A Washington Post Reporter on his Love of Prog

Atavachron wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Atavachron wrote: those New Yardbirds do seem to be a universal point of contention in rock; without doubt they were shameless thieves, to the point where I actually don't know of one Zeppelin cut that was not in some way an altered version of someone else's music.   In a way, they became the world's greatest cover band.   But they were so shrewd in their pilferage, so careful with arranging and mixing, that the quiet usurping and transforming of other peoples' compositions was often imperceptible (even to musicians).   The Beatles used this covert technique of metamorphosis frequently, taking old American tunes and making them fresh and hip. The question is:  if you're an exceptional thief who can launder their wares with little notice and give listeners something they like, is that legitimate ?   Keep in mind composers for centuries have been doing this.   Historically, musical composition is more about synthesis than it is creation, and that is modern music's dirty little secret. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to suggest that most popular rock music as is, would be unrecognisable without the grand larceny/assimilation (you choose) of black american musical forms by white musicians. This clearly doesn't mitigate cheating a fellow artist out of valuable income or accreditation. Best analogy I can think of here is the diving or 'simulation of fouls' that goes on in modern soccer which some people say is just 'part of the game' and that it requires great skill to 'hoodwink' the ref: A'int that tantamount to to saying that a clever and resourceful burglar doesn't deserve to be caught if they steal your sh*t? Yes they were cheaters.   I would say a closer analogy might be a clever burglar steals your sh*t, examines it inside & out, returns it to you just as mysteriously, and then a month later you see cheap knockoffs of the denim jacket you so artfully decorated over years.   Foul play but just removed enough to make it legit.   Oh and there's the hollow "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"--  of course anyone who's ever been 'imitated' knows the feelings of resentment and frustration with that kind of flattery.

Yep, maybe that is a better analogy. Of course the whole point being made here is that it ain't just Zep who are guilty of plagiarizing those who cannot really protect themselves. Different story in the classical realm however for those feckless souls like the late Keith Emerson who was contacted by both the Bartok and Janacek estates about his nicking huge unaccredited chunks of Allegro Barbaro and Sinfonietta for ELP's debut in 1970.

I believe that I would have made a damn fine ambulance chaser, but I digress. I can only go by what I've read in Colin Harper's bio on Jansch (a dark and brooding character if ever there was one) titled Dazzling Stranger. According to Harper, Jansch felt that taking on the Zeppelin machine would be a waste of his time and money, so he just decided not to bother. Arrangements are copyrighted, but are also very hard to prove in a court of law.

Atavachron wrote: those New Yardbirds do seem to be a universal point of contention in rock; without doubt they were shameless thieves, to the point where I actually don't know of one Zeppelin cut that was not in some way an altered version of someone else's music.   In a way, they became the world's greatest cover band.   But they were so shrewd in their pilferage, so careful with arranging and mixing, that the quiet usurping and transforming of other peoples' compositions was often imperceptible (even to musicians).   The Beatles used this covert technique of metamorphosis frequently, taking old American tunes and making them fresh and hip. The question is:  if you're an exceptional thief who can launder their wares with little notice and give listeners something they like, is that legitimate ?   Keep in mind composers for centuries have been doing this.   Historically, musical composition is more about synthesis than it is creation, and that is modern music's dirty little secret.

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to suggest that most popular rock music as is, would be unrecognisable without the grand larceny/assimilation (you choose) of black american musical forms by white musicians. This clearly doesn't mitigate cheating a fellow artist out of valuable income or accreditation. Best analogy I can think of here is the diving or 'simulation of fouls' that goes on in modern soccer which some people say is just 'part of the game' and that it requires great skill to 'hoodwink' the ref: A'int that tantamount to to saying that a clever and resourceful burglar doesn't deserve to be caught if they steal your sh*t?

I guess it's too late for Bach, Brahms or Beethoven 's to sue . Never investigated it but a hell of a lot of classical music was hijacked by prog rockers back in the seventies. 

SteveG wrote: Jansch's plight made all the trades at the time like Melody Maker and New Musical Express and was even championed by other artist's like Neil Young. Like it or not, Jansch would have been no more better known than Jake Holmes for composing "Dazed and Confused." I don't recall him becoming a household name. Do you?  This discussion is getting silly. Let's move on.

Agreed, you're full of it

SteveG wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: ^ erm..wouldn't more people have heard it if Jansch had been accredited properly? Nope. Jansch get more press after being ripped off by Page and still remained obscure.

Right, so you think more press by NOT being credited with the arrangement was generated than that which would have been generated by Jansch actually being credited with the arrangement (which no-one can quantify because he wasn't credited with the arrangement) I'm not trying to be difficult here Steve but no-one is buying that an accredited arranger of a tune covered by maybe the biggest rock band on the planet to date would still remain as obscure thereafter as you claim.


Edited by ExittheLemming - May 27 2017 at 08:30

^ erm..wouldn't more people have heard it if Jansch had been accredited properly?


Edited by ExittheLemming - May 27 2017 at 07:57

Kepler62 wrote: One think I agree with the guy with is when he talks about Led Zeppelin. They were stealing sh*t right from the get go. Just a band that turned the blues up to eleven that was gobbled up by the music consuming public.

No but I'm sure most people think of them that way.

Yeah for all kit's worth. I sometimes use Wikipedia as a guideline. Buzz Osbourne of the famous prog band the Melvins was asked about the Melvins' entry in Wilipedia and a lot of ot was just fabrication. back on topic. I think that the only book on prog rock that I've read that matters is Macan's Rocking The Classics. That's all you really need. After 1974 or 75 prog had  pretty much run it's course and whether anyone wants to accept it or not it it's the industry and economics that sways the music consumer. Bob Fripp did the right thing when he ended King Crimson " For ever and ever " . When it did come back in '80 it wasn'r any more a prog band than Genesis  after ATTW3. One think I agree with the guy with is when he talks about Led Zeppelin. They were stealing sh*t right from the get go. Just a band that turned the blues up to eleven that was gobbled up by the music consuming public. Gotta listen to something without digging any deeper than the local FM radio station that plays the hell out of three or 4 songs. 

Edited by Kepler62 - May 26 2017 at 03:15

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Ok, I did wind up reading parts of it. Two things (for now anyway). One is he thinks Led Zeppelin were "just" a loud rock band who didn't push any boundaries. What a bunch of crap is that. I disagree with that also. LZ might not have been true prog but they did expand things in the seventies much the same way the Beatles did in the sixties(imo). This guy obviously never heard Houses of the Holy, Presence or Physical Graffiti not to mention the unfairly maligned In through the Out Door.  Also, he refers to John Wetton as a lyricist. To the best of my knowledge JW did not write any of the lyrics for the KC albums he appeared on. The lyrics were written by Richard Palmer James.

For whatever its worth, Wikipedia has this to say:  "The original lyrics and melody for "Starless" were written by John Wetton. [...]  For the Red recording sessions, the lyrics were again altered (with contributions by Richard Palmer-James)."

There is also no Palmer-James credit for "One More Red Nightmare", so I assume JW wrote the lyrics there as well.