A Washington Post Reporter on his Love of Prog

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.

Edited by SteveG - May 27 2017 at 08:10

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? 

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.


 


Edited by Atavachron - May 28 2017 at 18:32

ExittheLemming wrote: 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

What you believe you or think is of no consequence to me Iain, as long as you do not practice business law. However, this post is warranted for those as poorly informed as you, but would welcome facts. The egregious act perpetrated against Jansch, and other's that Page ripped off, was not a matter of popularity of their work, although Jansch was semi famous through his stint with Pentangle. It was monetary due to the loss of revenue that would have been collected from copyright royalties form sales of millions of copies of Lep Zeppelin 1, that was  so damaging to Jansch. Any High St. lawyer would have known that. And that's no bull.

Edited by SteveG - May 30 2017 at 09:43

SteveG wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: 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 What you believe you or think is of no consequence to me Iain, as long as you do not practice business law. However, this post is warranted for those as poorly informed as you, but would welcome facts. The egregious act perpetrated against Jansch, and other's that Page ripped off, was not a matter of popularity of their work, although Jansch was semi famous through his stint with Pantangle. It was monetary, due to the loss of revenue that would have been collected from copyright royalties form sales of millions of copies of Lep Zeppelin 1 that was damaging to Jansch. Any high St. lawyer would have known that. And that's no bull.

Yes, we all get the recompense from 'popularised by Zep' part m'lud. I think the issue with the Jansch arrangement was that his own original recording (on the Jack Orion album) was not considered to qualify as his own protective copyright (as the basic melody is a traditional one and therefore in the public domain) I also cannot find any evidence that he even sought legal action but you are better informed than I. As an aside, there is also anecdotal evidence that Page was taught the Jansch arrangement by Al Stewart which dovetails somewhat into the 'trad arr' oral tradition where many blues/folk tunes were based on older songs of unknown origin which were in turn based on even older tunes etc . Yep, copyright law is a hornet's nest and I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this as I heartily loathe Zep, Pentangle, Al Stewart and Jansch pretty much with equanimity. Neither of us would have made High St lawyers

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.