Why has the Deep Purple legacy not aged as well as other 70's rock giants?

Submitted by gabapenteado t3_117bnwl in Music

I know this is gonna sound like I think people don't acknowledge DP, they do, but the point I'm trying to make is in comparison to other giants - Led Zepellin/Black Sabbath/Pink Floyd/The who.

Deep Purple was always huge, and while in the 90's I'd see them compared to these other giants, today I see them being discussed a lot less.

Reddit loves to throw around Jimmy Page and Gilmour but Richie Blackmore was MASSIVE, even more than those for the whole 80's shredding era. Blackmore and Lord's move to incorporate classical music influences in their solos was pivotal for the creation of power metal for ex.

I also think Machine head probably ranks up there with Led Zep IV and Who's next in absolute genre defining classics, yet I don't see them mentioned as much.

Even the pure mention of Smoke on The water should be enough to get the riff on your head. Think of all the massive singles they released: Child In Time, Highway Star, Fireball Black night, Perfect Strangers, Lazy, Burn, Strange kind of woman...

Why you think that is? Was it the constant lineup changes? Was it the fact that they were more of a "live" thing, with tons of improv? Was it the fact that they are still releasing stuff, but it's kinda bad? Did the success of Whitesnake and Rainbow dilluted the Deep Purple memory? Am I imagining things? Or were they never of the same caliber of those bands in the first place?

So yeah, discussion about the legacy of deep purple

PS: Purpendicular was the best 90's album by a rock dinosaur and I'll fight you on it

39

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

rondonjon t1_j9awjkp wrote

Machine Head is one of the best rock albums of all time, imho. I enjoy Deep Purple, but for me, while their catalog is deep it’s not quite as strong as other favorites such as Zeppelin and Floyd. They don’t really take me to that next level consistently.

32

gabapenteado OP t1_j9axlph wrote

I agree that Zep and Floyd do have a stronger overall catalog, and shorter as well, but their highest points are pretty much on the same level as these other bands highest points too. DP was pretty much a "1 album a year" band, which I think led to some albums having some filler that shouldn't be there.

Also, maybe another point to why their live albums sold so well too. You could just get all the singles in a single packaging. See: Made In japan

2

nhagi1 t1_j9ay5qu wrote

Personally i never think hey i want to listen to a entire DP album, i want to hear the songs i like and the songs i do not like, i skip. Led zep and pink floyd, i can sit and listen to their entire albums and never think about skipping a song. Zep had a 5 album run and floyd had a 4 album run and 3 of the greatest albums ever. DP just did not have that consistency for me.

18

KsychoPiller t1_j9bshok wrote

True about consistency, but In Rock, Fireball and Machine Head is a mighty 3 album run, and espescially In Rock and Machine Head can be considered all time Greats on par with best Led Zeppelins and Pink Floyd albums.

5

PureGuava86 t1_j9awm4s wrote

I don't think they marketed themselves in the US as much as the other bands you listed.

13

mattylayne t1_j9bprgo wrote

Because their biggest hit is too easy to play and less interesting than Stairway and the like. If Highway Star got as much attention, I bet they’d have a significantly larger fan base.

12

Icemansquared t1_j9cgjsv wrote

It isn't as easy as you think. Richie Blackmore demonstrates people play it this way, which is not correct. It's played in fourths, not power chords.

3

mattylayne t1_j9d0oon wrote

I feel ya. But, all those beginning guitar players can’t tell/don’t know the difference.

2

Slight_Purpose_9092 t1_j9ezcy8 wrote

The correct way, which is all I've ever learned, is even easier than the wrong way. Simple isn't bad (Satisfaction?), but Smoke on the Water is pretty easy.

2

Icemansquared t1_j9f08vo wrote

Most people just 0 3 5. A lot of beginners have no concept of fretting hand economy. Most of the time, playing it right means finding the easiest way.

