Not sure if this topic goes here, but I wanted it to be on the front page. If not appropriate, please remove!

Since I subscribed to progarchives (before then I placed some reviews with the nick "black", as no one cares....) I've been suggesting every now and then to include Jon Lord and Deep Purple in the archives, as I will state my reasons below.

Maybe I'm looking for it in the wrong place

Anyway, this is not just an insistence because I'm a great fan of Deep Purple and Lord (indeed I am), I would hardly rate most of their albums with more than 3 stars. But I believe DP, and prominently their (ex) keyboardist Lord have a strong effect on many prog bands listed here (not to mention their songs covered by DT etc.), and they were among the first ones to play (somehow) experimental music. Some other prog websites include them (in the heavy-prog category, which doesn't exist here... the same should be here, including those like Uriah Heep, Rush, and Kansas...) I even saw their self titled 3rd album in the top 100 canterbury list in Hulloder site (OK, it was among the second top 50, who cares!).

Jon Lord also has very inspiring works, apart from the Concerto, which I believe is the first of its kind (of course, he might be influenced by earlier acts such as Days of Future Passed or suites of The Nice, but as far as I know, no one had ever tried that concept as a whole before). Gemini Suite is also one of the very early examples of combining a rock band and orchestra, and in my copy (which I downloaded from the internet) the pieces are named after the particular instrument which dominates the basic structure.
Then comes Sarabande, one of the first symphonic epics I heard, and I still believe this one goes side by side with Scheherazade, Snow Goose, DoFP, Journey (wakeman), 2112, Brain Salad Surgery, Salisbury etc., and even better than ELP's imitative work Pictures at an Exhibition.
Even in 1982, when most prog acts began to turn pop, Lord delivered a classic-influenced album -including one renaissance-era piece- (which was of course influenced by pop) and at least briefly carried on with prog.

Some might argue that DP lost its prog sensibilities (to say the least) after Machine Head album. Though I believe the 3 albums after Who Do We Think... are somwhow prog, let's accept it and look at the facts: 3 albums before Gillan, 1 concerto, and 3 solid heavy-prog rock masterpieces with Gillan on the front, and one highly appreciated live album. That makes 8. And let's count Genesis' works that are (in general) considerd to be prog: 1 proto-prog album, 5 studio and 1 live album with Gabriel on the front and Collins on drums, and 2 more studio and 1 more live album before Steve Hackett leaves and the band dives into art-pop... That makes 10 and leaves my fave 2 short... and if you just count the post-Blackmore albums -including some superb live sets- (given that DP did nothing really progressive in the '80's, and Genesis did suck all the way up to '90's....) DP beats by several albums. I gave this example because Genesis is the #1 band (according to the address line!) in the archives and considered by many to be a leading figure.

Of course I wasn't to compare DP with Yes or KC! maybe it would be better if I did with Asia, Saga, or Alan Parsons Project, I could come up with more concrete reasons. Now, please make your own comparison and tell if you think this great band, and solo works of its talented keyboardist must be included in the archives or not.

P.S. some DP offshoots are already in the archives, to name two Blackmore's Night and Warhorse. I believe neither cathes up with the musical and originality level DP achieved during early '70's. Also the existence of their current guitarist Steve Morse here should be considered a pro for my case!

Jon Lord's solo works should be in no question.Bringing Deep Purple in as a band though would then mean Led Zep,Black Sabbath and perhaps even Iron Maiden having a case.Sometime down the road Motley Crue and Anthrax will then be labelled PROG..eeek!

Sorry but  to Deep Purple ( to Jon Lord)

To some point I agree. Deep Purple have many songs with prog influences:

"A"200
Rat Bat Blue (keyboard part)
The Mule * Fools
Space Truckin´ (Live)
Fault Line * April
And The Address * Prelude: Happiness * Mandrake Root (especially live)
Exposition * Shield * Anthem
Child In Time
This Time Around * Owed To G * You Keep On Moving

But I think they are a (hard-) rock band and not prog rock (but then it´s the same with Uriah Heep who are in the archives)

Good to see I´m not the only one who loves Jon Lord´s "Before I forget" album.

richardh wrote: Jon Lord's solo works should be in no question.Bringing Deep Purple in as a band though would then mean Led Zep,Black Sabbath and perhaps even Iron Maiden having a case.Sometime down the road Motley Crue and Anthrax will then be labelled PROG..eeek! Sorry but  to Deep Purple ( to Jon Lord)

