I'm pretty late to this party--as usual. A Chicago radio station is starry-eyed over Greta Van Fleet. I gave them a listen today. All I could think was...
Is this a Zeppelin parody band?
There are so many features to their sound, playing, and sonics that sound just like LZ--so much so that I cannot get into the music passionately. These are (IMHO): Vocals (phrasing mimics Robert Plant without stopping); Lyrics (the themes seem, based on limited listening, to track LZ); Lead Guitar (I cannot think of another guitarist who sounds like he's trying to sound like Page as much as this one).
Does Greta Van Fleet sound like a facsimile to you? I'm not hung up on punishing artists who copy, as I think it's part and parcel of the art form. But I'm having real trouble getting past the photocopy nature of this. Again, this is just one person's opinion. So curious to hear what others think and feel about this group. I'd like to give them more of a chance and maybe others can help. For now, I can't keep listening.
I can’t speak for Mr. Faulkner, but I’m pretty he wasn’t a proponent of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I don’t think he’d have taken too kindly to Hemingway or Fitzgerald blatantly stealing his ideas.
It’s easy to toss off cute aphorisms from the peanut gallery, it’s another thing to be the one having their work stolen.
As noted by myself and others, no artist, Led Zeppelin or otherwise, should be defined by their worst moments.
Greta Van Fleet have no good moments. If they were a joke band (unintentionally, they kind of are) they would have something. They are not a joke band. They are shameless shlocksters.
Just because it’s difficult to become rich and famous as a pop band doesn’t mean that exploiting the lowest-common-denominator and shamelessly regurgitating the safest, most unoriginal ideas, heard ad nauseam for decades on ubiquitous Classic Rock FM radio, makes one worthy of praise when doing so.
I get tired of hearing about Led Zep's thievery. Faulkner once said, “Immature artists copy, great artists steal.” Many other famous folks have said similar things.
Led Zep stole the way great artists do. Then they got caught. And they paid for it in the end. They were also instrumental in bringing blues back to the forefront where it belongs rather than being a cult fad for young English musicians in the 60s. That alone as a lifetime achievement is redemptive even if unintended.
If it had not been for Led Zep I'd have never heard of Willy Dixon or Bukka White.
I was '1st' to post in this thread, back in 2019. I'd like to add that have nothing against GVF, and wish them the best. I'm neither here nor there on any of it.
Music is a tough business, and any success they gain, in some minimal to even total way, the probably deserve it. Good for them. Humans need music. GVF provides, for some. And that's enough.
I also agree that LZ stole and borrowed but always advanced their own view and soundscape. GVF sound like they are imitating too much in my humble perspective. I’d like them more if they had more of their own sound. Glad to see young ones rocking though.
Can’t tell if the OP is joking when he asks if the most famous plagiarists in the history of pop should “get their lawyer” because of Greta Van Fleet.
Greta Van Fleet are embarrassing.
Don’t get me wrong, I would highlight songs like “What Is and What Should Never Be,” “Ramble On,” and the best stuff on 3 through Physical Graffiti and have a good 2-LP’s-worth of brilliance, but…uh…yeah…they have been in no position to file for copyright infringement for the entirety of their existence.
"For a group that takes 70’s influences and makes them there own, I recommend checking out the Struts’ "Everybody Wants.""
I completely agree. With GVF there is almost a wink-and-a-nod to the LZ parody. They just haven't broken away from LZ enough to be their own band.
With The Struts you hear Queen, you hear The Darkness, you hear the Stones, you hear The Sweet, you even hear a little Jack White. But it isn't a parody. Their riffs and hooks are certainly borrowed but they are reassembled and made into their own stuff. They own it. And to me they seem more genuine than and to have a broader approach than GVF. The lead singer of The Struts also has much more stage presence and charisma than GVF. He has been likened to Freddy Mercury and Mick Jagger's love child.
Their second album, Young and Dangerous, is even better than the first.
I've seen the Struts live and will see them two more times in May. They seem like the real deal to me. GVF seems like a parody. To me it seems like GVF's popularity is out of novelty.
But, to put things in perspective, The Struts recently opened for GVF which tells me GVF's star is rising faster than The Struts even though The Struts have had more TV exposure (anchor band for Victoria Secret Fashion Show, etc). So, from a popular standpoint GVF is rising fast as noted in other posts above.
Anyway, if you ever want to see a heck of a live show (everyone on their feet dancing and jumping around the entire show....go see The Struts in a small venue (1-2 thousand people). You won't regret it....and you will be tired the next day.
Never heard of them. Played "When the Curtain Falls" on youtube. In the first 45 seconds the lead singer threw his hands up in what can only be interpreted as mimicking a Robert Plant move. Its more than just the music.
A #1 album on the Billboard charts and 4 Grammy nominations is, by definition, "making it." Their current world tour doesn't include any 1000 seat clubs as far as I can tell, but if it did they'd likely sell those out in about 30 seconds. I agree, they "may" do well.
