de=da=duh=D'OH/ bloooooze and thievery

[DASLUD at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/6/99 11:54:30 AM, cea20 at CUS.CAM.AC.UK writes:

<< >On the other hand, it's pretty obvious if you listen to enough blues
>music that just about any blues song written today is probably a rip-off
>of an older blues song.  I'm not in any way trying to defend Led Zepplin
>by the way, just making an observation as one who has been listening to
>(and enjoying) a lot of blues music over the past few years.
=====
Probably any blues song ever written is, to a great extent, a rip-off of
another blues song. That's how traditional music works :)  This whole
originality thing is a weird modern invention.

Cheers,
Carl
 >>
===================
well, let's take it from here then.

there's a difference between playing within a genre and literally swiping
someone else's song. if you're gonna play a polka or a waltz, there's sh*t
that's required to be there in order for the performance to be recognizable
as a polka or a waltz.
obviously the same goes for the blues.
however.
in regards to musical thievery, led zeppelin was unmatched, and indefensible.
and this isnt big news, y'know, and we're not gonna debate it. well, i'm not
anyway.
 to knowingly give yourself credit for somebody else's song is thievery. how
many examples do you want?
the fact that there are a zillion songs that sound like "louie louie", "in
the still of the night" , "i'm a man/mannish boy" etc. etc. is a different
matter. it's like zappa demonstrating the 2 chord progressions which play
hundreds of doo-wop songs.....
=====
<<That's how traditional music works :)  This whole
originality thing is a weird modern invention.>>
says carl.
=====
 i dont go for the second line, at least as written. in ALL fields, not just
in music, clearly ==somebody== creates the archetypes from which what
follows, follows.  it's the music industry itself that's the "weird modern
invention". ^_~ although its origins begin with the "hits" of stephen foster
in the mid-19th century. we are now at the beginning of a whole new era as
far as "the music industry" is concerned, what with mp3's and such...let's
see how things stand in a decade or two...

it's true, though, that in the folk songs of centuries past you'll find many
instances of one particular tune representing several songs. i bet this holds
true around the world. hell, both "the star spangled banner" and "my country
tis of thee" are derived from other songs. would you call them "ripped off"?
in these cases it has more to do with 'sharing' the song, conveying some sort
of =message= with the song, be it a hymn or an olde drinking song...it
mattered less that there were only so many tunes to go 'round. and no
royalties to fight about.

in the context of this discussion "thievery" would involve gain or profit on
the part of the thief. and in led zeppelin's case we have returned to the
crux of the biscuit.
"dazed and confused". "how many more times". "whole lotta love". "the lemon
song".
"bring it on home". "when the levee breaks". "stairway to heaven". "trampled
underfoot". all of these songs owe their existence to, specifically, someone
else's song. (as surely as heart's "barracuda" came from "achilles' last
stand".) or else it was appropriated altogether. and zeppelin cashed in big
time.

i wrote over 4 lp's of songs for my 'real' band, mostly alone. i have an idea
of what's nicked, what isnt nicked, and what's been disguised. i know what i
discarded for sounding too much like something else...and i know where my
nicks are too.
there are ways and there are ways...
but no point in tearin' up zeppelin. who cares now? they were my favorite
band in the 7th grade, when the 2nd lp was new. i trust no one's listening
enjoyment has been affected by these non-revelations. these however, was the
facts as i understand them.
====
and now. a cameo appearance by sir theo:

<<You are so right!  Rolling Stones being perhaps the biggest thieves
of all time--and the least talented.  Pains me to say it, but ZZ Top
are plagiarizing bastards too.  Weren't they the band that Willie
Dixon sued?  I always figured that had something to do with the
absence of a ZZT boxed set...>>
theo
===
see above, milord, for them what was the biggest thieves.  the stones?
nahhh...an example of a band working within a genre. they did plenty o'
covers and credited their originators.
"least talented"? umm, well, y'see, their problem is that they STILL havent
gone the f*ck away. i acquired some 65-66 live tv stuff of theirs and by
golly, they wuz the bawlz, to my surprise. they were writing songs which far
outstripped their competition.(and preferable to their blues covers!) it's
not an accident they were considered 2nd to the beatles.
but remember, before the post-hendrix era of equipment and amplification, all
these bands had inferior equipment, no help to bands like the stones or
yardbirds, etc etc. ever see the beatles' equipment when they sold out shea
stadium? egads...less than what you'd find in a dinky li'l club these days.
but nowadays we get too many exercises in/excuses for amplification passing
for songs in bands.

nah, zztop weren't sued by willie dixon, twas led zep (see above). and i'd
call them more genre-oriented than thieving, though we could wonder whether
"la grange" was an homage to, or nick at the expense of, john lee hooker.
dixon won vs zeppelin too, didnt he? he, or rather his estate (ha! or perhaps
his publisher) gets songwriting credits and royalties now on certain songs.
as he well deserved.
on the other hand, randy california was most gracious about what page nicked
from him. i say again, check out "taurus" from the first spirit lp. seeing as
the '69 zep was jamming on "fresh-garbage" from the same lp, 'taint no
coincience. if you dont know of which i speak, i wont tell you. go hear it
for yourself.
am i finished now? is there still coffee in the coffee maker?

there are ways and there are ways....

"<>"

"you are your own censor.
if you dont like what i say, you have choice.
you can turn me off===="
--ALICE COOPER, "lay down and die, goodbye" '70