McCartney Blames Lennon

[KnappShack]

I wouldn't disagree for a moment that Jones and Bonham are two of the most influential figures in the history of their instruments. They certainly are. They make for a great cover band!

Now by popular demand! A list of some of the songs Zep stole from other artists:

• "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant."
• "Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch.
• "Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson).
• "Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown."
• "Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy."
• "Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes).
• "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down."
• "How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter."
• "In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut).
• "The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court.
• "Moby ****" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker.
• "Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues.
• "Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar.
• "Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is apparently from "Taurus" by Spirit.
• "White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair."
• "Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love."

I'm not listing covers that the band credited to the actual authors ("You Shook Me") or the less blatant ripoffs (the "Superstition" riff in "Trampled Underfoot").

http://www.warr.org/zep.html

The Beatles were a bit more than a cover band.

And from this list they were WAY ******* better than the Beatles

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I wouldn't disagree for a moment that Jones and Bonham are two of the most influential figures in the history of their instruments. They certainly are. They make for a great cover band!

Now by popular demand! A list of some of the songs Zep stole from other artists:

• "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant."
• "Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch.
• "Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson).
• "Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown."
• "Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy."
• "Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes).
• "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down."
• "How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter."
• "In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut).
• "The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court.
• "Moby ****" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker.
• "Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues.
• "Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar.
• "Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is apparently from "Taurus" by Spirit.
• "White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair."
• "Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love."

I'm not listing covers that the band credited to the actual authors ("You Shook Me") or the less blatant ripoffs (the "Superstition" riff in "Trampled Underfoot").

http://www.warr.org/zep.html

The Beatles were a bit more than a cover band.

I mean the Beatles were a watered-down pop band who decided to push the boundaries. Their popularity is the only thing that would let them do this and I would argue the greatest contribution they gave was to show people how to be an Enterprise in the music world. You can call led Zeppelin a cover band if you want but nobody else can play their music to this day like they could. You can't really say that about anybody, for example Jimi Hendrix was amazing but Stevie Ray Vaughan did it better.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

You did. In so many words.

No I just don't agree with ridiculous things like Ringo Starr invented pushing a beat with the upbeats, or that all music of popularity stemmed from the Beatles or that any of them were virtuosos at their instrument. Incredible songwriters, incredible entrepreneurs, great spokespeople but probably not the greatest band of all time. Thing is is most people would consider popularity and money earned as a great example for that of which would qualify for the greatest of all time but nobody touches Michael Jackson in that regard.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

The musical evolution to go from Revolver to Abbey Road in 37 months is crazy and absolutely insane when you realize Sgt Pepper's and The White Album happened in between.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

The musical evolution to go from Revolver to Abbey Road in 37 months is crazy and absolutely insane when you realize Sgt Pepper's and The White Album happened in between.

It is a drastic change I would agree but look at Pink Floyd from Sid Barrett to modern day they changed more than almost anybody in my opinion. Beatles also had tremendous funding and support and limited competition compared to where it went.

 

[cyclones500]

A slight quibble with your first point: Chuck Berry and James Brown both had crossover hits with their own songs. Berry played an electric guitar and Brown had electric guitars in his band.

True — but to clarify what I think @Go2Guy intended to say, it was rare for a guitar-based pop* BAND to write its own material, at that time. Obviously CB, JB, BH had groups but they were the focal point.

(*"Pop" was more common than using "rock 'n' roll" in that period, or so I've read -- that's why I chose pop instead of rock)

 

[cyclones500]

It's tricky to compare Zep & The Beatles ... it's like almost a separate strain of development. Zeppelin highly blues-influenced (also has the "mysticism" lyrically) - Beatles had varied influences, but initially sprang more from early rock 'n' roll (Berry, Holly, Presley, L-Richard) ... I know those summaries are extremely narrow, just a sample of why I'd have a difficult time to compare directly.

Certainly valid to compare impact (short- and long-term) and influence, certainly. And personal preference comes into play, of course.

Each group was innovative in its own way.

 

[Die4Cy]

This might be the best actual discussion of any topic I've read on CF.

I feel your enthusiasm for the Beatles reading, but I just haven't experienced it. I don't know why. I'm young enough that none of what they recorded seems innovative to what I grew up with has something to do with it. I say that recognizing that they pioneered much of what shaped the musicians I grew up with.

 

[matclone]

No I just don't agree with ridiculous things like Ringo Starr invented pushing a beat with the upbeats, or that all music of popularity stemmed from the Beatles or that any of them were virtuosos at their instrument. Incredible songwriters, incredible entrepreneurs, great spokespeople but probably not the greatest band of all time. Thing is is most people would consider popularity and money earned as a great example for that of which would qualify for the greatest of all time but nobody touches Michael Jackson in that regard.

I didn't make make any of those first two assertions, and your claim that they weren't virtuosos is, again, nonsense, and makes me wonder if you've ever played an instrument. It'd be like me arguing that Michael Jordan was not that great of a basketball player, or Dan Gable that great of a wrestler.

