Plagiarists Or Innovators? The Led Zeppelin Paradox Endures
from the copying-as-innovation dept
Fifty years ago – in September 1968 – the legendary rock band Led Zeppelin first performed together, kicking off a Scandinavian tour billed as the New Yardbirds.
The new, better name would come later that fall, while drummer John Bonham’s death in 1980 effectively ended their decade-defining reign. But to this day, the band retains the same iconic status it held back in the 1970s: It ranks as one of the best-selling music acts of all time and continues to shape the sounds of new and emerging groups young enough to be the band members’ grandchildren.
Yet, even after all this time – when every note, riff and growl of Zeppelin’s nine-album catalog has been pored over by fans, cover artists and musicologists – a dark paradox still lurks at the heart of its mystique. How can a band so slavishly derivative – and sometimes downright plagiaristic – be simultaneously considered so innovative and influential?
How, in other words, did it get to have its custard pie and eat it, too?
As a scholar who researches the subtle complexities of musical style and originality as well as the legal mechanisms that police and enforce them, such as copyright law, I find this a particularly devilish conundrum. The fact that I’m also a bassist in a band that fuses multiple styles of music makes it personal.
A pattern of ‘borrowing’
For anyone who quests after the holy grail of creative success, Led Zeppelin has achieved something mythical in stature: a place in the musical firmament, on its own terms, outside of the rules and without compromise.
When Led Zeppelin debuted its eponymous first album in 1969, there’s no question that it sounded new and exciting. My father, a baby boomer and dedicated Beatles fan, remembers his chagrin that year when his middle school math students threw over the Fab Four for Zeppelin, seemingly overnight. Even the stodgy New York Times, which decried the band’s “plastic sexual superficiality,” felt compelled, in the same article, to acknowledge its “enormously successful … electronically intense blending” of musical styles.
Yet, from the very beginning, the band was also dogged with accusations of musical pilfering, plagiarism and copyright infringement – often justifiably.
The band’s first album, “Led Zeppelin,” contained several songs that drew from earlier compositions, arrangements and recordings, sometimes with attribution and often without. It included two Willie Dixon songs, and the band credited both to the influential Chicago blues composer. But it didn’t credit Anne Bredon when it covered her song “Babe I’m Gonna Leave You.”
The hit “Dazed and Confused,” also from that first album, was originally attributed to Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page. However in 2010, songwriter Jake Holmes filed a lawsuit claiming that he’d written and recorded it in 1967. After the lawsuit was settled out of court, the song is now credited in the liner notes of re-releases as “inspired by” Holmes.
The band’s second album, “Led Zeppelin II,” picked up where the first left off. Following a series of lawsuits, the band agreed to list Dixon as a previously uncredited author on two of the tracks, including its first hit single, “Whole Lotta Love.” An additional lawsuit established that blues legend Chester “Howlin’ Wolf” Burnett was a previously uncredited author on another track called “The Lemon Song.”
Musical copyright infringement is notoriously challenging to establish in court, hence the settlements. But there’s no question the band engaged in what musicologists typically call “borrowing.” Any blues fan, for instance, would have recognized the lyrics of Dixon’s “You Need Love” – as recorded by Muddy Waters – on a first listen of “Whole Lotta Love.”
Dipping into the commons or appropriation?
Should the band be condemned for taking other people’s songs and fusing them into its own style?
Or should this actually be a point of celebration?
The answer is a matter of perspective. In Zeppelin’s defense, the band is hardly alone in the practice. The 1960s folk music revival movement, which was central to the careers of Baez, Holmes, Bredon, Dixon and Burnett, was rooted in an ethic that typically treated musical material as a “commons” – a wellspring of shared culture from which all may draw, and to which all may contribute.
Most performers in the era routinely covered “authorless” traditional and blues songs, and the movement’s shining star, Bob Dylan, used lyrical and musical pastiche as a badge of pride and display of erudition – “Look how many old songs I can cram into this new song!” – rather than as a guilty, secret crutch to hold up his own compositions.
Why shouldn’t Zeppelin be able to do the same?
