You're going to love it here! We've got Gretsch Guitar forums, photo galleries, classified ads, and more for you here.
You can read posts as a guest but posting and participating here requires that you register. But, don't worry, registering is quick, easy and painless. Why not register today?
Fresh faced skiffle artist and emergent plagiarist.
The thing that kills me about Page and Plant is that their borrowings and adaptations are original enough to be admired as works in their own right, but their consistent refusal to credit sources, which I can only imagine was significantly motivated by financial interests, just makes them so hard for me to respect. All they needed to do was credit and share. Then Page has the nerve to testify publicly about people ripping Zep off. The whole thing makes me sad. So much talent. Such ability and beauty. All soiled by shabby ethics.
__________________ The Rose soon redden'd into rage,
And, swelling with disdain,
Appeal'd to many a poet's page
To prove her right to reign.
I'm pretty sure they paid their dues to the blues greats from which they stole. Most of the thefts occurred before Plant was actively writing the lyrics, mainly LZ I. After that, their material became more and more original as Plant grew as a lyricist.
It was a black eye that, IMHO, they have grown from. Peter Grant and Page were very full of themselves. They paid, literally, for their mistakes.
We all live and learn. We all make mistakes.
__________________
Guitars: Modded ProJet. Strat-O-Clone. Dano Hodad. Kay Acoustic.
I'm pretty sure they paid their dues to the blues greats from which they stole. Most of the thefts occurred before Plant was actively writing the lyrics, mainly LZ I. After that, their material became more and more original as Plant grew as a lyricist.
It was a black eye that, IMHO, they have grown from. Peter Grant and Page were very full of themselves. They paid, literally, for their mistakes.
We all live and learn. We all make mistakes.
Fair enough. I concede that I don't know the history as well as I should and what you suggest demands consideration. But those youtube clips are pretty painful. I've never been a huge Zep fan, but I can appreciate the artistry for sure and some of their tunes move me as well. Above all, I LOVE their hilarious hobbit film, where Plant finds a magic sword, climbs a cliff, sees Gandalf...AND IT'S HIM!!!!
__________________ The Rose soon redden'd into rage,
And, swelling with disdain,
Appeal'd to many a poet's page
To prove her right to reign.
LOL! The Song Remains the Same movie was pretty damned humorous, unintentionally.
I am a huge Zep fan, warts and all. Page is my all-time guitar hero, and I love Plant. I love Plant's solo stuff too. Very die-hard fan I am.
I know their history pretty well, and they definitely made some ballsy moves and mistakes. They should have given Willie Dixon and Otis Rush credit, at least partial credit, for using their killer blues tunes as the basis for their earliest work.
Page did get some comeuppance later in life with so many others sampling classic Zep songs, not unlike what he himself did to the bluesmen. The band made some reparations to the guys they "borrowed" from, and Zep got their cash for their tunes being "borrowed" as well.
__________________
Guitars: Modded ProJet. Strat-O-Clone. Dano Hodad. Kay Acoustic.
I'm glad that they made some reparations. Again, what I think is so silly is that even these are clearly original enough, and often even expand, that crediting wouldn't have diminished them in the least. There's no question that Stairway is so much better than the Spirit tune they took, and still don't admit. But if they shared some wealth and credit with the blues and folk artists they borrowed from, that goes a long way.
btw, I think Plant's solo stuff has a lot of integrity and sounds great.
__________________ The Rose soon redden'd into rage,
And, swelling with disdain,
Appeal'd to many a poet's page
To prove her right to reign.
LOL! The Song Remains the Same movie was pretty damned humorous, unintentionally.
I am a huge Zep fan, warts and all. Page is my all-time guitar hero, and I love Plant. I love Plant's solo stuff too. Very die-hard fan I am.
I know their history pretty well, and they definitely made some ballsy moves and mistakes. They should have given Willie Dixon and Otis Rush credit, at least partial credit, for using their killer blues tunes as the basis for their earliest work.
Page did get some comeuppance later in life with so many others sampling classic Zep songs, not unlike what he himself did to the bluesmen. The band made some reparations to the guys they "borrowed" from, and Zep got their cash for their tunes being "borrowed" as well.
My favourite bit is that when they are all acting out these noble fantasies, John Bonhams dream sequence features him sitting on a tractor eating a pie...
Fresh faced skiffle artist and emergent plagiarist.
