Lawsuit Accusing Led Zeppelin of "Stairway" Theft, Proceeds.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312

Nope. You're just making a special plea because Led Zeppelin are like gods to you and can do no wrong. Same with Randy.

A "special plea" ?

And you have musical training to show how the compositions by early blues artists like Leadbelly are exactly the same as what Led Zep recorded? -- or are you going to continue your own "special" argument that because songs "sound" the same that means one of them qualifies as a copyright infringement?

The topic of this thread is that Led Zeppelin PLAGIARIZED one of the most famous songs in the history of classic rock. With no consideration for what can and what cannot be copyrighted you have a misguided understanding of what it means to legally have exclusive rights to a musical composition. I would hope you have more skills in this analysis if you are now going to accuse people of worshiping the band and refusing to believe their music was stolen, particularly given you believe all it takes is to "trust" your ears:

originally posted by: Astyanax
Me, I trust my ears. I listen to The Lemon Song and I hear Howlin' Wolf's Killing Floor. I listen to Black Mountainside and I hear Bert Jansch's Black Waterside. I listen to Whole Lotta Love and I hear Willie Dixon's You Need Love...

By your logic we can conclude:

1. The musical and lyrical theme of a song is the same thing as the musical composition. This means all songs that contain the line "I should have quit you a long time ago" are all the same song. If any part of the original song resembles any part of a new song, we can thus immediately conclude the new song was stolen.

2. As in the case of the song "Black Mountain Side," someone who records a traditional folksong now has exclusive rights to the song. He can also copyright his style of playing the guitar that involves an alternate tuning of the instrument and sliding bass notes.

In reality, in order to say that the band "stole" the song you must prove copyright infringement or you have no case.

a reply to: Petros312

Zep might do well having you argue their case!

a reply to: Petros312

And you have musical training to show how the compositions by early blues artists like Leadbelly are exactly the same as what Led Zep recorded?

Yes.

By your logic we can conclude:

1. The musical and lyrical theme of a song is the same thing as the musical composition.

Yes, that is correct, if by 'theme' you mean 'melody', or at least a sizeable chunk thereof. Riffs count.

This means all songs that contain the line "I should have quit you a long time ago" are all the same song.

No, that doesn't follow.

If any part of the original song resembles any part of a new song, we can thus immediately conclude the new song was stolen.

That doesn't follow either, although in many cases (not all) we can conclude that the part in question was stolen.

For example:

Although the song's lyrics were written by Verve vocalist Richard Ashcroft, its distinctive passage for strings was sampled from the 1965 Andrew Oldham Orchestra symphonic recording of "The Last Time", arranged & written by David Whitaker, inspired by the 1965 Rolling Stones' song of the same title.

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a licence to use a five-note sample from the Oldham recording, but former Stones manager Allen Klein (who owned the copyrights to the band’s pre-1970 songs) claimed that The Verve broke the agreement and used a larger portion. Despite its original lyrics and string intro (by Wil Malone & Ashcroft), the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" was sampled from the Oldham track, which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Klein's holding company, and eventually settled out of court. The Verve relinquished all of their royalties to Klein, owner of ABKCO Records, whilst songwriting credits were changed to Jagger/Richards/Ashcroft. Source

In this case, my sympathies are with Mr Ashcroft; justice was not served. But the point (a legal one, which you are disputing) stands.

2. As in the case of the song "Black Mountain Side," someone who records a traditional folksong now has exclusive rights to the song.

Prove it. He may have exclusive rights to the recording, but not to the song.

He can also copyright his style of playing the guitar that involves an alternate tuning of the instrument and sliding bass notes.

Jimmy Page's style on Black Mountain Side contains no copyrightable innovation. How do I know this? I can play the song, albeit with some difficulty. The DADGAD tuning was used before Page by many English folk musicians; it was originally popularized by Davey Graham.

I trust your ears can pick up the parts that Jimmy 'borrowed' for Black Mountain Side from that recording. He's an eclectic magpie, our lad.

