[kyuuketsuki]

I'll say this now, but I already knew about at least some of those. And I do agree that they should have given credit where credit was due, but they have also written plenty of 100% original songs, and it doesn't change the fact that Jimmy Page is one hell of a guitarist. So if that is enough for you to completely hate them, I can't say that I don't understand, but for me it just isn't enough. It lowered my respect for them, but that is the reason why I never list them as one of my top artists. As much as people fail to recognize that this is not such an uncommon occurrence. In fact, the music industry was built on piracy, starting with patents that didn't extend to California for recording. 
 
So where as I don't respect them nearly as much as I used to before I knew that, I can't say that I hate them either. 
 
Quote:

i will be entirely honest. i never really enjoyed led zeppelin but i respected them as an artist. well my respect has dropped a whole lot. i will never question their influence in hard rock and heavy metal but i will admit right now this is a huge disappointment.
 

 

 

[loremipsum]

Purely in terms of their music, it'd probably be one of those forgettable, generic one-off female pop stars. You know the ones I'm talking about.
 
Taking into consideration the fanbase, definitely Lady Gaga. All those "little monsters" who hail her as the second coming of Christ or something are downright disgusting.

 

[Carlsan]

Lady Gaga is easy to hate. I don't like her either. But give her credit, she writes her own music. Ditto with Madonna back in her time.
 
Some of the other female big name artists are just tools of the record industry,

 

[loremipsum]

Well, Lady Gaga as an artist is alright, but she's way too overrated.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

My problem with Lady Gaga isn't in her creativity, which I admit she has her moments. Its that she has some really generic tracks, and she uses autotune... I understand using autotune as a tool to fix certain things, but these new artists use autotune to a disgusting level. To the point they try and fix their voices in its entirety. 
 
But again, the artists I hate are the ones whom use electronic means to fix their personal shortcomings, which includes autotune. Its those artists I hate, because they are doing something that shouldn't be done, which is to fix their problems, which I think takes some of the soul of the music away. It is the imperfections of an artist that makes music interesting, and what is more interesting is when something unexpected happens in a live show and the artist  incorporates it into the performance. Something that artists who rely on electronic fixes cannot manage.
 
So as much as some artists may "steal" as Carlsan say, they still have skill as a musician which should be respected. It is those who cannot perform that I don't think should be famous.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Well, Lady Gaga as an artist is alright, but she's way too overrated.

i agree. i can't stand her music. unfortunately i hear it a lot as my mother listens to it constantly.

 

[Carlsan]

Quote:

My problem with Lady Gaga isn't in her creativity, which I admit she has her moments. Its that she has some really generic tracks, and she uses autotune... I understand using autotune as a tool to fix certain things, but these new artists use autotune to a disgusting level. To the point they try and fix their voices in its entirety. 
 
But again, the artists I hate are the ones whom use electronic means to fix their personal shortcomings, which includes autotune. Its those artists I hate, because they are doing something that shouldn't be done, which is to fix their problems, which I think takes some of the soul of the music away. It is the imperfections of an artist that makes music interesting, and what is more interesting is when something unexpected happens in a live show and the artist  incorporates it into the performance. Something that artists who rely on electronic fixes cannot manage.
 
So as much as some artists may "steal" as Carlsan say, they still have skill as a musician which should be respected. It is those who cannot perform that I don't think should be famous.

I really dislike the use of autotune as well. Between someone blatantly stealing someone else's song and calling it their own, and using autotune, well that's a toss up for me. They both show lack of talent, imho.
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTsvs-pAGDc&feature=player_embedded#at=201
 

 

[kyuuketsuki]

That's my point, that has been happening since the advent of music. It is just that now we have systems in place to track and even correct some of the "stealing" that goes on. However the talent as musicians should be respected. To be able to recreate something on an instrument still requires the skill to either read the music and play it on your respective instrument, or to use your ear and do the same. I'm not going to get into the morality of passing another person's work as your own, because that isn't the issue here, at least I don't think it is. Is it right that artists steal others work as their own? Not at all, but does that mean they have no skill? Not exactly. You can copy something note for note and they can be played completely different, which is a skill in of itself. It still doesn't make it right, but it is not an uncommon occurrence, and it is the popularity of the musicians involved that dictates if it gets noticed or not. Led Zeppelin was widely popular and their first three CDs were notorious for doing that, but their popularity is what got this noticed, and if they hadn't been as popular as they were, then it would have never been.
 
Without getting into the morality and technicalities of this debate, I still don't think it should equate to hatred of a band. Disrespect, yes, but if the music is good, it is good. I gauge music using that method of thought, no matter if plagiarism has been performed or not, at least in music. Hell I'm sure some of it is unintentional (though Led Zeppelins is clearly not), but that shouldn't lead to utter disdain for the artist especially if they were creative with the majority of their work. I'm not sure if this is true for Led Zeppelin, but as far as I know, as much as they plagiarized they had an equal amount of original works and riffs. If they plagiarized entire works note for note, and that's all they did, I'd understand more, but it isn't like that.
 
