Jump to content

Did Led Zeppelin Rip Off Spirit?


mjzee

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The nature of popular music (and classical music too) is that things get borrowed and reshaped.

Another comment from the NPR page: "Randy California's estate should share the proceeds with the Pachelbel, Purcell, and Vivaldi estates, among others. That lament bass line has been around for centuries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Davy Graham connection. Which makes me wonder if Page may not have absorbed that sequence in his times visitiing the English folk clubs. He has certainly been open about the influence of people like Jansch and Wizz Jones (who would have borrowed from elsewhere). Though given his lengthy session work I'd imagine he had an encyclopaedia of devices and borrowings in his head.

There's a nice clip on You Tube somewhere where Peter Townshend demonstrates how he borrowed an harmonic sequence from Purcell on at least one of The Who's big songs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zws6w

Edited by A Lark Ascending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how much traction this story has gotten in The Media.

Seems to me that Spirit's legal advisors are leaning heavily on the circumstantial evidence here: the touring together, the theremin thing, the previous borrowings of "Fresh Garbage" etc. Such evidence makes for a good story, but I wonder how much of a factor it would actually play in court proceedings. My gues is little to none (would it even be admissible?).

Then again, John Fogerty was once tried for basically plagiarizing himself (he both won and lost)... http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/jul/11/artsfeatures3

Jimmy Page didn't get rich by being scrupulously naive as to how the music biz works. Before Zeppelin was even a band, he made sure to get his publishing figured out (Superhype Music); he understood the value of having a Peter Grant as his manager; he is the Led Wallet.

As much as I love and admire Spirit's music, they and Lou Adler made some poor choices the consequences of which always seem to become compounded by bad luck. Turning down an invitation to perform at Woodstock; "1984" being, for all intents and purposes, suppressed; simply being from LA in the ROLLING STONE "everything from LA is plastic and yucky" era, etc.

All said, I'd much rather Randy California be remembered for his prodigal guitar playing -- what a tone! Josh Homme from Kyuss and Queens of the Stone Age seems to be one of the few contemporary guitarists to understand the power of Randy's idiosyncratic use of the fuzz box -- and his final act of heroism than the plaintiff in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does somebody want to write out the chords and melody so we have more to get hold of?

To my way of thinking (just comparing the two by listening), this ought to be unnecessary, but numerous musicians have commented on this topic by posting below the related articles on various sites (NPR, as linked above; Rolling Stone, etc etc):

"The minor descending line by half-steps is present in hundreds of musical pieces. So, there's no viable lawsuit. Moreover, the spirit line is the prosaic run-of-the-mill one. Led Zeppelin resolved it much more cleverly by going to Dm then Fmaj 7 then an open Gmajor hammered to Am, as well as having the high voice on the guitar intro ascend as the bottom voice descended. The MELODY of the Led Zeppelin song is nothing like the Spirit guitar intro. Nothing like Spirit. But the main point is that the descending line is common and not copyrightable. Moreover the law rarely adjudicates instrumental licks, but almost exclusively melodies and words. I'm a music pro with fifty years of experience. I know what I'm saying. Spirit should be embarrassed."

"...the lament bass descension in the Am-AmM7-AM7-D/F# progression is a pretty common musical statement and shows up in different keys in a wide range of songs and styles in Western music. It's been around for centuries. Also, Randy California's chord progression in Taurus doesn't resolve itself in the same way that Stairway to Heaven does.

Given that Led Zep and Spirit were hanging out for a time Page/Plant were probably influenced by California's use of the riff, but personally, I don't hear it as a ripoff. Page used the minor tetrachord with a more satisfying resolution and incorporated it into a better song."

"As several people have pointed out Davy Graham uses the same device in his version of Cry Me a River in 1959, though Graham is playing in 6/8 time and Stairway is 4/4. http://youtu.be/tWeejHJxGjs Graham, IMHO, is playing a variation on a Robert Johnson blues turnaround.

But the technique of a descending bass line against a minor chord is strongly associated with the operas of Monetverdi which is why musicians call it a "lament bass" (look it up). Beethoven uses the same device in the opening of the Moonlight Sonata (in Bm).

Stairway is nothing like "note for note". I wish non-musicians would stop saying this. In fact the only notes in common are the bass notes and the first chord. After that Stairway harmonises the bass line in an entirely different way to Taurus. Harmonically the tunes have little in common. Hardly any of the notes are the same. The rhythmic pattern is different as well. Stairway emphasises the upper voice in the chord, which actually ascends the scale for the first 3 notes (a b c) whereas Taurus emphasises the bass note.

There are many differences, but since the whole thing has been public domain *for centuries* who cares? You cannot plagiarise a public domain idea."

