Thank you. You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song that people claim they stole verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was is unique.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Alright, DD.   So HOW do you define "greatness"...?

While it's true that personal taste is entirely subjective, there is also such a thing as "shared taste", which more or less lend itself to a particular band's or artist's popularity.

But there are also criteria.  And these criteria have been established for quite some time in the annals of rock and music criticism.  You may not care for or pay attention to the critics, but like them or not, that doesn't mean their criteria is necessarily bad...it may just be different than yours.  But in most cases, a cross-section of critics usually arrive at the same place.

And it's one thing to say "I like this", but it's quite another to use properly defined terms used to either support or disprove this nebulous thing we call "greatness".

So, you may decide for yourself that Led Zep's borrowings - what is properly called "artistic license" - is one criteria for establishing "greatness".  Someone else may disagree as to the relevance of that particular point with the belief that it happens so often in so many genres as to be not so consequential.

At the same time, someone else may look to record sales or chart positions to measure greatness, seeing commercial activity as a more-or-less neutral arbiter of collective tastes.

Let me see if I can explain by example. I like The Beatles and Herman's Hermits. They both entertain me. But if I want to call either one great, I have to move beyond my emotional reaction to them and detach myself emotionally to really think about what each group actually created. When I do, I find that Herman's Hermits doesn't have all the qualities that The Beatles do. Part of it is talent, part ingenuity, part is performance. One group merely entertains while the other entertains and impresses.

I'm glad you brought up music critics. This harks back to a thread I started way back about critics vs. fans. And most here were very dismissive of critics, as I recall. But I think critics do have a place, but we also have to look critically at what the critics have written. Rock music criticism is much more splintered now, with fans of certain type of music specializing in writing about that music. But I agree with you that looking at all critical opinion is a valid piece of the puzzle.

I don't have the perfect formula to define greatness, so I reserve the right for anyone to question the label of greatness attached to any musical artist. I just want them to present criteria beyond personal reactions, otherwise the discussion is just about personal taste. Yes, this really isn't a good answer, but I think greatness has a meaning beyond simply taste.

In response to polar123's comment:

Thank you. You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song that people claim they stole verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was is unique.

This is how the conversation got started in the first place, in another thread.   While not defending the plagiarism, some of us poked around with the fact that Led Zeppelin's interpretations were what put blues music on the rock and roll map.   I also had read that it was the British bands, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones, among them, that were the first to take the American blues and infuse those sounds into rock music, which was something that no American band had done.  A sea change on rock music.   So the conversation was a mixture of trying to tease apart where Led Zeppelin had gone wrong because of plagiarism, with what they had achieved in the overall years, in terms of their whole body of work.  The issue boiled down to the fact that Led Zeppelin didn't credit any, not even one song, in the early part of their career, and they blatently took credit for songs they didn't write.    So it was a bit more serious than just the idea of artistic license.   :(

In response to yogafriend's comment:

In response to polar123's comment:

Thank you. You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song that people claim they stole verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was is unique.

This is how the conversation got started in the first place, in another thread.   While not defending the plagiarism, some of us poked around with the fact that Led Zeppelin's interpretations were what put blues music on the rock and roll map.   I also had read that it was the British bands, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones, among them, that were the first to take the American blues and infuse those sounds into rock music, which was something that no American band had done.  A sea change on rock music.   So the conversation was a mixture of trying to tease apart where Led Zeppelin had gone wrong because of plagiarism, with what they had achieved in the overall years, in terms of their whole body of work.  The issue boiled down to the fact that Led Zeppelin didn't credit any, not even one song, in the early part of their career, and they blatently took credit for songs they didn't write.    So it was a bit more serious than just the idea of artistic license.   :(

Haven't you had this conversation before. It's like spinning plates.  I'll leave you to it.

Haven't you had this conversation before. It's like spinning plates.  I'll leave you to it.

 We've had them all before.   I didn't start this one, however, so don't go blamin' me.   

And yes, I've had the Thomas Edison / Nikola Tesla debate many times, too.   And I *still* feel bad every time I discuss it.  

You wouldn't believe how good I am at debating that one.  Who knew?   hahaha!

C'mon Yoga, you know me, I don't blame anyone  :) . I just find it funny that folks can debate the greatness of a band like Led Zeppelin, pick them apart and claim they were thieves. Their music has brought joy to millions. Sure some hate them, but most dont.  The plagerism debate, good or bad encompasses every form of art as Matty states correctly.

When I started the thread about the '5 greatest bands', as I said it was inspired by the much-maligned introduction speech Jack Black gave for Zeppelin.  It was such an audacious and indefensible thing to say they were the best band ever.  And yet I grudgingly admired that he had the stones to do it.