By the way, the guitar/bass riff in The Lemon song is as close to identical with the one from Killing Floor as anyone can tell without a note-for-note transcription. You can't hear Wolf's guitar very well on the latter, but he's playing the same notes Jimmy's playing.

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
If you ask me, Pink Floyd - Is There Anybody Out There? sounds more like the Spirit tune than Stairway does.

Good one, "Comfortably Numb"... I can hear it as well.
Probably my favorite song of all time, and did not put the tag on it.

I asked:

And you have musical training to show how the compositions by early blues artists like Leadbelly are exactly the same as what Led Zep recorded?

Response:

originally posted by: Astyanax
Yes.

That's a very bold statement. Your transcriptions? (And remember, I read music. Perfectly.)

I said:

"By your logic we can conclude:
1. The musical and lyrical theme of a song is the same thing as the musical composition."

First response:

originally posted by: Astyanax
Yes, that is correct, if by 'theme' you mean 'melody', or at least a sizeable chunk thereof. Riffs count.

So if that's your response, when I said:
"This means all songs that contain the line "I should have quit you a long time ago" are all the same song, you should agree logically. Instead, you contradict yourself once by responding:

originally posted by: Astyanax
No, that doesn't follow.

Then another contradiction by disagreeing with this statement: "If any part of the original song resembles any part of a new song, we can thus immediately conclude the new song was stolen."

originally posted by: Astyanax
That doesn't follow either, although in many cases (not all) we can conclude that the part in question was stolen.

You mean like four notes of a common blues scale in the Lemon Song were "stolen" from Howlin' Wolf? Ridiculous!


So from above, you claim to have enough musical training to transcribe two compositions and demonstrate they are exactly the same, yet you offer no example. You say that the "theme" of a song can be described as a "chunk" of the melody (a "riff") and that this is the song's composition, yet you disagree when a piece of a song is similar to a new song it isn't that the song was stolen, only the part. Yet, you have accused Led Zeppelin of stealing songs, not parts of songs.

Then, you took my quote out of context to suggest that I'm the one who believes:

"someone who records a traditional folksong now has exclusive rights to the song."

--which is not true. It was YOU who said above that Led Zep stole Black Mountain Side, despite my post explaining it's their version of a traditional folk song. On top of this, you contradict yourself again by explaining the following:

originally posted by: Astyanax
Jimmy Page's style on Black Mountain Side contains no copyrightable innovation...The DADGAD tuning was used before Page by many English folk musicians; it was originally popularized by Davey Graham.

--So then did all these English folk musicians "steal" the tuning that was "popularized" by Graham? If you say no, then why do you insist Led Zeppelin stole Black Mountain Side from Jansch?

originally posted by: Astyanax
I trust your ears can pick up the parts that Jimmy 'borrowed' for Black Mountain Side...

So are you changing your mind about "stealing" the song now? Do you admit that Jimmy Page was influenced by the STYLE used by Jansch? Or are you still further going to contradict yourself and respond by saying, oh no Page DID steal the song from Jansch?

Spoken like an authority, you say:

originally posted by: Astyanax
By the way, the guitar/bass riff in The Lemon song is as close to identical with the one from Killing Floor as anyone can tell without a note-for-note transcription. You can't hear Wolf's guitar very well on the latter, but he's playing the same notes Jimmy's playing.

This one kills me. You can't hear Wolf's guitar well, but somehow you know the main guitar "riff" in the "Lemon Song" is IDENTICAL to what Howlin' Wolf is playing in "Killing Floor" ? (BTW I hear Wolf's Guitar part perfectly.) Before you post the transcription of the two songs, be sure to include the 7#9 chord that Page plays at the end of his guitar phrase, because it's completely absent from what Wolf is playing. Moreover, demonstrate how half of The Lemon Song in which a) Page plays a solo and b) Plant sings about "I fell asleep last night..." is present also in the Howlin Wolf song.

