Jump to content

Did Led Zeppelin Rip Off Spirit?


mjzee

Recommended Posts

For live audiences, Stairway’s power starts with its introductory notes. “Can you think of another song, any song, for which, when its first chord is played, an entire audience of 20,000 rise spontaneously to their feet, not just to cheer or clap hands, but in acknowledgment of an event that is crucial for all of them?” Observercritic Tony Palmer wrote in a 1975 profile. Dave Lewis writes in Led Zeppelin: The Complete Guide to Their Music that “Stairway has a pastoral opening cadence that is classical in feel and which has ensured its immortality.”

But what if those opening notes weren’t actually written by Jimmy Page or any member of Led Zeppelin? What if the foundation of the band’s immortality had been lifted from another song by a relatively forgotten California band?

More here:

Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rooster Ties is being ironic. There has been massive controversy for decades on the Led Zeppelin writing credits, and I have generally found them "guilty as charged". And they most definitely are guilty here (I loved Spirit, play them a lot more than I play Led Zeppelin), on "Whole Lotta Love", on "Black Mountain Side", on "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", on "How Many More Times" etc. They've even discreetly admitted so at times,with "amended" composition credits. They are hardly alone in that regard, but were incredibly blatant, and there was a lot of songwrting royalty money involved, so it has drawn a lot of attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rooster Ties is being ironic. There has been massive controversy for decades on the Led Zeppelin writing credits, and I have generally found them "guilty as charged". And they most definitely are guilty here (I loved Spirit, play them a lot more than I play Led Zeppelin), on "Whole Lotta Love", on "Black Mountain Side", on "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", on "How Many More Times" etc. They've even discreetly admitted so at times,with "amended" composition credits. They are hardly alone in that regard, but were incredibly blatant, and there was a lot of songwrting royalty money involved, so it has drawn a lot of attention.

Right. More money involved, more people offended. It's not something the Stones haven't done on EVERY one of their records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a Led Zepplin fan, and never really have been. I think they are over-celebrated, and STH has to be near the top of the list of all-time over-played songs (particularly in guitar shops).

I know about some of LZ's ripoff history, but this one is a real stretch. Sure, the opening of STH was very likely inspired by "Taurus", with LZ having toured with Spirit. The intros are similar in structure. But they're not the same. Anybody with half an ear should be able to handle the quiz at the above link. It's an intro, for pete's sake (not a "melody", as some have referred to it, although STH's intro has more of a melodic quality to it than Taurus has). It's just a similar chord sequence. With different variations, and with very differing final measures. To me, it's kind of crazy for a complaint like this to surface, and it's sad what greed can do to people. As Bev suggests, this kind of thing only happens when big money is involved, and in this case, I hope it's determined that the plaintiffs have no case (and that's based entirely on my view about the specific musical sequences being compared here).

Meanwhile, I'm glad I followed the story, because in the process I learned about the unfortunate but interesting story of Randy California's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a Led Zepplin fan, and never really have been. I think they are over-celebrated, and STH has to be near the top of the list of all-time over-played songs (particularly in guitar shops).

I know about some of LZ's ripoff history, but this one is a real stretch. Sure, the opening of STH was very likely inspired by "Taurus", with LZ having toured with Spirit. The intros are similar in structure. But they're not the same. Anybody with half an ear should be able to handle the quiz at the above link. It's an intro, for pete's sake (not a "melody", as some have referred to it, although STH's intro has more of a melodic quality to it than Taurus has). It's just a similar chord sequence. With different variations, and with very differing final measures. To me, it's kind of crazy for a complaint like this to surface, and it's sad what greed can do to people. As Bev suggests, this kind of thing only happens when big money is involved, and in this case, I hope it's determined that the plaintiffs have no case (and that's based entirely on my view about the specific musical sequences being compared here).

Meanwhile, I'm glad I followed the story, because in the process I learned about the unfortunate but interesting story of Randy California's death.

While I agree with you, it's not impossible to sue someone over the instrumental intro to a song.

Keith Jarrett sued Donald Fagen and Walter Becker over the intro to their tune "Gaucho", and won.

If you look at the credits to that song on any recording done after the case, Jarrett's name is on there, along with Becker and Fagen.

That's the best they could hope for- partial credit.

As far as getting full credit, LZ would have had tohave used eight or more melody notes from Taurus for them to get da whole pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any recordings of Zep playing Spirit songs?

Bertrand.

Only boots. But just about every Zeppelin show can be had via taper trees and such.