Money earned would not be my formula for the greatest of all time but then I didn't make any claims for that either.

I've never heard the Beatles described as entrepreneurs.

I guess music largely boils down to taste, but I haven't listened to Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix, or Pink Floyd or SRV for years, nor do I have any of their CDs or vinyls or cassettes in my large (so my wife says) collection of media. Not that they weren't good, but not my cup of tea.

 

[Entropy]

I once had a music professor make an argument that Wagner is the most important musician of the past 250 years. Notice I said "musician," not "composer," but yes, over all other composers of the past 2.5 centuries and then over all of the popular musicians of the past century or so for two simple reasons.

(1.) Wagner was the first composer to fully integrate leitmotif into his works. That is, musical cues can have thematic, character, and plot associations. Music can integrate with other levels of drama, not just "stand on its own" like it did with classical composers. Much of the music we hear nowadays is based around some type of leitmotif, ranging from videogames to film scores to rock and popular music. It's just everywhere.

(2.) Wagner deepened and darkened the sound of the orchestra. This is true in how he scored things and in adding new tenor and bass instruments to its sound as well as more percussion. This presaged everything that happened with music in both "high culture" and "low culture" ever since the late 1800s.

So forget John, Paul, and George, how about we give Richard Wagner some credit?!?

I'd agree with this.
I'd also argue that although Wagner set the stage, I think Tchaikovsky did a better job of making it more palatable it to the masses, particularly with hindsight.

 

[Sousaclone]

I'd agree with this.
I'd also argue that although Wagner set the stage, I think Tchaikovsky did a better job of making it more palatable it to the masses, particularly with hindsight.

Let's be honest here it was Gorg the Caveman realizing that he could use different animal skulls to get different sounds in his drum set that started the entire music revolution thing and appealing to the masses. All the drummers since then have been just copying off him.

 

[cyclones500]

Let's be honest here it was Gorg the Caveman realizing that he could use different animal skulls to get different sounds in his drum set that started the entire music revolution thing and appealing to the masses. All the drummers since then have been just copying off him.

But Gorg couldn't hold a candle to Ringo!

Humans hadn't learned how to control fire yet, so I'll cut him some slack.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I mean the Beatles were a watered-down pop band who decided to push the boundaries. Their popularity is the only thing that would let them do this and I would argue the greatest contribution they gave was to show people how to be an Enterprise in the music world. You can call led Zeppelin a cover band if you want but nobody else can play their music to this day like they could. You can't really say that about anybody, for example Jimi Hendrix was amazing but Stevie Ray Vaughan did it better.

I will say from the outset I find the "seriousness" of this discuss amusing. There's nothing "serious" to discuss here. These are all great classic groups, and I enjoy all of their albums.

All that being said, I think your true colors somewhat came out with the "watered-down pop band" comment. Like all of us, I've had these conversations on/off with friends and family my whole life, and nothing is more consistently amusing than a Led Zeppelin fan's reaction when you try to hold them account for their high propensity to "borrow" things from other artists that led to later litigation and settlement.

They just get so upset. It's adorable!



I am actually not *that* offended by it -- I love Oasis and know very well roughly half their early catalog reuses a riff from a 60s/70s song, like "Cigarettes and Alcohol" reusing the riff from "Bang a Gong (Get It On)" or "Headshrinker" reusing the Faces' "Stay with Me." Led Zeppelin was "innovative" and "influential" as instrumentalists, but not so much stylistically and as songwriters. Kind of "yes" on the micro level of their influence but "no" on the macro level. The reason I end up in the Beatles' camp is you can say "yes" to both, as instrumentalists and songwriters, and on some even higher levels (e.g., mainstreaming albums over singles, etc.).

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I didn't make make any of those first two assertions, and your claim that they weren't virtuosos is, again, nonsense, and makes me wonder if you've ever played an instrument. It'd be like me arguing that Michael Jordan was not that great of a basketball player, or Dan Gable that great of a wrestler.

Money earned would not be my formula for the greatest of all time but then I didn't make any claims for that either.

I've never heard the Beatles described as entrepreneurs.

I guess music largely boils down to taste, but I haven't listened to Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix, or Pink Floyd or SRV for years, nor do I have any of their CDs or vinyls or cassettes in my large (so my wife says) collection of media. Not that they weren't good, but not my cup of tea.

I'm a nobody and could play guitar better than any of the Beatles. Hell I can play almost any drum line from the Beatles and I'm terrible on a trap set. Being virtuosos with your instrument isn't everything but it's laughable to compare Led Zeppelin to the Beatles in that light. I'm not arguing Zeppelin over Beatles they're just the most commonly agreed best band outside the Beatles.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I will say from the outset I find the "seriousness" of this discuss amusing. There's nothing "serious" to discuss here. These are all great classic groups, and I enjoy all of their albums.

