[>>But why be selective? If you're gonna crucify one guy for theft, why give another guy a pass? Is there some magic formula that determines how one would arrive at the dividing line? <<
Read the last Lennon interviews. I think he explains it in depth and clearly in regards to the My Sweet Lord court case, songwriting, and such.]
Okay, I found it:
http://www.john-lennon.com/playboyinterviewwithjohnlennonandyokoono.htm
I'm not sure what points you want me to take away from it, though, as he contradicts what is thought to be Harrison's accidental one time only lift (which you referenced earlier)...
PLAYBOY: How did you feel about the lawsuit George lost that claimed the music to "My Sweet Lord" is a rip-off of the Shirelles' hit "He's So Fine?"
LENNON: Well, he walked right into it. He knew what he was doing.
PLAYBOY: Are you saying he consciously plagiarized the song?
LENNON: He must have known, you know. He's smarter than that. It's irrelevant, actually -- only on a monetary level does it matter. He could have changed a couple of bars in that song and nobody could ever have touched him, but he just let it go and paid the price. Maybe he thought God would just sort of let him off."
Another excerpt:
"PLAYBOY: What do you say to those who insist that all rock since the Beatles has been the Beatles redone?
LENNON: All music is rehash. There are only a few notes. Just variations on a theme. Try to tell the kids in the Seventies who were screaming to the Bee Gees that their music was just the Beatles redone. There is nothing wrong with the Bee Gees. They do a damn good job. There was nothing else going on then."
Maybe you can clarify why you referenced that interview?
[Far as Whole Lotta and You Need, I think they're very similar all the way 'round, call it vibe, cadence.]
Well, that's a far cry from Page copying the music note for note - there must be endless examples of songs that qualify based on that criteria (heck, even whole genres of music). As an example, do you think Page should sue Heart for Barracuda? It's very similar to Achilles Last Stand as far as vibe and cadence go. Or how about Wolfmother's Woman? They've come as close as anyone to the Zeppelin vibe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLGde-7mIyA
[When I first heard the original I was shocked and the numerous similarities.]
Can you be more specific about these similarities?
Jimmy Page at 14 years old
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
This has nothing to do with the ethics of taking entire tunes and putting only your name on them but Page has whored his tunes out to admen for companies that make piece of **** cars (and bad ads for them.) And for that alone he deserves the death penalty! Bring me the head of Jimmy Page!
As far as getting dragged into court goes, he has 1000 times more dough, if not a million times more, than 99 percent of the other artists mentioned in this thread. And he keeps going for more. So, it's hard to feel sorry for him as he keeps making his pockets deeper, if anyone comes looking for justice in the credit department.
>> After all, it's commonly stated that Berry stole a lot of his songs/ideas from his pianist partner.<<
This is a he said, she said situation. There's no evidence to back up his claims. They were in a musical marriage (i.e. try to take sides after a marriage has gone sour. The two worked together as recently as the 80s, too so his gripe can't be that bad) whereas Page went into clubs, heard other people's tunes, took them and put only his own name on them, a totally different situation than collaborators who're in the same project going back years later and trying to determine who wrote line. Moreover, whoever wrote Berry's tunes got ripped off most of all because Allan Freed put his name on the publishing. Freed had nothing to do with the creation of the songs.
>>Maybe you can clarify why you referenced that interview? <<
It's been 20 years since I read it, but I believe it's (and I'm not sure you're looking at the complete interviews because there's an entire book length of them) where Lennon talks about a line. You can take so much up to a point, and use it as inspiration, take a small part, a few words and such and build something that is otherwise new.
But you cross that line and you're toast (so I referenced it when you asked whether there's a difference between taking a solo and taking a whole song and I'm saying yes. Page appears to have swiped at least two entire songs and then some. And there's more than he said, she said evidence that he did it. And the only reason he didn't get nailed to the wall on Dazed and Confused appears to be that the writer didn't drag Page's butt back into court.
As far as getting dragged into court goes, he has 1000 times more dough, if not a million times more, than 99 percent of the other artists mentioned in this thread. And he keeps going for more. So, it's hard to feel sorry for him as he keeps making his pockets deeper, if anyone comes looking for justice in the credit department.
