|
Post a reply ||
Back to
Thank u
Submitted by Mau <mferrusca@gmail.com> on 27/Mar/2008
189.143.35.114
Message:
first of all, thank u for being so thorough and dedicated on your research and for conducting it, in the first place.
thank u as well for taking the most balanced opinion you could. when u like music of LZ's calibre, it's quite hard to make a unbiased stand, but from what i read (and i read a lot from your site), i think you pulled it off.
secondly, i think that LZ were not the only group copying/taking ideas/plagiarizing/stealing/knicking (or however u prefer it) early, rock-defining and primal songs. but times change, and money-making schemes came into play, and i may be mistaken, but i feel the largest claims came post-90s, an era characterized with never-ending lawsuits that ranged from the most concise to the most ridiculous cases.
the way u presented (in some cases), soundbites to your points (as in "stairway to heaven") was most appreciated.
i have onle begun my real plunge into LZ's catalogue and i find it interesting that the songs i initially liked from the get-go, are the songs that feature the most external-influenced claims. that leads me to my point: music, as i believe billy joel said on a george martin programme, has been written for centuries now. there is very little that hasn't been exposed or played with, and variations of the same theme will undoubtedly ocurr. is that so bad? so wrong?
i really don't know what is "worse": plant's supposed copy of lyrics or page's alleged lifts of riffs and such.
i can only see them as homages still, for they brought several underground or lesser known artists into the light, as the rolling stones did in their earliest years, but they were a bit more clever by inviting them to play with them and appear on televised performances (led belly comes to mind).
nevertheless, THANK U for such a great work and for making it public for us to read.
Replies to this post
|