Do I need to demonstrate for you WHY the way Jimmy Page plays the riff in the Lemon Song is not "identical" to Howlin Wolf's song, or are you going to still insist it's exactly the same even when the phrasing is not continuous eighth notes, a different syncopation, and includes a 7#9 chord cadence?

Simlar does not equal identical. Stop contradicting yourself.

And now that it's been questioned, let me be clear what I mean when I say Led Zeppelin may have taken the theme of a song like Gallows Pole or The Lemon Song but they did not steal the composition. In a song, there are two types of themes, one is musical the other is lyrical. In a song with lyrics the melody is part of a theme but this is only one element of the whole composition. A so-called "riff" is also a melody. The two types of themes are only a basic structure from which variations are possible. When one of these variations appears AFTER the original song was created or recorded, it is quite possible to end up with a different musical composition.

The fact that it is being done by his heirs just shows the ridiculous levels some people will go to make money, in this case the "heirs" of Randy California.

There is another point in that music is evolutionary. Musicians often use and adapt. If musicians are afraid to innovate, improvise and evolve their art then we will be forever listening to manufactured crap and atrocious re-releases. Who's to say Randy California did not use others music to build his own compositions?

Anyway, very cynical about the motives of money grabbing descendants. If Randy California felt there was a case he should have run with it himself.

Regards

a reply to: Petros312

I humbly confess that I have made no such transcriptions. I could if I wanted to, but if I went to waste my time transcribing two songs just to win an argument with some aggressive person on the internet, it would not be my musical competence that should be in question, but my sanity. Great, by the way, to know that you are able to read music 'perfectly' — whatever that means. I can just about pick my way along a stave. Nonetheless, I feel quite comfortable standing by my earlier statement.

As for the rest of your post, I'd say it's a great example of being unable to see, not the wood for the trees but the wood for the bark of the trees. Or perhaps a better metaphor would be 'unable to hear the music, not for the notes, but rather, the transcriptions of the notes'?

About the '7#9 cadence': Jimmy probably stole it from Jimi.

Happy listening.

It's just a song....



Right?

I'm just going to weigh in on this subject as someone who plays various instruments for over 30 years. We have been using the same 12 bars now for 500 years and to name just one example : without Cream's "badge" there is no Boston's "more than a feeling" so lighten up . It's virtually impossible given the limited range we play in not to have overlap or examples of the usage of the same chords and riff lines.
This is a useless lawsuit and is a money grab plain and simple.

The point is....

The majority of Zep's music was created from other people's songs, not all of it necessarily stolen or plagiarized.

They were highly influenced by the Blues genre, as were most of the rock musicians of the 60's and 70's. They took other people's original songs and turned them into something magical.

It doesn't make a person any less of a fan of Led Zepplin... I too am a fan. But I'm not so blinded by my fandom that I refuse to admit that Zep was a cover band, first and foremost, above all else.

Another favourite cover artist of mine is Joe Cocker. The man could take anyone's song (legally) and turn it into an amazing piece of art. Which makes him a legend in his own right, just like Led Zepplin.

But to outright take someone else's riffs/lyrics, readjust them, and then not give credit to the original creator is just plain and simply... wrong. Led Zepplin did this numerous times, and they did not credit anyone on their albums until they were legally forced to do so. If you are in possession of Zep's original albums when they first came out, you can see this for yourself... it wasn't until many years later that the album covers were reprinted giving the proper credit to the originators.

If you are influenced by another musician's music, then at least be honest enough to give credit where credit is due.

a reply to: parker

without Cream's "badge" there is no Boston's "more than a feeling"

Or, for that matter, no 12-string chord break before the start of the solo in Stairway to Heaven.



Though Petros will be along in a moment, I'm sure, to tell us that Jimmy is playing a 7#9 chord just there, instead of a D major.

I agree with your post 100%, by the way.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
The point is....

The majority of Zep's music was created from other people's songs, not all of it necessarily stolen or plagiarized.

They were highly influenced by the Blues genre, as were most of the rock musicians of the 60's and 70's. They took other people's original songs and turned them into something magical.

