Stop me if you've heard this one before...

[MarkGrace]

Led Zeppelin sued for songwriting credits!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...d-and-confused

I'm curious as to whether all the controversy surrounding their songs has changed your impression of them? It definitely has for me, though they are still one of my favorite bands ever,

[Green Lantern]

Led Zeppelin sued for songwriting credits!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...d-and-confused

I'm curious as to whether all the controversy surrounding their songs has changed your impression of them? It definitely has for me, though they are still one of my favorite bands ever,

Wow. Well, I've long thought that Zeppelin's first albums are less about the actual songs (since several of them on I and II are recycled blues numbers) and more about the arrangements, performances and musicianship. So I guess I just hope that Jimmy Page keeps playing rocking Dazed and Confused riffs and this Holmes fella gets some $ every time he does. Seems fair.

[BigFatMeanie]

Led Zeppelin sued for songwriting credits!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...d-and-confused

I'm curious as to whether all the controversy surrounding their songs has changed your impression of them? It definitely has for me, though they are still one of my favorite bands ever,

It hasn't changed my impression. They are not one of my favorite bands ever but are indeed my favorite band ever.

Musicians, artists, and other creative types build off each others work all the time. Entire genres of music (folk music, blues, gospel, etc.) have shared sources. The fact that Holmes waited 40 years to sue says something about how much "damage" he suffered. It also says something about how lawyers have so badly skewed the creative commons towards "intellectual property rights".

IP lawyers envision a world in which every thought and impression a person has is timestamped, cataloged, and the rights duly claimed, regardless of whether the person ever uses that idea to produce something of value to society. I do not share nor support their vision.

[Green Lantern]

It hasn't changed my impression. They are not one of my favorite bands ever but are indeed my favorite band ever.

Musicians, artists, and other creative types build off each others work all the time. Entire genres of music (folk music, blues, gospel, etc.) have shared sources. The fact that Holmes waited 40 years to sue says something about how much "damage" he suffered. It also says something about how lawyers have so badly skewed the creative commons towards "intellectual property rights".

IP lawyers envision a world in which every thought and impression a person has is timestamped, cataloged, and the rights duly claimed, regardless of whether the person ever uses that idea to produce something of value to society. I do not share nor support their vision.

Have you listened to the Holmes song though? I think there's a big difference between building on what came before and stealing a song. Do I know where exactly that line lies? Well I'll give the classic pornography answer "I know it when I see it" and this seems to be a case of plagiarism.

[MarkGrace]

Musicians, artists, and other creative types build off each others work all the time. Entire genres of music (folk music, blues, gospel, etc.) have shared sources.

I'm all for this. I also don't think this is what Zep has done. I mean come on, I'm not really down with stuff like this, despite the fact that I like all the songs: http://www.associatedcontent.com/vid...s_.html?cat=33

IP lawyers envision a world in which every thought and impression a person has is timestamped, cataloged, and the rights duly claimed, regardless of whether the person ever uses that idea to produce something of value to society. I do not share nor support their vision.

Maybe. But I swear I've seen few bands sued for credits as much as Zeppelin. They were even forced to credit other artists -- that they didn't credit originally -- on their greatest hits. That goes beyond mere building on another artist's work, because despite what you say about IP lawyers, there has to be merit to win these things.

[MarkGrace]

Have you listened to the Holmes song though? I think there's a big difference between building on what came before and stealing a song. Do I know where exactly that line lies? Well I'll give the classic pornography answer "I know it when I see it" and this seems to be a case of plagiarism.

The radio played a live clip today, which was recorded when he was on tour with Zep. The live bit sounded ever closer than the studio version.

[MarkGrace]

Wow. Well, I've long thought that Zeppelin's first albums are less about the actual songs (since several of them on I and II are recycled blues numbers) and more about the arrangements, performances and musicianship. So I guess I just hope that Jimmy Page keeps playing rocking Dazed and Confused riffs and this Holmes fella gets some $ every time he does. Seems fair.

I agree with you there, and I still love them for all that stuff. But finding out about the lack of originality with some of their songs does bother me a little bit (having been raised to think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread).

