Artists you should be killed for not liking
 

Here are mine

Van Morrison
The Beatles
Jimi Hendrix

Nothing objectable about any of those bands when judged on their discography.

That's a half a hundred posts!

The Who!

Keith Moon owns.

I mean.......they made Tommy!

If you don't like Led Zeppelin you're not a true rocker. Fact.

Tom Waits, probably. Wu-Tang Clan too. And Charles Mingus.

Slayer
Jimi Hendrix

Will think of more later

You messed up the thread.

That is a Fact, Led Zeppelin is the greatest band ever, but if you don't like heavy rock or blues rock, I could see why someone wouldn't be a fan and I'd spare their life. Although we could not hang.

I can't stand the Who, Slayer, or Led Zeppelin and I can't get into Jimi Hendrix.

It's not that, it's all the stolen sh*t. And I am somewhat of a fan even despite all that. Just not enough to where I can tolerate everyone that thinks they are the greatest band ever.

The never stole anything. I've witnessed or been in this argument thousands of times and it always comes to the same resolution. No legitimate music critic would ever suggest they stole anything anymore.

They are not the greatest band of all time, albeit they are all exceptionally talented... and really enjoyable to jam out to.

They played other people's songs and gave credit for those songs to themselves. I'm pretty sure that's stealing.

Had they done that, it would have been, but you are mistaken. You have made a common error. I hate this argument so much.

When Led Zeppelin's debut album was released, it received generally positive reviews, however John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine, criticized the band for stealing music, notably "Black Mountain Side" from Bert Jansch's "Black Water Side" and the riff from "Your Time Is Gonna Come" from Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy". He also accused the band of mimicking black artists, and showing off. This marked the beginning of a long rift between the band and the magazine, with Led Zeppelin rejecting later requests for interviews and cover stories as their level of success escalated.

One song from the album, "Dazed and Confused", was a song originally written by Jake Holmes on his album "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes. The Yardbirds, Jimmy Page's old band, had made a version called "I'm Confused", and Page reworked the song again for Led Zeppelin's debut recording, with Holmes having never received any royalty payments for their recording. Holmes did not file suit over the song, although he did send the band a letter stating "I understand it's a collaborative effort, but I think you should give me some credit at least and some remunity." His letter was never replied to and he did not follow up on it. Holmes is however also reported to have said "what the hell, let him [Page] have it [Dazed and Confused]".

Led Zeppelin II's credits have also been the subject of debate since the album's release. The prelude to "Bring It on Home" is a cover of Sonny Boy Williamson's "Bring it on Home" and drew comparisons with Willie Dixon's "Bring It on Back". "Whole Lotta Love" shared some lyrics and an overall pattern with Dixon's "You Need Love/Woman You Need Love". In the 1970s, Arc Music, the publishing arm of Chess Records, brought a lawsuit against Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Bring It on Home" and won an out-of-court settlement. Dixon himself did not benefit until he sued Arc Music to recover his royalties and copyrights. Years later, Dixon filed suit against Led Zeppelin over "Whole Lotta Love" and an out-of-court settlement was reached. Later pressings of Led Zeppelin II credit Dixon.

The opening chord progression and verse in "Stairway to Heaven" are nearly identical to the 1968 instrumental "Taurus" by the group Spirit. Led Zeppelin was the opening act for Spirit's 1968 tour, three years before "Stairway To Heaven" was written.

How's about we just change the name of this forum to Led Zeppelin Banter?

Kashmir???

Copied RATM tbh.

Yes I've read that section of the wikipedia article too...Notice that never was a song shown to have been stolen. Only in one song was Dixon given a credit and his estate does not collect royalties from said song.

Every song could be compared to another song and similarities found. Bands cover songs all the time, Rap music is founded on sampling which is directly stealing an artists work and not even playing the song yourself. Rolling Stone is a laughing stock in the journalism community because of how much they allow grudges and politics to impact their reviews of movies and music. George Harrison was forced to give up all future earnings for "My Sweet Lord" after it was found to be similar to another song which escapes me right now etc etc etc. It's like the Kennedy conspiracy if it held any credence it would be accepted as fact by now, but instead it is a laughable ploy Zep haters use to try and discredit the band that hundreds of musicians credit as an enormous influence and was for most of my formative years the "Biggest Band in the World" (another good section I helped pen in the wiki article)

I am in favor!

On another subject:
By the way I have Stage Names now too and I like Don't fall in love... a lot better so far.

"Black Mountain Side" and "Dazed And Confused" are two examples of songs that Page did not write and took full credit for. The band was successfully sued for plagiarizing music. It's right there. Read it again. Whether or not you want to admit it, they did take credit for songs that weren't theirs.

Yeah, but you see, the difference is that most bands, when they cover a song, actually give credit to the original songwriter. Led Zeppelin didn't always do that.

Aha. You don't listen to very much rap, do you?

A grade two science student could probably watch that clip and tell you that something fishy was going on. Back and to the left, back and to the left...

