Is borrowing an inevitable part of the creative process or
is it just a nice word for plagiarism? Is
the problem compounded by racism and other inequalities of the music industry? What do you think about the writer giving
Robert Plant a pass because of his good intentions?
There has always been a fine line between borrowing and plagiarism since humanity started to express their innovative and artistic personalities. Consequently, critics all around the world have put forward the immortal question: Inspiration or copying; just boost to your creativity or absolute lack of originality?
ReplyDeleteFrom my personal point of view, as a musician, I can definitely say that borrowing is not bad as far as it has some limits. Great composers like Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven also used this concept to enrich their own masterpieces. Interesting bass progression or some part of melody, a little bit changed to fit their vision and voila, we have a new concerto or symphony. To this point, I consider borrowing for harmless or even necessary path to new rearrangements of notes and harmonies.
Another thing is that composing is always a fusion of these influences – something what you have been taught (teachers), something what you have heard (other´s music) and your own need to express your feelings through music. However, when the second element is much more dominant than others, you cross the fine line.
The Led Zeppelin did that, when “the band covered someone’s song” several times during its activity. Yeah, they had to put some effort too. Yeah, they spent hours and hours practicing it. Yeah, they spent hours and hours transforming it to their own style. BUT yeah, they DID NOT spend hours and hours thinking about song’s theme, melody and -in few cases- about text as well. A clear profit, spared time and energy; all those valuable things in life were taken away from victims of this band. And we shouldn´t forget this crime even though they “lived, loved and embodied rock and roll”.
In the main point I agree with Viki, by saying that Led Zeppelin's "borrowing" of the songs, they, pretty much, just stole the music that sounded nice and didn't consider the effort and hard work that went into it. Not only they copied the original tones of the music, only some of them they did accredit. When you claim, that a song is your own, do not give the credit or even say that you were at least inspired by a certain artist, it is a clear case of plagiarism.
DeleteSurely, the band did not receive as much backlash then, or even now, because they are considered as "timeless legends". By placing this stigma on a certain people, we often close our eyes when it comes to these accusations. In the 70s, Led Zeppelin was a progressive, nonconforming band, who brought seemingly new music to the public. Nobody was trying to doubt the originality of their songs, when their performance or style were original by itself. Nowadays, when such a stigma is not around them, people start noticing the extent of their involvement in music they claimed to be theirs, and then comes the doubting. In general, people don't like when someone is pretending to be something they are not, that is why the accusations started appearing.
However, in contrary to Viki's opinion, I think that if they accredited the person who wrote the song, they did nothing wrong. Yes, they didn't spend so much time with composing and making the music, but if they give the person the credit for having an effort, that came with making of the song, they can use it, remake it or use just a part of it in their song. Of course, it will credit the more popular band who used the song, but people will also notice the author who made it and listen to the original song or even some of his other music. By giving them the credit, you are not only benefiting yourself by reducing so much work and effort, but also the person you are crediting, giving them the recognition, they deserve, by putting in the work you didn't.
Led Zeppelin, one of the most famous bands of all times, is being accused of not being as innovative as most people consider the band to be. Throughout the existence, the band faced several lawsuits accusing them of plagiarism. The fact is that many now famous singers or bands started out by making covers of famous songs or even stealing music such as Led Zeppelin is accused of doing. No one would have accused them of stealing if they had not become such an icon in the music industry.
ReplyDeleteSome people may find borrowing very immoral but it does not have to necessarily symbolize unoriginality. Songs are products of the inspired mind. Inspiration is formed unconsciously based on a combination of our emotions, environment, situations we face or even from songs we hear. “Borrowing” songs can lead to more original songs coming forward since it can cause a flow of ideas and inspiration.
Led Zeppelin published several albums which can be described as original, ingenious and revolutionary. Even the albums they are accused of stealing are not the same and they would not be the same even if they copied every single detail of the song because the singer and the band add a spark to the song.
Moreover, the so-called “borrowing” even has some positive aspects it all depends on the point of view. Led Zeppelin’s covers of songs such as the hit “Dazed and Confused” or “Babe I’m gonna love you” helped the songs get famous. Without the covers, they would not be anywhere near as famous as they are thanks to Led Zeppelin. For instance, the original version of the song “Dazed and Confused” has around 1 million views whereas Zeppelin’s version has almost 7 times more.
On the other hand, there should be a balance to everything. We should not steal the vision or creation of others. We should observe the world and the inspiration will come to us and writing songs should not be forced as it should come naturally.
In conclusion, using songs of others does not have to necessarily be considered stealing and can even help the original versions get more recognition but we should still acknowledge the fact that there is a balance to everything and bands should not build their career upon stealing music of others even though it can be helpful at times. In the case of Led Zeppelin, we should pay more attention to the fact that there are many original songs which are written by them and the ones they “borrowed” are still original in some way.
In a part of the comment I don’t agree with @Unknown. I think that even though there are many other less famous bands that have done the same “stealing” of previously composed music, it still doesn’t apologize Led Zeppelin from plagiarism. There sure was always something new and original added to the already existing songs, but in my opinion it still is taking a piece someone else has done before and crediting it as their own. I do agree though that there are other bands and singers who have done the same thing not having to face lawsuits or accusations, but when you become a famous and recognized musician, you have to count with things like this coming.
DeleteThe point about Led Zeppelin’s other songs and albums that were new and original I also do agree with. It isn’t fair for people to judge the band only according to the music they have “borrowed” or “stolen when there are plenty other pieces that are equally, if not more, famous and good.
I also agree with @Unknown’s argument about the Led Zeppelin’s versions of the songs having more views and popularity than the original versions. This point is valid and true, although we don’t know if it is because Led Zeppelin is more recognized and more famous than the original artist, or because their version really is musically better. And even if it were, it still doesn’t erase the fact of plagiarizing the song someone else has spent so much time composing.
In conclusion, I still do agree with @Unknown that the fact of “borrowing” the songs of other artists isn’t right or in order, but the fact that there are tons of other good original pieces composed by the band shouldn’t be for sure forgotten.
I believe there are 2 fundamental ways of looking at "the pattern of borrowing". Firstly, as I agree with Viki, it is reprehensible if a musician uses other musician's ideas only to substitute for their light-bulb moment, then let the concerned ideas undergo several changes, hoping the product not to be downright plagiaristic, and finally act as if the complete song were purely their own thing, mostly with intentions only to make money. On the other hand, it is even fascinating when musicians get their light-bulb moment exactly when listening to somebody else's compositions and then transform it into entirely their own thing, as I believe is the case with The Led Zeppelin. Just one of the supporting evidence of the first scenario not being the case, is The Led Zeppelin's refusal to license its songs for television commercials.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is still illegal not to credit the ones who inspired them, leading to the alleged 'racial dynamics inherent
in Led Zeppelin’s borrowing'. Yes, to draw from others' songs without admitting it is again reprehensible, but as far as
music is concerned, it is natural to 'borrow' from songs that are similar to their own musical tastes. I.e. if these tastes
include also blues, it is natural to draw from the style, hence from blues legends. As there is a pattern of theirs not to credit the authors of their inspirations, whoever these authors are, such a coincidence of some of them being African-Americans should not be generalized into whole -quote- 'attitude toward black culture'. As a matter of fact, the article mentions more uncredited white than African-American artists.
Awesome article! I want people to know just how good this information is in your article. It’s interesting, compelling content. Your views are much like my own concerning this subject. top christian songs of all time
ReplyDelete