The Smiley Smile Message Board

This is heartbreaking for any zeppelin fan. :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AhPZx7AedE&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL22AB1A020267AAFE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdr8PtUPIPo&feature=related

Yes, this is very well known stuff.

There's a difference between covering songs and stealing songs :[ ..we both know that.

Can't say I'm much of a fan of LZ anyway. But I think a lot of this stuff is pretty underhanded. It's funny because I was defending Oasis (per usual) on here a few months ago and somebody said that they appreciated true innovation by bands like Led Zeppelin!  :lol

The difference of course is that Oasis wore their influences on their sleeve and took from very popular sources so that everyone would know. LZ took obscure work mostly from a race that is historically subjugated and didn't credit them. So I don't think there's much good to say about it, to be honest.

there's nothing good i can say besides their later work was much better than their earlier work :)
I never checked out oasis..noel talked so badly upon the beach boys & radiohead it truly irritated me since i'm a big fan of both bands so because of that i never took the time to check out their music and i never will based on his negative criticism. (It might not be a good reason to you but so be it.)

That was me ;D, learned my lesson and honestly don't know what I was thinking that day.

It's a complex issue because the fact is art is typically a free exchange of ideas and most art remains heavily indebted to someone else. These days "originality" seems like the easy go-to to evaluate what is a good work of art and what is a bad work of art, but it's pretty flimsy in my opinion. But the difference in this case, like I said, is that LZ took songs that were not commercial hits that very few people outside of connoiseurs knew about at the time (mostly because the music was made by culturally margialized figures), re-vamped them, and made huge sums of money off them without crediting the original writer


It's your call but no I don't think that's a great reason not to listen to his music. Artists are free to like and not like whomever they want and I can't expect all my favourite artists to love each other. Leo Tolstoy, one of the most widely regarded writers of the nineteenth century called Nietzsche, another one of the most widely regarded writers of the nineteenth century, "stupid and abnormal." Despite this rather low blow, most critics wouldn't say that that voids the work of Tolstoy and that War and Peace is suddenly not a monumental giant anymore.

Haha - well, see, that's one of the problems with LZ is that they hid it so well. Let's face it - it was a time of plundering. We could make big lists of works that, say, The Beatles and The Beach Boys stole from too. But their stealing was, in my opinion, above board.

I just can't give that asshole a chance, the only song i heard by them is "Some Might Say" & well it's probably one of the worst songs i've ever heard in my life.

Then I'd say you'd probably have to hear more songs...

Since you take artist's words seriously, I'd figure you'd like a band like Oasis who has been praised by people like Pete Townshend and Ray Davies.

:] Well that's nice to know that they praise townshend because i'm a huge fan of the who.. i dont see how anyone can listen to "Who's Next,Tommy,Quadrophenia" and not be a fan of pete,roger,john & keith moon.   Ray Davies is one of the greatest song writers of 20th century & the kinks are the only british band that when i listen to their music i actually can picture roaming around in london. :] it's beautiful sophisticated english music. It sucks to know that noel doesnt like the beach boys or radiohead :/ but hey different strokes for different folks.

Yep, that's the most mature thing to do re the Gallagher comments;take a balanced approach.  He needs a good punch in the mouth for dissing the BB's and a good pat on the back for straight shooting about Radiohead  :lol

I agree with the punch in the mouth comment but a pat on the back for dissing radiohead?
you don't like radiohead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_8z6gsbqrw

Well, I don't hate them per se, although the Bends nearly gave me the bends (I had to come up for air, pronto) - KidA, Hail, Limbs etc, I find myself drifting off.

Ok Computer is, err, ok - a reasonable listen (Karma Police is nifty and I do like that line about "the Government" in No suprises ("They don't speak for us")) but my reaction is not unlike that I have to Supergrass - OK at the time, but I don't take away a lot, or think about them "later".  Hence, I'm a tad surprised about the fanaticism RH generate - but, that's art (and maybe I'll feel differently in the future)

Personally I have no problem with what Oasis or Led Zeppelin did in regards to stealing music.  Stealing, influenced by, about the same thing.  Led Zeppelin changed it enough to make it their own, I don't think there was malice in it, I think they just didn't think through what they were doing.  It was pretty commonplace in their time anyways. 

Oasis I think pretty clearly were paying obnoxious homage to their idols, they didn't steal a thing just like an elvis impersonator isn't stealing anything from the king. 

I know some people don't like Oasis, but when they came out I thought they were great.  "Some Might Say" is a great song, what's wrong with that one?  I realize all their music is about the same thing, over and over again, but it's kind of got it's own charm,, like AC/DC does.  Same stuff.  Different title.  Still cool. 