The band is successful in a grass roots sort of way. They're still playing 1000 seat clubs etc. Nothing wrong with that but they certainly haven't hit the 'big time' yet. Lots of low level bands get on the late shows etc.
I wish them all the luck in the world and hope they do make it big. But I think most of their fan base is the kind of folks who would go to an LZ tribute show. Nothing wrong with that either. But not enough to sustain a long lucrative career probably.
And of course they don't care what us arm-chair agent/managers have to say. And if they're management is good and has a good sense of what people want, they may do well. I just don't think their current tack is going to take them much further.
As mentioned previously, this band is very successful already...very...so I somehow doubt they give a rat's patootie about entertaining suggestions about getting better at anything as what they do seems to be working out OK. I think one reason I like them at all comes from watching some Youtube interviews where they display an above average intelligence and gracious attitude...seem like nice kids, and regardless of reasonable criticism I predict they'll be the biggest band in the world in maybe a year. I still won't listen to them except accidentally, but so what?
"If you know LZ and if you know Robert Plant you will see that the singer of GVF even parodies his movements and stage presence. Nothing wrong with that. Just saying."
n80- I was wondering if my criticism was too harsh, mentioning the RP stage persona. Listening to the singer, and watching the guitarist ape Jimmy’s moves,just became corny.
I don’t think of GVF as a Zep rip-off band, their just lacking in originality.
ANY Rock band coming up these days, has to not only have musical chops, but the rare ability to somehow, add something fresh. Ripoff or not, the mighty Zeppelin, and others did just that.
Those boys need to draw deeper within. A visit to the "crossroads" perhaps?
If you know LZ and if you know Robert Plant you will see that the singer of GVF even parodies his movements and stage presence. Nothing wrong with that. Just saying.
I don’t see them as a parody band. I think they are serious about what they do.
I don’t see them as a tribute band because they’re not really playing LZ songs.
I don’t see them as thieves. They’re just doing what rock musicians do. And let’s not forget, probably none of them were born before LZ broke up.
The problem I have with them is that they just aren’t very good. I can’t listen to them for more than a few minutes. The way they have ’borrowed’ just doesn’t work for me. It seems like a very formulaic borrowing, not just a matter of learning and influence.
I think they have the ability to be a good band. I think if they want that to happen they need to stop listening to LZ immediately and start listening to hard raw blues all day and all night for a year and then write some music.
The only thing Zep-ish about the Van Fleets is the singer's voice...the dynamics pretty much lack with Fleet and most modern bands, which hasn't hurt their career I suppose. Zep's early performances were very dynamic, and utilized all the smart tricks of the trade from their attitude and utterly organized relentless showmanship and musical chops, which in Van Fleet's case means the guitar and bass player jump around a lot. They can get better, but based of their sudden success they might not have to. The Bass-keyboard kid has some serious talent so maybe he can think up some good material.
They are talented, but need to find their own voice. Now they are just a Zeppelin wannabe band without their own artistic expression/voice. It is possible for kids who have not heard the original to be fascinated, but when they discover Zeppelin they must then feel cheated :-D
After having survived a copyright infringement suit over the lead chords to Stairway to Heaven, I doubt Jimmy and LZ want to entertain similar suits against others. Copying the style of others is flattery, but it’s quite difficult to carry that flattery to court as a claim of copyright infringement.
A lot lot of bands sound like others. Who did Jimmy play with on tour for years? Black Crowes—a band sounding a lot like LZ. White Stripes sounds a lot like them, too.
I kinda like these kids, but here’s the deal: Zep ripped off others and made a whole new and fresh sound out of it. GVF rips off Zep and sounds just like ... well, Zep. GVF provides us with nothing "new" in their blatant homage, whereas Zep did. To me, that’s the big difference. The kids in GVF have talent and write good songs. Hopefully, they’ll be able to shake off the LZ comparison at some point.
While we are on the subject, give the Train redue of Led Zeppelin II a listen, it was recorded live I believe and all money donated to a charity that they chose. Never was a Train fan prior to me getting this LP but I have to appreciate their talent.
Greta et all, although generally not writing songs that are particularly interesting to me, are already the next "big thing" in spite of curmudgeonly critics like those around here. The drummer isn't Bonham, the singer is sort of hilariously weirdly dressed, the songs are "meh," but the delivery is sincere and high energy and they seem to be having fun, as any 20 year old kid should when selling out shows all over the world. Note the bass player on a B3 playing bass pedals with his feet...yeah man...
It will be interesting to see the Gretsters on SNL this weekend and it's my guess they'll tear the place up (in a somewhat derivative manner of course).
The musicianship of LZ is undeniable as is their passion for music. Everybody is influenced by what they are passionate about and “stealing” is the sincerest form of flattery when it concerns musical art. Art does not exist in a vacuum, it is inspirational. You can’t create great art if you don’t appreciate or love art to begin with.
@baffler65, Yes, I agree. That was one major point I was trying to make.