At least you're 50% on the same opinion with me

I don't agree bringing DP would lead the way to the groups you mentioned. Only yesterday people were arguing about including Metallica here...
I do think Sabbath and Maiden have a case, but comparing their proggish numbers to DP's (or other even less proggy bands') renders this unlikely. Just listen to Fireball once more (and 25th anniversary edition if possible!) and tell: is this more prog, or Asia's Alpha, Sabbath's Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, or, Maiden's Seventh Son etc.?!? I mentioned the least prog album from DP's '70-'73 period, and the most proggish ones of the other bands... Besides, Asia is already in the archives.
Zeppelin has no case IMHO, because they were always more bluesy than prog, besides, they have only a handful of proggy numbers.
Not to mention hard rock - heavy metal bands like Motley and Athrax!! I don' even understand how you can compare them with DP!! Including rap passages in heavy albums doesn't make them prog, not even innovative!

well, then, at least let's have our beloved brother Lord here!!!

P.S.: I still have one more pro, DP is already listed (albeit briefly) in some other prog web sites!!!

P.a. should start 2 new categories;prog-metal and pomp-rock.So many bands who do fall in either categories are already in the archives;Asia,Styx,Uriah Heep ect...Jerry Lucky in his famous book considers pomp-rock to be an offshoot of prog,sort of an americanized version of prog.I got to agree with him.He even mention that pomp-rock paved the way to prog-metal,still agree with him.So that leaves us with Deep Purple,IMO the instigator of both those styles.The 70-73 era was the band's most heavy and brutal priod while what came after(Hughes/coverdale era) was more of an evolution,paving the way to pomp-rock.Even their offshoots Rainbow and early Whitesnake were of the pomp rock persuation,especially Rainbow.So yes they get my vote.Jon Lord,well I only got his Sarabande album,sort of a dance/medieval kind of thing,quite good AND prog too,so he gets my vote to.

I don't acutlly think that an agrumentation should be based totaly on analogies. You cannot argue that Genesis has "two more prog albums than my fav band" and say that's the reason why do you think DP should be on the page. You cannot mention agruments but trying to put DP and Genesis in the same level, because they belong to different dimentions (not that one is "better" or "worse" than the other, but they almost don't have any comparison point).

What do you think about when you listen to the word "Genesis"? Prog rock. And "Deep Purple"? Hard rock. They may have all the prog songs and moments you want, and all the hard rock phases you like, but finally, that is what they are.

Hi guys...i think that maybe Jon Lord (at least some of his solo -work ) should be in Prog Archives:

His 1982 output: "Before i forget"  although most of it Purple-

orientated...tracks like: "Bach into this" and "Pavanne" are

great prog tracks !! But his 1976 album: "Sarabande" really are

very much prog/symphonic music. Along with Andy Summers-

(pre-Police) Guitars and Pete York drums...there are Hungarian-

philharmonic orchestra...and of course Lords great keys!!!

This album really are a masterfull piece of progwork!!!

I urge you to go find it (them)....do yourself a favour!!!

T.Larz.

Coya wrote: I don't acutlly think that an agrumentation should be based totaly on analogies. You cannot argue that Genesis has "two more prog albums than my fav band" and say that's the reason why do you think DP should be on the page. You cannot mention agruments but trying to put DP and Genesis in the same level, because they belong to different dimentions (not that one is "better" or "worse" than the other, but they almost don't have any comparison point). What do you think about when you listen to the word "Genesis"? Prog rock. And "Deep Purple"? Hard rock. They may have all the prog songs and moments you want, and all the hard rock phases you like, but finally, that is what they are.

The one thing you missed here is that I didn't compare DP's and Genesis' styles, but their number of so called "proggy" albums. I specifically gave the example of Genesis because it is listed as #1 (in the address line) and produced lots of s**t after the '70's period.

(Deep Purple is not my fave band, either!)

My analogy is not based upon being "better or worse" or "more proggy or less proggy". It just reflects my opinion on how many albums they have that could be considered prog. I have an average muical taste as most of the reviewers here, and I'm sure many will approve my ideas (unless they are so stubborn to label DP hard-rock, in spite of the innovations, long compositions and jams, and usage of the keyboards that are found in ABSOLUTELY no other hard rock band)

I am definitely aware of the fact that DP and Genesis belong to different paths, but if you just check 25 bands in random (say, from the latest 50 reviews) from progarchives, you will see at least some of them will be in the same situaiton. To name a few, put these bands side by side: Yes, Tangerine Dream, Dream Theater, Procol Harum, Focus, Klaus Schulze, Kansas, Aphrodite's Child, Ashra (not Tempel!), Asia, Caravan, Can, Jethro Tull... How many of them make similar styles of music?!?!? and this is only 13...

