i have realized that uriah heep is here involved. clear, should be, if not for anything else, for july morning definitely. but then:

it is coming to my mind

it is clear like a day after night

deep purple must be in this site!

if not for anything else, for april, concerto and in rock definitely.

Well, from start they were a progressive band (Mk 1-era), and in the beginning of Mk 2, but later on they invented heavy metal...but of course, I can't here the difference between some Pallas-albums and Backyard babies...so what the h**l, include them...Cheers:)

Ps. But there are other bands in line, before DP, IMO  Ds.

My friend Vlado, Once again I have to agree with your sentiment - Deep Purple should be in here for the very reasons you gave. Especially the classic Purple line-up -  Lord, Blackmore, Glover, Gillan and Paice. They gave us one of the indisputed King of Live albums "Made in Japan" - think "Lazy" and "Space Truckin" and of course the classic "Child In Time". Most progressive was the "Concerto For Group and Orchestra" - IMO underatted and a genuinely great effort  by Jon Lord to meld the 2 disciplines.

However....if Deep Purple get into the archives, then so should Led Zepplin !! and individuals such as Bjork or Nick Cave...

Deep Purple is one of my Favourite Bands!

So yes they should be added to the Archives!

Also I beleive IRON BUTTERFLY and BLACK SABBATH should be given a place in the Archives too!

Possibly CREAM and LED ZEPPELIN as well?

They are the first people to do Heavy Metal with Prog/Psychedelic Elements.

RAINBOW is another good band too!

terramystic wrote: Deep Purple are not a prog band but they had a clear prog tendency in some songs! Jon Lord was the progressive element in the band - April, Concerto...

exactly

PROGMAN wrote: Deep Purple is one of my Favourite Bands! So yes they should be added to the Archives! Also I beleive IRON BUTTERFLY and BLACK SABBATH should be given a place in the Archives too! Possibly CREAM and LED ZEPPELIN as well? They are the first people to do Heavy Metal with Prog/Psychedelic Elements. RAINBOW is another good band too!

We're doooooomed Mr Manoring, doooomed!!

The crack in the dyke is becoming a huge hole - and soon the dyke will fall down allowing the whole of pop rock jazz classical world folk to flood in and be called progressive rock.

We need more prog-purists.

Does anybody know what real progressive music is?

I'm not an expert, but bands like Led Zepp, Deep P, Queen, Rainbow, etc. are very good, they use symphonic elements to enhance their sound, but they are not progressive rock bands.

Progressive rock is a name, and the litteral meaning of the word progressive is not ment to be taken into account when describing progressive rock.

It's all watering down, people who like to add these mentioned bands into this site, are the same that delute single malt whiskey with ice and water

Well, I like DEEP PURPLE very much, in special the MK3, with Coverdale & Hughes ("Mistreated" & "A-200"  have prog elements), but the band IS NOT Prog Rock.

I think some guys are making great mistakes, confounding what is prog and what is a good rock band. I really don't like some bands in the site, but they are prog, and I don't discuss this. 

I know prog...better then most, that's not me, tying to show off, it's a fact...so u r free to ask me:) Sorry folks, Deep Purple isn't a prog-band, they were during mark 1 and early mark 2, perhaps, but not a genuin prog-band...they are what I call quality-rock, though, but that's NOT the same as prog. Cheers:)

Snow Dog wrote: Where will it all end?.................

Meaning what?

Stop this now!!!!

I love Deep Purple,I am a 30 odd year fan-but they are not,I REPEAT,NOT,a prog rock band!!!
They absorbed elements from the prog scene at that time but at heart they're still an electric blues heavy rock band and so are the equally wonderful Led Zep. I love Rainbow too,but I think you are confusing their love of keyboards,and Blackmore's plundering of Classical Music with true progressive rock.

Since You've Been Gone? Long Live RockNRoll????

Dont make me larf.

Stargazer,Gates Of Babylon etc are not Prog Rock tracks,but they are wonderful examples of more sophisticated heavy rock.

lostrom wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Where will it all end?................. Meaning what?

I think Reed Lover sums it up

i totally agree with reed lover!!!

Snow Dog wrote: lostrom wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Where will it all end?................. Meaning what? I think Reed Lover sums it up

Ok, now I see...yes I agree...the question perhaps should be if Uriah Heep fits in? I don't think so. Sorry about my question, I did in fact not understand, always had huge problems reading in between the lines and "de-coding" women-language (my problem). Cheers:)

tuxon wrote: We need more prog-purists. Does anybody know what real progressive music is?

I know what I mean by progressive rock, but it isn't identical to Dallas Bryan's or others'  who think and write deeply here - but we overlap significantly. Once for the first 4 or 5 years it was literal rock that progressed - but as new options for progression disappeared, the successful bands stabilised having found some aspect  of the genre with which they were comfortable and fans enjoyed. In deed Deep Purple's early albums were prog (even up to In Rock)  - they were an early signing to EMI's prog label Harvest - but considering the range of music to heard in the first 30 Harvest releases, we are talking progressive music as opposed to the narrowed progressive rock - clues at:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1PJO0ACOKFNS0/026-4013407-5278830 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse /-/1PJO0ACOKFNS0/026-4013407-5278830

However, a small percentage of of DP's albums are prog and if somebdoy wants to argue them into the forthcoming(?) sub-section covering bands who are not really prog but have do the odd track or two, (e.g. Wishbone Ash, Spooky Tooth, Queen) let's go with that - but don't make Progarchives a  greater laughing stock because we don't have clear ideas about the constituents of progressive rock.