... and this interesting exchange:

"Why are people (even extremely educated people) having such a difficult time seeing what is obvious to anyone with an open ear and an open mind? Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata indeed uses the same "lament bass" (as does "Michelle" "Beck's Bolero," "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," and many, many others) and indeed, also utilizes several similar chords and involves descending arpeggios (only on the piano as opposed to the guitar), as well, but that's not what's being argued here.

What's being argued is that Zeppelin seemingly stole, almost wholesale, the complete guitar figure that comprises the intro of "Stairway." Did they add counterpoint melodic harmonies? Yes. Does the chord progression resolve (slightly) differently by adding a (brief) melodic ascension to resolve the progression? Yes to that as well.

But none of this negates the fact that Zeppelin stole the essential underpinning guitar figure in question (starting at approximately 0:45 and ending at approximately 1:11 in Spirit's "Taurus") and recycled it as the underpinning guitar figure for the intro to "Stairway," and no amount of musical accoutrement will change that fact.

While the chords themselves (and even the notes isolated within the respective chords) are not completely identical, the guitar figure itself is obviously borrowed in a way that I do not hear on any of the songs that you previously mentioned (and while I am not familiar with Montaverdi's 17th century operas, I am familiar with every other song you quoted).

In fact, the only similarities that any of these other songs have in common are similar chord progressions and, in several cases, descending arpeggios, but I do not hear that same central guitar figure anywhere else. I'm sorry. You're obviously very well musically educated (much more, I'll confess, than I am), but I believe you're wrong about this."

(and the response...)

"You need to prove two things.

  • 1. That Taurus is somehow original. It isn't, it's a public domain piece of music and has been for centuries. This is very clear. Spirit cannot claim to have composed either the musical device or even the guitar pattern (Davy Graham 1959 beats Spirit to the punch there). So the court case ceases before it starts. But you might still believe there is moral case to answer. In which case you need to prove:

    2. That Page was specifically copying Taurus.

    Page is even more likely to have been influenced by another British Guitarist. Davy Graham's lovely 6/8 blues version of Cry Me A River from 1959 which predates both tunes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    That said Page was using lament bass (in Am) in compositions as early as 1966 - Beck's Bolero - recycled in finger picking style as Babe I'm Gonna Leave You on the first LZ album. Taurus was said to be composed in 1968.

    Since Page was clearly exposed to the musical idea *before he met Spirit*, you can't prove that he copied from them specifically. In all likelihood they were both copying an existing piece of music - anything from Bach onwards might have inspired Page.

    It is true that Page and Plant plundered the 1960s British Blues repertoire to create many of their early numbers. And they've paid the price for being remiss in this area. But in this case it seems very unlikely and will be thrown out of court.

    I can't stop you believing what you believe. I can only show that it is irrational. I am not wrong. I'm self educated in music and did a little research to get up to speed on this issue - which very few other people seem to have bothered with."

I also just came across this (I can't vouch for its accuracy, but fwiw...), here: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/led-zeppelins-stairway-to-heaven-targeted-for-plagiarism-20140519

"The following is taken from a guitar tab website:

Many other versions of Taurus tab are incorrectly posted on the web with the

first 4 bars of Stairway to Heaven tab. These 2 songs, based on a commonly

used A minor descending chromatic walk are vastly different in composition and complexity.

Only an amateur would confuse them for the same song.

(This tab has been corrected by Joe Spadaro)

Intro (4/4 time)

Am Am7 Amm7 Am6 Am D Am G

[ Tab from: http://www.guitaretab.com/s/sp... ]

E-----5-------5---|-----5-----5-5---|---5-5-----------|-----------------|

B-----5-----5-5---|---5-5-----5-5---|---5-5-----------|-----------------|

G---5-------5-----|---5-------5-5---|---3-3-----------|-----------------|

D-7-----7-6-----6-|-5-----5-4-----4-|-3-------0-------|------------5-/6-|

A-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-0---------------|

E-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|

(Below is Stairway To Heaven intro tab for comparison.)

Stairway To Heaven

Led Zeppelin (1971)

The resolve here is pure genius.