My problem with Radiohead is they take themselves too seriously.  Boring music by a bunch of nerds who think they're important or different than the rest of us.  At least Oasis had swagger but it was ridiculous.  They just wanted to fight, they didn't want to teach us anything. 

 :lol I believe the correct phrase is "based on" - like Do it Again was "alledgedly based on"/"probably f*ckin' ripped off from" the Frogmen, and nearly all of Al Jardine's shi was based on something else.

Oasis did a great job

HAHAHAHA!! So they stole a song by another artist. Big Whoop. I wonder if Howard Stern has ever heard the album Houses of the Holy. Newguy, don't be upset. Regardless of what people tell you, music is copied a lot.

No, I meant that Townshend and Davies have praised Noel Gallagher and Oasis, not the other way around (though they have done that too). I'm pretty sure that Noel and Ray Davies are actually good friends. Noel basically saw Oasis as part of a particular British lineage that was basically this: Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Small Faces --> Bowie, T-Rex --> Sex Pistols, Paul Weller and the Jam --> The Smiths --> The Stone Roses. And most of the people in that list who are alive saw Oasis as a very welcome addition to that party.

Again, I don't care if Noel likes The Beach Boys or not (and I agree with him about Radiohead). Again, I think that Nietzsche was a great writer, and I don't like War and Peace any less because Tolstoy called Nietzsche "stupid and abnormal."

Wellll...it's not just one song, it's virtually every song on the first album, quite a few on their second and while I haven't heard people doing an analysis of the other ones, I'm sure you'll find similar cases there. Again, it's a difficult issue because, like I said, art is primarily about an exchange of ideas not originality. This case is somewhat different though because of the whole history of cultural subjugation. Native artists, for example, have frequently critiqued and lamented the appropriation of their artistic work by the ruling class who have worked to subjugate them throughout history. And these critiques by Native artists is I think completely on the mark. My question might be, how is what Led Zeppelin is doing any different? I'm not really sure it is.

Agreed, LZ went way overboard with the stealing to the point of shear ridiculousness.

I don't know -- I think their participation in cultural subjugation and exploitation is a good reason not to like them. But I didn't care for them before that - mostly because I find their style too showy. The Who were at their best when they reigned it in - allowing little bursts of their musical craziness to come out every once in a while. But it seemed like LZ was just pure razzle dazzle, and I get turned off by that quickly, the same way that action flicks bore me.


Yes - although mostly that was stylistic influence or maybe quoting riffs, rhythms, and lyrics (i.e. Bo Diddley into Not Fade Away and a whole slew of other songs who took that rhythm). But here we have what almost amounts to covers in some cases, and then re-vamped them to sound more, ahem, culturally acceptable, and released them with different titles, not crediting the original artists. So it's a bit different - but, again, what makes it mostly unacceptable is its place in a whole history of marginalization and exploitation.


Well they seemed to have definitely got the opening riff from Spirt who they opened for at one point early in their career:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfI66yQUkk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfI66yQUkk)

But anyway, doesn't matter too much to me. I made a Top 400 favourite songs list and never would have considered that song.

It was really common, though.  You can't blame them for doing what others were doing to get famous.

FOR INSTANCE, Brian writing "Surfin' USA".  I don't know how you give that a pass but get on Led Zeppelin.  It's the exact same thing.

IMHO, Neither band is wrong for doing it.  It's one way music was made back then. 

It'd be different if we were talking about a band who weren't capable of good music without stealing, but Led Zeppelin is surely one of the greatest bands of all time, incredibly creative, and even stealing songs managed to create a sound nobody else even imitates.  I've never heard anybody play like that, and I've never heard anybody sing like that. 

The difference is that Sweet Little Sixteen went to #2 in the charts five years earlier. It was a reference that most people would get and understand. It was made overt. Take another medium - film. In film, when Tarantino takes a bunch of shots from, say, Chinese cinema, he does it so overtly that he is not hiding what he is doing. In fact, part of his whole point is that images can be borrowed, re-used, etc. But what I see LZ doing differently is taking music that most people hadn't heard of because, let's face it, it was culturally specific (ie. black people sang it and didn't care if it jived with mainstream white culture) and made it culturally palatable (sell-able to a mainstream, mostly white, audience), made a ton of money off it, leaving the original culturally marginalized artists where they found them - still marginalized. At least Tarantino did things like cast Pam Grier, and bringing awareness to blacksploitation cinema. But it takes things like academic papers and the Howard Stern show decades later to actually call attention to this earlier music.

oops

yes you might :) when i first gave them a listen i was like wtf does everybody see in them? but it's the progression they get better with every album they put out..it's usually the other way around..the make music that drifts you off like pink floyd does...i can recommend some of their best songs so you can see what i mean if you'd like me to.