I have found that the only real purpose any of these polls and lists have is to stir up debate, some of which is heated and even angry.  Is that a good thing?  I don't know.  Often these message boards make me think about the Monty Python sketch about the man who is looking for a good argument (second nod for the Pythons in this thread).  I freely admit that's what I'm looking for sometimes too.  I want to find someone with an opposing viewpoint so I can go back and forth with them a bit and see where it leads.

Anyway devildavid I'm really glad you're posting more.

Musical Influence - that is what defines an artist or band.

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc.  They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it.  Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been.  It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television.  And it's gotten much more difficult.  But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.  

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc.  They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it.  Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been.  It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television.  And it's gotten much more difficult.  But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.  

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc.  They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it.  Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been.  It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television.  And it's gotten much more difficult.  But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.  

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

In response to jesseyeric's comment:

Musical Influence - that is what defines an artist or band.

I tend to agree.  But it must be said that we simply won't know the extent of a newer band/artist's influence until much later.  

Where Bevonce is concerned, she and her original group Destiny's Child have already influenced many of today's R&B artists.  Yes, a good portion of that is image and style - both of which move faster through the culture, but the music has its progeny as well...Rihanna and Ciara, for example.

I'll also add that 'influence' in the R&B and Hip-hop worlds extends much wider to the producers like Danger Mouse, Timbaland, Neptunes, etc.  With some of these acts, there are literally small armies of contributors...sometimes within a single track.

And while I also agree in part with the "disposable pop" label, occasionally some standout compositions do rise to the top of the glittering, glamorous heap.

Rock n' Roll, it ain't.  But we knew that.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jesseyeric's comment:

Musical Influence - that is what defines an artist or band.

I tend to agree.  But it must be said that we simply won't know the extent of a newer band/artist's influence until much later.  

Where Bevonce is concerned, she and her original group Destiny's Child have already influenced many of today's R&B artists.  Yes, a good portion of that is image and style - both of which move faster through the culture, but the music has its progeny as well...Rihanna and Ciara, for example.

I'll also add that 'influence' in the R&B and Hip-hop worlds extends much wider to the producers like Danger Mouse, Timbaland, Neptunes, etc.  With some of these acts, there are literally small armies of contributors...sometimes within a single track.

And while I also agree in part with the "disposable pop" label, occasionally some standout compositions do rise to the top of the glittering, glamorous heap.

Rock n' Roll, it ain't.  But we knew that.

To be honest Matty - I don't see the influence of Destiny's Child. I see the copying of it, but the influence from the music was already there. There is nothing they are doing now that the Pointer Sisters and LaBelle hadn't done 20 years earlier.

Now we can say that Destiny's Child has reintroduced that style to audiences, thereby influencing teenagers to sing and dance. But my question remains the same; will any of their songs remain a lightning bolt for artists 25 years from now. Beyonce has a long career ahead of her, I guess time will tell.

Now the other example I gave has written and recorded music that will continue to pop up long after he is dead. Examples - Downtown Train; Jersey Girl; and many others. Waits is a wordsmith. And the defining pieces of music are melody, instrumentation and lyrics.

It is here that the future will look at. Again, that is why I call it disposable Pop.

As for all contemporary music, I just don't know. There may just me another Tom Waits out there which alludes me because I no longer look for new music.

In response to devildavid's comment:

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc.  They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it.  Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been.  It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television.  And it's gotten much more difficult.  But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.  

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

I recently posted a thread on the new Ben Harper / Charlie Musselwhite album collaboration --  seemingly right up your alley.   If you're not interested, that's fine, of course, and if a "light bulb" didn't go off for you, then maybe you're not on the market for new music.   But that information is there for the taking, re: new music, and if you don't know anything about Ben Harper, then now's a good time to learn, or to ask.  If your curiosity doesn't get peaked in those situations, then you have to ask yourself if you really have the curiosity to explore new music yourself.  

That's how I utilize the forum, and that's the reason why I own at least 20 new albums that I can attribute to reading, asking questions, and participating in this forum.   I don't mean to call you out on this, I'm just saying that this forum is not only a great place to congregate for discussions, but also a resource for consideration of "new" music.  :)   

The Sonics were great....they started playing again around 6 years ago and I've seen them a number of times, mostly in Europe.  Gerry Roslie's voice is pretty much shot now, but it was still good enough at first and nobody could believe we actually were seeing them play!

Do you know the Monks?  Another incredible band from the early 60s that had a short, but fertile, shelf life.

I wasn't aware that Beyonce was a composer;  my understanding is that, much like Madonna, her input to her songs is minimal/nothing but due to her ability to sell records she negotiates to buy part of the composer credits.  

She gets money from royalties due the composer, she gets phony cred from being a "songwriter" and the actual songwriters get a platform for their music and a portion of the royalties.

A good business deal, but hardly makes Beyonce influential, IMO.