NOTE: For Blaze News senior editor Dave Urbanski's response to this piece, click here.

A new Led Zeppelin documentary hits theaters this Friday, ready to remind everyone why the group is still one of rock’s greatest bands.

It’s all there —Jimmy Page’s searing riffs, Robert Plant’s ethereal vocals, John Paul Jones’ masterful grooves, and John Bonham’s thunderous drums — bursting from IMAX screens with the energy that made Zeppelin legendary.

The music industry is littered with examples of artists walking a fine line between inspiration and outright theft, often stepping well over it.

But even as the film celebrates Led Zeppelin's glory, an old question refuses to die: How much of that brilliance was theirs to begin with?

Whole Lotta Controversy

The accusations are hardly new. The band's most iconic song, “Stairway to Heaven,” has been embroiled in controversy for decades, accused of lifting its opening riff from Spirit’s “Taurus.” The similarities are impossible to ignore. Honestly, you’d have to be tone-deaf — or actually deaf — not to notice the unmistakable descending acoustic progression that led to a courtroom battle.

Zeppelin may have won the case, but it reopened long-standing questions about the band's creative process.

Take “Dazed and Confused,” one of Zeppelin's early classics, which for years was considered an original until folk singer Jake Holmes revealed that it was nearly identical to his 1967 song. Then there’s “Whole Lotta Love,” with its iconic intro and trippy breakdown, which lifted heavily from Willie Dixon’s “You Need Love.” Dixon eventually got credit — but only after suing the band.

The question is not whether Zeppelin borrowed. They did. The real question is whether that borrowing diminishes their genius.

Zeppelin had an extraordinary gift for taking raw material and turning it into something monumental. The band didn’t just cover songs; they transformed them. The band — anchored by the holy (or unholy) trinity of Page, Plant, and Bonham — channeled an energy that felt almost otherworldly. But, I ask, does that kind of transformation make the appropriation any less problematic?

When the Levee Breaks ... who gets the credit?

Zeppelin’s defenders often point to the folk and blues traditions the band drew from, where borrowing was not only common but celebrated.

The blues, in particular, is a genre built on shared motifs and communal storytelling. But there's a point at which paying homage becomes exploitation. Zeppelin, with their stadium tours and gold records, profited handsomely from work that less commercially successful artists had labored over, often without giving credit until lawsuits forced their hand.

Of course, the problem of appropriation isn’t unique to Zeppelin. The music industry is littered with examples of artists walking a fine line between inspiration and outright theft, often stepping well over it.

Take the Beach Boys’ “Surfin’ U.S.A.,” a cheerful anthem that’s almost a carbon copy of Chuck Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen.” Berry’s lawyers didn’t waste any time, making sure he got the credit — and the cash — he deserved.

Elvis Presley, the so-called "King of Rock and Roll," was perhaps the most blatant example of appropriation in his era. His charisma and voice were undeniable, but many of his biggest hits leaned heavily on the work of black artists whose contributions to rock and blues had been overlooked or outright dismissed by mainstream audiences.

“Hound Dog,” for instance, was a smash hit for Elvis but had already been made famous by blues singer Big Mama Thornton. Like so many of her peers, Thornton received neither the recognition nor the financial rewards that Elvis enjoyed.

One needn’t be a DEI-endorsing, reparations-demanding white-privilege protester to see the problem here. Elvis may have had the swagger and the gyrating hips, but much of his success was built on a foundation laid by others.

Fast-forward to the 1990s, and you find Vanilla Ice unapologetically lifting the bass line from Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” for “Ice Ice Baby,” a move so shameless that it’s become a textbook case of musical theft. More recently, Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” made headlines after the duo crossed a line of their own. A court ruled that the track was too similar to Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up,” hitting the artists with millions in damages. It was the correct decision.

Today, of course, we live in an era of sampling, remixing, and infinite digital archives. Kanye West, a self-proclaimed genius, has built entire albums on samples from soul, gospel, and electronic music. Set aside his very public meltdowns, and his work has often demonstrated a profound talent for reshaping snippets of the old into something entirely new. Is that really so different from what Plant and his pals were doing decades earlier?

The philosophical conundrum

This raises a bigger, more philosophical question: If the final product is extraordinary, does it really matter where it came from? Does the brilliance of “Stairway to Heaven” lose its magic because its opening riff traces back to Spirit? Can the raw power of “Whole Lotta Love” be dulled by its roots in a Willie Dixon song?

At what point does the craft rise above the criticism? If the output surpasses the original, if it elevates the material to something greater, then maybe the borrowing is justified.

Then again, maybe not.

Perhaps the answer lies in how we define genius. Is it purely the ability to conjure something from nothing, or is it the capacity to take fragments of the past and reshape them into something immortal? Zeppelin’s genius was not in their originality but in their alchemy — the way they fused blues, folk, and rock into a sound that defined a generation.

For millions of people, including some who might be reading this, Zeppelin's songs are more than just pieces of music. They’re sacred anthems, timeless masterpieces. Ultimately, their power isn’t in where they came from but in how they make you feel, how they transport you, how they tap into something deep, even primal. And maybe that’s what truly defines great art: its ability to endure, to move, to inspire, and, in the case of Zeppelin, to spark endless controversy.