Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Witchy Nightmare
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 03-2005
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 734
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
For me, S&M is more Deep Purple than HOBL. S&M has riffs, HOBL has nearly no riffs. Just chords, overloaded keyboard sound, strained vocals and lousy production.
So for me, MK V is Deep Purple. Despite JLT's horrible in-between-song banter. I don't regret that it didn't last longer, but I also don't want to have that chapter erased from the DP history. It's an episode which belongs to DP history as a whole.
|
|
16/8/2006, 10:19
|
Send Email to Witchy Nightmare
Send PM to Witchy Nightmare
|
Michiel1961
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 05-2006
Posts: 150
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
Yeah, Whitesnake with Lord & Paice fills the gap between CTTB and PS and should have been called Deep Purple.
On the other hand...
Rainbow with Glover & Airey...
Moore with Paice & Airey...
PAL with Paice & Lord...
Let's forget this discussion.
|
|
16/8/2006, 11:04
|
Send Email to Michiel1961
Send PM to Michiel1961
|
MachineHead 1
Talker of Total Bollocks
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 1340
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
quote:
Beese wrote:
It's DP, that's the name they went by and the band contained 4/5 of Mk2 and 3 original members.
It's also quite a Rainbow album at the same time. Blackmore, Glover and Turner are the principal writers and that was exactly the same as JLT era Rainbow.
...but then I personally don't consider the JLT 'Rainbow' as being Rainbow!! Once RJD left it ceased for me - especially the Graham Bonnet/DTE 'MOR/Pop-rock' thing it just ceased to be what really was Rainbow. For me it just became a Ritchie solo project with various guest musicians - not that there is any law against that and has no automatic bearing on the quality etc but for me it was no longer Rainbow. Maybe instead of RB's Rainbow maybe it should've been changed to RB's solo project - after all Alan Parsons 'Project' is essentially a similar deal with occasional players/contributors over the years. And yes I'm aware of the same type of thing being laid at the Whitesnake door. But JLT and Roger Glover constitutes Rainbow? - for me no.
The 4/5ths thing is interesting because while it seems to overwhelmingly constitute Mk2 'based' Purple - maybe the difference/contribution of Gillan is more than just one fifth??? ...not a statement, rather a thought provoking possible factor - maybe yes, maybe no.
And do I talk total crap? ...er, that's a definite!! At least according to the wife and women know best 
Last edited by MachineHead 1, 16/8/2006, 16:10
---
From the moment I heard the opening strains of Highway Star... that was it!!!
Machine Head blew me away
In Rock blew my brains out
|
|
16/8/2006, 12:07
|
Blog
|
ptitilian
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 595
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
While legally, nothing prevents it, any DP line-up is DP !!
Just a wonder.
Imagine that DP split in 93 because of Blackmore's leaving, would you have accept that in 2003 a new line-up composed of Gillan/Glover/Paice/Morse/Airey could release Bananas with DP name ?
Not sure I think.
The fact is, considering DP survived Blackmore's leaving, very few people ever said Bananas line-up was not DP, so why should we consider MV as non DP ?
I would not have accepted a reformation with Turner to be called DP, but there, it was just the continuity of a story.
That said, MV is not the line-up I dream to see on stage, not more the current one
That said, we can argue musically about S&M, as much as Abandon by exemple...but yes MV is DP ...
quote:
I think that a proper mark should be considered only when a proper release (live or studio) has been made.
Reasonable, now we just have to wait the release of a live album with Satriani ...which should be the case in less than a decade no ?
|
|
16/8/2006, 13:28
|
Send Email to ptitilian
Send PM to ptitilian
|
MrEd45
Admin
Global user
Registered: 09-2003
Location: California, United States
Posts: 9978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
quote:
ptitilian wrote:
quote:
purpletemple wrote:
quote:
Alerikson wrote:
quote:
purpletemple wrote:
Not really. Satriani has never been part of dP, but more a temporary replacement.
This said, his job with dP was amazing and I'd love that someone would officialy release a live album.
I think that a proper mark should be considered only when a proper release (live or studio) has been made.
No offence to Satriani.
I think you refer to mkVI. MkV was Blackmore - Lord - Glover - Paice - Turner
Ooooops! My mistake!
Then yes, and according to what I said about the studio recording , I consider Mark V a dP incarnation.