It doesn't make a person any less of a fan of Led Zepplin... I too am a fan. But I'm not so blinded by my fandom that I refuse to admit that Zep was a cover band, first and foremost, above all else.

Another favourite cover artist of mine is Joe Cocker. The man could take anyone's song (legally) and turn it into an amazing piece of art. Which makes him a legend in his own right, just like Led Zepplin.

But to outright take someone else's riffs/lyrics, readjust them, and then not give credit to the original creator is just plain and simply... wrong. Led Zepplin did this numerous times, and they did not credit anyone on their albums until they were legally forced to do so. If you are in possession of Zep's original albums when they first came out, you can see this for yourself... it wasn't until many years later that the album covers were reprinted giving the proper credit to the originators.

If you are influenced by another musician's music, then at least be honest enough to give credit where credit is due.

Hey cranial sponge
You make some very valid points in the case of Zepp after listening to the video montage posted on here of various examples of not only chord progressions but verbatim lyrics any lawyer with some experience could make a case due to past infringement.
My biggest beef (worry) is that a precedent setting case like this would take far ranging liberties in this area of musical intellectual property to far... Does this mean the next time I play a 12 bar blues in A that I have to get the express written consent of Robert Johnson's estate and please don't tell me that this is a far fetched example, we all know how litigious Americans are. These cases could tie up courts for a100 years.
The other important example of the actual music for STH is that the picked notes and chord structure of this opening riff are in an ascending manner. There are only certain augmented,flat,and diminished variations that work with an a ascending pattern that is pleasing to the ear and make sense lyrically.

Another incredibly stupid example of this is the joe satriani suit against Coldplay in which the musical chord structure has been used many,many times in other songs over the years...due to the fact that it only makes musical sense to play it in and follow that same pleasing structure. If that's the case then Joe owes a lot of money to the others before him.

And one other precedent that could be used in this STH case is that this was a form of sampling that existed well before the land mark case that allowed hip hop and rappers to use a certain amount of music without royalty. that's if jimmy page admits to using spirits lick which I doubt he would.

honestly, i have pretty much lost interest in this but i do have a theory. maybe...well, more like a question.

this randy california is long gone so not going after zep. its his heirs.

so here is the question?

do we know what randy california's intention was when he wrote this song? i mean its his people going after zep, not him.
maybe, just maybe randy california is one of those types of song writers that write songs and want them to be covered.

its a stretch i know but people like that do exist.
one guy that comes to mind(who just passed btw) is jj cale.

he stated numerous times in interviews that he wrote songs so that people would cover them and it worked out wonderful for him, and the band that covered him.

after midnight...clapton...that was a cale song
coc aine...clapton...cale again
the breeze....skynard....jj cale again


its a stretch but it is a possibility.

Good point as in most of these cases it's the family or a drunk uncle who decides that he wants a chunk of Zepp money not the original artist.

Maybe the state or city of Randy California should sue for use of its state name.

I'm going to be real "aggressive" and post a transcription The Lemon Song

Take a look at measures 2, 4, 6, and 8 because they are completely absent from the song "Killing Floor" by Howlin' Wolf.

a reply to: Petros312

The portion you transcribed (or rather, the transcription by someone else to which you linked) is not the Killing Floor lift to which I earlier alluded. You'll find that in the first twelve bars of the guitar solo (which is played at a faster tempo than the rest of the song). It reproduces more or less identically the first twelve bars (sans the unaccompanied guitar intro) of Killing Floor. The guitar parts are near-identical, except that Page played the final flourish more fluently than Howlin' Wolf because, well, he could.

The songs also share a near-identical lyric in their first lines, but that's not where the real issue lies. The steal is in the solo.

Anyway, Petros, you're flogging a long-dead horse. Led Zeppelin were forced to acknowledge their plagiarism in The Lemon Song way back in 1972. Although the back cover of my ancient copy of Led Zeppelin II credits the song to 'Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and John Bonham', the label on the record unambiguously credits the song to 'Burnett' — alone. Howlin' Wolf's real name was Chester Burnett.