All that being said, I think your true colors somewhat came out with the "watered-down pop band" comment. Like all of us, I've had these conversations on/off with friends and family my whole life, and nothing is more consistently amusing than a Led Zeppelin fan's reaction when you try to hold them account for their high propensity to "borrow" things from other artists that led to later litigation and settlement.

They just get so upset. It's adorable!



I am actually not *that* offended by it -- I love Oasis and know very well roughly half their early catalog reuses a riff from a 60s/70s song, like "Cigarettes and Alcohol" reusing the riff from "Bang a Gong (Get It On)" or "Headshrinker" reusing the Faces' "Stay with Me." Led Zeppelin was "innovative" and "influential" as instrumentalists, but not so much stylistically and as songwriters. Kind of "yes" on the micro level of their influence but "no" on the macro level. The reason I end up in the Beatles' camp is you can say "yes" to both, as instrumentalists and songwriters, and on some even higher levels (e.g., mainstreaming albums over singles, etc.).

Lennon hated a lot of their early stuff. It was fine but it's not that different from things at the time. I think they're far more lucky in their timing than they are gifted beyond all else. If they came about 10 to 15 years later do you think they would be just as influential? I don't. They couldn't even maintain the band.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I'm a nobody and could play guitar better than any of the Beatles. Hell I can play almost any drum line from the Beatles and I'm terrible on a trap set. Being virtuosos with your instrument isn't everything but it's laughable to compare Led Zeppelin to the Beatles in that light. I'm not arguing Zeppelin over Beatles they're just the most commonly agreed best band outside the Beatles.

I can't play drums at all, but I could do a decent simulacra of "Ticket to Ride."

The key isn't can you play it. The key is if you can come up with it in the first place.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I can't play drums at all, but I could do a decent simulacra of "Ticket to Ride."

The key isn't can you play it. The key is if you can come up with it in the first place.

There's plenty of great writers that just don't fit their time. Hendrix lives and people would have very different opinions. Buddy Holly. Etc.

 

[Entropy]

I will say from the outset I find the "seriousness" of this discuss amusing. There's nothing "serious" to discuss here. These are all great classic groups, and I enjoy all of their albums.

All that being said, I think your true colors somewhat came out with the "watered-down pop band" comment. Like all of us, I've had these conversations on/off with friends and family my whole life, and nothing is more consistently amusing than a Led Zeppelin fan's reaction when you try to hold them account for their high propensity to "borrow" things from other artists that led to later litigation and settlement.

They just get so upset. It's adorable!



I am actually not *that* offended by it -- I love Oasis and know very well roughly half their early catalog reuses a riff from a 60s/70s song, like "Cigarettes and Alcohol" reusing the riff from "Bang a Gong (Get It On)" or "Headshrinker" reusing the Faces' "Stay with Me." Led Zeppelin was "innovative" and "influential" as instrumentalists, but not so much stylistically and as songwriters. Kind of "yes" on the micro level of their influence but "no" on the macro level. The reason I end up in the Beatles' camp is you can say "yes" to both, as instrumentalists and songwriters, and on some even higher levels (e.g., mainstreaming albums over singles, etc.).

Definitely agree with early Led Zep being a blues ripoff band (and worse offenders than a lot of the early rockers).
I will take issue with the stylistic songwriter approach. I think they spawned the "fantasy" genre of heavy metal music of the 80s and 90s, particularly when you look at the long cuts from Physical Graffiti and Presence.

 

[madguy30]

I mean the Beatles were a watered-down pop band who decided to push the boundaries. Their popularity is the only thing that would let them do this and I would argue the greatest contribution they gave was to show people how to be an Enterprise in the music world. You can call led Zeppelin a cover band if you want but nobody else can play their music to this day like they could. You can't really say that about anybody, for example Jimi Hendrix was amazing but Stevie Ray Vaughan did it better.

I'd take Hendrix all day actually.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Definitely agree with early Led Zep being a blue ripoff band (and worse offenders than a lot of the early rockers).
I will take issue with the stylistic songwriter approach. I think they spawned the "fantasy" genre of heavy metal music of the 80s and 90s, particularly when you look at the long cuts from Physical Graffiti and Presence.

I would argue 70s prog bands and some other hard rock bands (especially the ones that might have straddled the gap between the two, like, say something like a Rush) were just as important. Heck, you could argue early concept albums (e.g., Tommy or Days of Future Passed) are important, too.

But if you are arguing that the really long songs with boring chord progressions they reuse over and over again from song to song and album to album on Physical Graffiti and Presence are the "good" that Led Zeppelin did for the world, then they should have broken up after Houses of the Holy.

I like their early stuff -- like I said, a great blues covers band. I think Houses of the Holy is their best album on a couple of different levels, and I wish they would have kept its more whimsical style.

But the stuff after that... the train kind of goes off the tracks...