The ROLLING STONES are so overated, why all the hype?..their like a cover band to me.

[SUGEKNIGHTJR.]

man...i just heard some shyt on my local classic rock station, and it sounded so familiar to me..i was like hmmm...that sounds like the old temptations classic "Ain't Too Proud To Beg".....

well as i listen more, i realized oh it is......and it happens to be Mick Jagger and the stones doing thier version of it, man, that cover sounded like STIR FRIED SHYT :mad:

I don't even know why thier record company let them release that???...they didn't do it any justice, then i been reading alot about how alot of these celebrated rock bands i.e (the stones, the beatles etc.) based thier whole sound off of the less compensated , less fortunate black artists...it's sad............man FUKK A ROCK N' ROLL!!!

[flapjacks]

Right now I'm in a computer lab and some annoying fire alarm is going off. This noise is less annoying than posts like yours.

[Illiptical360]

man...i just heard some shyt on my local classic rock station, and it sounded so familiar to me..i was like hmmm...that sounds like the old temptations classic "Ain't Too Proud To Beg".....
well as i listen more, i realized oh it is......and it happens to be Mick Jagger and the stones doing thier version of it, man, that cover sounded like STIR FRIED SHYT :mad:
I don't even know why thier record company let them release that???...they didn't do it any justice, then i been reading alot about how alot of these celebrated rock bands i.e (the stones, the beatles etc.) based thier whole sound off of the less compensated , less fortunate black artists...it's sad............man FUKK A ROCK N' ROLL!!!

mos def spoke on this **** already

i was ****in befuddled, yea befuddled first timei i heard "light my fire" by some chick, record sounded really old... obviously doors took that ****

[SUGEKNIGHTJR.]

Right now I'm in a computer lab and some annoying fire alarm is going off. This noise is less annoying than posts like yours.

your just upset , that i offended your "caucasian sensibilities" because i had the audacity to diss some so-called Rock n Roll icons................

GET OVER IT........... :thumbsdown:

[nineteen80sbaby]

RollingStones are like the longest running rock band so thats a big reason why they have the status they do. Most of their albums are siht, but they put on a great live show and they have about 40 plus (see 40 licks) classic songs.

[flapjacks]

your just upset , that i offended your "caucasian sensibilities" because i had the audacity to diss some so-called Rock n Roll icons................
GET OVER IT........... :thumbsdown:

You're just upset that the Rolling Stones had the audacity to do a genre of music better than almost anyone of the race that created it.

GET OVER IT. Send Mick Jagger a letter for reparations or something.

[ninjagaiden78]

You're just upset that the Rolling Stones had the audacity to do a genre of music better than almost anyone of the race that created it.
GET OVER IT. Send Mick Jagger a letter for reparations or something.

Come on dog, why you gotta bring race into it. You on a hiphop board and you gonna start slingin ish like that??? And you wonder why minorities look at white folks the way they do............

[skanky80]

Most of their albums are siht

ummm, no.

[Emperor85]

man...i just heard some shyt on my local classic rock station, and it sounded so familiar to me..i was like hmmm...that sounds like the old temptations classic "Ain't Too Proud To Beg".....
well as i listen more, i realized oh it is......and it happens to be Mick Jagger and the stones doing thier version of it, man, that cover sounded like STIR FRIED SHYT :mad:
I don't even know why thier record company let them release that???...they didn't do it any justice, then i been reading alot about how alot of these celebrated rock bands i.e (the stones, the beatles etc.) based thier whole sound off of the less compensated , less fortunate black artists...it's sad............man FUKK A ROCK N' ROLL!!!

the 5th beetle was black his name was Billy Preston

[flapjacks]

Come on dog, why you gotta bring race into it. You on a hiphop board and you gonna start slingin ish like that??? And you wonder why minorities look at white folks the way they do............

Um, the threadstarter was the first one to bring race into it, NOT me.

Yes, the same threadstarter who doesn't know the difference between "they're" and "their".

The artistic exchange between races is a major part of the history of rock, particularly the passing of the torch between the originators and the first great (white) bands like the Stones. That transition canNOT be discussed WITHOUT bringing the factor of race into it.

[Worm of Earth Jim]

Rolling Stones are a great band...but when they first came out they essentially were a cover band. I think like their first 3 or 4 albums had nothin but cover songs with like maybe 1 or 2 original songs on each album.
Now the Stones can be seen as true fans of the blues...but what is horrible is their instant acceptance and popularity for doin the same things black men were doin which was the "underground" sound back then.
That was the biggest shame in the music business...not only did white record A&R's and managers get any and almost all money by Blues musicians when they came out, a few years later when white boys started rocking to it they became rich stars while the brothers who started the **** were still dirt poor or living in megar accomidations.
That's how almost every music sensations starts...black man invents it and gets raped off the profits which really doesn't sale until a white man comes on the scene and makes it the most popular thing....
Amerikkka takes so many losses in music :thumbsdow

[ninjagaiden78]

