DEEP PURPLE

early purple was amazing with child in time...black night...child in time etc...bloody amazing !

Fragile wrote: ShrinkingViolet wrote: early purple was amazing with child in time...black night...child in time etc...bloody amazing ! Getting a bit carried away there Violet

Yes,kids today,no respect and the language is terrible.And you should hear the girls!!

Mind you,I blame the parents.

Reed Lover wrote: Fragile wrote: ShrinkingViolet wrote: early purple was amazing with child in time...black night...child in time etc...bloody amazing ! Getting a bit carried away there Violet Yes,kids today,no respect and the language is terrible.And you should hear the girls!! Mind you,I blame the parents.

Yeh my dad was right lad

I love Deep Purple, but for the purposes of this site- Prog Archvies- they do not belong here. There are plenty of non-prog bands that I like, but that I also know that they won't be added because they are not prog. Just because a band was good/excellet (DP's case) and had some keyboards doesn't make them prog. Alchemist put it quite well: "learn to difference PROG ROCK and CLASSIC HARD ROCK."

If we are going to add Deep Purple (or Queen, which was also being debated [including countless others]), this site might as well be re-named "Good Muisic Archives" or "See Your Favourite Band Here Archives."

Dick Heath wrote: VLADO wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote: I think that for artists who create so much debate, that they should be added to the archives under the Various Artists section.  Saves us a helluva lot of debates. absolutely right-ho   Are you sure?

Good query, DH 

alan_pfeifer & Vlado:

I will be obvious and answer by saying if we did not have such debates, there would not be a forum, right? I don't think any of us would like to see that disappear down the proverbial toilet. Life would less enriched if we did not have these discussion whether we agree with each othe or not - cheers guys

valravennz wrote: Dick Heath wrote: VLADO wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote: I think that for artists who create so much debate, that they should be added to the archives under the Various Artists section.  Saves us a helluva lot of debates. absolutely right-ho   Are you sure? Good query, DH  alan_pfeifer & Vlado: I will be obvious and answer by saying if we did not have such debates, there would not be a forum, right? I don't think any of us would like to see that disappear down the proverbial toilet. Life would less enriched if we did not have these discussion whether we agree with each othe or not - cheers guys

It must have been some misunderstanding, I am very open to debates. I also think that names not fitting to the site focus should perhaps be involved in a special sub-genre.

I remember, a short time ago when I entered this forum the first thing I did was to propose new names (eg. kate bush, deep purple to name the famous ones). Clearly, I use to discover here something new for me so why not to put some of my beloved which could be interested for others? But I faced no understanding, rather a blockade, one of the answers was: 'make your own website!'. I was a bit sad about it but not enough to stop discussing, cause a lot of people here are to enrich me. In my opinion, forum is a platform for discussions, all should feel free to propose whatever, and others should response by providing their opinions, either positive or negative, on the proposed artist rather than reject it strictly without discussion. Afterwards, based on these feedbacks one who had made a proposal would consider submitting or not. And still, the last decision is to be made by the founders of this website. I can understand that people, senior members, who are long here are getting a bit sick of seeing proposed Deep purple for the x-time by some naive newbies, but one can as well ignore it without responding cannot? Keep talking.

Fragile wrote: Have to disagree with you on the prog tendencies I feel Uriah Heep In Demons and Magician leant more into this area but have to agree with you on the musicianship but in the vocals great as Gillan was I prefer the Byron.I also loved the Byron/Hensley harmonies.But these two great British rock bands will be indelibly stamped in my mind with 'In Rock' one of rock's greatest treasures.

I "ran the gauntlet" and listened to "In Rock" (1970), then "Demons and Wizards" (1972). I thoroughly recommend listening to the two albums - but in the reverse order to mine!

I'm kind of sorry to say it, but the minute "The Wizard" kicked in, after hearing "In Rock", I felt I was listening to a pale imitation of Purple in terms of technique and songwriting virtuosity.

Without question, "In Rock" is more of a prog album than "Demons and Wizards" - but both are "just" great first wave heavy metal albums. This is the confusing blurring of genres I'm starting to see between Prog and HM, but listening closely to these fine albums back to back reveals that both are the same genre.

Purple are the more progressive - listen to the themes on "In Rock" being developed, and the wonderful keyboard/guitar/vocal interplay, the solid, twisting percussion and bass, the pretentious classical references, the lights, shades and bombast - and the whole thing is as close to prog rock as it is to metal. The very opening of "Speed King" is pretty close to ELP (but admittedly more rock'n'roll).

Heep are undeniably first wave metal - Demons and Wizards are the fantasy stuff of "proper" metal - just ask Ronnie James Dio. The songs do not really progress... but I reviewed this album a while back.

My conclusion is that both bands are prog metal.

And Reed, please get a better argument than "No" - surprisingly, it doesn't sway me one iota

Certif1ed wrote: 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.

Genius post right here.

Karnevil9 wrote: I find Deep purple 'Live in London' album quite amusing... Jon Lord actually introduces himself as Rick Emerson.

Have not heard this album - Rick Emerson?? Hehe - but Jon Lord was a great keyboard player