On the other hand, it’s hard to ignore the racial dynamics inherent in Led Zeppelin’s borrowing. Willie Dixon and Howlin’ Wolf were African-Americans, members of a subjugated minority who were – especially back then – excluded from reaping their fair share of the enormous profits they generated for music labels, publishers and other artists.
Like their English countrymen Eric Clapton and The Rolling Stones, Zeppelin’s attitude toward black culture seems eerily reminiscent of Lord Elgin’s approach to the marble statues of the Parthenon and Queen Victoria’s policy on the Koh-i-Noor diamond: Take what you can and don’t ask permission; if you get caught, apologize without ceding ownership.
Led Zeppelin was also accused of lifting from white artists such as Bredon and the band Spirit, the aggrieved party in a recent lawsuit over the rights to Zeppelin’s signature song “Stairway to Heaven.” Even in these cases, the power dynamics were iffy.
Bredon and Spirit are lesser-known composers with lower profiles and shallower pockets. Neither has benefited from the glow of Zeppelin’s glory, which has only grown over the decades despite the accusations and lawsuits leveled against them.
A matter of motives
So how did the band pull it off, when so many of its contemporaries have been forgotten or diminished? How did it find and keep the holy grail? What makes Led Zeppelin so special?
I could speculate about its cultural status as an avatar of trans-Atlantic, post-hippie self-indulgence and “me generation” rebellion. I could wax poetic about its musical fusion of pre-Baroque and non-Western harmonies with blues rhythms and Celtic timbres. I could even accuse it, as many have over the years, of cutting a deal with the devil.
Instead, I’ll simply relate a personal anecdote from almost 20 years ago. I actually met frontman Robert Plant. I was waiting in line at a lower Manhattan bodega around 2 a.m. and suddenly realized Plant was waiting in front of me. A classic Chuck Berry song was playing on the overhead speakers. Plant turned to look at me and mused, “I wonder what he’s up to now?” We chatted about Berry for a few moments, then paid and went our separate ways.
Brief and banal though it was, I think this little interlude – more than the reams of music scholarship and journalism I’ve read and written – might hold the key to solving the paradox.
Maybe Led Zeppelin is worthy because, like Sir Galahad, the knight who finally gets the holy grail, its members’ hearts were pure.
During our brief exchange, it was clear Plant didn’t want to be adulated – he didn’t need his ego stroked by a fawning fan. Furthermore, he and his bandmates were never even in it for the money. In fact, for decades, Zeppelin refused to license its songs for television commercials. In Plant’s own words, “I only wanted to have some fun.”
Maybe the band retained its fame because it lived, loved and embodied rock and roll so absolutely and totally – to the degree that Plant would start a conversation with a total stranger in the middle of the night just to chat about one of his heroes.
This love, this purity of focus, comes out in its music, and for this, we can forgive Led Zeppelin’s many trespasses.
Aram Sinnreich, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, American University School of Communication
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, culture, innovation, led zeppelin, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No chance, Little Mikey. Section 13 will save us from the villainy you and your pirates chose to rape content creators with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Section 230 caused global warming.
Section 230 invented the Black Death.
Section 230 pissed in your oatmeal.
Fucking hell, man, give it a break!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of times, he's being trollish. Other times, not so much, even if you disagree with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm fairly sure there are people out there commenting as "John Smith" in order to impersonate the original person who got a reputation here under that name, and doing so specifically to troll both him and the rest of the site.
Thing is, though, that the comments which appear as if they may be from such people tend to themselves be even more worthy of flagging than do the "legitimate" John Smith comments.
That said, comments from the original guy do occasionally manage to be non-flag-worthy, and maybe even reasonable contributions to the discussion; I think I saw one like that this past week. So reflexively flagging based on the poster's (apparent) identity is still not the ideal way to approach things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Johnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robert Johnson
--Jimmy Page
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
Creativity, adding to, embellishing, or tribute, is perfectly fine, as long as you give the original artist their dues.
Zeppelin was a legend onto itself. Which as this self called scholar, who seems to be in bed with his own title, has to admit to himself and everyone else, is a fact that he's fully aware of.