To answer you the same way: What do you think when you listen to Genesis' Invisible Touch album? My answer (you're free to give yours): '80's disco s**t. and what do you think when you listen to Deep Purple's self titled 3rd album? Definitive prog rock with some Canterbury influence, and one symphonic suite (April). One more: DP In Rock: Hard oriented prog rock with long jams and guitar-keyboard interplay (just listen to Flight of the Rat...)
Some more examples: What do you think when you listen to Uriah Heep (counterpart of DP), Asia, Styx, and one more recent example, Radiohead?!?!? provide your own answers...
but please be sincere!

You might also want to check out those tracks listed by Johhny-the-Fox, and there's much more!!!

P.S. Tonny Larz, thank you for your appreciation. But be sure to check out other great works of Lord and DP. (though nothing can overshadow Sarabande IMHO)

Bilek,

       I absolutely agree with you.  When I look at some of the bands included here such as Asia, Uriah Heep, Blackmores Night, and then some of the proto prog bands too, such as Vanilla Fudge, Beggar's Opera,etc., I see no reason why Deep Purple are not included on this site.  This is an excellent argument and I support you 100%.  As I said on the previous Purple post, their first three albums are a combination of a very creative proto-prog and pyscedelia.  I don't see how Deep Purple are any less prog compared to bands such as Beggar's Opera or Vanilla Fudge or Early Pink Floyd for that matter(Piper, A Saucerful Of Secrets period), concerning their first three studio albums.  Then you have "Concerto For Group And Orchestra", in 69 and "The Gemini Suite" in 70(performed 70, released 71)  Now Deep Purple are fusing orchestra with rock band, much like The New Trolls did with "Concerto Grosso", but The New Trolls did it in 71, a full two years after "Concerto For Group And Orchestra."  We all know "The New Trolls" are included on this website and I do like this band and know they put out albums like UT which are also prog.  The thing is we already have three proto prog albums and two fusing orchestra and rock band which makes five albums I feel belong here as much if not more than other bands on this site.  Now we have Deep Purple's classic period with the four albums 'In Rock", "Fireball", "Machine Head", and "Who Do We Think We Are."  In Rock is not prog when compared to the classic prog bands such as Genesis, Yes, or King Crimson, and I do love these bands.  But the definition of the word prog encompasses breaking boundaries and creating something new.  "In Rock" is the essence of this.  Yes, it's a hard rock record, but I feel it's very progressive in the sense of the meaning of progressive.  I feel it can be real easy to dismiss a band from being progressive if they don't have that classic progressive sound so associated with bands such as Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson.  That's the danger in a band becoming so associated with a genre.  People start judging all other bands by these bands and if a band doesn't sound like Genesis,for example, they aren't progressive.  Then everyone that's considered prog sounds like Genesis and the real meaning of progressive gets lost.  I know what I am saying may sound a little exaggerated, but I'm trying to make a point.  After "In Rock", Deep Purple released what I feel is their most progresive "Studio rock album" entitled "Fireball."  I think if Deep Purple released this album alone they would be in the archives.  This is just as progressive as say Atomic Rooster's "Death Walks Behind You" in my opinion, which I happen to love also.  Again, their first three albums are just as progressive, but I feel in more of a proto-prog manner, which doesn't take away from them being progressive at all.  I also feel if they only came out with their first three, they would be in the archives.  I feel Deep Purple hit more of a hard rock phase with prog tendencies with Machine Head and onward and this is the period they are most known for.  So I feel when people hear talk of Deep Purple, they associate the band with this phase and may have never heard their more progressive stuff.  This could also hurt Purple's chances for making it on the site.  Then you have Deep Purple's live albums, an example being "Made In Japan."  This album probably takes the cake for being progressive.  It has it all, extended jams, all kinds of improvs, and unbelievable musicianship.  So that makes 8 albums in total I feel are just as progressive as other hard rock/prog bands in this forum such as Uriah Heep and Atomic Rooster.  By the way I love these bands also, so I'm not trying to bash other bands or put the archives down.  I just feel Deep Purple belong in the archives as much as some other bands if not more.  One more point I would like to make.  Someone mentioned if Deep Purple were included, bands such as Motley Crue would be in danger of being included.  I couldn't disagree more.  Deep Purple has nothing in common with bands like Motley Crue.  Deep Purple are so much better, heads above, than hair bands like Motley Crue.  There is nothing progressive about Motley Crue.  Peace.      

