I think that's like the standard senior citizen ride in FL....so no wonder she likes driving the Xterra. :p
 
I think the more they dig into detials (talking specifically about the STH song)...the more they will prove that it's just a standard chord progression and nothing more. There is no specif melodic content in the Spirit song...or at least nothing that matches STH for even a few notes.

In the one article you quoted...someone said they found a similar chord progression in a piece from the 1600s....so much for Spirit's originality. :D

If they allow that chord progression to dictate copyright law...there will be endless lawsuits by other artists for other songs, and everyone might as well stop writing chord-based Pop/Rock/Country/R&B music.
 
MrUserNameIV said:
So what's that now... every single song Led Zeppelin ever recorded that they've been sued by someone for? I think I'm beginning to notice a pattern.
Click to expand...

Listen to the Willie Dixon box set from the Chess days. You'll hear where most of Led Zep's early lyrics came from. Plant admitted he 'borrowed' lyrics from 'generic' blues songs. So why has Led Zep sued people? Aren't those 'generic' rock songs by now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top