It seems to top every "greatest rock songs in history" chart, year after year. It is the song for which one legendary band, Led Zeppelin, is far and away best known for. It is beautiful, and with mysterious lyrics meant to make you think.
This is one of the few songs that I have never grown tired of - and that's saying something!
So, I was a bit taken aback when I first learned that that it might have been "ripped off" or "stolen", as some people suggested.
Really? Wow! That was hugely disappointing!
And then I heard what was called the "original" song, and I kind of felt that these insinuations were more than a little exaggerated. While a few of the notes (you would surely recognize them as the opening chords to "Stairway") can indeed be traced to this original song ("Taurus" by Spirit), the two songs are so very different in spirit and in feel, that there is simply no comparison. "Taurus" has a definite psychedelic feel to it, it seems to be exploring, reaching, with what seems like a deliberately incomplete sound. By comparison, "Stairway to Heaven" not only sounds complete, but perfect, from top to bottom, beginning to end. It is more pronounced, has more substance and direction, and these are not minor differences.
Still, though, the arguments persist, and with some good reason. Clearly, Led Zeppelin borrowed the opening chords from Spirit - of that there can be no doubt. They opened for Spirit in a few concerts, and the two bands were on the same bill several times in the late sixties. Plus, again, the chords are so similar as to be virtually identical, so the charges that Zep somehow ripped them off have to be at least examined. There would obviously have been plenty of chance for members of Led Zeppelin (particularly Jimmy Page) to have heard Spirit's "Taurus", and used it to craft the one song that the now legendary band is best known for, the song that, to this day, many feel (myself included) is the best individual song in rock history.
Thus, I found myself examining it, and thinking about it.
The Verdict?
Ultimately, I don't believe the song was stolen. There is a big difference between art that is stolen, versus art that is borrowed. True, Page probably liked the sound of those opening notes on "Taurus", and it obviously made a deep impression on him. He borrowed them, certainly, and it is clear that they song get quite a bit of it's inspiration from Spirit's "Taurus".
But it does not follow that they "stole" the song from Spirit. In fact, Spirit's song has no vocals, and is purely instrumental. Those notes that sound quite a bit like the opening to Stairway are part of a musical piece that has a very different feel and sound then Stairway. And there's the not inconsiderable matter of the rest of the song to take into consideration: the rest of the melody, as well as Plant's lyrics. Should they not count? Should our enjoyment of the song be forever tainted because a few notes from a mostly forgotten band sound similar to the immortal "Stairway to Heaven"?
Nobody ever said that creative genius had no influences, or that even some truly great works of art - in writing, in visual art, and surely in music, is not borrowed. If a great scientist discovers a cure for cancer tomorrow using the instruments of modern technology at his or her disposal, does it cheapen the discovery? If a great innovator creates a greatly improved version of something that already exists, does that cheapen the thing? We all consider Steve Jobs a genius, but did he actually invent the first computer, or cell phone?
The fact of the matter is that if you fall into the trap of going too far in assuming that artists "stole" a song that they actually borrowed from, you have to make a better argument than a few chords, however huge a part they played in the song (such as those opening chords to Stairway). Led Zeppelin have been accused of stealing a lot of other stuff, too. So have the Beatles. Look it up for yourself, if you don't believe me.
So, am I saying that no artist ever steals material from another? Of course not. I was disappointed in the Rolling Stones, on their "Bridges to Babylon" album, when the biggest hit from the album sounded like quite a bit of a rip off from KD Lang's "Constant Craving". Not just a few chords, mind you, but much of the two songs sound too similar to be coincidental. Not identical, but close enough through much of the Stones version that you cannot simply dismiss it, and say that they created their own thing. In that case, it sounds a lot like the Stones were trying to recreate a song that already existed without actually making it too obvious, even though the similarities are still undeniable.
In the article by Vernon Silver about the "stolen" Stairway song, it is mentioned that David Bowie says that all artists steal from one another. And let us remember, also, Pablo Picasso's famous quote: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."
Stephen King has chimed in on the subject, as well. Referring to writing, he says that it is okay to borrow, not steal, from other artists. That might seem like a fine line, but I never heard anyone criticizing him, or anyone else, for ripping off the idea of vampires, simply because he was not the first to use them, yet incorporate them in one of his most famous early works in 'Salem's Lot. He also was not criticized for borrowing, or some might use the word "stealing", the centuries old idea of a werewolf in more than one of his books. Stephen King writes quite a bit about a lot of other common things that were used a lot before he ever used them. In the Dark Tower series, he mixes the nobility of knighthood in the old days with gunslingers of the wild west, and he does it pretty successfully, too. Again, nobody really criticizes him of stealing these concepts, although he is clearly borrowing from both, and creating something new out of it.