The thing that kills me about Page and Plant is that their borrowings and adaptations are original enough to be admired as works in their own right, but their consistent refusal to credit sources, which I can only imagine was significantly motivated by financial interests, just makes them so hard for me to respect. All they needed to do was credit and share. Then Page has the nerve to testify publicly about people ripping Zep off. The whole thing makes me sad. So much talent. Such ability and beauty. All soiled by shabby ethics.
You're absolutely right that Page and Plant's "adaptations" were original enough to be admired as works in their own right.
I'm not making a judgement one way or the other, BUT: If you delve into the blues from the very beginning, you'll find countless examples of the old revered bluesmen ripping each other off endlessly. Lyrics, titles, turnarounds, you name it.
Granted, many of the original bluesmen didn't have the opportunity to cash in on their "adaptations" to the degree that Page and Plant did. But does that somehow make it more acceptable? My point is that there has always been a considerable amount of "borrowing and adapting" within various music genres over the course of history. It seems that when it comes to "shabby ethics", we demonize some and romanticize others.
This scene, weirdly 'artsy' to fit the groundbreaking 1966 Michelangelo Antonioni movie 'Blow Up,' was only about nine years later.
Here we see the Original guitar smashing scene, with Jeff Beck, the start of that spectacular trend!
Jimi Hendrix burned one (or more) on stage, and Bill Carter of The Screaming Blue Messiahs dances on one in one of their vids, - giving new twists to this phenomenon.
You're absolutely right that Page and Plant's "adaptations" were original enough to be admired as works in their own right.
I'm not making a judgement one way or the other, BUT: If you delve into the blues from the very beginning, you'll find countless examples of the old revered bluesmen ripping each other off endlessly. Lyrics, titles, turnarounds, you name it.
Granted, many of the original bluesmen didn't have the opportunity to cash in on their "adaptations" to the degree that Page and Plant did. But does that somehow make it more acceptable? My point is that there has always been a considerable amount of "borrowing and adapting" within various music genres over the course of history. It seems that when it comes to "shabby ethics", we demonize some and romanticize others.
Context counts here. It's not arbitrary. The concepts of authorship and originality are not ahistorical. Early blues players and innovators didn't think of authorship in the same way. Page and Plant were putting out those records when original authorship had recently become an almost necessary criterion in popular music. It was an emergent phenomenon that had begun perhaps with Buddy Holly writing and producing his own records, but The Beatles had lead the way to enshrining it as a norm. And, as you point out, there is a rarefied commercial context. It's one thing if people are "borrowing" from one another without constantly announcing who they are borrowing from in roadhouses and juke joints, or churches for that matter. It's another if they do so on albums that they are selling by the thousands and on stages in front of thousands of ticket-buying audiences. The ethos had shifted radically between these eras, as had the commercial structure.
I, for one, think the fantasy of radical originality is over-emphasized. I'm even more interested when an artist innovates in ways that highlight his or her sources, that own and even flaunt how their own work re-works tradition. Page and Plant had amazing taste and then did fascinating and often moving things with the music they loved. But it does seem in some instances that they willfully obscured their sources for fame and financial gain in ways that were deeply problematic and ultimately unnecessary.
__________________ The Rose soon redden'd into rage,
And, swelling with disdain,
Appeal'd to many a poet's page
To prove her right to reign.
Last edited by Strummerson; March 30th, 2011 at 07:29 AM.
This scene, weirdly 'artsy' to fit the groundbreaking 1966 Michelangelo Antonioni movie 'Blow Up,' was only about nine years later.
Here we see the Original guitar smashing scene, with Jeff Beck, the start of that spectacular trend!
Pete Townshend first smashed a guitar on stage at Railway Tavern in 1964. It was quite by accident. Cracked the neck due to hitting a low ceiling while trying to get the audience's attention. Then he freaked out in anger and smashed it. When he looked up, everyone was staring. And there you have it. An Aristotelian "happy accident," an error that produces innovation in "art." Performance art in this case.
__________________ The Rose soon redden'd into rage,
And, swelling with disdain,
Appeal'd to many a poet's page
To prove her right to reign.
Last edited by Strummerson; March 30th, 2011 at 07:30 AM.
That's Interesting. - I figured my asserting, "Here we see the Original guitar smashing scene," would elicit more information about the smashing trend.