Rolling Stones are a great band...but when they first came out they essentially were a cover band. I think like their first 3 or 4 albums had nothin but cover songs with like maybe 1 or 2 original songs on each album.
Now the Stones can be seen as true fans of the blues...but what is horrible is their instant acceptance and popularity for doin the same things black men were doin which was the "underground" sound back then.
That was the biggest shame in the music business...not only did white record A&R's and managers get any and almost all money by Blues musicians when they came out, a few years later when white boys started rocking to it they became rich stars while the brothers who started the **** were still dirt poor or living in megar accomidations.
That's how almost every music sensations starts...black man invents it and gets raped off the profits which really doesn't sale until a white man comes on the scene and makes it the most popular thing....
Amerikkka takes so many losses in music :thumbsdow


Good post. Sam Phillips once said, "If Ican find a white boy who could sing and dance like a black man, I'd be a millionaire." America is always looking for a white performer to emulate a black artist. Wht do you think that Justin Timberlake crap is so popular? Oh and for the record, The Stones just rip off old black blues bands and Chuck Berry. But at least when asked who were the Stones major influences, black musicians populate their lists.

And to that one cat with the repirations comment, dog you on a board that is essentially about black culture. I'd cool it if I were you.

[SUGEKNIGHTJR.]

The artistic exchange between races is a major part of the history of rock, particularly the passing of the torch between the originators and the first great (white) bands like the Stones.

artistic exchange my ass.....it was RAPE...and your ass knows that!!!

No black artist co-sign for these so-called "great" white bands to co-opt thier shyt.....for example John Lennon was in this PBS documentary talking about how nothing the BEATLES create is original....how much he use to steal riffs from well known as well as obscure bluesmen....

Artistic Exchange is when that particular artist oversees or lends a hand to a project, with some sort of compensation , whether monetary or creative wise..that shyt never happened, even the great Led Zepplin lead singer stole KoKo Taylor's vocal delivery...and i like LED ZEPPLIN , damn good band , it just hurts your heart to see the blatant theft and lack of acknowledgment that takes place....

[ninjagaiden78]

artistic exchange my ass.....it was RAPE...and your ass knows that!!!
No black artist co-sign for these so-called "great" white bands to co-opt thier shyt.....for example John Lennon was in this PBS documentary talking about how nothing the BEATLES create is original....how much he use to steal riffs from well known as well as obscure bluesmen....
Artistic Exchange is when that particular artist oversees or lends a hand to a project, with some sort of compensation , whether monetary or creative wise..that shyt never happened, even the great Led Zepplin lead singer stole KoKo Taylor's vocal delivery...and i like LED ZEPPLIN , damn good band , it just hurts your heart to see the blatant theft and lack of acknowledgment that takes place....

Suge with the ether!!! Damn dog, you aint gotta go in like that!!!!

[Bone Daddy]

artistic exchange my ass.....it was RAPE...and your ass knows that!!!
No black artist co-sign for these so-called "great" white bands to co-opt thier shyt.....for example John Lennon was in this PBS documentary talking about how nothing the BEATLES create is original....how much he use to steal riffs from well known as well as obscure bluesmen....



, it just hurts your heart to see the blatant theft and lack of acknowledgment that takes place....
You completely contradicted yourself in one post. How can you put that sh!t about Lennon and then immediately say that there's no acknowledgment? Dudes like Jimmy Page, Clapton, and Keith Richards never stop acknowledgeing the people they were inspired by, so that part of your argument is negligable. As far as theft, it still goes on and tends to be more blatant today then even back then. A couple years ago Jet had a song that was a note for note ripoff of the Lust for Life riff, and Iggy Pop and Bowie haven't made it their career to bash those guys.

Part of music is buliding off what came before, reverence for the past has no place in the growth of music.

[ninjagaiden78]

Part of music is buliding off what came before, reverence for the past has no place in the growth of music.[/QUOTE]

Okay you lost me right there. How does reverence for the past not have any place for the growth of music? You have to know where it came from to advance.

The whole arguement was that The Rollingstones basically ripped off and copied obscure blues bands and got over because they are white, which I believe is 100%. Look at The White Stripes, all they do is "borrow" from Robert Johnson and they are called geniuses.

[Bone Daddy]

Part of music is buliding off what came before, reverence for the past has no place in the growth of music.
Okay you lost me right there. How does reverence for the past not have any place for the growth of music? You have to know where it came from to advance.
The whole arguement was that The Rollingstones basically ripped off and copied obscure blues bands and got over because they are white, which I believe is 100%. Look at The White Stripes, all they do is "borrow" from Robert Johnson and they are called geniuses.
Nah, man reverence for the past kills music. That's what makes it stagnate. REally the idea of early white rock bands "stealing" music is not a valid point. For one you can't copyright riffs, you just can't, which in essence puts them in the public arena to be used by whomever however they want to. The other part of that is the assumption that it somehow ruined the careers of the artists who the music was supposedly "stolen" from, absolutely wrong. For one, as a more recent rock/blues/r'n'b person supposedly "stolen" from, Chuck Berry still performs and probably due to the fact that Keith Richards spearheaded the movie about him e in the 80's made more money than he would have had he not been acknowledged. Other people like Blind Willie McTEll or even Robert Johnson could have very easily slid into obscurity without their music and ongs being used or covered by later artists, and the dubious level of rage that y'all seem to have is disingenuous since it was blacks audiences that turned their backs on those artists while white artists were digging into the history of the music they loved and that inspired them. In the end it hasn't ever been the later artists who made the world harder for the people who have been stolen from, it was the times they were living in. It's not Jimmy Pages fault that Blind Willie McTell couldn't get a good contract or keep his publishing. it's not Blind Willie's fault either, it first and foremost the fault of the person signing him to studio time, but ultimately it was the fault of a transitioning society who still wouldn't acknowledge his worth a a human being and artist. Blame the artists all you want but ultimately you're really just obscuring a greater injustice with misplaced anger.