But let's not get too off-topic now. :)

I don't hate Led Zeppelin. As I've said, I actually like a few of their songs/riffs, but I'm not going to deny the fact that they played other people's songs and took credit for them. It's not like they deserve no credit - obviously they were immensely influential and wrote many more songs than they stole. But, ultimately, none of that changes anything. They stole songs. End of story. The story just ended. See it? It ended. Right there. There is no appendix, no sequel. The story's over. So shut up. That rap question...yeah, right over...that one. Up there. See it? That rap question there, that was rhetorical. Shut up.

Patrick Wolf duh

You are wrong wayfarer, no songs were stolen. I've been in many rooms for this debate the last twenty years, it always reaches the same verdict.

And the Kennedy comment along with the condescending nature of your final paragraph suggests that you probably know you are.

O rly?

Prove me wrong then. I mean, c'mon. That sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? People tend to look far less like stupid fanboy assholes when they actually back up the things they say rather than just going around, "YER RONG YER RONG I AM TEH OBJECTIVE TROOF", right?

^you want him to prove that no songs were stolen? That's dumb, you should have to prove which songs are stolen and why they were. You're the one making the attack and should back it up.

^
Exactly

The proof is no one has ever proven song stolen or successfully gotten them to take their names of the writing credits.

End of story.

Why are you so much meaner in this thread?

I already did.

Jake Holmes wrote "Dazed And Confused" and it was released in 1967. The Yardbirds decided to do their own arrangement of the song, but not long afterwards, Page left the band. Page again rearranged it and Zeppelin recorded it on their debut album. The song was credited solely to Page. Page did not write the song. Surely he deserves a credit as it was his own arrangement, but so did Holmes, as he was the original songwriter.

"Black Mountain Side" was essentially an instrumental version of a traditional folk song called "Blackwaterside", and the guitar arrangement in the Zeppelin cover was virtually identical to the guitar arrangement in Bert Jansch's cover of the song. Again, the song was credited solely to Page, despite the fact that he did not write the song.

That is called plagiarism. Therefore, regardless of how few songs were stolen, Led Zeppelin were plagiarists.

I don't think I can simplify it any more than that.

^you only said they were accused of stealing, but as you can tell, such accusations were never proven to be correct or else they would have been maxsued.

If you can post the riff from the supposedly original version and then the Zeo version so everyone can hear it then you may be backing your argument.

^
I've listened to every one of those songs side by side and even synced them up together, nothing would even catch your ear if you didn't know what you were looking for. The proof is in perception and every time musicians vote on the greatest bands of all-time Led Zeppelin is always top and rarely not top 5. Whereas when Rolling Stone which successfully sued for libel against either Zeppelin or Page can't quite recall ranks them 10-20 spots lower.

(There is no) God Damn it this is a dumb argument.

I wish JGD was here he always laments having to make this argument.

They were taken to court on more than one occasion.

"In the 1970s, Arc Music, the publishing arm of Chess Records, brought a lawsuit against Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Bring It on Home" and won an out-of-court settlement. Dixon himself did not benefit until he sued Arc Music to recover his royalties and copyrights. Years later, Dixon filed suit against Led Zeppelin over "Whole Lotta Love" and an out-of-court settlement was reached. Later pressings of Led Zeppelin II credit Dixon."

Did that all sink in okay? Willie Dixon accused the band of plagiarizing his music, and an out-of-court settlement was reached. From then on, all pressings of Led Zeppelin's second album credit Dixon, implying that the band admitted to plagiarizing Dixon's music.

They obviously didn't synch up well because Zeppelin rearranged the songs. That does not mean that they wrote them.

You don't read well do you?

He gets no money, their names are also listed in the writing credits, out of court means there was not a strong enough case to win and the defendant could save everyone time and money by reaching a mutual agreeable compromise.

Can we please just stop this, before I stop enjoying your other posts.

*sung to a stolen melody*

There's a Frances who's sure
This argument is old
and he hopes that it's over by seven
when he gets there he knows
that the mouths are not closed
and they'll argue right on past eleven

Woo ooh ooh ooh ooooh
and they'll argue right on past eleven

And it makes me wonder...................



Anyway......

Bowie

:yikes: SHOCK!

Sure, but read this first:

pla·gia·rism
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Led Zeppelin played other people's songs and did not give (at least) partial credit to the original songwriters. Whether or not the songs were rearranged is irrelevant. Whether or not the original artists are receiving royalty cheques is irrelevant. By definition, Led Zeppelin were plagiarists.

I read it and NO, are we done?

Think we were supposed to be done about an hour and fifteen minutes ago, so sure...

Cool, by the way thanks for making it interesting tonight, this forums been kinda dead lately.

Yes. A pop band with arty instrumental flourishes. Nice soppy ballad type lyrics to.

If it was up to me I would kill anyone who didnt give DeVotchKa a chance because between all my friends(a wide array of music tastes), EVERYONE has enjoyed a song or two, if not every tune they have ever released, like myself.

^ Got anything you could upload?

**** this thread

Straving Artless you're such a hater, just because you hate anything anyone else has ever heard of.