Post: #26

(06-25-2016 10:52 PM)911 Wrote:  "It was debunked" is the unofficial blue pill mantra.

If you can't grasp Led Zeppelin's satanic dimension, you might as well be posting on Rolling Stone Magazine or some other "progressive" message board.

With all due respect, 911, this is not supported by facts.

The only hard-rock or metal bands that were genuine "satanists" (i.e., actually practicing devil-worshipers) were the "black metal" fringe bands. They are easily identifiable, and are not part of the mainstream at all.

Metal bands of the 1970s and 1980s made commercial use of occult and "demonic" imagery for one reason only: to cynically exploit the market. They did it to sell records. These guys were just musicians, and could have cared less about "satanism." They may have been hedonists, drug users, and alcoholics, but they were not peddling any sort of doctrinal system.

Most of the big names indulged in it. I think it was Black Sabbath that figured out in 1969 that evil and danger sells.

Later, the big bands figured out that occult imagery sells: Zepplin, Rainbow, Dio, and many, many others.

It's just one bad joke, really. Even the "hair metal" bands of the 1980s got in on the act. Remember Motley Crue and Twister Sister used to indulge in the same bullshit, with their pentagrams and devil-screaming jibberish?

If you're going to attack them, at least attack them for being opportunistic, cynical, and exploitative. That I can buy. But "satanic"? It just doesn't hold up.

If you were to ask Robert Plant, Ozzy, or even Ronnie James Dio if they were "satanic", they would laugh in your face, and would keep laughing all the way to the bank.

.

Post: #27

Listen to the famous falsetto starting at 2:25:





Now listen to this:





From Time:

Quote:Radiohead was so inspired by the hit written by Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood that the duo successfully sued Thom Yorke et al. for copyright infringement. The liner notes of Radiohead’s Pablo Honey now credit Hammond and Hazlewood as co-writers of “Creep” and Hammond and Hazlewood split royalties with the band.

I like Radiohead but I'll take the Hollies any day. Nothing better than hauling ass through the desert with the windows down to this:

Post: #28

(06-26-2016 02:35 PM)UroboricForms Wrote:  I've always had the belief that there are only so many ideas out there.

Yep, and the codification of these ideas is the academic subject of Music Theory. At its most basic, certain pitches have either harmonic or dissonant relationship to each other. Pitches that sound "good" together are grouped into keys and modes and provide foundations for the composition of music in the western tradition. Everyone agrees that you can't copyright a key (dibs on G major if this changes), but how far up the chain of complexity can you go. Copyright a single chord? no. An arpeggio? That's just a disassembled chord. A series of chords in a particular order? Just as individual pitches have harmonic and dissonant relationships to each other, so do chords. These relationships are easily visualized using a composition aid called a chord wheel. There are about 9 basic major and minor chords that "fit" in every key, any other chord played during these keys just sounds "wrong". Sometimes this is done intentionally for creative effect. In rock music David Bowie was known for liberal use of out-of-key chords, which gave much of his early work the strange "alien" feel it is remembered for.

So, at some vague point we cross the line from people using the same basic building blocks of music: keys, chord progressions, song anatomy etc to what we consider infringing behavior. Consider the previous example with the radiohead song. It shares the key, the chord progression, the tempo, the time signature and the melody. I honestly think the melody is what tips the decision in most of these. Musicians seem to get away with stopping just short of "borrowing" the melody of the lyrics and get away with it. Consider the Eagle's Hotel California and Jethro Tull's We Used to Know. Its an 8 chord progression, about as complicated as rock and roll chord patterns get. The same key and the same tempo, but the melody of the lyrics is unique. Also the singer of Jethro Tull says they never pursued it because he stole the progression from a 300 year old Bach composition.

If that Spirit song had soft vocals come over top the chord pattern sung to the same melody as Stairway to Heaven, I think it would have been infringement. I mentioned previously that this descending chord progression is found in flamenco. Flamenco burst out of Spain to international audiences in the 1950s, with the UK being the first English speaking country to import flamenco acts. Paige, as a professional studio musician, was certainly aware of and interested in flamenco guitar. Its was probably the 2nd largest influence on British rock guitarists of the 50s and early 60s after American blues music. The chord progression from the Led Zepplin treatment of Gallow's Pole (A7->A#b5) comes directly from a flamenco style called 'Soleares'. Especially the haunting sound of the A#b5 I've never encountered in any other musical tradition.

Post: #29

it seems that piece is a public domain written in baroque era by harpist O'Carolan

https://musictales.club/article/celtic-b...way-heaven

Post: #30

I'm against any suit that wants money for influencing a song, I don't care if it's very damn similar because music would be stuck in maybe the renaissance era if influence was a form of stealing (legally.)

I'm also pro sampling, I do think the original artist should be compensated but there needs to be a system put in place where there are general guidelines as to how much the original artist gets paid. And if there is more than, say 5-10 seconds sampled the artists can choose to block the song completely (such as various Puffy tracks.) But right now there's ridiculous damages handed out because an artist sampled a guy going "UHHHH" on a record. (If you are against sampling delete every single hip-hop track from the years 1988-2002 in your catalog.)