|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 23, 2016 19:12:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jun 23, 2016 19:28:47 GMT
About time that one was sorted ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Barrington on Jun 23, 2016 20:30:09 GMT
I could never hear the similarity .
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 23, 2016 20:32:49 GMT
I wonder what would have happened if Randy California's side had been allowed to demonstrate to the jury that Page and Plant had form, which they weren't. I've found 20 songs they originally claimed to have written which they quite patently didn't.
I don't think the sums being asked were appropriate and Stairway to Heaven is undoubtedly a better song, but I don't believe for a minute that there wasn't at least an influence there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 23, 2016 20:58:04 GMT
Of the 20 songs, how many writers/artists successfully sued LZ and won on the merits of that song?
I know that there have been some successful litigations, but how many?
You also have to bear in mind that past record is not admissible evidence in all cases - we have the same law over here.
Any evidence has to be presented on its own merit, and if your evidence is that they've done it before then you do not have a case.
Musically you cannot copyright a chromatic scale, and that seems to be the crux of the argument.
Spirit used a descending chromatic theme, and so did LZ.
The chromatic theme resolved differently, and LZ took things in a completely different direction during the remainder of the song.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 23, 2016 22:38:40 GMT
I don't think it was a wholesale rip-off and I don't think much (if any) cash should change hands, but I do think that credit should be acknowledged where it's due. This is how disputes were resolved with some other performers - later issues of Led Zep recordings acknowledged the original writers - and I think that's appropriate here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 23, 2016 22:59:25 GMT
Having just played Taurus on Youtube I disagree.
The 2 tunes having a descending scale in A minor muddies the waters a bit, but they go in different directions.
The Beatles could have sued Spirit for pinching the chorus from Hello Goodbye, and incorporating into Taurus.
They didn't, but they'd have ending up suing half the musical world if they had pursued that path.
Listen to the Spirit tune after the chromatic descent and tell me that they didn't pinch it off the most influential band in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 23, 2016 23:16:16 GMT
I guess it maybe depends on what leaps into your mind the first time you hear Taurus. With me, as a 13 year old when I first heard it, I thought of Stairway to Heaven.
I struggle with the idea that:
A) Page and Plant didn't hear the track
B) It wasn't in Page's mind (either subconsciously) or not when Stairway to Heaven was written.
Have you ever listened to 'Never' by Moby Grape? Do it now and you will hear 'Since I've Been Loving You'.
With that one, Plant made the mistake of telling the music press that the Grape were one of his favourite bands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 23, 2016 23:46:35 GMT
The main "tune" (I hesitate to call it a tune) is a common or garden blues.
There's nothing outstanding, or original, in either the Moby Grape recording, or the Led Zep recording.
The lyric and vocal melody in the first verse could have been lifted straight off the Moby Grape and plonked on the Zeppelin version. I'll give you that.
The Moby Grape recording was actually pretty aimless and tedious. It went nowhere. It was so low key it disappeared up its own backside.
The Zeppelin take on things has dynamics, power and passion.
The Zeppelin take flew, the Moby Grape never managed to get off the ground.
I agree, Bob Plant probably lifted the lyric and vocal melody for the first verse. but thereafter it took on a life of its own.
So no writing credit, but an "inspired by" is appropriate in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 23, 2016 23:57:34 GMT
The Zeppelin track is unquestionably superior in every way - one of my favourite tracks of all time - and as a band, the way they shone was how they worked together almost telepathically to expand on musical ideas, but that example goes beyond 'inspired by', to my mind.
I don't have a problem with the principle of using musical themes and developing them, but as I said before, credit is due to the people that you draw your material from. And credit shouldn't necessarily mean money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 24, 2016 0:04:44 GMT
You should take a look a Ritchie Blackmore's "inspiration" list.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 24, 2016 19:15:56 GMT
Very hard to hear what is 'influence' compared with 'plagiarism'. This goes back to the classical composers who were all at the least influenced by others before them as well as by their contemporaries. Sometimes they called it 'quotations' like the odd bit of Rossini in Shostakovich's 15th. For me, it has to be very obvious to be called plagiarism and many (most?) artists won't do that deliberately.
|
|
