The first is a question about your reaction to the readings about the Led Zeppelin trial, the article website: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-led-zeppelin-copyright-20160614-snap-story.html

The second is an exploration of how we respond to different versiosn of the same piece of music.

choose from the following lists.

1)  Have you ever felt that an expressed idea of yours (a thought spoken or written; a solution to a problem; a creative work; a research paper, etc.) was “borrowed” by someone else and you weren’t given the proper credit?  Or conversely, that something you received credit for couldn’t have happened without the hard work of someone else?  I’m not interested in catching anybody in some sort of admission of guilt here, so it’s perfectly appropriate to use some else’s experience for purposes of the discussion.  What I want to know is, how did you (or whoever) deal with this situation.  What do  you think, as you reflect back, was the fairest way to resolve the issue?  Why do you think I’m asking this question in relation to the Led Zeppelin case?

2)  Take any pair of pieces (except for the Amy Winehouse song) on this week’s listening list (three in the case of the Pachelbel “Cannon” and in “Oh, Pretty Woman”) and talk about the differences that you hear in the performances.  Which do you like more? Why? Are there differences in “honesty” in the pair (trio or quartet), or is it just a case of knowing the original intent of the music? In other words, is the performance somehow  expressive in a way that makes you feel that the performers (arrangers composers, etc.) are speaking more directly to you? Can you discern differences in “intent” (what effect was being pursued) between the two.