>> After all, it's commonly stated that Berry stole a lot of his songs/ideas from his pianist partner.<<
This is a he said, she said situation. There's no evidence to back up his claims. They were in a musical marriage (i.e. try to take sides after a marriage has gone sour. The two worked together as recently as the 80s, too so his gripe can't be that bad) whereas Page went into clubs, heard other people's tunes, took them and put only his own name on them, a totally different situation than collaborators who're in the same project going back years later and trying to determine who wrote line. Moreover, whoever wrote Berry's tunes got ripped off most of all because Allan Freed put his name on the publishing. Freed had nothing to do with the creation of the songs.
>>Maybe you can clarify why you referenced that interview? <<
It's been 20 years since I read it, but I believe it's (and I'm not sure you're looking at the complete interviews because there's an entire book length of them) where Lennon talks about a line. You can take so much up to a point, and use it as inspiration, take a small part, a few words and such and build something that is otherwise new.
But you cross that line and you're toast (so I referenced it when you asked whether there's a difference between taking a solo and taking a whole song and I'm saying yes. Page appears to have swiped at least two entire songs and then some. And there's more than he said, she said evidence that he did it. And the only reason he didn't get nailed to the wall on Dazed and Confused appears to be that the writer didn't drag Page's butt back into court.
This is off the record
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
Berry has a reputation of suing anyone anywhere anytime for stealing his songs.
But since most are in I-IV-V, I spose only his melodies are suitable suables.
I like Page. He's a recluse. A goal to which I aspire.
Keith Moon told Page his new band would go over like a Led Zeppelin, hence the name. Perhaps Page figured he was right, and figured if nobody bought the records, nobody would care much about the plagerisms (Pagerisms?).
But since most are in I-IV-V, I spose only his melodies are suitable suables.
I like Page. He's a recluse. A goal to which I aspire.
Keith Moon told Page his new band would go over like a Led Zeppelin, hence the name. Perhaps Page figured he was right, and figured if nobody bought the records, nobody would care much about the plagerisms (Pagerisms?).
Uh-oh - sounds a little testy. You say that i'm trying to avoid the Page aspect of the argument, but that's absolutely untrue. You're the one who started bringing the Fleetwood Mac's and John Lennon's into it, in an obtuse way. Doesn't bother me too much though - I can multitask without a problem. You're insinuating I've been guilty of avoiding something, but you've been at least as bad - and you blamed it on the brevity of my posts. Yet you had no problem going through Will Shade's two pager?!
[This has nothing to do with the moral part of taking entire tunes and putting only your name on them]
You're convinced of this, yet you haven't said you've heard them besides YNL.
[but as far as getting dragged into court goes, Page has 1000 times more dough, if not a million times more, than 99 percent of the other artists mentioned in this thread.]
So? If you're trying to say nobody can afford to go against him, that's bunk - Willie Dixon did it.
[Plus he's whored his tunes out to admen for companies that make piece of **** cars (and bad ads for them.) And for that alone he deserves the death penalty.]
LOL! The rhetoric begins to fly, and the off topic jabs occur in the same post that accuses me of veering off the topic.
But..,the Cadillac commercial didn't bother me at all, since R&R was just a basic throwaway tune anyway. Not like the "serious and important" social commentary of Revolution, or Fortunate Son.
[And he keeps going for more. So, it's hard to feel sorry for him as he keeps making his pockets deeper, if anyone comes looking for justice in the credit department.]
Yeah, that greedy sonuvabitch - a rich rock star is pretty uncommon, I hear. Try looking up the ABC Trust Fund. Yup, the guy just wants to keep his riches all to himself. Of course, there's the time he wanted to sign Bobby Parker (blues guy) to Swan Song circa '76 - an artist that would've made *no* money for the label. Same with Roy Harper.
[It's been 20 years since I read it, and you seem to like these discussions about Page's thefts best when he's not in the discussion in the least,]
I've discussed it quite a bit - if I can't get more from you than "vibes" and "cadences", what else can I say? I asked a couple direct questions about that idea - you blew right by them.
[I'm not sure you're looking at the complete interviews because there's an entire book length of them) where Lennon talks about a line. You can take so much up to a point, a line if you will, and use it as inspiration,take a small part and build something that is otherwise new.]
No, that's in the interview I linked. But he doesn't quite say that - he says that is *one* of the techniques he'd used. No great revelation there.
