ssakmule wrote:Just wonder what people who consider originality & not being a derivative as one of the factors for liking a band think about it.

Steve's post from a few years ago about derivative bands, though nothing mentioned about ripping entire songs in this post

http://electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=48578&highlight=dead+meadow&sid=54cd6462835918cad16c84b2b6e660ba#48578

The Song Remains the Same.

that damned fly wrote:if you remove the shit they stole, you still have an awesome fucking rock band. slightly better because there's no "stairway..." or "dazed and confused" in the catalog.

I agree. I love Zep. So much so that I will annoyingly call them "Zep" and not give a shit that it's annoying. They were gods to me at one point just like for a lot of people. But I've changed. I love Sabbath more. It's a slim difference for me but a difference nonetheless. So I use the "theft" reason to justify my love even though the real reason is something deep and inexpressible inside of me.

Zep stole those songs but Zep is still fucking awesome. Long live Zep.

This doesn't come as much of a surprise to me. I'm just wondering why they focus so much on Page. Page stole this, and that, etc. So what?

Robert Plant stole Janis Joplin's voice, that's enough for me (although I like Zeppelin enough, Plant is the weakest, most blatantly unoriginal member of the band IMO)

The rhythm section of Led Zeppelin completely places them in the stratosphere, well and above any critics to me. Even if they were covering christmas songs, Bonham and Jones would still obliterate.

Page and Plant? - I could care less. Page was a good rhythm guitarist with an uninteresting tone and sloppy solos. Plant was the archetypical rock front man with dumb and dumber lyrics and presentation. Those two are nothing special to me, and pretty much worthless without the stellar rhythm section they were lucky to have found in Bonham/Jones.

El Protoolio wrote:This is why, for me, Sabbath wins in a Sabbath/Zep Thunderdome.

thank you

I have never understood why Led Zeppelin decided not to credit their sources. By doing so, they would've shown people exactly how smart they were being. By not doing so, they were cunts.

Particularly off-putting is the way that they have "original sleeve" editions, i.e. the artwork is perfectly revised to include the original credits and not the new accurate ones.

world of pee wrote:sure, it would've have been more honest for them to have credited it as a cover with a new arrangement, and maybe royalties would have been divvied up more fairly.

So you disagree with me how?

Is it just me, or do all of those original songs kick much less ass than do Led Zep's rip-offs?

I'll take awesome rip-offs over pedestrian originals any day.

NerblyBear wrote:Is it just me, or do all of those original songs kick much less ass than do Led Zep's rip-offs?

It's just you.

Seriously? You think that other version of "Dazed and Confused" has anything on Zep's version? You think that old blues "Nobody's Fault but Mine" has anything to do with Zep's song?

NerblyBear wrote:Seriously? You think that other version of "Dazed and Confused" has anything on Zep's version? You think that old blues "Nobody's Fault but Mine" has anything to do with Zep's song?

Actually I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying Zeps original songs were weak compared to their versions of other people's songs.

So I agree with you.