Jump to content

Did Led Zeppelin Steal ‘Stairway to Heaven’?


Recommended Posts

It’s not always so easy to prove musical plagiarism. And now that same song, “Stairway to Heaven” is at the center of another battle over ownership. The estate of guitarist Randy California claims that Led Zeppelin took a key section of their hit from his rock instrumental “Taurus,” featured on a 1968 album by the rock band Spirit.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/25/did-led-zeppelin-steal-stairway-to-heaven.html

 

Spirit and Stairway To Heaven:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I think it is sooooo odd that there are uproars like this for vague similaritis in rock songs, but such a large pecentage of pop/rap artists today are considered geniuses for doing nothing more than blatently ripping off old songs note for note (it seems the more different old songs you rip off in the new song the more of a genius you are?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some similarities, but I don't find this as obvious as the whole Coldplay fiasco.

 

They share a chord progression and tempo. If that's a copyright violation, everyone on the planet owes the Richard Berry money for copying "Louie Louie."

 

BUT...on the one hand, you have Coldplay's blatant rip-off of Satch being determined NOT to be plagiarism. And on the other hand, Men At Work inexplicably lost a lawsuit claiming that their song "Men At Work" plagiarized "Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree." Which are about as similar as the Spice Girls' "Wannabe" and Wagner's Ring Cycle. So who the !@#$ knows what a court would decide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

They share a chord progression and tempo. If that's a copyright violation, everyone on the planet owes the Richard Berry money for copying "Louie Louie."

 

BUT...on the one hand, you have Coldplay's blatant rip-off of Satch being determined NOT to be plagiarism. And on the other hand, Men At Work inexplicably lost a lawsuit claiming that their song "Men At Work" plagiarized "Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree." Which are about as similar as the Spice Girls' "Wannabe" and Wagner's Ring Cycle. So who the !@#$ knows what a court would decide?

 

both songs are using a compositional device found in all kinds of modern music - a simple ascending/descending pattern, both in the key of A minor.

 

as an aside, your example tells me that despite some knowledge of the classics (re Wagner), you know way too much about Coldplay, Men at Work, and the Spice Girls. keep it up and you'll have to hand in your man card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both songs are using a compositional device found in all kinds of modern music - a simple ascending/descending pattern, both in the key of A minor.

 

as an aside, your example tells me that despite some knowledge of the classics (re Wagner), you know way too much about Coldplay, Men at Work, and the Spice Girls. keep it up and you'll have to hand in your man card.

 

In my defense, all I know about Coldplay comes from Satch's suit against them. And I know about the Men At Work lawsuit because when I heard about it offhand, my first though was "Man, Satriani head must have just exploded - Coldplay wins a Grammy stealing his song, and Men At Work loses a suit for 'Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree'." My knowledge of Spice Girls is limited to "They had that stupid-ass song that was a hit." Of which I had to look up the name.

 

My knowledge of the Ring Cycle, on the other hand, comes from "What's Opera, Doc?" And I still have a greater knowledge of the Ring Cycle than I do Coldplay, the Spice Girls, and Men at Work combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember right after George Harrison was sued for plagerizing the melody of the Ronettes classic "Be My Baby" for his hit "My Sweet Lord". He lost the case, and claimed any similarities were from the subconscious.... a few months later National Lampoon did a terrific "History of the Beatles" issue...inside they started lampooning their solo careers...George's "Living In the Material World" was re-named "Lifting Material From the World"! :lol:

 

Plagerism suits in music are nothing new, and often they are won, and few remember. If you look at a copy of the Rolling Stones "Bridges to Babylon" album, the song "Anybody Seen My Baby" is credited to Jagger-Richards-Lange-Mink. Legend has it, Jaggers' daughter told him that the new Stones song sounded "just like" the KD Lange hit, "Constant Craving". Upon further review, Mick & Keith heard the similarity, and went to KD Lange and told her of the similarity. They gave her a song writing credit (along with Ben Mink, her co-writer) that she didn't have to sue for. I have KD say that is one of the greatest thrills of her career..and she didn't have to do a thing for it!

Edited by Buftex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My knowledge of the Ring Cycle, on the other hand, comes from "What's Opera, Doc?" And I still have a greater knowledge of the Ring Cycle than I do Coldplay, the Spice Girls, and Men at Work combined.

 

this alone more than vindicates you. your man card is secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only that opening progression that has any similarity but a chord progression is not copyright infringement.

 

The test is whether it's strikingly similar. Is it?

To me yes. When I first heard it I thought someone was doing a cover of stairway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They share a chord progression and tempo. If that's a copyright violation, everyone on the planet owes the Richard Berry money for copying "Louie Louie."

 

BUT...on the one hand, you have Coldplay's blatant rip-off of Satch being determined NOT to be plagiarism. And on the other hand, Men At Work inexplicably lost a lawsuit claiming that their song "Men At Work" plagiarized "Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree." Which are about as similar as the Spice Girls' "Wannabe" and Wagner's Ring Cycle. So who the !@#$ knows what a court would decide?

 

Is there a difference between what American courts decide and British/Australian courts decide? Or do they basically follow the same rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot copyright a chord progression. That is all that at issue here. A simple descending progression. Past that nothing is similar. Spirit and Zeppelin crossed paths. Funny, how now the remaining family decides to try and get some cash. The lawyer leading the suit is a well known douchebag that goes after these bands because people like Page have deep pockets. Funny the idiot never wins either.

 

A better example of plagiarism is the song Dazed and Confused. Which was stolen in almost it's entirety by the Yardbirds. The band Page was in before he formed zeppelin. Any Yardbirds fan has probably even heard the tune then named "i'm confused" Yet Zep paid for the nicked lyrics, etc.

 

Stealing riffs,and well lyrics is what the british blues invasion was all about. They realized that Americans had zero interest in the blues greats of the time coming out of Chicago, The Delta, anywhere. They ran with it and countless British Blues bands made bank on the music of the Black blues scene. American kids ate it up.

 

This suit is baseless and a joke. Very few successful musicians can honestly say they have not stole ideas. A chord progression is not a song. I liked spirit not anymore. It will be laughed out of court and spirit will pay Pages lawyer fees in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, I think there is some merit to the claim...but Stairway is such an epic song, with so many different sections, it would be hard to quantify how much of it they ripped off. Or, maybe more accurately, how much of what they ripped off makes up the song "Stairway to Heaven". But, as I remember from the George Harrison case, the question is really, how much the part "stolen" makes up the piece that came first. I would say, based on that, Randy California has a case. That

 

Keep in mind, Led Zeppelin, as much as I like them, have a long history (seems to fall more on Page than Plant) of being accused of plagiarism... Jack Bruce has made similar claims....and I don't know how the band, with a straight face, can say that they haven't ripped off some of the great blues masters. Sure, Best Player Available points out, the whole British blues movement from the 60's was, essentially doing the same thing..but the Stones, Animals, Yardbirds, Cream, etc etc all gave songwriting credits, and royalties to the originals. Plant & Page have been defiant in their failure to acknowledging that they lifted, or borrowed, a few things from the world, over the years. In their minds, they invented the blues... if that means they won't have to pay anyone else.

Edited by Buftex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...