PS - Jay Ferguson did indeed pen the theme music to the American version of THE OFFICE. He has also written for one of the NCIS franchises. But in rockier times...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KoqgALsa_I

Joe Walsh handled the guitar solo on the studio version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they did. Even the sonics of the solo guitar sound similar. It's probably one of those incidents where they heard it, thought it was a nice little bit and said to themselves, "That's a nice bit there but here's what I would have done with it." and it went from there. Had I heard the Spirit song not knowing it preceded Stairway To Heaven, I would have thought they were ripping off Led Zep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been noted for sometime. There's even a reference on both Spirit's Wikipedia page and the Wikipedia page for Stairway To Heaven, and both were there before the lawsuit became known:

From Spirit's Wikipedia page: They capitalized on the success of their first album with another single, "I Got A Line On You". Released in November 1968, a month before their second album, The Family That Plays Together, it became their biggest hit single, reaching No. 25 on the charts (#28 in Canada). The album matched its success, reaching No. 22. They also went on tour that year with support band Led Zeppelin, who were heavily influenced by Spirit—Led Zeppelin played an extended medley during their early 1969 shows that featured "Fresh Garbage" among other songs, Jimmy Page's use of a theremin has been attributed to his seeing Randy California use one that he had mounted to his amplifier,[1] and it is now widely accepted that Page lifted the descending guitar figure from Spirit's instrumental "Taurus" for Led Zeppelin's signature tune "Stairway To Heaven".[2]

From the Stairway To Heaven Wikipedia page: Over the years, a number of people have put forth the opinion that the song's introduction, and opening guitar arpeggios, bear a close resemblance to the 1968 instrumental "Taurus" by the group Spirit.[10][21] Zeppelin opened for Spirit in an early American tour, leaving little doubt that Led Zeppelin had heard the Spirit song before "Stairway to Heaven" was written. In the liner notes to the 1996 reissue of Spirit's debut album, songwriter Randy California writes: People always ask me why "Stairway to Heaven" sounds exactly like "Taurus", which was released two years earlier. I know Led Zeppelin also played "Fresh Garbage" in their live set. They opened up for us on their first American tour.[22][23]

Edited by mjzee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they did. Even the sonics of the solo guitar sound similar. It's probably one of those incidents where they heard it, thought it was a nice little bit and said to themselves, "That's a nice bit there but here's what I would have done with it." and it went from there. Had I heard the Spirit song not knowing it preceded Stairway To Heaven, I would have thought they were ripping off Led Zep.

I think this type of view is too simplistic. Yes, I think it's highly likely that the STH intro was inspired by Taurus, but you yourself said that Page's approach was to say "here's what I would have done with it". This implies the very point that I tried to make, which is that what Page did was to change it (even if only slightly). It is different! How many examples from the history of music (or even just popular music) can be cited where people borrowed a phrase like this and created a variation on it? It's basically a simple descending chord sequence, and no doubt a very old one (in relatively recent times, songs like "Michelle", "Time In A Bottle", and "Chim Chim Cheree" use the same basic phrase). How is that something that someone ought to be able to claim as their own? The Taurus line is really fairly simple. I'm sure if we really wanted to, we could find other pieces of music that used the same phrase from Taurus, and perhaps more closely resembling it than the STH intro did (the Taurus line is simpler and more likely to be common to other songs, imo). I'm just really uncomfortable with the idea that a fairly simple and basic musical phrase like that is something that someone should be able to claim a copyright on. Would the Spirit members have objected so much about this "ripoff" if STH hadn't become so popular and such a big $eller? Of course not, and does anyone think that Taurus would have become a huge seller if not for STH coming along to steal that magnificent musical phrase from Taurus? Come on, now. I still think this particular complaint stinks, even not being a LZ devotee, knowing that they have been guilty of ripping off songs, and even knowing how much money STH must have made them. This wasn't a case of an actual song ripoff.

Edited by Jim R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is too simplistic a view but there's just too much there to dismiss the claim as not having substance. Opportunistic and money driven? For certain, but the bands played together at the time, the guitar sounds the same as if it was recorded the same way, the feel and mood are the same and the solo is the same in large part. If or when this goes to court, I don't like Led Zep's chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I found that finding the tracks LZ "borrowed" has made a fine primer for building a decent blues collection. And although covering the blues, LZ is distinctly rock and not blues. They had great taste in selecting what to steal and rockify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they did. Even the sonics of the solo guitar sound similar. It's probably one of those incidents where they heard it, thought it was a nice little bit and said to themselves, "That's a nice bit there but here's what I would have done with it." and it went from there. Had I heard the Spirit song not knowing it preceded Stairway To Heaven, I would have thought they were ripping off Led Zep.

I think this type of view is too simplistic. Yes, I think it's highly likely that the STH intro was inspired by Taurus, but you yourself said that Page's approach was to say "here's what I would have done with it". This implies the very point that I tried to make, which is that what Page did was to change it (even if only slightly). It is different! How many examples from the history of music (or even just popular music) can be cited where people borrowed a phrase like this and created a variation on it? It's basically a simple descending chord sequence, and no doubt a very old one (in relatively recent times, songs like "Michelle", "Time In A Bottle", and "Chim Chim Cheree" use the same basic phrase). How is that something that someone ought to be able to claim as their own? The Taurus line is really fairly simple. I'm sure if we really wanted to, we could find other pieces of music that used the same phrase from Taurus, and perhaps more closely resembling it than the STH intro did (the Taurus line is simpler and more likely to be common to other songs, imo). I'm just really uncomfortable with the idea that a fairly simple and basic musical phrase like that is something that someone should be able to claim a copyright on. Would the Spirit members have objected so much about this "ripoff" if STH hadn't become so popular and such a big $eller? Of course not, and does anyone think that Taurus would have become a huge seller if not for STH coming along to steal that magnificent musical phrase from Taurus? Come on, now. I still think this particular complaint stinks, even not being a LZ devotee, knowing that they have been guilty of ripping off songs, and even knowing how much money STH must have made them. This wasn't a case of an actual song ripoff.

This makes sense to me. I listened to the track in question and it's little more than a sketch with a common chord progression.

Strikes me the ripping off is by whoever is trying to make money out of the court case; ambulance chasing.

The nature of popular music (and classical music too) is that things get borrowed and reshaped. Think what Brahms did with the 'Ode to Joy'.

If the lawyers were to get open book on chord progressions then an awful lot of Swing and Bebop estates are going to be in for a hammering.

Anyway if Led Zepp lose the case and have a huge bill they can compensate by going for all the heavy metal bands that adapted their approach.

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

Perhaps it is too simplistic a view but there's just too much there to dismiss the claim as not having substance. Opportunistic and money driven? For certain, but the bands played together at the time, the guitar sounds the same as if it was recorded the same way, the feel and mood are the same and the solo is the same in large part. If or when this goes to court, I don't like Led Zep's chances.

Although I see it differently, I respect your opinion (sincerely), and I hope I didn't come across as too confrontational about it. I'm not sure I really care about this any more than Lon does (I won't be writing my congressperson), but as I reflect back on what I posted yesterday, I guess I was pretty fired up. ;) And Bev, I agree- it could become an even more "slippery slope".

Edit: It might go without saying, but I just wanted to add that I'm motivated to discuss this from a musical/musician's standpoint, not that of a legal or cultural activist. For me it's purely about the logic of the musical aspects involved here.

Edited by Jim R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Stairway to Heaven and Taurus.... but Zep sure did rip off the Small Faces on a tune or two (I am thinking "You Need Loving" by the Small Faces....Plant has pretty much acknowledged this and his singing style is oh so like Marriott's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just reading a few articles about the story online. I read this piece at NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314256004/led-zeppelin-sued-over-stairway-to-heaven-guitar-line

One commenter mentioned that the line had been stolen by Spirit, from a recording by a british folk guitarist named Davy Graham (from his version of "Cry Me A River", recorded in 1963). Listen at roughly 19 seconds elapsed, to 22 seconds elapsed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-2xz-ddK2s

Not only did I expect this (I already mentioned the likelihood, above), but I expect that Davy Graham did not invent this musical sequence, either. It's far too straightforward a musical phrase for us to expect that it isn't as old as dirt!!

I saw a new youtube video where lawyers and analysts were discussing this suit on a recent tv show. It was mentioned that legally, there's no need for an "expert" to make the plaintiff's case valid. All it takes, as she explained it, was for a group of "ordinary people" to listen to the two songs in question, and if enough of them agree that the complaint is legitimate, then it's legitimate. This gets to the core of what bothers me about this whole thing. "Ordinary people", in general, do not understand the intricacies of making music. To the average person, music is about fame and image and popularity. The average person does not understand how music works. In cases like this, instead of the emphasis being on education, understanding, and decency, it becomes all about lawsuits and sensational news stories.

Edited by Jim R
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...