[But you cross that line and you're stealing]
Well, you stated it was his last interview in 1980 in Playboy, so that's what I read. I can only read what you reference. He doesn't say that in there from what I read. But he *did* say "All music is rehash. There are only a few notes. Just variations on a theme." So he's apparently had two opposing viewpoints at different times - maybe *he's* the guy whose memory you shouldn't trust.
[(so I referenced it when you asked whether there's a difference between taking a solo and taking a whole song and I'm saying yes.]
Did I ask that? I merely pointed out that even the almighty Clapton wasn't immune to lifting (after all, he didn't use it a taking off point, it was practically note for note). It was someone else's creation, and he took it for himself. But that wasn't a major point anyway - I was just wondering about yet another example where you gave someone else a pass.
[Page appears to have swiped at least two entire songs and then some. And there's more than he said, she said evidence that he did it.]
What are those songs again? Dazed would be one - what's the other?
[And the only reason he didn't get nailed to the wall on Dazed and Confused appears to be that the writer didn't drag Page's butt back into court.)]
Have you heard Jake Holmes' version? Page would have to share a credit for sure, but it's certainly not a note for note lift of a whole song. The bassline and vocal melody are the same, but there are sections in the LZ version that aren't in Holmes'. And I know the reason why it didn't go to court - I said as much. My question was *why* didn't Holmes pursue legal action.
[This is a he said, she said situation. There's no evidence to back up his claims.]
What evidence do you have to make that claim? That's more like a he said Glenn said than anything.
[Plus they were collaborators. Berry clearly had a lot to do with the songs, too.]
Yeah, but his name was on them - Johnson's wasn't.
[They were in a musical marriage (i.e. try to take sides after a marriage has gone sour. ]
I don't know that the marriage went sour, at least not from Johnson's side. By all accounts, the guy is practically a saint.
[The two worked together as recently as the 80s, too)]
Yeah, I guess he really was a saint then!
[whereas Page went into clubs, heard other people's tunes, took them and put only his own name on them.]
Yeah, once. But don't forget to mention Relf, McCarty and Dreja!
[Totally different situation than collaborators who're in the same project going back years later and trying to determine who wrote line.]
Trying to minimize the situation, huh? Funny that those who support the guy's situation don't see it as trivially as that.
[Moreover, whoever wrote Berry's tunes got ripped off most of all because Allan Freed put his name on the publishing. Freed had nothing to do with the creation of the songs.]
Doesn't much matter - if that wouldn't have happened, the guy still would've ended up with nothing anyway - he was taken advantage of by Chuck before anything else happened.
[This has nothing to do with the moral part of taking entire tunes and putting only your name on them]
You're convinced of this, yet you haven't said you've heard them besides YNL.
[but as far as getting dragged into court goes, Page has 1000 times more dough, if not a million times more, than 99 percent of the other artists mentioned in this thread.]
So? If you're trying to say nobody can afford to go against him, that's bunk - Willie Dixon did it.
[Plus he's whored his tunes out to admen for companies that make piece of **** cars (and bad ads for them.) And for that alone he deserves the death penalty.]
LOL! The rhetoric begins to fly, and the off topic jabs occur in the same post that accuses me of veering off the topic.
But..,the Cadillac commercial didn't bother me at all, since R&R was just a basic throwaway tune anyway. Not like the "serious and important" social commentary of Revolution, or Fortunate Son. [And he keeps going for more. So, it's hard to feel sorry for him as he keeps making his pockets deeper, if anyone comes looking for justice in the credit department.]
Yeah, that greedy sonuvabitch - a rich rock star is pretty uncommon, I hear. Try looking up the ABC Trust Fund. Yup, the guy just wants to keep his riches all to himself. Of course, there's the time he wanted to sign Bobby Parker (blues guy) to Swan Song circa '76 - an artist that would've made *no* money for the label. Same with Roy Harper.
[It's been 20 years since I read it, and you seem to like these discussions about Page's thefts best when he's not in the discussion in the least,]
I've discussed it quite a bit - if I can't get more from you than "vibes" and "cadences", what else can I say? I asked a couple direct questions about that idea - you blew right by them.
[I'm not sure you're looking at the complete interviews because there's an entire book length of them) where Lennon talks about a line. You can take so much up to a point, a line if you will, and use it as inspiration,take a small part and build something that is otherwise new.]
