My first whinge post

I have to say GT decison makers, I'm kinda' disappointed -understatement- by the dearth of material of historically significant bands which should be much better represented on a site like GT. And I'm not alone noting similar comments accompanied by reports of their experiences with the past and current song request process as iterated by other long term subscribers.

So you'll have to pardon them, me, us for being skeptical about the song submission form being anything but an apparent PR deflection exercise.

More to the point quite specifically in this instance, where is all the Led Zeppelin material? One of the greatest rock bands of all time by any standard and of such significance to what was to follow in the 1970s and thereafter, yet there are just two bluesy style Led Zepp song lessons by Tom Finch - thanks Tom I always enjoy your presentations, from a catalogue where at least three of their signature tunes recognisable by anyone who wasn't below ground and not breathing in '69 ~ '70 couldn't not have been aware of should have long been included in the GT lessons?!!!

I find myself constantly having to go elsewhere to find lessons which I want [u]which really should be here[/u]. How about some lessons both of this calibre and signature tune significance as alluded to in my previous paragraph. Led Zepps "Heartbreaker" (oops..well I'm sure you'll enjoy Alyona as much as I do = ), "Immigrant Song" and of course, "Whole Lotta' Love" (rhythm & solo) should be as bread and butter here as Eagles' "Hotel California" is, although I'm astonished Lyin' Eyes and numerous of their other mega hits are just as notably absent. And nothing, absolutely nothing by Free! What the?!!! Coming up on my 18th month sub to GT now, I really love learning with GT, want to and intend to continue to remain a roll over annual sub, but, ...............but really, .......c'mon. o.O

Re the copyright negotiation or same taking ad infinitum rationalisations I repeatedly read fielded in answer to "when will my song request be actioned" inquiry here on numerous occasions. Yet Andy's Shutup & Play, Shane Simpson and others seem to manage legitimately on what would be far lesser budgets in the same litigious world where YT will block, remove or demonitise in a heartbeat.

Just sayin'.

The fact that some of the other websites have song lessons or tabs that GT hasn't doesn't mean those websites have obtained the legal license to use them or that the tab is correct.

I think GT does it the correct way by obtaining the necessary licences and having the lessons checked over and you know it's correct and legal. I would much rather wait for a legal version of the song lesson than support other sites that are not doing things correctly.

Another note to consider is that certain songs may be already licenced to other sites which could then make it not possible for GT to obtain that licence.

When you consider how much an annual subscription to GT is and the fact they have a bigger library of songs and lessons than thier competitors even though there is a gap in the songs an individual may want you still get a lot for your money with GT.

Hi Fuzz...

Being an erudite thinking type of a certain age one might reasonably deduce apparent, a man might think I would have given everything you mention consideration prior to posting ....'wouldn'cha'?

Firstly I did not suggest any of the sites you mentioned did not follow the correct legal proceedings to obtain the licences for the songs they teach, there are a lot more websites on the internet than the few you mentioned and not all of them operate within the correct copyright laws of the country they are based.

And secondly I don't think it's my place to provide you with "evidence" that if a company licences a song to website it could restrict it for other parties, a quick internet search yourself will give you all the evidence you desire. This is something that has nothing to do with your knowledge of copyright laws it to do with licensing, a completely different thing all together and different copyright holders will have different licencing terms.....

If you had indeed considered all the points I raised before my post but still felt the need to have a "whinge" that's fine, but maybe you are wanting a more personal and individual content from a website trying to cater to a larger customer base and of course not everyone can be pleased by the results.

But I am sure you have already considered all of these points before I posted my reply

I have been watching this wondering how GT would respond to the question fuzz as I am genuniely curious about this. But to date there has been nothing.

I realize you both support the site, as do I, but in my opinion there is a reasonable question being asked by a [u]paying customer[/u] in a respectful (perhaps wordy) way and out of respect for that customer and the business relationship that exists, there should be an effort put forward by GT to address it.

Originally Posted by: William MG

I have been watching this wondering how GT would respond to the question fuzz as I am genuniely curious about this. But to date there has been nothing.

I realize you both support the site, as do I, but in my opinion there is a reasonable question being asked by a [u]paying customer[/u] in a respectful (perhaps wordy) way and out of respect for that customer and the business relationship that exists, there should be an effort put forward by GT to address it.

I absolutely agree with you that a paying customer asking a question in a polite manner desrves a reply from GT. I think we all know that the best route to obtaining a reply to any questions to do with the site would be a private email to customer services rather than a post on a public forum that can easily be overlooked.