[Donnie Dopeflow]

That's how music works. You can't be completely original. You have to be inspired by something. It's not "rape" it's inspiration. It's called having influences. The Rolling Stones aren't just an imitation they took their influences and created something original, with their own sound...

[Altar K. Shun]

Nah, man reverence for the past kills music. That's what makes it stagnate. REally the idea of early white rock bands "stealing" music is not a valid point. For one you can't copyright riffs, you just can't, which in essence puts them in the public arena to be used by whomever however they want to. The other part of that is the assumption that it somehow ruined the careers of the artists who the music was supposedly "stolen" from, absolutely wrong. For one, as a more recent rock/blues/r'n'b person supposedly "stolen" from, Chuck Berry still performs and probably due to the fact that Keith Richards spearheaded the movie about him e in the 80's made more money than he would have had he not been acknowledged. Other people like Blind Willie McTEll or even Robert Johnson could have very easily slid into obscurity without their music and ongs being used or covered by later artists, and the dubious level of rage that y'all seem to have is disingenuous since it was blacks audiences that turned their backs on those artists while white artists were digging into the history of the music they loved and that inspired them. In the end it hasn't ever been the later artists who made the world harder for the people who have been stolen from, it was the times they were living in. It's not Jimmy Pages fault that Blind Willie McTell couldn't get a good contract or keep his publishing. it's not Blind Willie's fault either, it first and foremost the fault of the person signing him to studio time, but ultimately it was the fault of a transitioning society who still wouldn't acknowledge his worth a a human being and artist. Blame the artists all you want but ultimately you're really just obscuring a greater injustice with misplaced anger.

No my friend that can't copyright a riff thing is a lie, especially if that riff is the basis of the original song. The only thing you can't copyright is a drum pattern. As far as riffs go, you have to change a certain amount of notes. Anyway even if you couldn't copyright a riff, if you "steal" the next man's **** without given him credit that's still "theft", no matter what NARAS or other musical governing body has to say about. Whether you steal with a guitar or you steal with a MPC, theft is theft (yeah, cause I knew you were going to come back with the sampling issue).

That aside, although it was not technically stealing, what really hurt "Black" artist back in the days was white artist covering their songs. Pat Boone and even people who had talent like Jerry Lee Lewis, would cover people songs while they were still fresh and steal folks thunder ( Lewis' own mother was once played both versions of a song done first by Little Richard and covered by Lewis, she picked Little Richard's version as the one she liked better). "Black" artist would do a song and it would become a hit and a week later some white artist is covering it (damn, can we live, guess not :thumbsdow ).

Now I will explain to you why "Blacks" suppossedly turned their backs on Blues ( which is not entirely true). We all know that youth always rebel against their parents, especially their musical taste. Unlike Rock, most "Black" music evolves with every generation. Let's take Jazz for example, Jazz has gone from Ragtime in the early 1900's, to Dixieland in the 20's, to Swing in the 30's, to Be-Bop in the 40's, to Hard Bop in the 50s, to Soul Jazz and FreeJazz in the 60's, to Fusion in the 70's, so on and so fourth. Rock music has not changed much since Heavy Metal came about in the late 60's. Yes there have been different movements in the music, but those are more attitudes and personalities, not changes in the music itself. I mean Be Bop itself turned the whole music world on it's ear, what genre of Rock can say that. Blues did not progress until the mid to late 70's when Blues artist started doing a watered down form of the Blues that was more like R&B of the late 60's ( up until that point it was still about 12 bar I-IV-V progressions). By the time Blues had changed they were already two style changes behind because Funk and Disco had already come through. The youth weren't going to go backwards and the older folks who liked traditional Blues weren't really feeling the new Blues styles. All that being, said certain artist still charted on R&B charts during that period like B.B. King and Bobby "Blue" Bland.

Another thing that hurt early Blues and R&B artist, which in some cases was really nobodies fault, was the formast change. Most early Blues and R&B (I'm talking late 40's early 50's) were relesed on 78's. When the 45 and the LP were introduced and became popular, it hurt alot of older artist and their independent labels. A lot of smaller labels folded (only to be bought up in the eighties by large labels) because they couldn't afford to switch to the new format. Some of the larger labels only released white artist in the new formats and kept issueing the "Black" artist on 78 (that was ****ed up).

Now I for one give the Rolling Stones credit, I have the Shindig on tape when they brought Howling Wolf out. They set the record straight for the white kids that didn't know about him when they did that. They get props from me on that. According to you though, the Rolling Stones are killing music because they have reverance for the past.

