What did John, Freddie and Roger think of Brian's live guitar solos?

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

As I said though, I'm not against solos - Page, Blackmore, Scholz, Rhoads and Torme all created interesting spots. Brian (more or less) did the self-same thing in the same song year after blessed year.[/QUOTE]

I think you're being a bit hard on Brian.

Compare the solos from Earls Court and Milton Keynes, just five years apart - they're almost completely different solos. The only thing in common is the echoplex.

Extended solos aren't for everybody, but there is a clear evolution of Brian's solo from 1973-86.

Of course nowadays he's not reinventing the wheel anymore, but who is at age 70-something? At least he does things like the Blue Danube and Dvorak's New World Symphony now and again to keep things interesting. His nods to the culture of the country he's in set him apart from most of his peers.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

Zep are the most overrated band in Rock. Famous for stealing the blues standards (which they were sued more than once) and a borefest watching them live. [/QUOTE]

What Zeppelin did was common in the blues world. They were just the first band to make a ton of money doing it.

Nobody called it "stealing" in the 1960s. The lawyers didn't show up until much later.
[/QUOTE]

Well ... yes and no. Black blues artists had a common cultural well to dip into/inspire them. (And some of it was cash-inspired theft. IIRC Robert Johnson stole Sweet Home Chicago from another black artist, and he certainly was not the first black musician to use the idea of selling his soul to the devil at the crossroads.) Whites didn't have that history. When they played blues and were successful it was often because black artists didn't have that exposure due to poverty or racism. So just like Elvis and rock & roll, there was certainly discussion about white appropriation and exploitation of black culture. In the 1960s when for example the Rolling Stones burst onto the scene playing rhythm and blues it wasn't received entirely positively among black Americans. But at least the Stones almost always credited the black artists they did covers of. For example, black blues artist Robert Wilkins received royalties when the Stones recorded his song ‘Prodigal Son’.In return for acknowledging their debt to black culture they received a kind of seal of approval when Otis Redding did a cover of 'Satisfaction.' In contrast, Led Zep claimed song writing credits on songs that were clearly not theirs. They banked all the cash for that and only changed their tune when lawyers forced them to.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Black blues artists had a common cultural well to dip into/inspire them. (And some of it was cash-inspired theft. IIRC Robert Johnson stole Sweet Home Chicago from another black artist, and he certainly was not the first black musician to use the idea of selling his soul to the devil at the crossroads.) Whites didn't have that history. When they played blues and were successful it was often because black artists didn't have that exposure due to poverty or racism. So just like Elvis and rock & roll, there was certainly discussion about white appropriation and exploitation of black culture. In the 1960s when for example the Rolling Stones burst onto the scene playing rhythm and blues it wasn't received entirely positively among black Americans. But at least the Stones almost always credited the black artists they did covers of. For example, black blues artist Robert Wilkins received royalties when the Stones recorded his song ‘Prodigal Son’.In return for acknowledging their debt to black culture they received a kind of seal of approval when Otis Redding did a cover of 'Satisfaction.' In contrast, Led Zep claimed song writing credits on songs that were clearly not theirs. They banked all the cash for that and only changed their tune when lawyers forced them to.[/QUOTE]

Gotta say, that's some mighty good food for thought.

Officer Clawhauser, re:

>Gotta say, that's some mighty good food for thought.

No it's not; it's FACT and affirms what Zeppelin managed to get away in broad daylight.

lol@officer Clawhauser

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

. . . . . And Zep are the most overrated band in Rock. . . . and a borefest watching them live. [/QUOTE]

runner_70 please do tell us which Led Zeppelin concerts you attended in order to make such a statement.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]I have no other names you assclown. And Zep are the most overrated band in Rock. Famous for stealing the blues standards (which they were sued more than once) and a borefest watching them live. [/QUOTE]

Queen were no different. Fool.

[b]See What A fool I've Been[/b] - is a lift from Sonny Terry & Brownie McGhee - [b]That's How I feel[/b] and Elvis' [b]Mystery Train[/b]
[b]Another One Bites The Dust[/b] bassline comes from Chic's [b]Good Times[/b]
[b]Let Me Live[/b] (original) was too similar to Janis Joplin's [b]Piece of My Heart[/b] to be allowed for general release.

a not forgetting 10cc [b]Une Nuit a Paris[/b] (march '75) - lots of elements of this appear in [b]Bo Rhap[/b][/QUOTE]

@runner_70 - why did you completely ignore this? ^^
Clear examples of Queen "shoplifting" from other artist's songs - and there are more. My guess? it didn't suit your agenda, so you ignore.