Bliek, Paulieg,

I think you are definitely right about the "progresiveness" of Deep Purple, and I absolutely agree with you. Now, I think Paulieg didn't get me about this "Prog=Genesis/Yes" concept. Of course that new bands don't have to sound like the old monsters to be considered prog, that wasn't my point at all (actually, I think that contemporary prog bands should have their own sound by combining their influences ith their surrounding, like The Mars Volta, for example), I was just trying to say, that Deep Purple, as much prog concerts, albums, and songs they have (which they totally DO have) are in escence a hard rock band. I also have to agree that "made in japan" has all the prog qualities, but that is actually what makes it a terrific hard rock live album .

So, let's say that I don't "really" disagree with you, I just consider DP more THE hard rock band as a prog band.

Another aspect though, is this page's criteria to designate who is prog and who isn't by adding them to the list. I don't think that because Radiohead and Nightwish (yes, nightwish) are considered prog here you can say that "because of that" the band "X" should be added also. (That was actually my point by criticising your analogies). I mean, it's totally ok if you tell the reasons why your band should be added, but I really don't find the "if Y was added, then X should be added too"-argument solid enough, because you not pointing your OWN criteria, you are pointing the one of others, even if it's the page's; sorry.

Maybe the term "prog-hard rock" can fit, but the "hard rock" part of the term should be mostly emphasised.

And no, there is no other band like Deep Purple, ABSOLUTELY not.

Coya:

At last I'm happy that we reached a consensus!
I stated here and there that there should be a "hard-prog-rock" section in the archives, which will probably consist of bands like Uriah Heep, Rush, probably Styx, and definitely DP!

It is up to you then to emphasise "hard" part of "prog" part of the genre

About analogies: sorry, I am not musically competent enough to state my reasons why a certain band should be here, nor my English is that perfect... The best I could do here was to "compare" DP (or any other band) to an already existing band, and it's then up to the reader's wisdom to see the prog qualities in the band I suggested... (OK, you might be right about Genesis-DP analogy, but there my point was totally different: I was on the assumption that DP was excluded because of the "relatively less" number of proggy releases than other bands, so I decided to show even the #1 band had so little prog albums in its own catalogue... I admit that it was a wrong move for the beginning!!!)

I think it is fair enough to say that DP makes exactly the same style of music as Uriah Heep, and even better IMHO, then to ask why one is here and the other is not... Not to mention the sucking bands that are even awarded by some with five stars, namely, Asia, Radiohead, and -albeit I haven't heard yet, now that you mentioned with a , Nightwish... There is strong opposition against these bands, many arguing that they are not prog... I don't have the slightest suspicon that such an objeciton would never be arisen against DP, and my fave Jon Lord, if either one was included in the archives.... Some might have suggested that this song or that album sucked, or that particular piece wasn't prog enough, but believe me, not against DP (or Lord) as a whole...

"So, let's say that I don't "really" disagree with you, I just consider DP more THE hard rock band as a prog band." forgive me for my analogy again, but many bands here, especially Electronic acts could be considered more of that genre than being a prog band! Most of these (such as Vangelis and J Michel Jarre) are not even considered "rock"!!! Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that they are here, I myself was thinking of suggesting them before I saw them here! It's just the fact that some artitsts' "proginess" is so overshadowed by another characteristic (such as DP being "the loudest band on earth"!!!) that their prog aspects are easily forgotten!

Even AMG lists Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk as Electronica, and only refers in between the lines to their "progginess", as referring to their style (not "genre") as Krautrock, or Experimental Rock... If you insist on the idea that "despite its progginess, DP is in essence a hard rock band", you end up with the conclusion "despite their proginess, TD, Kraftwerk, Vangelis etc. are in essence Electronica (New Age) bands"...