[Bonecatron]

Part of music is buliding off what came before, reverence for the past has no place in the growth of music.
Okay you lost me right there. How does reverence for the past not have any place for the growth of music? You have to know where it came from to advance.
The whole arguement was that The Rollingstones basically ripped off and copied obscure blues bands and got over because they are white, which I believe is 100%. Look at The White Stripes, all they do is "borrow" from Robert Johnson and they are called geniuses.[/QUOTE]

like a lot of revisionists you conveniently forget that the likes of the Stones resurrected the careers if countless bluesmen who had been put out to pasture in favour of jazz.

Howlin Wolf and them were on primetime tv over here and got way more recognition here than they did back home

A lot of them went on to record the songs of the artists they influenced...

do ya homework ;)

[ninjagaiden78]

No my friend that can't copyright a riff thing is a lie, especially if that riff is the basis of the original song. The only thing you can't copyright is a drum pattern. As far as riffs go, you have to change a certain amount of notes. Anyway even if you couldn't copyright a riff, if you "steal" the next man's **** without given him credit that's still "theft", no matter what NARAS or other musical governing body has to say about. Whether you steal with a guitar or you steal with a MPC, theft is theft (yeah, cause I knew you were going to come back with the sampling issue).
That aside, although it was not technically stealing, what really hurt "Black" artist back in the days was white artist covering their songs. Pat Boone and even people who had talent like Jerry Lee Lewis, would cover people songs while they were still fresh and steal folks thunder ( Lewis' own mother was once played both versions of a song done first by Little Richard and covered by Lewis, she picked Little Richard's version as the one she liked better). "Black" artist would do a song and it would become a hit and a week later some white artist is covering it (damn, can we live, guess not :thumbsdow ).
Now I will explain to you why "Blacks" suppossedly turned their backs on Blues ( which is not entirely true). We all know that youth always rebel against their parents, especially their musical taste. Unlike Rock, most "Black" music evolves with every generation. Let's take Jazz for example, Jazz has gone from Ragtime in the early 1900's, to Dixieland in the 20's, to Swing in the 30's, to Be-Bop in the 40's, to Hard Bop in the 50s, to Soul Jazz and FreeJazz in the 60's, to Fusion in the 70's, so on and so fourth. Rock music has not changed much since Heavy Metal came about in the late 60's. Yes there have been different movements in the music, but those are more attitudes and personalities, not changes in the music itself. I mean Be Bop itself turned the whole music world on it's ear, what genre of Rock can say that. Blues did not progress until the mid to late 70's when Blues artist started doing a watered down form of the Blues that was more like R&B of the late 60's ( up until that point it was still about 12 bar I-IV-V progressions). By the time Blues had changed they were already two style changes behind because Funk and Disco had already come through. The youth weren't going to go backwards and the older folks who liked traditional Blues weren't really feeling the new Blues styles. All that being, said certain artist still charted on R&B charts during that period like B.B. King and Bobby "Blue" Bland.
Another thing that hurt early Blues and R&B artist, which in some cases was really nobodies fault, was the formast change. Most early Blues and R&B (I'm talking late 40's early 50's) were relesed on 78's. When the 45 and the LP were introduced and became popular, it hurt alot of older artist and their independent labels. A lot of smaller labels folded (only to be bought up in the eighties by large labels) because they couldn't afford to switch to the new format. Some of the larger labels only released white artist in the new formats and kept issueing the "Black" artist on 78 (that was ****ed up).
Now I for one give the Rolling Stones credit, I have the Shindig on tape when they brought Howling Wolf out. They set the record straight for the white kids that didn't know about him when they did that. They get props from me on that. According to you though, the Rolling Stones are killing music because they have reverance for the past.


I have to say that this is the most intelligent post I have read on this thread.
Good job.

[Altar K. Shun]

like a lot of revisionists you conveniently forget that the likes of the Stones resurrected the careers if countless bluesmen who had been put out to pasture in favour of jazz.
Howlin Wolf and them were on primetime tv over here and got way more recognition here than they did back home
A lot of them went on to record the songs of the artists they influenced...
do ya homework ;)

This is also not true, you white cats have a god complex that is unreal. They did not resurrect their careers they gave their careres a boast by exposing them to another audience, white kids in america. "Black" people were already up on them. Wolf and Muddy, were still making albums then and they were still selling. I bet you think Columbus discovered america (just for the record, you can't discover a place where people already live).

[ninjagaiden78]

This is also not true, you white cats have a god complex that is unreal. They did not resurrect their careers they gave their careres a boast by exposing them to another audience, white kids in america. "Black" people were already up on them. Wolf and Muddy, were still making albums then and they were still selling. I bet you think Columbus discovered america (just for the record, you can't discover a place where people already live).

I thought I was the only one who felt that way. Good post.