Interested if you can actually articulate a considered reply.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

Zep are the most overrated band in Rock. Famous for stealing the blues standards (which they were sued more than once) and a borefest watching them live. [/QUOTE]

What Zeppelin did was common in the blues world. They were just the first band to make a ton of money doing it.

Nobody called it "stealing" in the 1960s. The lawyers didn't show up until much later.
[/QUOTE]

Well ... yes and no. Black blues artists had a common cultural well to dip into/inspire them. (And some of it was cash-inspired theft. IIRC Robert Johnson stole Sweet Home Chicago from another black artist, and he certainly was not the first black musician to use the idea of selling his soul to the devil at the crossroads.) Whites didn't have that history. When they played blues and were successful it was often because black artists didn't have that exposure due to poverty or racism. So just like Elvis and rock & roll, there was certainly discussion about white appropriation and exploitation of black culture. In the 1960s when for example the Rolling Stones burst onto the scene playing rhythm and blues it wasn't received entirely positively among black Americans. But at least the Stones almost always credited the black artists they did covers of. For example, black blues artist Robert Wilkins received royalties when the Stones recorded his song ‘Prodigal Son’.In return for acknowledging their debt to black culture they received a kind of seal of approval when Otis Redding did a cover of 'Satisfaction.' In contrast, Led Zep claimed song writing credits on songs that were clearly not theirs. They banked all the cash for that and only changed their tune when lawyers forced them to.[/QUOTE]

I've had a good think about this and even gone and done some homework. Turns out we've both got a lot to learn here (runner_70 is just going to keep trolling, but you're someone I've always respected here, so I'll bite).

The Rolling Stones aren't exactly the best example to argue against Zeppelin with, as they ripped off blues artists long before Page and Plant did. Love In Vain and Stop Breaking Down particularly are lifts of Robert Johnson songs, and they came out in the same period as Zeppelin's early albums - 1969 and 1972 respectively. At the time nobody noticed or cared, but the Stones eventually lost in court in the year 2000. Neither Zeppelin nor the Stones could've envisioned lawyers several decades down the line listening to 70 year old blues albums and showing up in court on behalf of people who were long dead. Otis Redding covering Satisfaction doesn't undo anything the Stones did. They are just as guilty.

As for the Stones and songwriting credits, look no further than how Jagger and Richards treated Mick Taylor. Taylor wrote songs that Richards didn't even play on, and guess who didn't get a single songwriting credit in his entire tenure in the band?

Ry Cooder jammed with the Stones in 1969, and unbeknownst to him the tape was rolling and Keef stole a bunch of his riffs that later ended up in Stones songs. Cooder referred to them as "bloodsuckers." Again, not your best example for arguing against Zeppelin.

I digress.

People just weren't as educated about the American blues in 1969 as they are now, but now that they are, for some reason all the scrutiny has been hurled towards Zeppelin and not the Stones nor plenty of others who have done the same thing. So why just pick on Zeppelin?

There are many standards that were played and recorded by dozens of blues artists in the 1940s and 50s, but again, nobody cared. Blues artists (including the ones who Zeppelin "stole" from) stole from each other all the time. Zeppelin just got nailed because they made money doing it, full stop.

Willie Dixon, the first artist to sue Zeppelin, is the biggest hypocrite of them all. He was a crook and a thief himself who took advantage of illiterate and poor musicians and got credited for music he didn't write. Dixon didn't seem to care about Whole Lotta Love between 1969-84, nor did Jake Holmes seem all too concerned about Dazed And Confused for over a decade until he wrote Page about it in the 1980s. Why do we think that is? The "we couldn't afford a lawyer" argument posed by Spirit a few years back just doesn't fly. Countless lawyers would work for free on a chance of winning a lawsuit against one of the biggest rock bands of all time. The lawyers just didn't get the call, because the original artists didn't care until they needed the money later on.