I have noticed a pattern on this forum of complaints regarding the songs and I think GT is fighting a losing battle to try to please everyone as there are so many members it's just not possible. I remember in the old song requests section of the forum a lot of people requesting The Beatles or Led Zeppelin songs, both bands who I personally have no interest in at all so more songs by them or any artist can only please so many. And using Led Zeppelin as an example I'm pretty sure Jimmy Page owns the rights to the Zeppelin cataouloug so he can set any licencing terms he likes on those songs which could make it unattainable or unaffordable for some sites.

Having friends who work or have worked in the music and film industry I understand how difficult obtaining a song licence can be and some companies are more difficult to deal with than others, there are also differences in just obtaining a licence for a video lesson to having one for video, tab and lyrics and these are all points that have to be considered when trying to obtain a song licence.

Originally Posted by: fuzzb0x

Firstly I did not suggest any of the sites you mentioned did not follow the correct legal proceedings to obtain the licences for the songs they teach[/quote][p]

Actually, that was precisely what you implied. Perpetuated rationisation doesn't alter the fact. My flaws are many. Miscomprehension isn't among them.

[quote=fuzzb0x]And secondly I don't think it's my place to provide you with "evidence"

Actually, it is. 🙄 You made a sweeping conjectural generalisation implying it a fact. Having made an assertion, onus probandi

If choosing to burden yourself with umbrage in future, I suggest it wiser to also come 'armed' with logic and a valid, non-straw argument.

manXc

Originally Posted by: William MG

I have been watching this wondering how GT would respond to the question fuzz as I am genuniely curious about this. But to date there has been nothing.

Precisely. Noise to silence signal ratio is tellingly deafening.

I note the 'rule of dealing' in 'response' thus far commonly applied tactically in both politics and forums. Don't feed (answer & perpetuate) an undesired headline. It is the quickest way to let same conveniently disappear into the aether eclipsed by the surrounding clutter

The reason I put the statement publically one might think self evident to anyone with an IQ sufficient to permit them to tie their own shoelaces.

Hiding my statement would have run contrary to the objective of making it in the first place! I disagree vehemently with fuzzb0x's statement any reasonable query need be hidden behind closed curtains.

🤣

Why? The statement was and is factual without hyperbole, the question is reasonable, with nothing to be ashamed of in either.

Why? So it could conveniently be brushed off with a tokenistic scripted response, or ignored as is self evidently occurring here? After all this is a GT public forum...right? And the admin et al GT reps are always perpeuating how they're here and always interested to help...just ask... right?

😎 manXc

Ok so as I'm slowly learning and my fingers are getting beat up I noticed that when I am holding down one or two stings the neck of my guitar moves way too much. To a point that it throws me off. It has left me thinking what am I doing wrong? So I just took my time and really paid attention to my form. I quickly noticed that I was putting way to much of my weight on the body. I literally was treating the body of my guitar like an armrest. I couldn't' figure that out for a while and didn't that was the issue. I thought I just had to get better at moving my fingers on the frets. Now that I realized my bad form the neck doesn't move and kinda have my right arm sort of dangling over the body. Also it has made my left hand work more and I noticed that real quick.

Hi ManXcat and everyone else on this thread.

First, I'm sorry it has taken so long for us in the GT office to see this and respond! As you have seen we normally are better with our response time on topics like this, but that didn't happen here for some reason.

Let me be completely clear: We love Led Zeppelin! We know they have many awesome songs that aren't currently on Guitar Tricks.

We also love a lot of other great bands whose songs aren't currently taught on Guitar Tricks.

This isn't because we made a choice not to make lessons for their songs, it's because we can't legally offer the lessons.

As many of you know, every song we teach has been legally licensed. This process might sound simple but it is not. For each individual song we need a sign-off and legal agreement with the publishers of the song, the performance rights organizations, the artists, etc. We have a team that is constantly working on getting us the rights for more Led Zeppelin and other bands that we know you all would love. I think this effort shows in how many songs we have compared to other guitar lesson sites.

I realize it is frustrating to request a song in our "Song Request Forum" and not see the song show up a few days later. I wish we could make it work like that, but it's simply not possible if you are being a 100% legal site. That being said, it's helpful when you guys request songs that might be lesser-known but great guitar songs, because often times those are easier to license. It can still take months to get a legal agreement, prepare the instructor, shoot the tutorial, get the transcription, edit the video footage, assemble the tutorial, etc. It's just not possible to fulfill a song request quickly, the way we operate.

As a company we prioritize songs and invest heavily in getting the best material we can. It is very expensive but we consider it worth every penny.

I promise we will keep trying our best to bring you more great songs, and hopefully some Led Zeppelin if we can get the legal rights to do so!

Makes sense to me Ben. Thanks

Thanks for that idea Brandon. And your thought about how great guitarists learned from those before them is spot on.