Again, after I personally learned of this their status as "Greatest Band Ever" in my mind was utterly destroyed, but I didn't hate them for it because history has shown that, without fail, those on top steal from those below them to get to where they are. Please give me a guarantee that every song in history was 100% original and I'll join you in your hatred, but that is impossible because I will guarantee there have been back alley bands that had their music stolen by top artists who'll never be believed. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is unfortunately how the world works. I for one do not use that to dictate hatred, because then the hatred would be endless. Just remember, music has been around for thousands of years, eventually we'll reach the limit of the combination of notes that can be made on certain instruments that sound good. This is probably part of the reason why musicians in modern classical started to use a higher frequency of dissonance rather than consonance in their pieces. And it is always possible for artists to come up with similar or the same riffs as another across the world (again didn't happen with Led Zeppelin, but hey, it isn't a perfect world).
 
BTW, I'm in no way trying to change your opinion on the matter. I respect your view on the matter, I'm just giving you my view on it. Whether or not you accept my view is up to you. But this is the way I have chosen to view this matter, and that isn't going to change. 
 
Quote:

I really dislike the use of autotune as well. Between someone blatantly stealing someone else's song and calling it their own, and using autotune, well that's a toss up for me. They both show lack of talent, imho.
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTsvs-pAGDc&feature=player_embedded#at=201
 

 

 

[Carlsan]

kyuuketsuki - I can see and respect your argument.
But you know, in the end, a hatred of a band is when one has to turn off the radio, or delete the artist (if it's on your computer).  You get really annoyed when you hear their music. That is the way I feel about them. Back in the late 70's, showing my age, I got turned on to a lot of exciting music. I realized then, that talent didn't necessarily mean the ability to play the guitar and sing perfectly. What was more important was the sincerity in the music, the ability to connect to the listener in one level or another. Led Zep lost that ability, to me, as they were churning out song after song that was meaningless to me, both musically and lyrically. They were the mega stars of the day, overshadowing all the great bands that really did have something to say and deserved some attention.
I remember when I was a teen, I called my then favorite radio station to request Mott the Hoople's All the Way to Memphis. The dj replied, sorry, we haven't played Stairway to Heaven yet tonight, and that has to get played next. Man did that piss me off!
That was the mindset, Led Zeppelin had to get played, because no one else is worthy.
In the end, I am going beyond the point of this thread.

Who's your most hated musical artist?

I have many, including Led Zeppelin. Sorry folks, lets move on.
 
I would like to see somebody I actually like be listed on somebody  else's hate list.
Any Clash haters out there? Okay, easy target. Love early Tears for Fears any haters??  More recent stuff, what about Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, Emiliana Torrini??
Nick Cave- easy one, any haters??
 
For me this is the end of the discussion. We all love and hate artists for different reasons. I will always think of Led Zepellin as  a super group unworthy of the title, yet I am sure there will be many who will dislike many of my favorites. That's life.

 

[Permagrin]

Let me get this straight, Led Zeppelin covered a bunch of blues songs and that makes them thieves? Riiiight... I mean it's cool, believe what you want but most bands do covers, at least live.

Actually before 1970 or so covers didn't really exist like they do now. Multiple acts would perform the same popular song, release it on studio album, and the public didn't get their panties in a bunch.

I grew up listening to Zep, saw Page and Plant on their Walking into Clarksdale tour (AWESOME!), and own all of their music. But their music is so familiar to me that I don't listen to it often. It's become part of me and I don't need to listen to it with frequency to experience it. I don't know if that makes sense or not to any of you but it does to me.

Cheers!

 

[sml1226]

Metallica - Garage Inc
Helloween - Metal Jukebox

Sure they credit the originals, but the entire album is covers of other bands. Covers get most real bands (yes I think most of today's mainstream music is not real music) where they are today.

So by playing covers (sort of) Zeppelin is bad? Does anybody hate Metallica for profiting off of their covers? How about Tesla for theirs? Guns N Roses?

 

[Butler]

I always thought it was common knowledge that those Zeppelin songs were covers. I wasn't aware that covers were such a travesty all of a sudden, stop the presses everyone.

 

[Carlsan]

Quote:

I always thought it was common knowledge that those Zeppelin songs were covers. I wasn't aware that covers were such a travesty all of a sudden, stop the presses everyone.

Uncredited, Zeppelin credited them to themselves when originally released. The original artists never got a cent unless they sued.  Yes they were covers, but ethical bands credit the original composers  and give them their fair share of the profit from the song revenues.
 
It should be added that Zeppelin became filthy rich on their music, sharing some of that wealth with the composers who wrote their songs isn't such a bad thing!
 

 

[Carlsan]

Quote:

Metallica - Garage Inc
Helloween - Metal Jukebox

Sure they credit the originals, but the entire album is covers of other bands. Covers get most real bands (yes I think most of today's mainstream music is not real music) where they are today.

So by playing covers (sort of) Zeppelin is bad? Does anybody hate Metallica for profiting off of their covers? How about Tesla for theirs? Guns N Roses?

If one credits the original composers then they get a percentage of the revenues. Most bands and composers are more than happy with that, as their music sees new life and gives them some extra income. Nothing wrong with it.
 
 

 

[Butler]

Quote:

Uncredited, Zeppelin credited them to themselves when originally released. The original artists never got a cent unless they sued.  Yes they were covers, but ethical bands credit the original composers  and give them their fair share of the profit from the song revenues.
 

Original artists never get any "cents" from covers or reinterpretations. It's legal under remix law. It's how remix artists like Girl Talk, and parody artists like Weird Al get paid to do what they do.