Here, see for yourself:


By the way, The Lemon Song also steals a lyric from Robert Johnson's Travelling Riverside Blues. The lyric is 'squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg'. Another direct lift, and rather harder to explain away than 'I should have quit you long time ago', no?

Johnson, perhaps fortunately, has no living relatives left to sue on his behalf.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The songs also share a near-identical lyric in their first lines, but that's not where the real issue lies...

Do you have any clue what a red herring is, or are you purposefully bringing up "issues" that don't support the lame notion that Led Zep stole somebody's song?

YOU are the only person creating the issue. YOU are flogging the dead horse with your accusations of Led Zep STEALING Howlin' Wolf's song, particularly given a) you now show that Howlin' Wolf actually DID received credit for the song's composition (i.e., yet another contradiction of the notion that the band "stole" the song), and b) your constant bickering over any "chunk" or "piece" of the Led Zep song that could in any way share similarities with the recording done by Howlin' Wolf. You provide no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the "riff" in both songs is IDENTICAL (your exact words from above), and when I post an accurate transcription of the Lemon Song by an unbiased third party (because you'll just tell me what I write is biased or wrong) you completely ignore the concrete evidence that from the onset of the riff in the song every other measure is completely different compared to the Howlin' Wolf song "Killing Floor."

Legally and logically, when every other measure of one song is completely different compared to another author's song, and this author claims that the song with every other measure being completely different was stolen, this author has no case legally or logically.



I can see it will forever be ingrained into your mind that when an artist is influenced by another person's song, and this song becomes the inspiration for a new song that in some way resembles the other song, it means the song has been STOLEN. There would be no new music if the laws actually reflected your perverse take on what can and what cannot be copyrighted (i.e., legally protected from being stolen).

originally posted by: Astyanax
"The guitar parts are near-identical..."

Sheer rubbish. Do you always speak with such oxymorons? Or do you only rely on them when desperate to win an argument?

originally posted by: Astyanax
The steal is in the solo.

There is no guitar solo that Jimmy Page plays in The Lemon Song that is the exclusive ownership of Chester Burnett. Are you next going to claim that Howlin' Wolf invented the I IV V blues chord progression?

originally posted by: Astyanax
By the way, The Lemon Song also steals a lyric from Robert Johnson's Travelling Riverside Blues. The lyric is 'squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg'. Another direct lift, and rather harder to explain away than 'I should have quit you long time ago', no?

Johnson, perhaps fortunately, has no living relatives left to sue on his behalf.

Relatives should sue? Yes, if they want to make complete fools out of themselves in court. You can't possibly believe that all songs using the single lyrical phrase, "Squeeze my lemon until the juice runs down my leg" deserve to be credited to Robert Johnson as one of the authors. What's next? --copyright the word "lemon" so that nobody else can ever use it to refer to a penis?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Led Zeppelin were forced to acknowledge their plagiarism in The Lemon Song way back in 1972. Although the back cover of my ancient copy of Led Zeppelin II credits the song to 'Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and John Bonham', the label on the record unambiguously credits the song to 'Burnett' — alone. Howlin' Wolf's real name was Chester Burnett.

Again, your perverse understanding of what is "plagiarism" could not be more clear. Just like on Led Zeppelin's first album where Willie Dixon was indicated as the author of two songs, they gave credit where credit was due. Nobody "forced" them to give credit to anyone. You continue to expose a sham argument accusing Led Zeppelin of stealing other people's songs when the real truth is no different than any other rock and roll artist from the earliest of times until now: They are all being influenced by the same musical styles. Yet another case in which I am absolutely sure you will say this band "stole" the main riff in the song "Killing Floor" by Howlin' Wolf:



If you're going to continue a dialog with me, you really should stop contradicting yourself. That's not an "aggressive" statement. It's only logical.

a reply to: Petros312

Cool rant. You should set it to music.

All the facts are against you — musicological, historical, legal. It might help if you actually read the posts in this thread, and listened to the recordings that have been posted.