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!

PROGMAN wrote: Deep Purple is one of my Favourite Bands! So yes they should be added to the Archives!

But Progman, bands should not be added to the archives simply because we "like them". Using that logic, we could see the Beach Boys added! 

Personally, I'm in two minds about DP. I'd be quite happy if the decision was taken to add them.

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.

Undoubtedly yes they should be here- I was going to post a thread on their inclusion myself- it seems wrong to me how bands like Warhorse (a DP spin off!!) and Quatermass, both of whom it has to be said are very Purple-esque.

Check out 'Deep Purple In Rock' again and check out 'Child In Time'- this is pure prog rock in my opinion, and one of the finest songs of the genre. However, Deep Purple's brilliance is unquestionable anyway, and I needn't preach their greatness.

Rainbow too have had very proggy moments; even if the inferior Graham Bonnet/ Joe Lynn Turner era Rainbow were more successful commercially, musically they didn't come close to the progressiveness of the Dio era music.

'Stargazer' is a stunner of a track, and check out 'Light In The Black' for superb proggy interplay between Ritchie Blackmore and Tony Carey. Also, classics 'Catch The Rainbow' and 'Gates Of Babylon' definitely betray a prog influence.

So, both Deep Purple and Rainbow deserve a place on this site, in my opinion.

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!

Rob The Good wrote: Really though, after producing Child In Time, Smoke on the Water and Highway Star....where do you go?

I always thought Book of Taliesyn was kinda prog, perhaps just in the psychedelic fashion.

But Deep Purple in progarchives? No. In almost every band suggested to be added, it's the same as the case with Purple. Many bands "progress" out of progressive rock to become rock bands.

Funny that.

Gaston

btw Rob, what's with the crowley avatar now?

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

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.

Certif1ed wrote: Hmm. I find Reed's argument to be along the lines of "DP aren't prog, ergo they aren't prog"

Absolutely not Cert.

I thought the general concensus was that the majority of a band's output had to be Prog for them to be considered a Prog Rock band.This is quite obviously not the case (and I shouldnt have to trot out loads of examples of tracks that arent-just to satisfy your anal tendencies)
I'll satisfy myself with the tracks thay are their most famous:

1. Smoke On the Water
2. Highway Star
3. Child In Time
4. Space truckin'
5. Woman From Tokyo
6. Speed King

etc

I have In Rock,Machine Head,Fireball,Burn and Stormbringer in front of me-I dont see any Prog Albums!

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

I really love Deep Purple. By far my favorite Heavy rock band, but they're definitively not prog. They're awesome rock band with incredible guitarist, one of the ten best lead singer of all time, and organ which give a little proggy sounds at time. It's like the Bowie thread !

I think that alan_pfeifer is right in his proposition !!

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.

PROGMAN wrote: Deep Purple is one of my Favourite Bands! So yes they should be added to the Archives! Also I beleive IRON BUTTERFLY and BLACK SABBATH should be given a place in the Archives too! Possibly CREAM and LED ZEPPELIN as well? They are the first people to do Heavy Metal with Prog/Psychedelic Elements. RAINBOW is another good band too!

You named some excellent bands. Iron Butterfly's 17 minute track, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, is very progressive. On Black Sabbath's 1st album there are some progressive instrumental workouts there. Led Zeppelin's The Rain Song and No Quarter are progressive. Cream had some good three-way soloing. Rainbow had Stargazer. Good stuff!

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, I understand what you mean, but I think this is the 2nd or 3rd DP archive debate I've seen, and when you see all these threads about, "let artist X or band Y into the archives,"  I can honestly say that I've never seen one of those bands considered on the site.

I just think that, while discussion is great and all, that instead of letting these great bands fall by the wayside, that we place them in the Various Artists section of the site.  I'd love to be able to go on and see bands like Queen there, and act as a gateway bands.  A zep or DP or Cream fan comes to the site, sees his band here and starts to explore here.  Soon enough, BAM!  new prog fan!!! (Corny and highly imporbable, but I can dream, Can't I?)

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.

alan_Pfeifer and Vlado:

Thanks for your replies to my comment. I can see where you are both coming from and thanks too for further explaining your ideas or frustrations at yet another DP thread.

I have to agree with the sentiment that bands like DP, LZ etc are "bridging the gap" between classic heavy rock and prog rock. It would not be too bad an idea to have a section for such bands, as their individual contributions are important. Plus it could lead interested guests to the site want to explore further. I support that idea a_p

Of course I will keep talking Vlado - btw I love Kate Bush too. She is a genius

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

Yes, Deep Purple is a great band. I have always loved Highway Star, and of course, Smoke on the Water is an anthem. Woman From Tokyo isn't bad either...

However, I don't think they should be in the archives. I see some bands already in the archives that shouldn't be there IMO.

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.

I find Deep purple 'Live in London' album quite amusing...

Jon Lord actually introduces himself as Rick Emerson.

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

valravennz wrote: 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

Obviously taking the piss.He must have though he was as good as both Rick & Keith together

QUESTION - Should bands like Deep Purple, Queen, Rainbow, etc... deserve an honorable mention on the site?

I mean, if bands like Supertramp, Nightwish and... José Cid have a space in the Archives, why should the above be renegated?

Dick Heath wrote: We're doooooomed Mr Manoring, doooomed!!

 Don't Panic I'm Sure DEEP PURPLE Will be a Great Choice for this Site!!