1

Ches909 t1_j9bxs6z wrote

Part of the issue is Blackmore himself. The guy distances himself so far from rock music into the 90's that their media presence was significantly reduced. Even though he wasn't in the band anymore a lot of these other artists thrived through the 90s doing interviews and touring as legacy artists. As a young first player during this time I loved Blackmore but rarely read an interview with him in guitar world or rolling Stone after the mid nineties. The rest of the band you barely heard about because they're elder statesman weren't there to push them as much. Unless you wanted to read about Blackmore's medieval music move they faded into more obscurity through the last couple decades.

All this being said absolutely loved seeing them at Live 8!

8

Puzzleheaded_Bit9469 t1_j9bghxv wrote

I believe the problem lies in Deep Purple being a band that was manufactured. They weren’t a bunch of guys who decided one day to put together a band, but rather a record company decided to put together a band.

With that being said I’m glad they created this band.

6

Ur4FartKn0ck3r t1_j9ekgl9 wrote

I feel like this is the hardest hitting point on this thread.

3

whatistheformat t1_j9b2exv wrote

I think it might have something to do with the personnel changes. Personally I prefer the Machine Head lineup with Ian Gillan, and other permutations just haven't stuck like that one for me- though the brief lineup with Tommy Bolin was pretty amazing. Led Zep was always the same, imo kept getting better and more interesting, then called it quits when Bonzo died, so all their material, while not interchangable, is on the table to enjoy. DP has changed over time and a random DP album just doesn't have the same appeal as their best (even if each does have something to recommend it).

4

andrewhy t1_j9e3m8h wrote

There simply isn't a consistent lineup over an entire era like some of those other bands have. As DP changed lineups, they also changed their sound. In just the space of a decade, you have four lineups playing psychedelic rock, hard rock, and funk/jazz fusion.

1

Ok_Ad8249 t1_j9g9okx wrote

This was my thought. They were 3 different bands across 4 line ups.

In Jr. High and high school I would hear Machine Head and other hits from the Gillan era. I'd hear Hush and Kentucky Woman but somehow never heard it was the same band that did Smoke On The Water.

They reunited when I was a senior and that's when I found out about the other line ups. I liked the other line ups, but never listened to them as much as the Mark II line up. Building a legacy with line up changes can be tough enough, but building it with conflicting sounds is even harder.

1

JorgeXMcKie t1_j9b4gsp wrote

From 69-73 they put out some very good albums. They were kind of the leaders of hard rock. IMO the others you mention are not Hard Rock stars, they're rock stars with a wide range of sound. I guess those who followed hard rock, Deep Purple was kind of the original band. I never became a hard rock fan. To me Tull, Zepplin, The Who, The Stones continued to break new ground and grow. While I love Machine Head, I don't think it compares with Zep II, Thick as a Brick, or Who's Next which came out around the same time. Machine Head is the only CD I have of theirs and it is on a very limited play schedule because I only like about 1/2 of it. I need to get Live in Japan at some point, but that would also be in pretty limited play schedule. If I want to listen to heavy rock I listen to Tull, Who, or Zep usually. Those who would turn to AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, etc would probably prefer Deep Purple as that is what their sound sort of became. Hard driving guitar jams.

4

EugeneBurgher t1_j9byugz wrote

MC5, Cream, and Sabbath along with The Who, and Jimi were the original heavy bands IMO. Deep Purple is legit tho!

1

nunose t1_j9bilj2 wrote

Deep Purple is a great band…all tunes are legendary

3

phantalien t1_j9bhfy5 wrote

The constant member of the band was Jon Lord. Despite him being the most talented member in the band, it is not the easiest for record companies to market a band with a keyboard rock and roller. When Gillan and Blackmore went their separate ways at different times things would never be the same. Much like Queen, Deep Purple has great songs but never had as many solid albums.

2

KsychoPiller t1_j9bt9vd wrote

Tbf Ian Paice was the real constant, he is still there while Lord left on 2002. But definately, the fact they changed their lineups so often certainly didnt help

3

phantalien t1_j9bvazq wrote

Oh really? I didn't know Paice lasted longer. Thanks for the info.

1

kaaaaaaahn t1_j9bsnnm wrote

Queen didn’t have any solid albums!?!?!?! Literally every one of the records they made up until probably the 80s were phenomenal. A Day at the Races is one of the most perfectly crafted records of all time

1

Competitive-Ad-498 t1_j9btj32 wrote

READ what he actually writes!!!

