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

[Killing Joke]

I think Aristophanes (I think it's him, but don't hold me to that..) once
said..."there is nothing new under the sun, only new ways of saying it.."

-bill




On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 DASLUD at AOL.COM wrote:

> 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
>