IF he had really done his homework, or cared about anything besides promoting himself by dropping names, [he knew exactly what would happen by writing this] he would realize that the band was all about the blending of their favorite styles with their personalities as the driving force. Making the end product unique by any definition.
By my terms, they may have owed more than credit to a few artists, and if the law had been in place, I'm sure they wouldn't have minded at all. Probably would have taken it a few steps more.
Broad statements without anything but your opinion, [no verifying facts] is not the truth. Just another snob speech at a lame party.
Wanna ask 'em? Prove me wrong.
Grow up and own it sinnreich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you approve of Disney taking half of Red Letter Media's income because of the Star Wars footage in those Plinkett reviews?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
Who should have received the money for all those public domain works that Disney used for its films?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
Would you say each person he sampled from gets 50% of any song proceeds? What if it totals up to more than 100%? What if he only puts his music up for free...but then sells tshirts or ask for patreon donations for himself rather than monatizing any actual music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, no. The sheer number of songs they covered without proper attribution and claimed as their own can't be handwaved that easily. Are we arguing that it was just sloppy paperwork on their part now or something? In the cases where they didn't simply borrow elements and expand (Stairway to Heaven), they outright stole the song and its style in its entirety without crediting the original authors.
That's not a benign cover, that's stealing someone else's work and claiming it as your own. How you credit the original artist or not on the album information makes all the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point/Counterpoint
Counterpoint(if weak): They were literally all gristled session musicians. Hired guns. The kind of people that play for Patti LaBelle when she's in town but don't get their name on the album. They were used to playing other people's music. You put a bunch of those guys together in a band, surprise, they keep playing other people's music for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Point/Counterpoint
Yes, they ought to credit those whose work inspires them but remember, they inspire others too. Let's not bury culture in a shroud of ungranted permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Point/Counterpoint
The question is not whether or not they took inspiration from other artists and music, or whether or not they covered songs. The question is did they properly attribute credit in those cases, and the answer is a flat-out no, no they did not. In songs that were nothing more than a cover, they would often completely omit the original artist attribution, and it happened far too often for it to be just an innocent mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Point/Counterpoint
We're all inspired by somebody or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Point/Counterpoint
The point is that in that era of music there was a very real problem of people not getting credit for their original music, and lazy attribution. Nobody needs to ask permission to cover music or be inspired by it, but credit should be given where credit is due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How 'bout both?
Disclaimer: I can't stand 'em. The people, I mean. And that kinda, sorta ruins the musical enjoyment. But they've had a handful of songs that even I have to have, despite hating their arrogant guts.
I wanted to write "arrogant, assfaced guts", but then I realized that guts don't have faces. But then I remembered how far up their own asses their assfaced heads are, so - yes. Assfaced guts. See? Innovation LedZep style.
Still you have to acknowledge their musical skills and admit that no matter how blatantly they stole some stuff wholesale, ripped off some other stuff and resembled very closely yet some other stuff, the questionable material makes up only a small part of their overall output - most of their music is original and indeed innovative wrt composition, technique, production and performance. Their influence is undeniable and their fame is still warranted and earned, no matter how begrudgeable.
OH GOD BUT I HATE THEM!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Borrowing is evil
1) if the author accidentally clones existing song after listening other works -- but even this becomes illegal once the level of professionalism gets higher -- basically professional artists _shouldn't listen_ other people's songs
2) Usage of standard sample packs is acceptable, and substantial similarity checks cannot be used for that area, if both of the compared songs are using standard sample packs
3) If the cloned part is common practise in the genre or only small variation of such practises -- i.e. if the practise is governed by some rules which cannot be broken when creating new works
4) if something restrict's the artist's freedom to choose the elements of the work. For example if non-professional client of the band requests certain theme song to be used.
