Your Thoughts on this?

[The Beatles]

Some background info:

Led Zeppelin opened for the band Spirit two years before the song Stairway To Heaven was released. So, whats your opinion? Coincidence or blatant plagiarism?

Personally, Im calling plagiarism. The fact that George Harrison got sued and Led Zeppelin didn't is outrageous. The riffs are practically the same. Ridiculous...

 

[AboutAGirl]

Been there, done that. My bro spent a good bit of time on it and put together this rather comprehensive website.

Me, I don't think they did anything wrong. It's natural to take direct inspiration from other bands to craft something new. Some people do it more subtly and some do it pretty obviously but it's the same action and it results in a new work in both cases.

 

[OptimisticFutureBlues]

Music in general has become evolutionary, there is not much more room to experiment anymore without sounding ridiculous. Its hard to find a band that is truly plowing territory that another band hasn't, while maintaining a public favor.

In the end its all about how good you are at disguising your plagiarism, and how well you blend that material with your own minds makings to make it into something unique..ish.


Id say 39 years to discover plagiarism is a pretty fair job on Led Zeppelin's part. People have accused them of robbing the blues too, yet people like me still love them. Because only a partial robbery is acceptable, emulation is unacceptable

 

[the_spore]

Cracked covered this in of their articles.

The 5 Most Famous Musicians Who Are Thieving Bastards | Cracked.com

As much as I love Zeppelin, I have to say that it's plagiarism.

 

[OptimisticFutureBlues]

Pointing out their flaws and where they got their material doesn't take the money out of their pocket, the music out of your ears, or (in this case) put the proper respect into the heart of the original creator, want to know why?

Most of them are either dead, dying or heading somewhere similar. Music is a recycling process of great efficiency. A good example is Fleet Foxes. They base a lot of their music on baroque acoustic jams, much like musicians in the dark ages did. Now as far as I know everyone in the dark ages is deceased, BUT they are still the original creators of the genre, and possibly some of the chord changes. Does that mean that people should shy away from the band, because they are 'stealing' from a past genre. Even though it dates back hundreds of years?

Its all a bunch of pointless meddling. People calling this better than that, or who deserves what. Its music, if you enjoy it great. But if that plagiarism factor is too much for you, don't listen?

After enough time passes, it doesn't matter anyways who created what or who deserves credit.

 

[ladyislingering]

It isn't especially striking but there's a similarity, definitely.

 

[Soot and Stars]

Pointing out their flaws and where they got their material doesn't take the money out of their pocket, the music out of your ears, or (in this case) put the proper respect into the heart of the original creator, want to know why?

Most of them are either dead, dying or heading somewhere similar. Music is a recycling process of great efficiency. A good example is Fleet Foxes. They base a lot of their music on baroque acoustic jams, much like musicians in the dark ages did. Now as far as I know everyone in the dark ages is deceased, BUT they are still the original creators of the genre, and possibly some of the chord changes. Does that mean that people should shy away from the band, because they are 'stealing' from a past genre. Even though it dates back hundreds of years?

Its all a bunch of pointless meddling. People calling this better than that, or who deserves what. Its music, if you enjoy it great. But if that plagiarism factor is too much for you, don't listen?

After enough time passes, it doesn't matter anyways who created what or who deserves credit.

Like

Oh whoops, this isn't Facebook!

Seriously I agree with this only if it doesn't fall under hypocrisy. I believe that this issue is one that should be dealt with between the artist. The reaction is the responsibility of the listener. The listener has a choice of whether they support this but if it's to be a respectable choice in my opinion then accepting one bands theft means you should accept all bands theft and not just make excuses because you like the band and they made it sound AWESOME!!!! That would be where the hypocrisy part would fit. Taking someones chords and learning them without giving credit is only a few shades off from sampling IMO. Anyway, if a band I liked did this I would still lay claim to liking the band BUT I wouldn't argue that they weren't dicks to rob someone of their music without credit. Not everything a band does has to be defended. It's fine to still love the music but stealing is stealing, wrong is wrong, and no one is above those standards!

 

[Mr. Shadow]

Zeppelin "borrowed" lots of material.

 

[Harkat]

Music in general has become evolutionary, there is not much more room to experiment anymore without sounding ridiculous. Its hard to find a band that is truly plowing territory that another band hasn't, while maintaining a public favor.

In the end its all about how good you are at disguising your plagiarism, and how well you blend that material with your own minds makings to make it into something unique..ish.


Id say 39 years to discover plagiarism is a pretty fair job on Led Zeppelin's part. People have accused them of robbing the blues too, yet people like me still love them. Because only a partial robbery is acceptable, emulation is unacceptable

Exactly, as a human conscience, we have really reached an era were you can't have an original idea without that idea being inspired or based off other peoples idea/s

 

[OptimisticFutureBlues]

Exactly, as a human conscience, we have really reached an era were you can't have an original idea without that idea being inspired or based off other peoples idea/s

Touche good sir.