No, that's in the interview I linked. But he doesn't quite say that - he says that is *one* of the techniques he'd used. No great revelation there.
[But you cross that line and you're stealing]
Well, you stated it was his last interview in 1980 in Playboy, so that's what I read. I can only read what you reference. He doesn't say that in there from what I read. But he *did* say "All music is rehash. There are only a few notes. Just variations on a theme." So he's apparently had two opposing viewpoints at different times - maybe *he's* the guy whose memory you shouldn't trust.
[(so I referenced it when you asked whether there's a difference between taking a solo and taking a whole song and I'm saying yes.]
Did I ask that? I merely pointed out that even the almighty Clapton wasn't immune to lifting (after all, he didn't use it a taking off point, it was practically note for note). It was someone else's creation, and he took it for himself. But that wasn't a major point anyway - I was just wondering about yet another example where you gave someone else a pass.
[Page appears to have swiped at least two entire songs and then some. And there's more than he said, she said evidence that he did it.]
What are those songs again? Dazed would be one - what's the other?
[And the only reason he didn't get nailed to the wall on Dazed and Confused appears to be that the writer didn't drag Page's butt back into court.)]
Have you heard Jake Holmes' version? Page would have to share a credit for sure, but it's certainly not a note for note lift of a whole song. The bassline and vocal melody are the same, but there are sections in the LZ version that aren't in Holmes'. And I know the reason why it didn't go to court - I said as much. My question was *why* didn't Holmes pursue legal action.
[This is a he said, she said situation. There's no evidence to back up his claims.]
What evidence do you have to make that claim? That's more like a he said Glenn said than anything.
[Plus they were collaborators. Berry clearly had a lot to do with the songs, too.]
Yeah, but his name was on them - Johnson's wasn't.
[They were in a musical marriage (i.e. try to take sides after a marriage has gone sour. ]
I don't know that the marriage went sour, at least not from Johnson's side. By all accounts, the guy is practically a saint.
[The two worked together as recently as the 80s, too)]
Yeah, I guess he really was a saint then!
[whereas Page went into clubs, heard other people's tunes, took them and put only his own name on them.]
Yeah, once. But don't forget to mention Relf, McCarty and Dreja!
[Totally different situation than collaborators who're in the same project going back years later and trying to determine who wrote line.]
Trying to minimize the situation, huh? Funny that those who support the guy's situation don't see it as trivially as that.
[Moreover, whoever wrote Berry's tunes got ripped off most of all because Allan Freed put his name on the publishing. Freed had nothing to do with the creation of the songs.]
Doesn't much matter - if that wouldn't have happened, the guy still would've ended up with nothing anyway - he was taken advantage of by Chuck before anything else happened.
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>> I can only read what you reference.<<
You can only read what you can find. Did you get a hold of the book? I did mention that there is a book-long version of his last interviews.
>>So? If you're trying to say nobody can afford to go against him, that's bunk. <<
No, just that if you have deep pockets, and give people cases to pursue, they'll come after you.
>>But..,the Cadillac commercial didn't bother me at all, since R&R was just a basic throwaway tune anyway. Not like the "serious and important" social commentary of Revolution, or Fortunate Son.<<
Revolution was yanked off of the air immediately because permission was not granted to use it, and Fortunate Son was used against Forgarty's wishes but he didn't control the publishing.
You choose to compare those instances to a band that willingly shrills their catalog although they appear to have nothing in common.
You can only read what you can find. Did you get a hold of the book? I did mention that there is a book-long version of his last interviews.
>>So? If you're trying to say nobody can afford to go against him, that's bunk. <<
No, just that if you have deep pockets, and give people cases to pursue, they'll come after you.
>>But..,the Cadillac commercial didn't bother me at all, since R&R was just a basic throwaway tune anyway. Not like the "serious and important" social commentary of Revolution, or Fortunate Son.<<
Revolution was yanked off of the air immediately because permission was not granted to use it, and Fortunate Son was used against Forgarty's wishes but he didn't control the publishing.
You choose to compare those instances to a band that willingly shrills their catalog although they appear to have nothing in common.
This is off the record
[>> I can only read what you reference.<<
You can only read what you can find. Did you get a hold of the book? I did mention that there is a book-long version of his last interviews.]