It seems so natural, like 'organic,' that the 'First' guitar smashing scene would be impromptu, like the Pete Townshend incident. In the Intensity of his performance and frustration at severely damaging his guitar, Townshend probably just thought, 'Oh to hell with it!' - and just 'went with the flow,' smashed it up even more, Really getting the audience's attention, and venting pent-up energy, all at the same time!
It seems quite likely that Michangelo Antonioni, or someone on his staff, knew about the Pete Townshend smashing scene. It must have been 'in the news' at the time! - Obviously in 'Blow Up,' the guitar smashing was just as orchestrated, and written into the script, as the zombie-like attitude of the audience.
Sometime in the sixties, I saw on Johnny Carson's, 'Tonight Show,' someone (I have no idea who) take an axe to a used, but decent, stand-up piano and smashed it to bits, as his entire 'performance' on the show. Then he sat by Johnny, for the interview, where he discussed his motivations for doing so, - which included smashing it to relieve pent-up frustrations, - and just for the fun of it!
Whether that happened before the Pete Townshend incident, I really don't know. Maybe 'God only Knows,' but it too seems likely to have followed the Townshend Guitar smashing scene.
Here, I just gleeped this from 'MadGuitarLicks.com' -
'"In September, 1964 Pete Townshend smashed his first guitar. Playing on a high stage at the Railway Tavern, Townshend accidentally broke the head of his guitar when it hit the ceiling. Incensed by the audience laughing at this malady, Townshend proceeded to completely demolish the rest of his instrument. He then picked up another Rickenbacker guitar and continued with the concert. Word quickly spread of Townshend’s onstage antics and a large crowd gathered for The Who’s next show. However this time Townshend declined to smash a guitar, instead Keith Moon wrecked his drum kit. Instrument demolition became an intricate part of The Who’s live performances. Their destruction of musical gear became increasingly more elaborate, culminating with the explosion of Keith Moon’s drum-set after the band played a set on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. In the early days of the band they were better known for smashing their instruments than playing them. The incident at the Railway Tavern was one of Rolling Stone’s '50 Moments that Changed the History of Rock and Roll.'"
The "Blow Up" Jeff Beck guitar smashing scene is pretty funny in that Beck was playing a Les Paul regularly at the time. The director wanted him to smash his LP, but Beck refused because he loved the LP (which was a pretty rare guitar at the time).
So they found Beck a cheapo Kay to stomp into little bits instead.
I do believe Michangelo Antonioni wanted Pete Townshend and the Who for his film, but that didn't work out for whatever reason, so the Yardbirds were offered up.
__________________
Guitars: Modded ProJet. Strat-O-Clone. Dano Hodad. Kay Acoustic.
You're absolutely right that Page and Plant's "adaptations" were original enough to be admired as works in their own right.
I'm not making a judgement one way or the other, BUT: If you delve into the blues from the very beginning, you'll find countless examples of the old revered bluesmen ripping each other off endlessly. Lyrics, titles, turnarounds, you name it.
Granted, many of the original bluesmen didn't have the opportunity to cash in on their "adaptations" to the degree that Page and Plant did. But does that somehow make it more acceptable? My point is that there has always been a considerable amount of "borrowing and adapting" within various music genres over the course of history. It seems that when it comes to "shabby ethics", we demonize some and romanticize others.
This is one point that I wanted to make, but I couldn't decide how to do it without being snarky. There is an old saying, "there's nothing new under the sun." I think this is especially true in blues-based rock music. How much borrowing has been done from Chuck Berry, for example? Berry himself borrowed riffs heavily from T-Bone Walker. All of the great Bluesmen nicked stuff from each other, whether it was a riff, lick, or lyric.
As time went on, and folks realized there was money to be made in music writer's rights, the lawsuits began. The old bluesmen made their money mostly from live performances. Once super-selling artists playing to massive stadiums full of kids with pocket money were publicly known to be making money hand-over-fist, the guys that were "borrowed from" started wanting their share.
And who can blame them.
Nowadays, you can't get away with this. Remember Vanilla Ice borrowing the bass riff from that "Under Pressure" song by Queen and David Bowie? He denied it. On MTv. What a joke. Times have changed. A lot of the rights issues of the songwriters were developed with the Willie Dixon vs Led Zeppelin case.
__________________
Guitars: Modded ProJet. Strat-O-Clone. Dano Hodad. Kay Acoustic.
A very young Jimmy Page
Offline