[Bone Daddy]

No my friend that can't copyright a riff thing is a lie, especially if that riff is the basis of the original song. The only thing you can't copyright is a drum pattern. As far as riffs go, you have to change a certain amount of notes. Anyway even if you couldn't copyright a riff, if you "steal" the next man's **** without given him credit that's still "theft", no matter what NARAS or other musical governing body has to say about. Whether you steal with a guitar or you steal with a MPC, theft is theft (yeah, cause I knew you were going to come back with the sampling issue).
That aside, although it was not technically stealing, what really hurt "Black" artist back in the days was white artist covering their songs. Pat Boone and even people who had talent like Jerry Lee Lewis, would cover people songs while they were still fresh and steal folks thunder ( Lewis' own mother was once played both versions of a song done first by Little Richard and covered by Lewis, she picked Little Richard's version as the one she liked better). "Black" artist would do a song and it would become a hit and a week later some white artist is covering it (damn, can we live, guess not :thumbsdow ).
Now I will explain to you why "Blacks" suppossedly turned their backs on Blues ( which is not entirely true). We all know that youth always rebel against their parents, especially their musical taste. Unlike Rock, most "Black" music evolves with every generation. Let's take Jazz for example, Jazz has gone from Ragtime in the early 1900's, to Dixieland in the 20's, to Swing in the 30's, to Be-Bop in the 40's, to Hard Bop in the 50s, to Soul Jazz and FreeJazz in the 60's, to Fusion in the 70's, so on and so fourth. Rock music has not changed much since Heavy Metal came about in the late 60's. Yes there have been different movements in the music, but those are more attitudes and personalities, not changes in the music itself. I mean Be Bop itself turned the whole music world on it's ear, what genre of Rock can say that. Blues did not progress until the mid to late 70's when Blues artist started doing a watered down form of the Blues that was more like R&B of the late 60's ( up until that point it was still about 12 bar I-IV-V progressions). By the time Blues had changed they were already two style changes behind because Funk and Disco had already come through. The youth weren't going to go backwards and the older folks who liked traditional Blues weren't really feeling the new Blues styles. All that being, said certain artist still charted on R&B charts during that period like B.B. King and Bobby "Blue" Bland.
Another thing that hurt early Blues and R&B artist, which in some cases was really nobodies fault, was the formast change. Most early Blues and R&B (I'm talking late 40's early 50's) were relesed on 78's. When the 45 and the LP were introduced and became popular, it hurt alot of older artist and their independent labels. A lot of smaller labels folded (only to be bought up in the eighties by large labels) because they couldn't afford to switch to the new format. Some of the larger labels only released white artist in the new formats and kept issueing the "Black" artist on 78 (that was ****ed up).
Now I for one give the Rolling Stones credit, I have the Shindig on tape when they brought Howling Wolf out. They set the record straight for the white kids that didn't know about him when they did that. They get props from me on that. According to you though, the Rolling Stones are killing music because they have reverance for the past.
Man if you can copyright a riff, then a lot of copyright lawyers are slackin' on their mack cause that sh!t stays going on.

But aside from that you didn't in any way alleviate the huge gray area going on in early rock and relly at the end of the day there's no way to make it any clearer. I still think the idea of theft is at best obscuring the bigger problme of what was going in society at large and in turn the wrong people are held accountable. As far as the Stones killing music, well maybe at the time they didn't but they didn't necessarily move the genre forward even as much as the Beatles, although I still believe that the Stones are a much better band and some of their best songs were less reverent to the lyrical styles, at least, thart came before.

[Altar K. Shun]

Man if you can copyright a riff, then a lot of copyright lawyers are slackin' on their mack cause that sh!t stays going on.
But aside from that you didn't in any way alleviate the huge gray area going on in early rock and relly at the end of the day there's no way to make it any clearer. I still think the idea of theft is at best obscuring the bigger problme of what was going in society at large and in turn the wrong people are held accountable. As far as the Stones killing music, well maybe at the time they didn't but they didn't necessarily move the genre forward even as much as the Beatles, although I still believe that the Stones are a much better band and some of their best songs were less reverent to the lyrical styles, at least, thart came before.

Alright explain to me what grey area you are referring to and I will do my best to make it clear.

As far as the "riffs" go, there is no way you can tell me that you can just steal the begining of say "Dust my Blues" by Elmore James exactly as it is played note for note and make a new song. His estate and the copyright holder would be all over your azz. Now I know people whave used that "riff" but they have never used it note for note. Copyright laws have changed a lot over the years too. All of this is moot anyway because it's still theft either way you look at it.

[Bone Daddy]

Alright explain to me what grey area you are referring to and I will do my best to make it clear.
As far as the "riffs" go, there is no way you can tell me that you can just steal the begining of say "Dust my Blues" by Elmore James exactly as it is played note for note and make a new song. His estate and the copyright holder would be all over your azz. Now I know people whave used that "riff" but they have never used it note for note. Copyright laws have changed a lot over the years too. All of this is moot anyway because it's still theft either way you look at it.
Theft is only theft if it's absolutely and inarguably against a law of somekind, otherwise it's creative borrowing. But tell me that that"Are you gonna be my girl" by Jet isn't a note for note rip of "Lust for Life" cause dude even admitted it was and they ain't have to pay sh!t for it.

[Altar K. Shun]

Theft is only theft if it's absolutely and inarguably against a law of somekind, otherwise it's creative borrowing. But tell me that that"Are you gonna be my girl" by Jet isn't a note for note rip of "Lust for Life" cause dude even admitted it was and they ain't have to pay sh!t for it.

Wow, "creative borrowing", that's a very imaginative description of "theft". I see there is really no point in us discussing this particular issue anymore. I feel that theft is theft no matter what and you believe in "creative borrowing". I've had things stolen from me, including musical ideas (when I young and didn't know about copyrights and publishing). I hope you never have to feel the pain of anyone "creatively borrowing" from you.