They are important :] they are the greatest band of our generation. their songs arent boring they are meaningful, soothing and beautiful. :] The melodies that thom yorke comes up are lovely but not every one loves them as much as i do.

house of the holy is their best album in my opinion :). i was just shocked because i love led zeppelin and something i would always use against other people when they compared them to the who i would say at least led has all original music :[ now i can't say that anymore ugh

No. In fact, I think they are grossly mediocre and are mostly considered good at the critical level because they take themselves so seriously and critics typically can't tell the difference. I did like The Bends and OK Computer though even at that time felt there were better bands coming out of England. I think that Kid A was a very predictable move and really fed into the pretensiousness of their fan base. When I first heard it, I was taken by it and within a month thought that it may have been the most cowardly album release I had ever heard. After that I didn't have much time for them but unfortunately I was in university then so they were difficult to avoid. But, then again, so were Dave Matthews Band, so you can see how serious those folks were about their music...

cowardly? wow :/ i think it was a courageous thing to ..after you have an extremely successful album take a lot of time off to work on the next album and not release even 1 single/video or anything and release it with a completely different sound. Kid A is a masterpiece if you don't like it then maybe it's just not your taste,there's nothing wrong but please don't downplay it because you don't like it. :[

Except that part of the reason why I don't like it is because it is so cowardly. The not releasing a single thing was part of a very concentrated marketing campaign (the marketing campaign for Kid A was enormous, much more than for your average album) that worked to purposefully create a kind of mystique around the album. But moreover, like I said, Radiohead completely played into their brand on that album, as the arty weird group who continually had to top themselves in experimentation. And, of course, it all worked for them - the album was a first week #1, and a big commercial success. Had they had any courage (which they didn't, not at that time at least) they would have done something similar to what a much more courageous and musically adventurous band from that time (Mansun) ended up doing - namely after their big arty release, put out something poppy and acoustic. Naturally, that album went to #12 - the price you pay for genuine courage.

They made a smart move don't you think? :] smile had a mystique about it then they released it 40 years later ..they are both masterpieces in their own way. can you please listen to this and give me your honest opinion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJkeVkYq8Es

Smile indeed did have a mystique but it wasn't a calculated, shrewd, business opportunity that gave it that mystique.


I told you, though, that I heard that album and, in fact, I own it. I don't really know where it is now and I don't really care either. I pulled it out a few years ago to put the first song (Everything In Its Right Place) on my iPod because I like that one. Everything else (including Optimistic) is, in my opinion, heartless and cold mediocre middle of the road music.

they mystque that kid a gained wasnt planned at all. :]
wow optimistic is beautiful :] i love the tribal chant feel in the beginning and end of the song...it might sound cold and heartless sometimes but they are robots what do you expect? lol

Not putting out a single wasn't planned? The listening parties (one of which I attended) weren't strategies? In an article titled "Control Freaks" from that time, it was noted that Radiohead was "staking out new marketing territory to boost publicity for its new album, Kid A." The article concludes that the mystery set up by the band was indeed a helpful strategy and that because it was "one of the most successful marketing launches of an album" that year, Radiohead should "should consider a sideline in marketing." The article stated all this in flattering terms, incidentally. It was a very strong, significant marketing campaign. They weren't taking any chances.


We definitely agree about the robots thing!

How was the listening party for the album?

Pretty awesome, actually. All we had to do is give a non-perishable food item for the ticket and we got to listen to the album in a sort of IMAX theatre (did they have IMAX back then? It was at least a special theatre in a big movie theatre) while some kind of deep-sea underwater movie played on screen. Through a lottery done with ticket stub numbers, I ended up winning the first four Radiohead albums (of which I already had two anyway). At the time I thought it was fantastic.

what did you think of the kid a album when you were at the listening party?

Like I said earlier, when I first heard it I was taken by it. By the time I received my free copy of Kid A that I had won at the party, I already hated it.

what other classic album do you dislike? i'm not a fan of sgt. pepper i do like a few songs on it but i always felt it wasnt one of their strongest albums i even think abbey road is much better than sgt. pepper. (i know i know it's an important record and it changed music forever blah blah blah) lol

That is quite the listening experience, it would be interesting if the Beach Boys did something similar like a beach party or SMiLE style experience.

Oh dear -- is Kid A considered a classic? Makes me feel old. But I really feel in time, that album will fade from the public memory.

I can't say that I dislike any Beatles album, that's for sure. They've been my obsessions since I was around two. I love Sgt. Pepper but it isn't in my top 10 personal favourite albums and I would still put Revolver, The White Album, and Rubber Soul ahead of both it and Abbey Road. Nevertheless, I love all their albums.