And I'm even ok with them borrowing if the original artist gets credit. Coldplay used the melody from a Kraftwerk song in their song Talk, but they asked permission, gave them credit in the liner notes, and paid them royalties. I just don't think it's very cool to jack people's shit for nothing.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C0rYO1GDyis&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C0rYO1GDyis&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[Green Lantern]

The radio played a live clip today, which was recorded when he was on tour with Zep. The live bit sounded ever closer than the studio version.

I'll have to look for that one. Here's a good little opinion piece on the question of Zep's originality. And here's a great quote from Robert Plant regarding the Willie Dixon/Whole Lotta Love suit:

Page's riff was Page's riff. It was there before anything else. I just thought, 'well, what am I going to sing?' That was it, a nick. Now happily paid for. At the time, there was a lot of conversation about what to do. It was decided that it was so far away in time (it was in fact 7 years) and influence that...well, you only get caught when you're successful. That's the game.

Interesting stuff, and I say that as a huge Zeppelin fan.

[wuapinmon]

I can remember an MTVNews interview with Plant or Page where they were really indignant about this song:

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9mGMyQQvPGM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9mGMyQQvPGM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[BigFatMeanie]

But it doesn't really matter if LZ jacked the song or not. They were the ones that made it what it is today - a classic. Holmes didn't make it a hit. Even if LZ copied the song note-for-note, they obviously did something different to it to make their version a hit while Holmes' version never made a splash.

Explain to me how Holmes is any different than a patent troll in this situation? basically sat on something (be it a tune, an idea, an algorithm, a whatever) for 40 years, producing nothing of value beyond the original thing, and then turned around and sued after someone had added real value to that thing.

Should LZ have credited Holmes? Sure. Does that mean they owe him something 40 years later? Not in my opinion. As I've said before in a certain prior thread on this board about intellectual property rights, one can argue what the law is but I'm arguing what it should be.

[beelzebabette]

producing nothing of value beyond the original thing

:finger3:
Signed,
American Songwriters Association

[MarkGrace]

But it doesn't really matter if LZ jacked the song or not. They were the ones that made it what it is today - a classic. Holmes didn't make it a hit. Even if LZ copied the song note-for-note, they obviously did something different to it to make their version a hit while Holmes' version never made a splash.

Explain to me how Holmes is any different than a patent troll in this situation? basically sat on something (be it a tune, an idea, an algorithm, a whatever) for 40 years, producing nothing of value beyond the original thing, and then turned around and sued after someone had added real value to that thing.

I have to say that I completely disagree with you here, and not just on the legal aspect. To me, if you create something, you have rights to it, no matter what subsequently happens with it. I'm not allowed allowed to go grab someone else's personal property just because I think I can make better use of it -- I'm not sure why that idea should end at IP. In a broader sense, the ability of a person to create something and have it protected is fundamental to our social structure, and you're in essence arguing against this. I'm just not buying, and I highly doubt there are may -- if any -- recording artists out there that would disagree with this.

Why did Holmes wait so long? I have no idea. Due to the SOL he's limited to royalties of the last three years, so there were obviously times when exercising his right would have been more financially prudent. Not sure why he's doing it now, but why he's doing it now and whether or not he wins this individual case is not really my point. At this juncture Holmes is just one of the many artists that have taken up disputes with Zep, and despite what you may think of the law, it is currently in place, and even under these standards few artists have been involved in as many controversies as The Mighty Zep

But my bigger question, independent of the legal ramifications, is one of artistic integrity. Does your opinion of the band change in any way knowing that much of what they did wasn't original? Clearly you'd answer no, as you've already stated they are your favorite band. For me, it does, as I think it has marred an otherwise brilliant career. I just think a little less of them given all this stuff that has come out.

[Green Lantern]

But my bigger question, independent of the legal ramifications, is one of artistic integrity. Does your opinion of the band change in any way knowing that much of what they did wasn't original? Clearly you'd answer no, as you've already stated they are your favorite band. For me, it does, as I think it has marred an otherwise brilliant career. I just think a little less of them given all this stuff that has come out.

I don't think we disagree on this but I would say that it's not even whether they write their songs that makes them a great band. A band can be great without writing their own songs. They can certainly be original in many other ways too. It bothers me that they are willing to take credit for work that is not their own.