LZ sounded nothing like the artists they stole from. Is there some irony here that another group is copying them? Some for sure. But the copying here is style of arrangements, lyrical themes, production, you name it. LZ was never a parody-maybe unto themselves. LZ sounded and played in an entirely unique way.
Its one one thing to cover or steal a Beatles song for your own arrangement . It’s another to want to sound just like them and use recording production to do it. Many are caught up though with Zeppelin’s theft of lyrics. Go back and listen to Memphis Minnie sing When the Levee Breaks. LZ loved the blues and borrowed and stole from it. The band did not try to sound like any of them though. They had their own arrangements, tone, production, etc.
This band is not refreshing to me the way Jack White was when he first hit the commercial scene. I expect more from kids than this. They are however undisputedly young so they have time to create their own sound.
When Keith Richards introduced Chuck Berry at his Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction he said, “Chuck had some of the best riffs in rock and roll. I stole all of them.”
Just want to get the thread back around to the fact that LZ stole a bunch of riffs and even a song or two but made them their own rather than stealing Willy Dixon’s or Robert Johnson’s "sound." GVF is trying to sound like almost exactly like LZ, not cop a lick here or there.
For a group that takes 70’s influences and makes them there own, I recommend checking out the Struts’ "Everybody Wants."
Agreed with all pointing out that the legal system would collapse from the irony (heavy metal pun!) if LZ sued these guys but I see no point in listening to GVF. I listened to Zep so much when I was young I hardly have to hear it any more.
Heart is another Zep tribute band to my ears - but with enough of their own emphasis to make it completely enjoyable. I listen to Heart and I hear affection (for LZ). I have listened only a little to GVF but so far I hear affection for $$.
LZ is the last band that should point fingers at other bands for copying music. They have made a career out of it. Most bands call it “influence”, but let’s call it what it really is.
I've never cared all that much for Zep albums for serious listening as, especially in the 70s, I was more into The Band, Little Feat (seemingly Zep's and every UK band's fave, and considered by many as the best live band of the 70s), Joni, Steely Dan, Jimi, blah blah (especially blah blah)...personal taste, although I get the musicianship factor. This said, the impression Zep had on me the first time I or anyone else I knew had seen them (second part of what was essentially their first US tour blitz when my band opened for them in May '69) was that they had a GREAT live act...this dissipated somewhat when I saw 'em again later, but still worth mentioning as at that time most bands seemed to be simply loitering on stage...later in '69 Jethro Tull also seemed like they were from another planet as their live show was also astonishing for its time. So the Fleetsters, regardless of their not inventing anything, get props from me for at least live gusto, which relative to the Shoe Gaze or "Americana" or hipster bands I think mostly suck from pretentious faux seriousness ("We wrote this so it must be good!"), I can say You Go Greta, although I won't be listening to any of their albums either.
I love Zep but they just flat out stole riffs and lyrics from the old blues and folk players without giving any credit or payment until forced into it by legal suits. Clapton the Stones and others on the other hand credited artists and made sure they got paid.
There’s nothing new here and I’ll bet someone copied the guy or gal who invented the wheel too.
Where there’s copyright infringement, let lawyers duke it out.
No one complained of all the Beatles spin offs and copy cats and wanna bees after they broke up. A publishing company sued John Fogerty for copying one of his own songs. This stuff happens in every industry where someone does something original and lazy non-creative people want to cash in on other’s successes.
The Brit’s popularization of black American blues sparked considerable interest in the original artists and in many cases helped their careers. You didn’t see that happening from this side of the pond. Even Hendrix had to go to England to be appreciated, and then of course the pile-on soon followed in the US.
My bugaboo with Led Zep revolves around Abel Ferrara's 1992 film "Bad Lieutenant". A critical element in the film is Schooly D's song "The Signifying Rapper". The song is from 1988 and it sampled LZ's "Kashmir", but it did so without getting clearance from LZ's publisher. Everybody knows how the band outright stole whole songs from other artist, but LZ had the nerve to go after the film and the rapper. Every copy of the movie with "The Signifying Rapper" had to be destroyed. Legally they were fully within their rights, but I think, particularly with their own legal history, it reflects poorly upon them.
Ferrara re-edited the movie to remove the song, but he thought the film was ruined. He said:
"Signifying Rapper" was out for five years, and there wasn't a problem.
Then the film had already been out for two years and they start bitching
about it. [...] It cost Schoolly like $50,000. It was a nightmare. And
meanwhile, "Signifying Rapper" is 50 million times better than "Kashmir"
ever thought of being. [...] Why sue? You should be happy that somebody
is paying homage to your work.
To some extent you have to separate the artist as people from the art. I may not be the biggest, but I have always been a fan of Led Zeppelin. My problem with the band is "I'm talkin' about character. I'm talkin' about - hell...I ain't embarrassed to use the word - I'm talkin' about ethics."
Watch the Youtube video of the Van Fleetsters playing live on some radio show where the bass player plays piano...kind of amazingly well. Regardless of the opinions of non fans, they do a kick ass live show and yes, they can actually play their instruments.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