Reasonable, now we just have to wait the release of a live album with Satriani ...which should be the case in less than a decade no ?
Yep, reasonable - I just (as I always have) disagree with it. Satriani played 30 (or so) gigs as Deep Purple's lead guitarist...that alone constitutes the Gillan/Glover/Lord/Paice & Satriani as a legitimate Mk of Deep Purple, in my non-humble opinion.
---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.
" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
|
|
16/8/2006, 14:18
|
Send Email to MrEd45
Send PM to MrEd45
Blog
|
mattdif
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 528
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
lets face it.. Purple is most known because of mark 2. As long as there are 3 out of 5 mark 2 members in the band (majority) with IG singing than its DP. So Mark 3, 4 and 5 should not of been called DP. I like all them all but they should of been named differently. I will ofcourse call Mark 1 DP because they were the original and foundation.
IG is essenital to the name DP. Everyone talks about WS and Rainbow being the bands that carried the Purple torch because of the members in it. As far as I am concerned it was late 70's early 80's Gillan that was more Purple than any other DP spinoff because of sound, style and quality.
I am not taking anything away from Blackmore and Lord here. I can agree that they were as important as Gillan but as far as the ear goes its Gillan's voice that makes the ban recognizable.
I remember playing Gillan music in my car and people used to ask.. is that DP? Wow that rocks. I never got those comments when I played DP Mark 3 & 4, Rainbow, or Whitesnake.
|
|
16/8/2006, 15:17
|
Send Email to mattdif
Send PM to mattdif
|
Ormandy
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 12-2003
Posts: 1541
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
quote:
I think that a proper mark should be considered only when a proper release (live or studio) has been made.
A proper studio release at least! No studio album, no MK.
Even Tommy Bolin made one studio album with DP.
quote:
For me, S&M is more Deep Purple than HOBL. S&M has riffs, HOBL has nearly no riffs. Just chords, overloaded keyboard sound, strained vocals and lousy production.
*Riffs? Oh, my gosh, not enough riffs!
They should be able to make an album with chords if they want to.
*Overloaded keyboard sound? Don't know what that means,
but blame it on the Lord.
*Strained vocals? Ah, but Ian Gillan's strained vocals!
*Lousy production? Hey, that's vintage Deep Purple.
Last edited by Ormandy, 16/8/2006, 15:25
|
|
16/8/2006, 15:17
|
Send Email to Ormandy
Send PM to Ormandy
|
Apostate
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 05-2005
Posts: 1485
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
quote:
Randys wrote:
DEEP PURPLE Mark V are:
Ritchie Blackmore (guitar)
Joe Lynn Turner (vocals)
Roger Glover (bass)
Jon Lord (keyboards)
Ian Paice (drums)
Do you consider Mark V worthy to carry the name Deep Purple???
Do you think SLAVES AND MASTERS should be included in Purple discography???
Do you think Mark V should be erased in Purple history???
Yes, Mark V WAS Deep Purple,and I'll take S and M over HOBL and Bananas ANY DAY.
---
"I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven."- Richard Wagner
|
|
17/8/2006, 1:22
|
Send Email to Apostate
Send PM to Apostate
|
Apostate
Purple fan
Global user
Registered: 05-2005
Posts: 1485
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Do you consider Mark V as Purple???
quote:
MrEd45 wrote:
Q: Do you consider Mark V worthy to carry the name Deep Purple???
A: Maybe not at 100% worthiness, but that's just my view, which is highly subjective. From as close to a 100% objective view as I can get - of course they were.
Q: Do you think SLAVES AND MASTERS should be included in Purple discography???
A: Yes
Q: Do you think Mark V should be erased in Purple history???
A: No
A very fair summation!
S and M wasn't exactly the "best" Deep Purple, but it shows a direct relation to the more "Free" minded direction Blackmore took on some of the songs off of "Burn" and "Stormbringer". Paul Rodgers is channeled on S and M on more than one occasion, but Blackmore has been guilty of that since 1974. It's another side of his musical personality, one which he has explored in Dp before.
Lord, Paice, and crew all sounded just fine on S and M, imho.
---
"I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven."- Richard Wagner
|
|
17/8/2006, 1:57
|
Send Email to Apostate
Send PM to Apostate
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 25/11/2009, 17:35
|
|
|
/
/