Since you agree about the proginess of DP (and/or Jon Lord), why don't you just cast your vote as "yes, please include them in the archives!"????

lastly, I suggest you to consider the facts posted by dick heath... I myself saw the comment on DP as being regarded one of the greatest prog rock bands of the late '60's, which then turned into a hard rock act... I think it was on Live in Europe record.

(one more thought: usually the cons against my idea are revolved around DP, not Lord... from this, I conclude his music is definitely prog, and should be included in the archives!! besides, -apart from Paice-Ashton-Lord album which I haven't heard yet- any of Jon Lord's albums have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with hard rock!)

sorry for the long, long post!

keep on proggin!

I love Deep Purple and always found they have some prog tendencies, but as I said before about The Who, Deep Purple are considered an Icon of vlassic/hard Rock and if included in Prog Archives they would be lumped into Art Rock with Styx, Supértramp, Asia, and I believe they don't deserve this.

They are OK as a Hard Rock legend, lets leave them there.

Iván

Dear Bliek,

what ivan_2068 already said, is exactly the reason why i don't want DP to be includedn in the archives. Apart from that, I think everything has been already written .

Coya wrote: Dear Bliek, what ivan_2068 already said, is exactly the reason why i don't want DP to be includedn in the archives. Apart from that, I think everything has been already written .

Normally I wouldn't have answered this, since as you already mentioned "everything has already been written"...

But I wanted to write this because I realised the second time you misspelled my name! (I know, no one has to spell Turkish correctly, but this isn't any particularly difficult thing!!!!

As a useless info, I'll tell that my name literally means "wrist" in english, as you might see in any online dictionary! As a name (which I believe I have unique upon earth, seriously, I have never met another Bilek so far!) it comes to mean "strength", at least that's what my parents intended to mean bt naming me so!!!!

Lastly, have I mentioned my thanks to you, paulieg? If you won't see this thread within one week, I'll send you a private message! (I'll know if you answer)

THANX A LOT for your support! not just because DP is a great band and should be included here, but because backing me up in my rightful case! it seems we have lost so far  maybe some other time!

and those who object against DP: have you got any objections against Jon Lord, too?!? or do you think his solo works should not be here just because he played "hard-rock" in several parts of his musical career?!?!?!?

Keep on proggin!

Hi Bilek.....as already mentioned...do not despair......as ive understood PA has

a "rule" that says something like:" If a certain group/band have made a prog

or the like album..it could fit into the Prog Archives" !!?? So therefore....when

Deep Purple´s 3 first (and i might ad: brilliant) albums are very much in the

psych/prog department....there should be no problem!!?

So wait and see......have a nice prog summer.

T.Larz.

Coya wrote: Sorry about the bad spelling of your name Bilek. And I do think people should at least try to spell Turkish corectly.

You misspelled "correctly" tis time; a paradoxical view!

And, why should everyone try to spell Turkish correctly? and which part do you emphasise: "try", "spell", or "Turkish"?!?!? Turkish is not a really important language (not after the Ottoman period was over, even then, Ottomans spoke each one of the european languages, so that apparently only Bosnians were highly influenced by Turkish...) and we're not communicating in Turkish!!!

But my name is something personal, and this is sort of "super-lingual" issue. Anyway, thanx for spelling "correctly" this time

The Rock: when it comes to seperating "more proggy" and "not prog at all" albums of a particular band, this wil arise "the mother of controversies"! Only a brief example: In my opinion NONE of Genesis albums after Wind and Wuthering are Prog in the real sense of the word, and many people consider albums from ATTWT up to and incl. Duke prog, there are even fans of Invisible Touch! Now, what if I was a site admin, and removed all post '79 Genesis stuff?!?!? Well, I can't imagine! There may even be more remarkable examples, like those of Yes, Rush, Uriah Heep, remarkably Tangerine Dream, and you can even extend the list up to King Crimson! (there will be those who are not contended with '80's albums).

Anyway, I've given up already, since this thread is no longer read by the majority... Nevertheless, I'll kepp on mentioning the names (specifically Jon Lord) every now and then!

by the way, why has no one comment on Jon Lord?!?!? people who respond to this thread seem to be overwhelmed by DP, and apparently no one can see Lord's amazing works!!! (unfortunately, a few exceptions got lost in the shuffle. no offense, guys!)

WHY NOT INCLUDE JON LORD IN THE ARCHIVES?!?!?!?

(Ivan sent me a reasonable private message on why DP should not be included -though I'm not yet satisfied with the reasons-. I'll forward it to those who are interested.)