Towelie Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) The second I heard it I instantly recognised it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLYQBjPvrT4From 0:11 - 0:16 - but I can't put my finger on what it is. It's definately a blatant rip-off of something though...Do you guys know what I'm on about?? Edited May 17, 2012 by Towelie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 C'mon man, everything is a rip off nowadays... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Kinda sounds like Schools Out - Alice Cooper in a way, other than that it doesn't ring a bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ana_1991 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Move to the city variation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 Move to the city variationThat's it! Just sped up with a few notes changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Throughout the album I've heard parts VERY similar to welcome to the jungle, locomotive and My Michelle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Standing In The Sun's intro sounds a lot like U2's Discoteque's intro. I don't really care, 'cause the songs aren't similar at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA_0013 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Yup I hear the intro to Discoteque as well. But other than that, both songs are VERY differentAnd intro to Shots Fired is similar to My Michelle - then goes off on a totally different tangentLA Edited May 17, 2012 by LA_0013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Move to the city variationThat's it! Just sped up with a few notes changed.Yes, there are a lot of rehashed riffs, licks and all. And this is sad, just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) In the world of pentatonic licks you're bound to find something that sounds like a rip off, especially since its by far the most widely used scale and been in use for what at least 60 years in rock music? Edited May 18, 2012 by cliffburton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Here and there, yes... but not as much as we heard in AL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) a few licks here and there yes, you think thats bad? Listen to Led Zeppelin. Half of their catalog is blatant plagarism from beginning to end, riffs, lryics and all. Slash using a barely similar lick from 26 years ago hardly is considered such. Edited May 18, 2012 by cliffburton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 There's a bit in the early albums but not to the point where you can say half. It's a pretty large catalog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Maybe not quite half, but definitely more than a bit. Enough to be ashamed of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Maybe not quite half, but definitely more than a bit. Enough to be ashamed of it.I doubt they'd be ashamed, if they were so blatant about it. Although a few of them are listed as "traditional" so there's nobody to steal them from.Willie Dixon took them to court, they just paid him off. What goes around comes around too, since you can hear a good bit of Zeppelin in every band that's come out since then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Maybe not quite half, but definitely more than a bit. Enough to be ashamed of it.I doubt they'd be ashamed, if they were so blatant about it. Although a few of them are listed as "traditional" so there's nobody to steal them from.Willie Dixon took them to court, they just paid him off. What goes around comes around too, since you can hear a good bit of Zeppelin in every band that's come out since then...Goes alot further than Willie Dixon. They SHOULD be ashamed whether they are or not.check out part 2 and 3 of these videos as well. Its so ridiculously obvious its pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) I've seen those, and yes it's pretty apparent Plant didn't change the lyrics when he was supposed to. It was mostly on the blues songs they covered and then on original compositions where Plant sang old blues lyrics. But the thing is, everybody did it. All those blues guys Zeppelin covered, they did it as well.But in other parts of the video, it's grasping at straws pretty badly, especially How Many More Times.Reading what JP says, I really don't detect any shame:"[A]s far as my end of it goes, I always tried to bring something fresh to anything that I used. I always made sure to come up with some variation. In fact, I think in most cases, you would never know what the original source could be. Maybe not in every case -- but in most cases. So most of the comparisons rest on the lyrics. And Robert was supposed to change the lyrics, and he didn't always do that -- which is what brought on most of the grief. They couldn't get us on the guitar parts of the music, but they nailed us on the lyrics. We did, however, take some liberties, I must say [laughs]. But never mind; we did try to do the right thing."Way to throw Plant under the bus. Which is funny, since Robert tries so hard since the 80s to be super original with his music almost to a fault. And again some of those were traditionals, so there was nobody to steal from. Edited May 18, 2012 by moreblack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 C'mon man, everything is a rip off nowadays...True. There's plenty of famous songs that are actually rip-offs (Smoke On The Water, for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 But nobody says shit about Deep Purple doing Speed King, when a good chunk of the lyrics are old 50s rock n' roll including "Good Golly Miss Molly", "Tutti Frutti", and "The Battle of New Orleans". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) I've seen those, and yes it's pretty apparent Plant didn't change the lyrics when he was supposed to. It was mostly on the blues songs they covered and then on original compositions where Plant sang old blues lyrics. But the thing is, everybody did it. All those blues guys Zeppelin covered, they did it as well.Reading what JP says, I really don't detect any shame:"[A]s far as my end of it goes, I always tried to bring something fresh to anything that I used. I always made sure to come up with some variation. In fact, I think in most cases, you would never know what the original source could be. Maybe not in every case -- but in most cases. So most of the comparisons rest on the lyrics. And Robert was supposed to change the lyrics, and he didn't always do that -- which is what brought on most of the grief. They couldn't get us on the guitar parts of the music, but they nailed us on the lyrics. We did, however, take some liberties, I must say [laughs]. But never mind; we did try to do the right thing."Way to throw Plant under the bus. Which is funny, since Robert tries so hard since the 80s to be super original with his music almost to a fault. And again some of those were traditionals, so there was nobody to steal from.The songs that were traditional , artists before them had their own personal interpretation. Zeppelin took THEIR interpretation and claimed it as their own. And then you have songs like Dazed and Confused which are 100 percent rip offs with no credit.Anyway, the point is you find stuff like this all over music. So Slash taking a few riffs, most of which are his own, and using them on this record is a non issue. "Imitation Is The Highest Form Of Flattery" Edited May 18, 2012 by cliffburton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) But can you copyright an interpretation of a traditional? D&C can't be 100% rip off, since the lyrics are different and the instrumental is way different, other than the one riff.Zeppelin gets more flack than anyone, mostly since they were so huge, and many others that did it just slipped under the radar. Edited May 18, 2012 by moreblack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffburton Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Im not sure if you can, but did they not later credit them in the later releases? Im not a huge Led Zep fan but I thought I read that somewhere. Would be a huge admission of guilt if so. And by 100% on D&C I mean clear, cut, 100 percent obviously stolen with no way to deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The credits today acknowledge the blues artists. But even then it's far less than you'd think, and pretty much all but stops after the 4th album. Except for Boogie With Stu in which they shared credit with Ian Stuart of the Stones, and Mrs. Valens after finding out that her son Ritchie never got any royalties for any of his music.But the traditionals are just listed as that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Zep opened doors for people to discover different avenues of music they may have not ever ventured in to...based on fan uber enthusiasm for all things Zep,artists and material that inspired Pagey and the lads (in any way you want to look at it) were sought out.Wasn't such a bad thing after all imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) Maybe not quite half, but definitely more than a bit. Enough to be ashamed of it.I doubt they'd be ashamed, if they were so blatant about it. Although a few of them are listed as "traditional" so there's nobody to steal them from.Willie Dixon took them to court, they just paid him off. What goes around comes around too, since you can hear a good bit of Zeppelin in every band that's come out since then...thisplus Led Zep is better all on the songs they "steal" Edited May 20, 2012 by Motivation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts