Jump to content

Hard & Fast intro guitar riff - a rip off??


Towelie

Recommended Posts

Yup I hear the intro to Discoteque as well. But other than that, both songs are VERY different

And intro to Shots Fired is similar to My Michelle - then goes off on a totally different tangent

LA

Edited by LA_0013
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by cliffburton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by cliffburton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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. :tongue2:

And again some of those were traditionals, so there was nobody to steal from.

Edited by moreblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :tongue2:

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 by cliffburton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by moreblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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. :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

this

plus Led Zep is better all on the songs they "steal" :tongue2:

Edited by Motivation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...