Back to ethnomusicology. Let's talk about the slaves working on the plantations who would hear Celtic music and other more European strains, and how they and their friends would incorporate them into their versions of the blues. Nothing is a vaccum. It all comes from somewhere. Noodles from The Offspring lifted the main riff of Come Out And Play from the canned tunes on a bus tour when they were in the middle east. Where is the line drawn? Even in Mozart's time people were declaring "the end of art" because they thought it had all been done.

And not all the artists Zeppelin "ripped off" were black. Jake Holmes, Davy Graham, and Anne Bredon were white. Race isn't the issue here. The Brits just loved the American blues far more than the Americans did, and that's largely because there wasn't rampant racism in Britain in the middle of the 20th century like there was in America. It was an absence of racism that allowed the inspiration to happen to begin with.

Speaking of white musicians stealing music, the Carter family is another good example. A.P. Carter went all over Appalachia collecting old folk songs, bringing them back so they could be reinterpreted, recorded, and sold, but technically it wasn't "cultural appropriation" because he was from the same culture.

So if you guys want to pick on Zeppelin, fine. But let's have some perspective here and not just pick on one band when there's far more to be talking about.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]I have no other names you assclown. And Zep are the most overrated band in Rock. Famous for stealing the blues standards (which they were sued more than once) and a borefest watching them live. [/QUOTE]

Queen were no different. Fool.

[b]See What A fool I've Been[/b] - is a lift from Sonny Terry & Brownie McGhee - [b]That's How I feel[/b] and Elvis' [b]Mystery Train[/b]
[b]Another One Bites The Dust[/b] bassline comes from Chic's [b]Good Times[/b]
[b]Let Me Live[/b] (original) was too similar to Janis Joplin's [b]Piece of My Heart[/b] to be allowed for general release.

a not forgetting 10cc [b]Une Nuit a Paris[/b] (march '75) - lots of elements of this appear in [b]Bo Rhap[/b][/QUOTE]

@runner_70 - why did you completely ignore this? ^^
Clear examples of Queen "shoplifting" from other artist's songs - and there are more. My guess? it didn't suit your agenda, so you ignore.

Interested if you can actually articulate a considered reply.

[/QUOTE]
3 songs while led zep was doing whole albums being borrowed?

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

3 songs while led zep was doing whole albums being borrowed?
[/QUOTE]

Which entire album was borrowed?

Name the album, the songs, and the writers.

The solo never really translated to audio recording or video well (LK being the exception for sure) so it's difficult to ask with only these artefacts as proof. But live in the room, the effect was mindblowing. If they hated it they wouldn't have done it. It was an exciting part of the show. There's a reason that stayed and the Prophet Song vocal improv disappeared :D

That said: Brian asks 'shall I continue doing my solo this tour?' Band hears: 'would you guys like another 10 minute break every show this tour?'

[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

If they hated it they wouldn't have done it. It was an exciting part of the show. There's a reason that stayed and the Prophet Song vocal improv disappeared :D[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

But cue the conspiracy theorist trolls to use that as "proof" that May's ego was larger than Mercury's.

I don't his solos if there's a jam with Roger and John or he spends a couple of minutes playing a familiar tune in the middle when they're ten minutes long. It's just if you don't recognise anything or he's experimenting it gets a bit boring. I think five minutes should be the max time for one of his solos but would that be enough time for the band to rest?

Does anyone happen to know the longest solo he did on his own without any assistance from the group? One show I can think of is in Tokyo '75 his there was 11 minutes.

@The Real Wizard

Good info there. Of course, this is a very complicated issue and my comments weren't meant to be the final word, just a contribution. Some points in response:

Firstly I'm not picking on Zep. I'm a fan. But if I were choosing sides I'd pick the original black artists over Zep. There's a power imbalance there which the band only addressed when forced to do so by lawyers.

Involving lawyers wasn't always a noble affair: big businesses often own the rights to dead artists work, and often legal cases aren't meant to protect artists but are intended as a shameless cash grab. But in individual cases where an artist is trying to reclaim their rights I think it's fine. But it depends really on the circumstances. Laws that exist now to protect copyright are clearly problematic when applied to historical cases and also to musical compositions. Stealing someone else's lyrics seem to be fairly clear cut; copying musical structures is more difficult to prove. For what it's worth, I was happy when Zep won the 'Spirit' case as I didn't think the 'copying' was clear enough or deep enough to count as plagiarism.

One could argue that all white, British artists playing the blues were guilty of exploiting black music. In 1967 Leroi Jones wrote: ‘What is the difference between Beatles, Stones etc, and Minstrelsy? Minstrels never convinced anybody they were black, either.’ But that's a hard line view I don't support. And Jones was not representative of the main body of black opinion. In 1964, for example, the African-American owned newspaper, Chicago Defender, wrote: ‘the Stones are worth everyone’s attention. Many of us are ardent R&B followers and believe me, the Stones are no less ardent. They love and feel this music and if the money was taken away, you would still find them playing and singing R&B. The Stones are R&B men in the truest sense.’

Black musicians also paid tribute to the Stones -- I previously mentioned Otis Redding's version of Satisfaction’. But in a similar vein, in 1963 The Beatles recorded Smokey Robinson's ‘You Really Got a Hold on Me’ and five years later Robinson recorded the Beatles’ song ‘Yesterday’. To me, this suggests an element of mutual appreciation. And don't forget the Stones took Chuck Berry, BB King, Tina Turner, and later Stevie Wonder out on tour with them.

More generally, there were positive results of white fascination with the blues. In the 1960s, there were more blues records in the charts and on the radio than ever before. Whereas B.B. King had been popular among black audiences for a generation before his music was discovered by white audiences in the mid-1960s, King recognised the cultural value of such mainstream success. He said: ‘We're beginnin' to be treated among them as stars, with respect, the same as they would give any other artist.’ So despite Leroi Jones's extreme view, it seems to be the case that a high tide rises all boats.

Re: the Rolling Stones, I mentioned them specifically as they made an effort to promote black music, not steal it. While white-owned record companies typically tried to cheat blues artists out of royalties by playing a one-off fee for the right to use their songs, the Stones generally made an effort to credit the original artist (e.g Robert Wilkins). It's true they didn't originally credit Johnson for Love in Vain but it's important to note that, unlike Zep, they didn't credit themselves either. They credited it 'Woody Payne,' a nebulous figure who was at that time trying to claim copyright on non-released Robert Johnson tracks such as Love in Vain (King of the Delta Blues II wasn't released until 1970). I think the Stones and their record company ABKCO believed non-released RJ songs were public domain but the Woody Payne credit was a way of protecting themselves from potential copyright claims. The irony of that is that it was a white businessman who now owns the rights to Robert Johnson's catalogue later sued ABKCO (not the Stones) over Love in Vain.

I'm aware of the Stones' attitude to Mick Taylor and Ry Cooder. In 1969 they realised they were being ripped of by Allen Klein of ABKCO. He owned all their publishing rights and they were basically penniless. That's why their 1969 US tour needed to be financially successful. Their contracts with US promoters were notorious: people often credit Peter Grant with being the first manager to start demanding proper contracts that protected artists but The Stones may have been the first to play hardball like that. Being skint may explain (but not excuse) how the Glimmer Twins treated not just Taylor (who I'm a big fan of) but also Ronnie Wood and other 'replacement' members. Ry Cooder claimed the Stones secretly recorded him during the sessions for Let It Bleed, then Richards used some of that as inspiration for Honky Tonk Woman. But he's never produced any evidence of that and the timeline doesn't match up. It was released as a single BEFORE he was in the studio with the Stones. He did indeed call them bloodsuckers but he also appeared on their next album released a year and a half later so he might not have been that angry. But actually I'm inclined to believe there was some truth in his claims. HTW was definitely a shift in style for Keef.

Overall I suppose I would argue that Zep, The Stones etc re-energised songs that perhaps weren't initially that successful. And without that effort there would never be musical growth -- everyone would be in their own compartment. But they're all operating within a capitalist economic system, and they all want to make money. Zep got caught out. I'm not sure why that's even open to debate. It's really clear what they did, and why. That they loved black music doesn't excuse it. In fact, that probably makes it worse :(

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

3 songs while led zep was doing whole albums being borrowed?
[/QUOTE]

Which entire album was borrowed?

Name the album, the songs, and the writers.
[/QUOTE]

The first one almost entirely - without giving credits to those who wrote the songs n the first place. You get a hint in this article. Even STairway to heaven was largely stolen

https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-led-zeppelin-songs-that-led-zeppelin-didnt-write