Even so, you're welcome to your opinion, just like everyone else.

Just try not to get so excited while sharing it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312

Cool rant. You should set it to music.

All the facts are against you — musicological, historical, legal...

Even so, you're welcome to your opinion, just like everyone else.

Just try not to get so excited while sharing it.

You're only showing immaturity both as a musician and logical thinker if rather than rational discourse you resort to bratty comments when your opinion is challenged.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
...the guitar/bass riff in The Lemon song is as close to identical with the one from Killing Floor as anyone can tell without a note-for-note transcription. You can't hear Wolf's guitar very well on the latter, but he's playing the same notes Jimmy's playing.

You have declined a simple challenge regarding a comparison of "The Lemon Song" and "Killing Floor," which is very telling. There is no "musicological" basis for claiming that the guitar riff in The Lemon Song is "identical" (your words), as both the transcription proves and an unbiased ear can hear because every other measure of The Lemon Song riff (and indeed most of the actual composition) is absent from the Howlin' Wolf song. You are ignoring this fact. There is no historical "fact" against this. The only thing against this fact is your perverse opinion (which is not based on the legal definition of copyright infringement) regarding what it means to "steal" something.

You first say that the song was stolen, then you admit that the author's name appears on the album. That's a total contradiction. You are not stealing a song when you have clearly given the author credit. The band has made it clear they have been influenced by early blues artists like Willile Dixon, and you equate this with "stealing" his songs even when the author's name appears on the album. Hence, you are spreading lies.

I said that Led Zeppelin has admitted to being influenced by early blues and it's musical themes, Page was influenced by the style of playing you hear in Jansch's version of a traditional folk song (which nobody can claim a copyright to), and with songs like Gallows Pole or The Lemon Song there are sections of the Led Zep songs that resemble other songs, but they did not "steal" the actual compositions. This would be the reasonable position of someone who does not have a perverse understanding of what it means to "steal" someone's song, but you're set in your misunderstanding of what can and what cannot be copyrighted. You made all the following accusations and statements:

1. The overgeneralized statements: Led Zeppelin are "frightful thieves" and Jimmy Page is a "miser."

2. The Led Zep song "Boogie with Stu" (not on Zeppelin III as you claim above) was stolen from the song "Ooh My Head" by Ritchie Valens.

3. "Other" Led Zeppelin songs had their credits changed because of legal threats (but you mention none of these cases).

4. "The Lemon Song" was stolen from Howlin Wolf's song "Killing Floor."

5. "Black Mountain Side" was stolen from Bert Jansch's song "Black Waterside" (even though it's not his song).

6. "Whole Lotta Love" was stolen from Willie Dixon's song "You Need Love."

7. Led Zeppelin PLAGIARIZED "a lot of their material" (definition of plagiarism is a violation of copyright).

8. The people who defend Led Zeppelin's compositions as not stolen are making a special plea because we worship the band as if they are gods.

9. You have musical training to show how the compositions of early blues artists are exactly the same as what Led Zep recorded (but when a simple transcription is presented you apparently "see" notes and chords in the original song that just are not there).

10. Theme and melody in a song are identical (which is your own unrefined definition).

11. It does NOT follow that if a part of a song is taken from an earlier song the other song is stolen (and above outlines the SONGS you say were stolen, not the parts of the songs, which constitutes a contradiction).

12. Because the phrase, "Squeeze my lemon until the juice runs down my leg" appears in a song by Robert Johnson, he invented it, and his relatives have a legitimate law suit against Led Zeppelin for having used this one line in The Lemon Song.

13. The guitar riff in The Lemon Song is "identical" to what Howlin' Wolf plays in "Killing Floor" (and you have yet to produce a transcription of "Killing Floor" to prove this while ignoring the transcript I posted by an unbiased third party).

14. (Perhaps most absurd) Page stole the 7#9 chord from Jimi Hendrix (which means that Jimi Hendrix invented it).


You make a valuable argument for a sophist, but waste my time with opinions that have very little to do with a fair analysis.