On the other hand, here's some clearly illegal practises:
a) cloning existing work by listening the work and simultaniously writing down notes to sheet of paper
b) ripping or recording samples from existing songs
c) mixing&matching of song elements from old songs
But the level of illegality should be evaluated based on how much effort it takes to create the copied elements. If the effort amount is low or the elements copied are not essential to the song's popularity, it isn't that big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrowing is evil
On the other hand, here's some clearly illegal practises: a) cloning existing work by listening the work and simultaniously writing down notes to sheet of paper b) ripping or recording samples from existing songs c) mixing&matching of song elements from old songs
Thanks for proving once again you don't know jack about fair use or remixing.
You're still not getting that mansion, chuckles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrowing is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Borrowing is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrowing is evil
When you become ruler of the world, then you can make the rules. Until then, you're wrong.
So you're saying all professional artists should be hermits then? Since it's literally impossible to go into any store or restaurant and not listen to someone else's songs.
I've said this before, if you ban incorporating other styles or ideas from other songs into other artists' work, then you've effectively killed music genres, and music itself, since all music and genres have elements of, and build off of, other songs, artists, styles, and genres.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Borrowing is evil
It's not literally impossible. Deaf people manage to do it. Or you could wear earplugs, go to a store without music, or have someone else shop for you. (These are all silly ideas; it's important for musicians to listen to other music.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Borrowing is evil
Regarding copyright laws, every element of a published song needs to be original or valid licensing must exists.
No such thing, buddy.
This means the practise where you mix&match other people's songs without permission is illegal practise.
At what point does someone own the words "baby" and "love" such that no one else can use them without permission?
There are however few exceptions where I would allow it: 1) if the author accidentally clones existing song after listening other works -- but even this becomes illegal once the level of professionalism gets higher -- basically professional artists shouldn't listen other people's songs
Take a remedial English class, please. None of this makes sense. Every artist, professional or otherwise, has listened to someone else's music at some point.
2) Usage of standard sample packs is acceptable, and substantial similarity checks cannot be used for that area, if both of the compared songs are using standard sample packs
I had one of those last week but the wheels came off. What in the world is a standard sample pack?
3) If the cloned part is common practise in the genre or only small variation of such practises -- i.e. if the practise is governed by some rules which cannot be broken when creating new works
Sampling is common practice in music, as is riffing off of other people's work.
4) if something restrict's the artist's freedom to choose the elements of the work. For example if non-professional client of the band requests certain theme song to be used.
The artist's freedom is already being restricted by these rules of yours.
On the other hand, here's some clearly illegal practises: a) cloning existing work by listening the work and simultaniously writing down notes to sheet of paper b) ripping or recording samples from existing songs c) mixing&matching of song elements from old songs
Not illegal at all. Licensing requirements depend on the copyright status of the works in question and parodies are allowed. Remixes, etc., happen and nobody has gone to prison for it yet.
But the level of illegality should be evaluated based on how much effort it takes to create the copied elements. If the effort amount is low or the elements copied are not essential to the song's popularity, it isn't that big deal.
"Sweat of the brow" is not a valid argument in terms of compensating creators for their intellectual output. Go and read up on copyright law before barfing your fact-free opinions, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A different planet...
Throughout the fifties and early sixties, "covering" a different artist's song was par for the course. Speed it up, slow it down, add a riff here or there.
Pretty much every doo-wop song originating with black artists was "covered" by a white band. Usually to dismal results. Even the sainted Elvis covered songs like this.
Where Led Zepplin and the barely-mentioned in passing Rolling Stones (do the Stones have ANY songs they didn't steal?) excelled was that their "version" was BETTER. People WANTED to hear their version, cover or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A different planet...
Ditto The Damned's orchestral version of "Eloise."
Listen to them back to back and let me know if you agree or not. I'd be interested to learn why. Personally, I loved the epic feel of the cover versions while I found the originals lightweight in comparison, if that makes sense.
What other artists (including producers and sound engineers, let's not forget them) bring to the musical table is a style and feel that wasn't there before.
I didn't like the Pet Shop Boys version of "Always on my mind" for the same reasons I liked "Eloise" and "Love is all around": it sounded flippant and throwaway while the original Willie Nelson version sounded thoughtful and had an epic feel to it.
