How exactly is Deep Purple prog?

I love the use of this term "proto -prog."  So what happens if in the wake of all these prog metal bands there is a resurrection of Deep Purple, which their should be because all heavy metal bands are a foot note to DP.  They had it all and I don't think any of them had it all again.  So now Deep Purple is no longer proto-prog but the most significant prog band of the 1960s-70s.

Child in Time was a gigantic leap forward. Who was screaming in octaves at that time? Probably the greatest vocal performance of all time!! (Not to mention the guitar solo)

Rainbow had songs like Gates of Babylon, Temple of the king, Catch the Rainbow. I agree with you completely Karn Evil 9

There are times on here that I have to scratch this old cranium when I read things like this.Deep Purple were a heavy rock band;in fact, they were easily the best heavy rock band. Greater than Zeppelin and Sabbath.The progressive rock tag is plain silly.Uriah Heep who I loved dearly were slightly progressive but just because they do something with an orchestra doesn't make them prog.Just like a whole lot of other nonesense on here that gets touted as prog.Get Purple's new album ' Raptures in the Deep' it's a fine album.

Fragile wrote: The progressive rock tag is plain silly.Uriah Heep who I loved dearly were slightly progressive but just because they do something with an orchestra doesn't make them prog.Just like a whole lot of other nonesense on here that gets touted as prog

Agreed.
 

micky wrote: Fragile wrote: just because they do something with an orchestra doesn't make them prog.Just like a whole lot of other nonesense on here that gets touted as prog. hmmm... make or may not make them prog... but probably why they are listed under proto-prog.  A section that could be seen for groups that while not generally considered prog... did influence what was to be considered prog rock. They are much like The Nice that were progressive before King Crimson kicked off the progressive rock era/movement, and groups were tagged as such.

 

King Crimson was compared to the Beatles in their heyday; they were the Beatles with jazz.  The idea the King Crimson emerged on the scene and suddenly there was progressive rock is a misnomer.  It was years before these bands, Yes, Gensis, ELP were exclusively designated as progressive rock.

Progressive rock referred to a genre of intellectual rock that included The Byrds as well as Procol Harum and The Nice. By 1968, there was already a culture of '50s r-n-r nostalgia brewing in America that was reacting against the "intellectualization" of music. I just found this out. This goes against everything I've concluded in my studies of 1970s music.  The Punk aethetic was already in the air by 1968 and it may have reacted to the progressive elements, i.e intellectualization of music.  At least some writers of the time saw it that way.

Deep Purple was doing all those things with jazz saxophone and the orchestra but soon realized that if they used these elements they would be compared to the masters in the genre.  They stuck with what they did best. ELP should have figured this out.

 

My flippant point is that a lot of what people consider prog these days is metal.  The Mars Volta references Mahavishnu Orchestra who were influenced by Deep Purple.  Dream Theater cites Uriah heep as an influence who were also influenced by Deep Purple. So when all is said and done, they may become more influential they we realize now on future prog. 

Baza wrote: I agree. However, I think that the most famous hard rock group is Led Zeppelin.

That could easily be true.
However, IMHO Led Zeppelin were too much "straightforward", when compared to Deep Purple.
They surely did have interesting creative moments (Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, Achille's Last Stand, Baby I'm Gonna Leave You, No Quarter, Immigrant Song, Celebration Day or Out on the Tiles...quite proggy numbers in my humble opinion!), and they sure did provide energetic performances...but I prefer Deep Purple...I find more variety in their efforts.

Certif1ed wrote: "In Rock" is practically a pure Prog Rock album, but with a strong leaning towards the rock - I'm mystified that some people don't hear it. It's certainly more Prog than anything Uriah Heep ever did (as a single example), and Uriah Heep are considered Prog, while Purple are Proto-Prog or Prog-related or something. The concerto is absolutely outrageous - and also Prog, not just because it has an orchestra, but because of the way it's used. I don't think that "Book..." is particularly proggy, but from 1970-1975 prog elements consistently appeared on their albums. So they're at least Prog related - more so than ELO (as another single example).

 

I listened to Dream Theater's Metroplis today, which I have in my collection but rarely listen to. The young people love and call it the best prog album.  It was number twelve at one point on the site list. I was listening for the Deep Purple influence and can say that not only is it there, it is one of the chief influences of the sound. Like Deep Purple, they come back to their R and B roots no matter where the music starts out or where it goes. If other people have heard this album, I would like to get their feedback. You seem to be in a proper position to render a verdict having a good knowledge of the more prog oriented DP.

Trouserpress wrote: Peter wrote: Should I teach "Prog Appreciation" there? "Prog Appreciation"! What a course that would be! "Right chaps. Today we're going to look at noodling." *titters*

Today's assignments:

Noodling Versus Shredding - Discuss (please give examples, all workings to be shown)

"What About Those Mellotrons, Eh?" - 2000 word essay required.

Time allowed: duration of "Tales From Topographic Oceans" in its entirety, (or until you fall asleep/lose the will to live/float away with the album's sublime magnificence/bore remainder of class to death with lyrical analysis/all of the above)

Dividers may be used (but not on each other) - Rideout, you're in charge....

Edited by Jim Garten

Certif1ed wrote: "In Rock" is practically a pure Prog Rock album, but with a strong leaning towards the rock - I'm mystified that some people don't hear it.

Agreed. Machine Head also has some pretty proggy moments. Burn contains a freaky synth experimentation and very innovative arrangements as well.

Why is it that "good = prog" and "prog=good"? Why if bands are any good do we feel we have to be labelled "progessive"? Hence the constant argument about Led Zeppellin (no they are not prog!!)

If a Martian beamed down to earth to explore the wonders of progressive music, and looked on this site, here are a selection of artist/es listed on PA that he/she/it might find:

Deep Purple
ELO
Supertramp
Queen
Kate Bush

..and so having selected a few songs by these artists at random our Martian buddy might be listening to:

ELO - Mr Blue Sky;
Supertramp - Bloody Well Right;
Deep Purple - Smoke on the Water;

...etc........


So our cosmic chum might return home with some fine music ringing in his ears, but I put it to you all, absolutely none the bloody wiser about what progressive music is!!

He'd have had more clue if he was to pick up the following albums:

Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
Jan Hammer - The First Seven Days
Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots

....none of which are listed on PA but each of which has clear prog traits!!! Aargh!!!Help!!!