DEEP PURPLE

Litl wrote: Draw the lines on a catagory and all of the sudden you have limits that hinder what being progressive is all about.  That's one of the things that made that time so interesting, no defined limits.  Creativity doesn't like them.

And that folks, is what it's all about! Very well put!

The only reason Ithink Deep Purple should be added to the archives is consistency. I fail to see how Uriah Heep can be seen as more prog than DP and therefore gain a place in the archives.

This discussion is  not so much about eligibility of groups such as DP or Led Zep but as pointed out above,what are the boundaries of prog music? Are they wide enough to allow groups with progressive elements to be included? What are the boundaries and who defines what they are?

Just a few thoughts to ponder over.

lostrom wrote: No, no, no.....once again, friends, please read our posts! Like I said, the question really is if Uriah Heep shouldn't be removed, not if DP should be put in. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, u know. Only pure prog, there r other sites on the net for the rest. Cheers

Exactly! the argument that "if Uriah Heep is here, then Purple should be too" is invalid, and seems to equate two different bands. (When I ask a young college student to stop talking, and he responds along the lines of "but Billy is talking too" he is responding like a child.)

Each potential band should be examined on its OWN attributes and output, IMO.

Purple aren't prog.

Fine classic hard rock, though!

There's more prog in Purple's output than in Uriah Heep's. In fact, you could compare Purple to a lot of bands in the archives and identify more prog in their output. They initially had the attitude, the virtuosity, the classical influences and the keyboards - but, sadly, no Roger Dean covers. They also well and truly "bought the shark" in the 1980s.

The trouble is, of course, that Purple are ALSO regarded as mainstream rock/first wave of heavy metal - and prog purists don't like that. Mind you, UH are also considered as mainstream rock/first wave of heavy metal by many rock pundits.

Therefore, Purple have as much if not slightly more right to be in the archives than Heep. The comparison is a completely valid one, as UH also produced many (excellent) singles-orientated rock songs - "Carry On", "Sweet Lorraine", "Easy Living", etc, but never had the virtuosity of Purple.

It's equally valid to compare Queen to UH, as, I believe, Queen got the basic ideas for their outstanding harmonies from the "Heep choir".

The biggest hurdle to overcome is prog purists the world over.

Hmm. I find Reed's argument to be along the lines of "DP aren't prog, ergo they aren't prog"

Heavy metal crosses over into prog at almost all stages of it's development. Heavy metal bands frequently produce(d) music that could easily be considered as prog - given that progressive rock appears to be a member of the same peer group. 

Like prog, metal plundered other genres (particularly Baroque music) for additional inspiration - but didn't mind "stooping" to raid the coffers of "lowly" popular genres, such as reggae, funk - or even rap, when that genre became popular.

I don't want to go down the genre path, as the argument is fruitless - you can describe DP as hard rock, sophisticated heavy rock or whatever, but heavy metal or progressive metal is as equally valid a term. I take heavy metal to be the root, as opposed to heavy/hard rock - which is the more "no-frills" stuff.

Judas Priest's "Sad Wings of Destiny" is a classic example of progressive metal - no way would I try to argue that it's a prog album, but it seems to be giving the prog thing a damn good go in places. I would accept it as progressive metal over "Images and Words".

To me, Deep Purple are progressive metal (at least, the early stuff!) - which I don't see as a subgenre of prog rock, but a related genre in its own right.