Intro (4/4 time)

Am Am7 Amm7 D F G Am F E

E-------5-7-----7-|-8-----8-2-----2-|-0---------0-----|-----------------|

B-----5-----5-----|---5-------3-----|---1---1-----1---|-0-1-1-----------|

G---5---------5---|-----5-------2---|-----2---------2-|-0-2-2-----------|

D-7-------6-------|-5-------4-------|-3---------------|-----------------|

A-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-2-0-0---0--/8-7-|

E-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see an (presumably) accurate and detailed discussion of the musical particularities involved, and a recognition that the legal, aesthetic and moral issues are (at least) three different things. Next step would be to use these to dig into the evident disconnect between what musicians think the're doing and what their audience thinks the're doing... Back to the topic at hand, seems a much weaker case than the Jake Holmmes (?) has never brought (?) for Dazed and Confused, or the ones they settled with Willie Dixon's people - it's just a somewhat similar guitar intro, which was only sorta Spirit's to start with, that they could have had other sources for, and really how much did that contribute to the success of the song as a whole, either musically or commercially - I'd say what sold the song more than any of the details was the overall build-up from quiet beginning to pounding end, and that's been done a million times too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Nice to see an (presumably) accurate and detailed discussion of the musical particularities involved, and a recognition that the legal, aesthetic and moral issues are (at least) three different things. Next step would be to use these to dig into the evident disconnect between what musicians think the're doing and what their audience thinks the're doing... Back to the topic at hand, seems a much weaker case than the Jake Holmmes (?) has never brought (?) for Dazed and Confused, or the ones they settled with Willie Dixon's people - it's just a somewhat similar guitar intro, which was only sorta Spirit's to start with, that they could have had other sources for, and really how much did that contribute to the success of the song as a whole, either musically or commercially - I'd say what sold the song more than any of the details was the overall build-up from quiet beginning to pounding end, and that's been done a million times too...

No comments? Then can I assume you all agree with me? That would be a first...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Ted Gioia's take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/25/did-led-zeppelin-steal-stairway-to-heaven.html

My 2¢: Led Zeppelin's least obvious example "borrowing." But factor in Zeppelin's history of claiming other people's songs as their own plus the touring with Spirit connection, there is a case. The plus side is I hope more people will check out Spirit, which was a really interesting band filled with different personalities (jazz drummer, pop singer, guitar hero, etc.), but was plagued by bad luck and poor decision-making (lack of support for "1984" single, skipping Woodstock, the Randy California-Neil Young blow-up, infighting, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • 3 years later...

Led Zeppelin will be re-climbing the stairway to a federal courthouse after a federal appeals court on Friday ordered a new trial in a case accusing the legendary rock band of ripping off one of rock’s most recognized riffs.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/29/led-zeppelin-forced-to-defend-stairway-to-heaven-in-court-again/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The courts said that "My Sweet Lord" plagiarized "He's So Fine". Now these same courts say that "Stairway to Heaven" didn't plagiarize "Taurus".

Sit down in front of anyone and play "Taurus" and watch what they say. It will be some variation of "They ripped off Stairway To Heaven!".

Once again, Joe Q Public gets told that their ears are faulty by some morons in a courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was probably not the case that should have precipitated a correction in the application of the inverse ratio rule. I mean, it looks like some long-term good has probably been done, but at the expense of the plaintiffs in this specific case. (That LZ's liberal borrowing from Spirit's catalog overall -- "Fresh Garbage" being a staple of their live sets in the early days -- strikes me as less than circumstantial.) The bad luck streak continues for Spirit...

Edited by Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EKE BBB said:

LZ plagiarized. Everybody plagiarized. That's rock. That's life.

And not just rock.  This Month's BBC Music Magazine has a column on the subject.  Excerpt: "It's just as well copyright law didn't exist in the 18th and 19th centuries, because composers often cannibalised each other's tunes.  Without Mozart remodeling Handel (in his Requiem), Brahms recomposing Bach and Schubert, Wagner rewriting Berlioz and Liszt (in Tristan and Isolde), classical music wouldn't be as fruitful.  Thankfully, the repertoire was enriched by these creative reworking - rather than the pockets of musical lawyers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The era of successful plaintiffs cases may be over for awhile.

The ‘Blurred Lines’ Case Scared Songwriters. But Its Time May Be Up.

“In the five years since a federal jury decided that Robin Thicke’s hit song “Blurred Lines” had copied Marvin Gaye’s disco-era standard “Got to Give It Up,” the music industry has been in an anxious state about copyright.

That case and others raised serious questions about the legal protections available for music: When does homage become plagiarism? When does a common chord progression become one songwriter’s property? Songwriters and producers worriedthat their next hit could make them the target of a lawsuit.

But the tide may be changing, after two court decisions this month addressed important aspects of how copyright applies to music — and, in many cases, may make it more difficult to prove that one song copied another.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

While sampling can usually be determined fairly precisely using the right technological tools, the question of infringing copyright in a distinct composition seems much more subjective and even error-prone particularly when left in the hands of a jury.  All kinds of songs sound like other songs for the untrained ear, though experts usually say there are critical differences (or often say that chord sequences in and of themselves cannot be under copyright).  In my view, the Blurred Lines case was wrongly decided (and then upheld on appeal, unless I am mistaken).  I personally don't see how music can evolve when a small number of musicians aggressively pursue copyright cases, often trying to shake down the big fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...