As far as those two songs go, I don't know them (If "Lust for Life" is the song used in a recent commercial then I may know that one). Since I don't know them, I can't speak on them being note for note or not. You can send me a link to a fakebook or guitar tabs and I will check it out. Even if they are not for note, that doesn't mean anything. If people can just steal other peoples' ideas, why have copyright laws in the first place.

Anyway just because "Jet", didn''t have to pay doesn't mean he didn't steal. Often times it's not worth sueing, if the song is not popular for instance or didn't make any money. Sometimes it's a case of resources, if the theif is on major label with Alan Shapiro behind him and your an independent it may not be worth it to sue. Sometimes things are settled out of court with gag orders attached so that neither party can talk about the case.

[HurricaneJ213]

If anyone is genuinely interested in learning some of the truth behind this topic, there's a great book by Dr. John Covach titled What's That Sound?: An Introduction to Rock Music
You guys are both emphasizing valid points, and the reason this remains such a contentious issue is because you are both correct in certain aspects
If you go back to the older music in America, it was blatant theft. HOWEVER, at the time of the progressive rock era, every group from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin to the Rolling Stones will tell you that their entire influence was created from the great black blues musicians. However, at that time period, we as Americans had completely abandoned blues...and white European artists showed their appreciation for the genre by bringing it back
Where I think you are a little wrong Bone is in who we as African-Americans are mad at in relation to the whole "stealing" thing...I absolutely love Led Zeppelin, and I consider what they were able to do both an honor to blues and a tribute to the great black artists who made their existance possible..that being said, it is the fans of Led Zeppelin and most white people in general who are facing our anger, and that is simply because they dont know that most of these great ideas were originally created by someone else. A black someone else. There are die-hard Led Zeppelin fans today that don't know who Muddy Waters or Howlin' Wolf are. (sort of like there are Elvis obsessed fans that dont know Carl Perkins wrote and performed 'Blue Suede Shoes' way before Elvis' fat ass stole it) There is a very fine line that needs to be walked with this type of music, and unfortunately debates about it usually end up with a racial line being drawn in the sand, and its not that simple of an issue.

[houston911]

ether

[Bone Daddy]

Wow, "creative borrowing", that's a very imaginative description of "theft". I see there is really no point in us discussing this particular issue anymore. I feel that theft is theft no matter what and you believe in "creative borrowing". I've had things stolen from me, including musical ideas (when I young and didn't know about copyrights and publishing). I hope you never have to feel the pain of anyone "creatively borrowing" from you.
As far as those two songs go, I don't know them (If "Lust for Life" is the song used in a recent commercial then I may know that one). Since I don't know them, I can't speak on them being note for note or not. You can send me a link to a fakebook or guitar tabs and I will check it out. Even if they are not for note, that doesn't mean anything. If people can just steal other peoples' ideas, why have copyright laws in the first place.
Anyway just because "Jet", didn''t have to pay doesn't mean he didn't steal. Often times it's not worth sueing, if the song is not popular for instance or didn't make any money. Sometimes it's a case of resources, if the theif is on major label with Alan Shapiro behind him and your an independent it may not be worth it to sue. Sometimes things are settled out of court with gag orders attached so that neither party can talk about the case.
The core of your argument is flawed. Theft(the word) by it's very nature connotes maliciousness, if there is an absence of malice then it has to be something else, has to. Sorry if you got "stolen" from, but that's your bad, dude who "stole" from you was just smarter. But the songs I'm talking about are both extremely famous, like huge, huge songs. By not knowing those particualr two songs your knowledge of music, and theerfore it's history is very much in doubt.

[Bone Daddy]

Where I think you are a little wrong Bone is in who we as African-Americans are mad at in relation to the whole "stealing" thing...I absolutely love Led Zeppelin, and I consider what they were able to do both an honor to blues and a tribute to the great black artists who made their existance possible..that being said, it is the fans of Led Zeppelin and most white people in general who are facing our anger, and that is simply because they dont know that most of these great ideas were originally created by someone else. A black someone else. There are die-hard Led Zeppelin fans today that don't know who Muddy Waters or Howlin' Wolf are. (sort of like there are Elvis obsessed fans that dont know Carl Perkins wrote and performed 'Blue Suede Shoes' way before Elvis' fat ass stole it) There is a very fine line that needs to be walked with this type of music, and unfortunately debates about it usually end up with a racial line being drawn in the sand, and its not that simple of an issue.
But that's not really fair to people discovering music. I didn't know right away that any of this sh!t was going on when I first got into music. This is faulting casual fans for not being as conscious/obsessive as we are. Even with that it takes ahuge leap in logic to say "Because these fans of LEd Zep don't know or acknowledge the black forbears, they are racist" this is in no way one of those situations where ignorance of history equals a racist perspective. In this argument/discussion the assumption of racism is itself the most racist thing going on.

Fine lines included when does something stop being a cover and start being a stolen song? Is it when the covered artist is less well off than the coveree? Or is it purely subjective? If it's a well written song is it more important for it to languish in obscurity to prevent even the slightest whiff of theft? Or is it more important to make sure it's heard by the largest number of people?