Creating something new by borrowing from something that already exists.
This applies to television, too. I am not a fan of the show, but nobody seems to care that the Walking Dead were nowhere near the first to use the idea of some kind of zombie apocalypse (although I will say that I personally think this is starting to be overdone by now).
Creating something new by borrowing from something that already exists. It happens in many walks of life, actually. Sports teams steal successful approaches by other teams or athletes. Businesses steal successful models from other businesses. Politicians certainly steal ideas and slogans form other politicians (and non-politicians, as well). This is the way that the world works, folks. Very few ideas these days are truly unique and original, because almost everything has been done in some form or other by now. Empires have copied previous empires. Many believe that the Roman Empire was the basis of our western culture today. But Rome borrowed from ancient Greece quite a bit, which itself borrowed from others, as well. Warfare is perhaps nothing if not a history of strategies and methods borrowed and repeated. In World War II, the Nazis created a new form of warfare, known as blitzkrieg ("lightning war"). First, they would use planes, creating chaos and disorder, then the tanks would roll into, creating further chaos. Finally, the soldiers would come in, and Germany took over country after country using this method. Eventually, the Allies used this same strategy against the Nazis, and defeated them with it. Does it perhaps cheapen World War II, or the defeat of Nazi Germany, that the Allies did not invent some even newer form of warfare to defeat Germany?
For that matter, should we perhaps take it a step further? When Martin Luther King, Jr. led the American civil rights movement to try and end racial prejudice, particularly segregation, in the nation, he used the methods that Gandhi had advocated in his successful and inspiring example of gaining Indian independence, and attempting to bring peace to India generally. Does that detract from Martin Luther King, Jr, or the American Civil Rights movement? For that matter, since Gandhi was influenced in his actions by the writings and thinking of Henry David Thoreau, particularly in "Civil Disobedience", does that also detract from Gandhi? At what point do we draw the line? Even someone who seemed to inject a new excitement and inspiration within official circles, such as John F. Kennedy during his years in the White House (often described as "Camelot"), borrowed some of his most iconic words from another. He advocated the "New Frontier" during his Inaugural Address, and famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." But did you ever ask if he had come up with such lofty notions himself? Both of those, the New Frontier and the "Ask not" quote were borrowed - pretty much "stolen", if you will - by the Lebanese-American writer, Kahlil Gibran (author of "The Prophet").
Going back to music, most people do not criticize Nirvana for borrowing (pretty heavily) from Boston's "More Than a Feeling" in order to create "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (the title of which, by the way, was a popular advertising slogan that existed back in the early nineties, which could also be claimed to have been "stolen". And people do not make such claims for good reason: whatever the similarities, Nirvana created something new by recycling the old. And honestly, I think they borrowed more heavily from Boston to create the iconic song for which they are most famous, then Led Zep did for the iconic song for which they are most well known for. For that matter, the other really huge Seattle band to come out of the explosion in the early nineties, Pearl Jam, has one song, "Given to Fly", where they borrow (pretty heavily, too) from not one, but two great songs from great artists of the past: Led Zeppelin themselves, with "Going to California", and Peter Gabriel, with "Salisbury Hill". But, again, they created something quite different than either of those two songs, and nobody too seriously claims that they are thieves and hackers.
So, we can see that it is hardly just Led Zeppelin who somehow were accused of ripping off, or stealing, from other artists and making it big with what could be considered their version of a given song. The fact of the matter is that while you can indeed trace some similarities between Stairway and Taurus, they are entirely different songs. Not to insult Spirit, or their song Taurus, but Stairway is a fuller song, from top to bottom, and offers much more as a result. It is a longer song, and while the chords that clearly inspired Stairway in Taurus sound almost like a tease, or almost undeveloped in that version, Stairway uses it in a more confident direction. It is not as psychedelic, and it is a different style. But what Led Zep did with that original from Spirit's Taurus, the direction that they went with it, is beyond compare. Here again, from Vernon Silver's article, is an explanation that I think is apt, and puts things into perspective, and I think it's as good a way of ending this piece as any:
In When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin, Mick Wall details the Welsh genesis of the song and writes that if Page was influenced by the chords from Taurus, “what he did with them was the equivalent of taking the wood from a garden shed and building it into a cathedral.”
"Stairway to Heaven: The Song Remains Pretty Similar" by Vernon Silver, May 15, 2014:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-15/led-zeppelins-stairway-to-heaven-vs-dot-spirits-taurus-a-reckoning#r=read
Here are links for Youtube, where you can hear the "original" version by Spirit, with the song "Taurus", and compare it to Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfI66yQUkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd8AVbwB_6E
No comments:
Post a Comment