This is, of course, entirely subjective but my point is that when anyone covers a song, for better or for worse, they add a little something of their own to it, which makes that added part original, even if the lyrics and arrangements are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another View
But the reality then was obviously different. You may not be able to tell much from a trival conversation with Robert Plant 2 decades ago, but you can go to Keith Richard's autobiography to see what was at play here: musicians who heard something remakable in the nearly-forgotten and unpopular form of blues music.
They were intensely excited by this new music. They didn't think of being white, they didn't think of the blues players as being black. They just admired and were enthralled by the music and how it was made.
That some of the tracks were not properly accredited had more to do with their management and the idea of rock and roll and just wanting to have some fun.
It's ridiculous to assess any other motives to the work of these great musicians. They stand right alongside all of the blues greats. And for those forgotten blues greats, many of them were saved from poverty by the white guys from England.
It's ridiculous to even meantion cultural appropriation as it is a toxic and fake term: all human progress, innovation and creativity comes from one person imitating and adding to the work of other people and other cultures. Cultural appropration is a weasal term for segragation and stagnation. If it had been "enforced" in the 60s, UK musicians would have been prevented from creating iconic music that still influences us all today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another View
No, and no.
The author notes that there are troubling social issues to consider. In no way does the author implicate anything about Led Zepplin's motives there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another View
It is true that their covers were often really, really good, as someone made the point about how people generally knew a lot of music was covered. But it doesn't make it right. I suppose part of the backlash is not necessarily against Led Zeppelin, but rather the industry of the time that didn't know or care about the artists who had originally created the songs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another View
So I don't think necessarily Led Zeppelin set out to be the bad guys and I think they genuinely wanted to show tribute to the original works, but the paperwork behind the album for attribution was poor and did not properly credit the artists. This might've just been a product of its time; with the advent of the internet, lesser known artists are much more easily researchable and information disseminates more readily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to get your learnin' on.
race baiting — verb; always unhyphenated
(derogatory) Dismissal of the criticism of racist policies/racial discrimination as an act that is needlessly inciting racial tension where none supposedly exists
The use of dogwhistle politics to incite racial tension
race-baiting — adjective; always hyphenated
(derogatory) Descriptor for a person who criticises racist policies/racial discrimination is needlessly inciting racial tension where none supposedly exists
Descriptor for a person who engages in race baiting [See: race-baiting, def. 2]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to get your learnin' on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go again.
Yeah, no, it was not. From RationalWiki:
Nothing about the section of which you speak was “coded” for a subset of people. Nothing about that section was a dog whistle. You have misused both that term and “race baiting” in an attempt to denigrate a writer for saying something about racism when you did not want to think about racism. I am left to wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here we go again.
Why don't you quote a dictionary instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here we go again.
Why don't you quote a dictionary instead?
You quoting a political charged source on the definition of racism and telling me I misused it as akin to a discussion of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 while quoting InfoWars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, fam, you did.
“Race baiting”, as you used it, fits the first definition of the verb form as I laid it out: You use it to deflect, rather than discuss, criticism regarding the historical appropriation of Black music by White musicians who subsequently made it more popular to wider (read: Whiter) audiences. If the idea of that appropriation (or criticism of it) upsets you so, explain why and argue your case without the bullshit.
If you intended to use those terms in ways I have not outlined, that sucks for you. Execution overrides intent. Learn the real meanings of those phrases, then come back to this discussion when you have figured out how to use those terms correctly, how you want discuss the appropriation of Black music by White musicians, or both. Otherwise, honey, you may as well fuck off from whence you came—I have no time to weep for the ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Special
John Bonham
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright on music & art is dumb
All the great painters & architects stole from each other over and over again.
Literally every 12-bar & 16-bar blues song is stolen by todays standards.
The modern concept of locking down art is ridiculous. Yes, a note-for-note remake without attribution is bad. But taking pieces of other works to create new works -- both similar and dissimilar -- is the basis for every work of art we've had for millennia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Berry Stole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Gonna Be Honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright, schmopyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright, schmopyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright, schmopyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]