I know that within the past year a very popular song (Don't Cha by PCD) was actually written for an OutKast backup singer by Cee-Lo. She performed and released a single of this song, a couple months later it was taken and performed the Pu$$ycat Dolls and became huge at the expense pf this backup singer. Was this stolen? Was this a cover? This chick is broke while (most likely) less talented people are raking because of the same song.

[Altar K. Shun]

The core of your argument is flawed. Theft(the word) by it's very nature connotes maliciousness, if there is an absence of malice then it has to be something else, has to. Sorry if you got "stolen" from, but that's your bad, dude who "stole" from you was just smarter. But the songs I'm talking about are both extremely famous, like huge, huge songs. By not knowing those particualr two songs your knowledge of music, and theerfore it's history is very much in doubt.


Ha, Ha! Didn't know you went to the "when losing a debate insult your opponent" school of debating. That might have worked on me in my youth but not now my friend. Using that tatic just shows your lack of maturity.

See I knew you were going to say something about my knowledge of music when I said I didn't know those particular songs. Matter of fact, I was waiting for you to say that because it just illustrates the earlier point I made about white people having a god complex. There is nothing wrong with you thinking eurocentricly, it is to be admired because it shows you have knowledge of self. However it is wrong for you to try and project your particular cosmology onto me. That type of behavoir is boderline xenophobic (you should get that checked out).

This is why I don't like discussing music with white people ( I'm going to win this particular debate, however, because you have already lost even if you don't know it yet). If you mention a musician and I don't know their work, then something is wrong with me. If I mention a musician and you don't know their work, then something is wrong with me, huh. We live in two different worlds my friend with two uniquely different perspectives. I'll give you a good example of this. If you go to any major metropolitain city in america, stop ten white people and ask them 'who made the song "Stairway to Heaven"; you will get the answer "Led Zeppelin". If you stop ten "Black" people in the same city and ask the same question; you will get the answer "The O'Jays". Although both songs are popular, "huge and famous", neither answer is wrong. As a matter of fact both answers are right, however, the answer given all depends on one's perspective and particular outlook on the world.

Now let's discuss who's argument is "flawed". I have maintained that theft is theft where you have changed your argument within your last couple of post. First you stated: Theft is only theft if it's absolutely and inarguably against a law of somekind, otherwise it's creative borrowing. Now you tell me: Theft(the word) by it's very nature connotes maliciousness, if there is an absence of malice then it has to be something else, has to. So here you are changing your stance from law to semantics. Neither of the two will help your argument, which I will show you.

Pull out Led Zeppelin II and let's analyze "The Lemon Song" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lemon_Song) (man, you had to know this was coming). Now where have a heard this song before? Oh, I know, it sounds like Chess single number 1923, which is Howling Wolf's "Killing Floor". But for some strange reason, Led Zep forgot to "credit" Wolf which lead to a lawsuit by the copyright holder ARC in 1972 (http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/Zep/LemonSong.html). Being the smart genetlemen they were, they decided to settle out of court. Matter of fact didn't ARC and Willie Dixon sue them for "Whole Lotta Love" (page down and read about Led Zeppelin II) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_zeppelin) because it sounded so much like Dixon's "You Need Love". I don't know but it sounds like taking somebody else's ideas and not crediting them is not only "malicous" but also "against the law", otherwise why would Led Zeppelin settle. Based on your definitions (which you so unknowingly painted yourself into a corner with), that would constitute "theft".

I mean we can keep going but I really don't know how you are going to come back from me using your own definitions against you. You probably could change your stance again but that is getting so old.

I guess Led Zeppilen was killing music too by "creatively borrowing" from the past since you stated: Nah, man reverence for the past kills music.

[ninjagaiden78]

Ha, Ha! Didn't know you went to the "when losing a debate insult your opponent" school of debating. That might have worked on me in my youth but not now my friend. Using that tatic just shows your lack of maturity.
See I knew you were going to say something about my knowledge of music when I said I didn't know those particular songs. Matter of fact, I was waiting for you to say that because it just illustrates the earlier point I made about white people having a god complex. There is nothing wrong with you thinking eurocentricly, it is to be admired because it shows you have knowledge of self. However it is wrong for you to try and project your particular cosmology onto me. That type of behavoir is boderline xenophobic (you should get that checked out).
This is why I don't like discussing music with white people ( I'm going to win this particular debate, however, because you have already lost even if you don't know it yet). If you mention a musician and I don't know their work, then something is wrong with me. If I mention a musician and you don't know their work, then something is wrong with me, huh. We live in two different worlds my friend with two uniquely different perspectives. I'll give you a good example of this. If you go to any major metropolitain city in america, stop ten white people and ask them 'who made the song "Stairway to Heaven"; you will get the answer "Led Zeppelin". If you stop ten "Black" people in the same city and ask the same question; you will get the answer "The O'Jays". Although both songs are popular, "huge and famous", neither answer is wrong. As a matter of fact both answers are right, however, the answer given all depends on one's perspective and particular outlook on the world.
Now let's discuss who's argument is "flawed". I have maintained that theft is theft where you have changed your argument within your last couple of post. First you stated: Now you tell me: So here you are changing your stance from law to semantics. Neither of the two will help your argument, which I will show you.
Pull out Led Zeppelin II and let's analyze "The Lemon Song" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lemon_Song) (man, you had to know this was coming). Now where have a heard this song before? Oh, I know, it sounds like Chess single number 1923, which is Howling Wolf's "Killing Floor". But for some strange reason, Led Zep forgot to "credit" Wolf which lead to a lawsuit by the copyright holder ARC in 1972 (http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/Zep/LemonSong.html). Being the smart genetlemen they were, they decided to settle out of court. Matter of fact didn't ARC and Willie Dixon sue them for "Whole Lotta Love" (page down and read about Led Zeppelin II) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_zeppelin) because it sounded so much like Dixon's "You Need Love". I don't know but it sounds like taking somebody else's ideas and not crediting them is not only "malicous" but also "against the law", otherwise why would Led Zeppelin settle. Based on your definitions (which you so unknowingly painted yourself into a corner with), that would constitute "theft".
I mean we can keep going but I really don't know how you are going to come back from me using your own definitions against you. You probably could change your stance again but that is getting so old.
I guess Led Zeppilen was killing music too by "creatively borrowing" from the past since you stated:


Thats what I would call ether.

[HurricaneJ213]

But that's not really fair to people discovering music. I didn't know right away that any of this sh!t was going on when I first got into music. This is faulting casual fans for not being as conscious/obsessive as we are. Even with that it takes ahuge leap in logic to say "Because these fans of LEd Zep don't know or acknowledge the black forbears, they are racist" this is in no way one of those situations where ignorance of history equals a racist perspective. In this argument/discussion the assumption of racism is itself the most racist thing going on.
Fine lines included when does something stop being a cover and start being a stolen song? Is it when the covered artist is less well off than the coveree? Or is it purely subjective? If it's a well written song is it more important for it to languish in obscurity to prevent even the slightest whiff of theft? Or is it more important to make sure it's heard by the largest number of people?
I know that within the past year a very popular song (Don't Cha by PCD) was actually written for an OutKast backup singer by Cee-Lo. She performed and released a single of this song, a couple months later it was taken and performed the Pu$$ycat Dolls and became huge at the expense pf this backup singer. Was this stolen? Was this a cover? This chick is broke while (most likely) less talented people are raking because of the same song.

Umm...the perception of racism comes from defending what you "didn't originally know any of this sh!t was going on" by saying that it's the black people's fault for having their music stolen by people that were "smarter"

As far as the PCD example, we're talking about a simple issue of copyright law in modern society. As Cee-Lo wrote it, regardless of who he wrote it for, he maintains sole authority to sell the rights to WHOEVER he wants to. Now if PCD released this without his permission, that is indeed theft. What we are talking about for the 1920's-1940's is completely different.

It was basically the equivalent of that cheerleading movie, Bring It On.....The white group was deliberately (and hell yes maliciously) coming into the black group's domain to steal the idea and then take it with them back to their scene where they could claim it as their own. It was b/c the black group lacked the resources/representation to do anything that the ideas were taken so easily. HOW WOULD YOU STOP THIS THEFT WHEN YOU WERENT ALLOWED TO COPYRIGHT, SUE OR UTILIZE THE LEGAL SYSTEM BC YOU WERE BLACK?????

And then bc we dont think it was fair, some white a$shole decides to tell us that we were just too stupid to protect our intellectual property? Fluck you man, you have no idea what was going on

[Dr. Perry Cox]

You're just upset that the Rolling Stones had the audacity to do a genre of music better than almost anyone of the race that created it.
GET OVER IT. Send Mick Jagger a letter for reparations or something.
the rolling stones did not necessarilly make better music, it was just more acceptable because it was whitep people doing it and not black

[HurricaneJ213]

I hope we've made our point at least, but I want to admit that "send Mic Jagger a letter for reparations" had me rolling on the floor laughing

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

You know what kills me? Hearing Keith Richards and Jimmy Paige calling hip-hoppers "thieves" for sampling? Those songs are our birthright, and they stole them, but us takin' them back is theft. That's the only thing I'm mad at the rock community about, but mostly our anger is at the racist society. That is what Bone Daddy & Flapjacks are missing. It aint about y'all. It's about a society that makes Eminem the best selling rapper ever. It makes Vanilla Ice the first rapper to have a no.1 pop single, and make the best selling rap album ever. It makes The Beastie Boys the first rappers to have a no.1 album. It makes The Beatles the best selling artists ever. It makes Elvis the "King of Rock & Roll". It basically writes their history obscuring ours, even though we are the rightful holders of the flame. It would be different if it was shared, but to completely erase us from history is extremely disrespectful. It's like when Budweiser had it's commemorative 50 years of "Rock N Roll" celebration, but didn't include one black artist in it, not even Jimi Hendrix.

I give The Beatles, Stones, Led Zepplin, and The Who credit for giving credit where credit is due, but the people who are in charge would be more than happy if those guys didn't give props to their influences, just like if Eminem today said, "I did it all by myself". The powers that be would be more than happy to write that as fact. The artist themselves, ultimately, are better people than those in their society, because they do give respect to our culture. That should not be lost in all of this.

[NcRider]

you are crazy