I can't entirely recall everything that would be on a classic list but I can say that no album by Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, or U2 ever really appealed to me (aside from Piper At the Gates). And even albums that I like that might be considered classics, I end up liking some of their lesser-classics more. For instance, my favourite Stones album is Aftermath, which I prefer over Let it Bleed and Beggars. I prefer Satanic Majesties over Sticky Fingers. I prefer The Who Sell Out over Tommy, etc.

at first i was like me and this guy must not have much of the same taste besdies the beach boys lol but the albums you picked as your favorites are up there with me 2..my favorite rolling stones album is between the buttons but i might be bias because my aunt gave me the viny of it and its the 1st album i ever bought by them :)...my favorite beatles album is rubbber soul :]..i love every album by pink floyd my favorite is animals..as far as the who goes i love my generation but the who sell out is my favorite as wlel :)

Yes, this a million times.  I'd lump Dave Matthews in with that, and I'd also lump pink floyd in with that, sorry.   Pretentious, bullshit music that I can stand about 1 single about once every 5 years.  Any more radio play than that and it's incredibly annoying.

There's exceptions of course.  You could take any of the three bands and play two or three singles that are good songs, but all in all they are nowhere near as great as their fanbase makes them out to be.  I like "Creep".  I like "Fake Plastic Trees".  I like "Another Brick in the Wall" or "The Space Between" or whatever, but a band like CAKE has their sh*t together better than any of these three bands. 

Kid A was around the time they started proclaiming they didn't want to make music that 'sounds good' anymore.  You fell for that???

Preach it brother.  Or Liz Phair, putting out a pop album after years of being underground, complete with curse words in unexpected places they accidentally played at Wal Mart until they found out what she was saying.

I want Plant and Page to go to jail for this.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmdQ0jc6rQg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmdQ0jc6rQg)

And this is the thread:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,11125.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,11125.0.html)


I just did that for the interesting coincidence, not to suggest anything. But damn, they are similar...It reminded me of the author playing the Led Zeppelin clips next to the original records on Stern's show.

PS: I heard a lot of these Zep things in the past few years, the author is familiar around my area and does interviews. But that Stairway one still blows my mind. :o

If they would have credited the original artists and writers, it would be a *totally* different matter.

Almost every song Bob Dylan became famous for in the acoustic days is an appropriated traditional melody. And EVERYONE thinks Blowin' In The Wind was a  full-Dylan composition. Does this matter? No. I also think it is disingenuous not to mention that Led Zeppelin also did credit the original artists and composers on specific songs.

After they were pressured into doing so, mostly by lawsuits.

Burt Jasnch/Pentangle is one of my all time faves and one of the greatest guitarists (folk or not) ever, so it pisses me off that they ripped him off and I didn't know about it!  >:(

That said, this doesn't annoy me too much because, for me, Zep doesn't even begin until Houses Of The Holy!

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but my favorite Radiohead album is Pablo Honey. They still have yet to top Ripcord and Anyone Can Play Guitar. Their Rhinestone Cowboy cover was pretty great also.

Finally someone that doesnt trash that album :) seriously I can't find one song on that album that is bad. I understand that they became better as their career progressed but it doesn't mean Pablo Honey was sh*t!

Really? On You Shook Me and I Can't Quit You Baby?

Again it's not that uncommon.  Brian also got sued over Chuck Berry.  Getting on Zeppelin for what half the other bands were doing is kinda weak. 

Another thing!  Zeppelin and the 'Boys weren't handling the paperwork.  Saying they didn't give credit on the album sleeve or whatever is like saying they shipped the albums too slow.  It's crap that has nothing to do with them personally, it's things their record companies did. 

I agree! I was asking a facetious question.

How wrong can one man be??
Half the other bands?
Brian did not get sued?

Please use full sentences, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. 

Brian Wilson wrote Surfin' USA.  He stole the entire note for note music from Chuck Berry.  Chuck threatened to sue.  the Beach Boys gave him writing credit on it. 

Do you agree, or disagree with that?  Are you pedanticaly disagreeing that he didn't actually sue, instead just threatened to sue?  Are you saying he threatened to sue the Beach Boys, so that wasn't Brian?

What are you saying?  Use full sentences, please. 

What does "Half the other bands" ?  Mean?  Full sentences, again, would be appreciated if you're going to DISAGREE, or AGREE with what I say. 

"How Wrong can One Man Be" ?  What are you talking about, are you asking me how wrong you can be? How wrong I can be? 

FULL SENTENCES please on what you disagree with. 

I know, I was just expounding on what you said.