Again, you specifically mentioned the 1980 Playboy interview - that's where those quotes came from. I don't think any rational person would expect me to track down some out of print book (whose title hasn't been provided). Besides, if he did say what you've indicated, he also said what I quoted (and mine's right here - no hunting in used book stores for it), so I don't know that I'd want to use him to make a point.
[>>So? If you're trying to say nobody can afford to go against him, that's bunk. <<
No, just that if you have deep pockets, and give people cases to pursue, they'll come after you.]
Sure. That's so common in the music industry that most times it's not news - no big surprise there.
[Revolution was yanked off of the air immediately because permission was not granted to use it, and Fortunate Son was used against Forgarty's wishes but he didn't control the publishing.
You choose to compare those instances to a band]
Well, those were the first two examples that came to mind. There are many, many others, and you darn well know it. But if you insist:
http://www.songtitle.info/
According to that link, The Who & Cream are twice the sellouts that Zep was. Not that it matters to me - you're the one who brought it up.
[that willingly shrills their catalog although they appear to have nothing in common.]
One song = "their catalog"?!
Anyway - the Detroit Tigers are moving on, it's Canadian Thanksgiving, and Talladega is on, so everything's alright in my world.
Have a great weekend, all.
You can only read what you can find. Did you get a hold of the book? I did mention that there is a book-long version of his last interviews.]
Again, you specifically mentioned the 1980 Playboy interview - that's where those quotes came from. I don't think any rational person would expect me to track down some out of print book (whose title hasn't been provided). Besides, if he did say what you've indicated, he also said what I quoted (and mine's right here - no hunting in used book stores for it), so I don't know that I'd want to use him to make a point.
[>>So? If you're trying to say nobody can afford to go against him, that's bunk. <<
No, just that if you have deep pockets, and give people cases to pursue, they'll come after you.]
Sure. That's so common in the music industry that most times it's not news - no big surprise there.
[Revolution was yanked off of the air immediately because permission was not granted to use it, and Fortunate Son was used against Forgarty's wishes but he didn't control the publishing.
You choose to compare those instances to a band]
Well, those were the first two examples that came to mind. There are many, many others, and you darn well know it. But if you insist:
http://www.songtitle.info/
According to that link, The Who & Cream are twice the sellouts that Zep was. Not that it matters to me - you're the one who brought it up.
[that willingly shrills their catalog although they appear to have nothing in common.]
One song = "their catalog"?!
Anyway - the Detroit Tigers are moving on, it's Canadian Thanksgiving, and Talladega is on, so everything's alright in my world.
Have a great weekend, all.
Great debate Chris and Glenn. I have enjoyed every word of it.
Happy thanksgiving Chris. This is off topic but, did you know that when the founding fathers at Plymouth Rock decreed that they should give thanksgiving to God for His mercy and bounty that approximately half their number had perished from lack of food and pestilence.
Their crops failed miserably and as a consequence they had imposed a ration of five kernels per day per person.
Happy thanksgiving Chris. This is off topic but, did you know that when the founding fathers at Plymouth Rock decreed that they should give thanksgiving to God for His mercy and bounty that approximately half their number had perished from lack of food and pestilence.
Their crops failed miserably and as a consequence they had imposed a ration of five kernels per day per person.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>I don't think any rational person would expect me to track down some out of print book (whose title hasn't been provided). <<
First of all, it's in print (I notice you assume a lot.)
Secondly, I didn't think it'd take a lot of "tracking down" to go to Amazon and type in John Lennon Playboy interviews and find the book and you know what?
http://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Interviews-John-Lennon-Yoko/dp/0872237052/sr=8-1/qid=1160343301/ref=sr_1_1/102-9883067-6150544?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>Well, those were the first two examples that came to mind<<
Examples of what?
You brought up two songs used in ads against the whishes of their writers when trying to make a point about Jimmy Page not only giving permission and taking a fee for the use of his song but showing up and doing PR for the company as well.
Those are clearly two completely different things, though you seem to choose not to admit it no matter what.
To quote you "I don't think any rational person would expect" one to compare situations where one gives permission to use his songs in an ad with other people who were vehemently opposed to their songs being used in ads (one sued in his case and the other wanted to but couldn't) as being the same thing.
First of all, it's in print (I notice you assume a lot.)
