Deep Purple is here to stay!

'I don't care about Deep Purple'....ah, profound. Personally, I voted for their inclusion and was a huge advocate of it. I think people should listen to their first 4 albums and they should be able to see how Deep Purple were an early progressive act, not to mention the prog over most of their other albums to this day ('Rapture Of The Deep' was the most progressive for years). Also, it didn't make sense that most of the band's followers of the era were here and they weren't.

A question was asked, so I answered it - the correspondent really wanted to know!

Deep Purple have done lots for the rock genre and what have Queen done as big as that (I really want to know).



Just to clarify I have no problem with jam sessions - I didn't say that there was anything wrong with them, I was merely making the comparison - they're just not an intrinsic part of Prog Rock, although they are an essential part of its creation.
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 20 2006 at 08:58

krauthead wrote: Deep Purple have done lots for the rock genre and what have Queen done as big as that (I really want to know).

That's easy;

Right from the start they used intricate vocal harmonies - a bit like Uriah Heep's, but more so. These were way beyond other bands of the time - and way beyond anything any band is doing now. In fact, if a band does anything that sounds remotely intricate in the vocal harmonies department, then they get compared to Queen.

Brian May's legendary guitar playing runs the gamut - there are few styles he doesn't touch upon, unlike Ritchie Blackmore (as a random example), who had blues influences and "Classical" influences (a few cycles of fifths, major and minor scales and that's about it).

Queen used tape loops to create massive walls of sound that very few bands have managed to imitate - and it's not easy to write melodies that work with each other. I've composed rounds in the past, and they're downright fiendish. This is a hugely innovative (read Progressive) aspect of Queen.

Freddie's piano playing may not have been Rakhmaninov - but neither were Kieth Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Tony Banks et al. He created some excellent moods with what he did on the piano - think of "Death on Two Legs" as a single example.

Freddie's vocals. 'nuff said.

Now onto the music itself: Where to start? All the songs are so completely different, immersed in styles from various eras - and not simply limited to Rock music either. How can it not be Prog?

But the biggest clincher of all is the use of skillfully composed pieces of music that have a spontaneous feel - not a jam session, but music that evolves and develops as you listen. This is the absolute core of the definition of Prog Rock.

And you can hear this on their very first albums.

If you have ears, that is
    

Edited by Certif1ed - August 07 2006 at 03:18

krauthead wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: krauthead wrote: maidenrulez wrote: I dont mind deep purple as much as i do mind Queen infact   Same here! Listen to this: http://www.progarchives.com/mp3/Queen%20-%20Queen%20Ii%2009. %20The%20March%20Of%20The%20Black%20Queen.MP3 and then tell me which Deep Purple song is more progressive (I realy want to know). Well, I can say I own Queen's first album and I ain't proud of it, 2-3 songs are so so rest pure crap. I own all Deep Purple official albums from their beginning to late 70's, really hard to tell mate because to me Queen don't have any progressive songs, some smells of it here and there though, Deep Purple maybe not so progressive either their live performances are often progressive IMO. Deep Purple have done lots for the rock genre and what have Queen done as big as that (I really want to know).

Seems we're going to be buddies with you, krauthead!

Deep Purple are progressive also in the studio: Lazy, Pictures of Home, Fools (listen to that ~9 minute song carefully!!!) The Mule (especially studio version) Space Truckin (both studio and live versions!!!)

even some examples from their not-so-prog-at-all period: Burn (title track), Might Just Take Your Life, Stormbringer (title track), This Time Around/Owed to G, You Keep On Moving...

not to mention their first three, which somehow gave direction to the genre!

I hope there are enough examples above to meet the demand required by March of the Black Queen.... (I like that album too. This and Night at the Opera are the 2 real prog albums of Queen, along with proggy debut, IMHO)

thrang theng wrote: Snow Dog wrote: thrang theng wrote: What do you think:  there should be two parallel classifications for each review. One related to the place a single album is in somebody hearth/personal collection, subjective point of view. The second which place it should occupy in a PROG classification, objective point of view. IT is like distinguish between favorite and best. You can make the case for how excellent you feel the album is in your review, and rate its "proginess" in the star rating! Simple enough! For example I gave Sheer Heart Attack a glowing review, but gave it only 3 stars!   Very good explanation and clear example. Maybe this advice should be added to the rating system along the reviews guidelines, to give the reviewer, specially if he is newby like me, the feeling of the philosophy behind it. It might be before the explanation of the rating system to underline the final statement "not every album that you enjoy will be a perfect "masterpiece." (Progarchive reviews guidelines).

This is not really an explanation but my personal view and my interpretation of the sites guidelines. I'm sure there are those who would disagree!

Deep Purple have some prog moments, such as April, on their third album.

krauthead wrote: maidenrulez wrote: I dont mind deep purple as much as i do mind Queen infact   Same here!

Listen to this:

http://www.progarchives.com/mp3/Queen%20-%20Queen%20Ii%2009. %20The%20March%20Of%20The%20Black%20Queen.MP3

and then tell me which Deep Purple song is more progressive (I realy want to know).

maidenrulez wrote: I dont mind deep purple as much as i do mind Queen infact

 

Same here!

What do you think:  there should be two parallel classifications for each review. One related to the place a single album is in somebody hearth/personal collection, subjective point of view. The second which place it should occupy in a PROG classification, objective point of view. IT is like distinguish between favorite and best.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Snow Dog wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ If you interpret it this way: 5 stars means "Essential to any prog collection which includes the genre of the album " Then it would be possible. Is this true? Is the new guideline? If so ok!  no, but without this amendment it wouldn't make much sense to me. How could any Prog Metal album be rated 5 stars if it has to be "Essential to any prog collection which doesn't includes prog metal "?

Well this would be obvious, that if you were reading a prog metal review, that if you don't like Prog Metal its not essential to you!