How exactly is Deep Purple prog?

You could probably argue that Ritchie Blackmore had a very classically influenced soloing style (when he wasn't performing bluesy dirges live that is), although that kind of playing wasn't really developed until he left for RAINBOW, where the medieval imagery and melodies (see Gentle Giant for the pure prog example of this) was much more pronounced.  In that respect, I'd say RAINBOW is more prog than DEEP PURPLE ever was.

But then again, if you're going to include DEEP PURPLE because of Blackmore and his style of playing, you've got to include Yngwie Malmsteen as well. 

John Gargo wrote: You could probably argue that Ritchie Blackmore had a very classically influenced soloing style (when he wasn't performing bluesy dirges live that is), although that kind of playing wasn't really developed until he left for RAINBOW, where the medieval imagery and melodies (see Gentle Giant for the pure prog example of this) was much more pronounced.  In that respect, I'd say RAINBOW is more prog than DEEP PURPLE ever was. But then again, if you're going to include DEEP PURPLE because of Blackmore and his style of playing, you've got to include Yngwie Malmsteen as well.

And Hendrix perhaps?

How exactly is anything prog?

Aye -- there's the rub: "prog" is largely undefined. It was a term used by some to refer to the music of certain bands from (and during) a certain era.

Here, we reclassify some bands that were never grouped under that heading as now being "progressive," or "prog related." We even rename longstanding genres such as folk and metal to make them fit here.

These days, the newer bands that have that classic "prog" sound (IQ, etc) are arguably NOT prog, as they are NOT really "progressing" or doing anything new. A true, modern "progressive" rock band should sound very different than classic Yes, or Genesis, etc.

Anyway, all the many (and growing) categories and sub-categories that are argued over endlessly here are artificial constructs created by fans and critics -- they don't really exist. Artists tend to resist/reject our labels, and work in multiple "genres." Any really original band is, by definition, in a "category" of its own. There was only one Zappa, for example -- I think he made his own category.

I don't like the word, because it is so vague and out-dated, and because our words and labels (text, and open to interpretation) are  inadequate as a means to classify and describe music (patterns of sound and emotion). We don't even feel the same emotions as each other when we are exposed to a given piece of music. You hear pop crap -- I hear a catchy, uplifting song. I want to dance -- you want to throw up. You hear metal that motivates you, and makes you feel alive -- I hear aggressive noise that makes me feel tense, irritated, and overwhelmed. Then we try to use our words to "measure" and classify it all in a way that will be acceptable to a huge number of  individuals, each of whom brings his or her unique personality and life experience to bear upon their reaction to art.

Categories work in science and math, but they only very broadly apply in art, I think.

It is what it is, and it is subtly -- or even radically -- different for each of us.

The same problem applies to applying terms like "best," "worst," "good," "bad," "masterpiece," etc. to art/music. These concepts are in the eye -- and ear -- of the beholder.

So I can't answer your question, except to ask you, in return: "what exactly is prog?"

This agonizing and arguing over genres never stops -- I believe we should try to think more like the musicians tend to -- it's all just music.

For the record, I'd never add Purple (a band who made much great rock, BTW) to one of my homemade prog compilations, because they're not prog, in my house. "Prog" is what you decide it is.

Peter wrote: Categories work in science and math, but they only very broadly apply in art, I think. "Prog" is what you decide it is.

(forgive me for condensing)

I totally agree with every word Peter wrote. This is why I don't classify Deep Purple as prog and Neil Young is. Just me. I keep it to myself and don't waste too much time with "is this prog/no it sucks" threads that are getting seriously boring.  

bertburt wrote: ^ That ranks as the best post I've ever read on this site to date.   Stellar thoughts, Peter!

Thank you, bertburt. I am flattered.

I've been saying basically the same thing, in one form or another, almost as long as I've been a member of this forum.

Art is not math or science, and language is an inadequate, inexact tool for quantifying and qualifying art.

Art needs an audience to have its effect -- you are the final, essential step in the "equation." That effect will differ for each person

The novel is just black symbols on paper until YOU read it. The painting just colour on canvas, the music just 1s and 2s arranged on a disc, until you play the disc, and listen to it. Your individual perceptions bring art to "life," and imbue it with meaning, resonance and emotion. My dog has ears and eyes, but he does not "get" music or paintings: they are random noise and arbitrary arrangements of light and dark, to him. He'll pee equally gladly on a beautiful sculpture or a rotting stump -- it's all the same to him. We humans, however bring reasoning and language to the world we experience. We name things, and describe them, but the name or the description is NOT the thing, or the essence of the thing.

Subjectivity is inescapable. For example, when I have to assign a "level" to a piece of student writing, in order to place that student at a starting point in an academic upgrading program, one of the evaluation tools uses language such as "the main idea is complex, but not well developed, or somewhat complex, and well developed." Thus, we try to impart the exactitude of math or science to language, but though we can narrow the variation in different teachers' responses/ratings with such tools (or rubrics), we cannot make all teachers always agree. Words like "complex," "well," "developed" and "somewhat," etc, are open to interpretation.

Consensus on such matters is impossible to achieve, unless we are all the same person, and unless all individual words have only one, firm, mathematically absolute meaning.

Thus, you will never find total agreement here on the categorization of music. The word is not the thing, and does not contain or control it. The various patterns of sound produce different reactions in each of us, according to our unique personalities and experiences. Play Dream Theater for a fifteen year old male, and an eighty year old woman -- their respective reactions to the music will almost certainly be hugely different, but equally valid and honest.

Broad agreement is often possible, but I believe that the more categories and sub-categories one employs -- all "defined" via language -- and the more creative, and "wide-ranging" artists are, then the more agreement and common "understanding" eludes us.

To "define" Close to the Edge, or to experience it for what it is, is to LISTEN to it (preferably in 1973, and when of a certain age range and cultural background), not to read about it.