Secondly, I didn't think it'd take a lot of "tracking down" to go to Amazon and type in John Lennon Playboy interviews and find the book and you know what?
http://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Interviews-John-Lennon-Yoko/dp/0872237052/sr=8-1/qid=1160343301/ref=sr_1_1/102-9883067-6150544?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>Well, those were the first two examples that came to mind<<
Examples of what?
You brought up two songs used in ads against the whishes of their writers when trying to make a point about Jimmy Page not only giving permission and taking a fee for the use of his song but showing up and doing PR for the company as well.
Those are clearly two completely different things, though you seem to choose not to admit it no matter what.
To quote you "I don't think any rational person would expect" one to compare situations where one gives permission to use his songs in an ad with other people who were vehemently opposed to their songs being used in ads (one sued in his case and the other wanted to but couldn't) as being the same thing.
This is off the record
Hey, Chris and Glenn...are you guys by any chance lawyers?
I hate to be a party ****, but you're using up a lot of Peter's hard drive quoting each other's material. Why not just refer back to a given statement made by your opponent by presenting the opening couple of words of that statement, thus separating the readers who give a sh*te from those who don't.
Other than that slight criticism, please: continue ad nauseum...
I hate to be a party ****, but you're using up a lot of Peter's hard drive quoting each other's material. Why not just refer back to a given statement made by your opponent by presenting the opening couple of words of that statement, thus separating the readers who give a sh*te from those who don't.
Other than that slight criticism, please: continue ad nauseum...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
[Why not just...]
Duly noted, thanks.
[First of all, it's in print (I notice you assume a lot.)]
Congrats - I made *one* assumption (I notice you exaggerate a lot ) based on an earlier statement of yours. I was wrong about the book being OOP, and have no problem admitting that. Glad you were able to find it at Amazon - since you seem to put alot of importance on his thoughts, and I'm not a big Lennon fan, by all means go ahead and place your order and let me know what he said. Of course, that still won't take away from the quotes I found, but it might be interesting.
[Examples of what?
You brought up two songs used in ads against the whishes of their writers...etc.]
Whoosh! That's the sound of you blowing right past this:
http://www.songtitle.info/
Of course, none of this has much to do with the Zeppelin "vibe" and "cadence". Hopefully you'll get back to me on that.
[...sh*te...ad nauseum...]
Apologies in advance, Dane.
Duly noted, thanks.
[First of all, it's in print (I notice you assume a lot.)]
Congrats - I made *one* assumption (I notice you exaggerate a lot
) based on an earlier statement of yours. I was wrong about the book being OOP, and have no problem admitting that. Glad you were able to find it at Amazon - since you seem to put alot of importance on his thoughts, and I'm not a big Lennon fan, by all means go ahead and place your order and let me know what he said. Of course, that still won't take away from the quotes I found, but it might be interesting. [Examples of what?
You brought up two songs used in ads against the whishes of their writers...etc.]
Whoosh! That's the sound of you blowing right past this:
http://www.songtitle.info/
Of course, none of this has much to do with the Zeppelin "vibe" and "cadence". Hopefully you'll get back to me on that.
[...sh*te...ad nauseum...]
Apologies in advance, Dane.
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
I'm more than content rest my case with the fact that Jimmy Page appears to be the only classic rock artist who has a web page that's dedicated to investigating the numerous times that he apparently took songs that were written by others, rerecorded them, and put only his own name on the label. For anyone who'd like to take a look (I suspect Jimmy is not one of them) here it is again:
http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html
http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html
This is off the record
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
-
firstbassman
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:00 am
RE: "Keith Moon told Page his new band would go over like a Led Zeppelin, hence the name."
Jerry, yes, that is the story. But of course you mean "lead zeppelin." Like the expression here "lead balloon." The spelling was changed later.
Speaking of Page...
I found an old interview (very early 70s?). And in it, he gives his opinion of the "west coast" bands, especially the Jefferson Airplane:
http://download.yousendit.com/8E4A7746065852E4
http://download.yousendit.com/7A359B1B35D595E6
Well, that's one man's opinion.
Jerry, yes, that is the story. But of course you mean "lead zeppelin." Like the expression here "lead balloon." The spelling was changed later.
Speaking of Page...
I found an old interview (very early 70s?). And in it, he gives his opinion of the "west coast" bands, especially the Jefferson Airplane:
http://download.yousendit.com/8E4A7746065852E4
http://download.yousendit.com/7A359B1B35D595E6
Well, that's one man's opinion.