1

kaaaaaaahn t1_j9bu2qz wrote

I did, and u/phantalien clearly has never listened to Queen.

1

Competitive-Ad-498 t1_j9c5c5d wrote

Sorry, my reaction should have been on his reply. not yours.

He responds as if you wrote Queen never had any solid albums, but actually, you did not write that.

You state that Deep Purple and Queen had more great songs than they had solid albums. And i agree with that. Even In Rock and Machine Head had less good tracks on them. Some even very average.

1

frick-you-fricker t1_j9bws70 wrote

>Much like Queen, Deep Purple has great songs but never had as many solid albums.

You mean like this? He is literally stating that Queen had great songs but not as many solid albums.

1

andrewhy t1_j9e4es1 wrote

Queen II, A Night At the Opera, Sheer Heart Attack...

1

Strange-Grand8148 t1_j9bw5kn wrote

They are not in deep rotations on classic rock radio or streaming so it my be the people or machines that program the list. They are more of the personal playlist sharing type of hype where people will play the deeper cuts

2

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_j9d34fr wrote

LOL, one of my old boses loved DP

at one point in time every kid that wanted to learn rock guitar first thing they learned was the basic chords of smoke in the water

also DP spawned into Rainbow with Blackmore and Whitesnake with David Coverdale and Ian Guillan amazing work in Black Sabbat

They also did one if not the first rock bands orchertal colaborations with the royal philarmonic orchesta with a John Lord composition

amazing amount of talent in that band history

2

MaaChiil t1_j9d9ivb wrote

Ian Gillan gets around being in the PF production of Jesus Christ Superstar in addition to joining Sabbath. I actually think ‘Born Again’ has some great tracks on it.

2

Contrarian_Eh t1_j9aztub wrote

Just a way smaller catalog of quality. Those other bands plus Rush had longevity

1

gabapenteado OP t1_j9b3tmm wrote

I think Longevity might not be the best word here: They had at least one amazing album for the 70/80/90s: Machine Head, Perfect Strangers, Purpendicular.

Maybe consistency is a better word, specially if you are throwing Rush into the mix

1

Fit-Friend-8431 t1_j9c03ta wrote

This is the answer. Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Beatles all had at least 5 or 6 stellar albums.

1

AlGeee t1_j9b6jto wrote

Yes, I believe that the lineup changes had a lot to do with their drop in popularity

1

ToxicAdamm t1_j9bavy0 wrote

Sadly, I think a lot of rock history is dependent on journalists, critics and newer stars carrying their banner. During the 80s and 90s there weren't really any champions reminding people about them.

An example of this is Pearl Jam with Neil Young.

1

H2Oloo-Sunset t1_j9bawif wrote

I was a fan, but it seems to me that their legacy now reflects their stature in the 70s. They were (and still are) in a slightly lower tier than the bands you cite.

1

Red-eyed_Vireo t1_j9branm wrote

I also don't hear that much about Jethro Tull or Foghat lately.

1

NooNoo82 t1_j9c38r7 wrote

I have often asked myself this question.

Although I take heart from the fact that my GCSE English oral exam was about Deep Purple so I educated a group of teenagers back in 1998 about the might of the Purple!

1

Glendel66 t1_j9c5vyb wrote

I think it is simple. The better the music, the better the band ages. It makes perfect sense. The relevance of old music is directly related to the quality of the music.

1

ImpendingSenseOfDoom t1_j9c6ira wrote

I think you bring up a lot of good points and it's probably some combination of all of that. I love DP, and they totally deserve the recognition that Zeppelin and Sabbath get for influencing hard rock and metal.

Someone else pointed out a lot of it has to do with the consistency of their albums. Zeppelin released 7 consecutive albums that were absolutely fucking incredible, and their last album is still probably as good as much of DP's work too. Same with Sabbath, their first 6 albums are all complete bangers. Deep Purple took a while to find their stride, their sound evolved a lot, and they had significant lineup changes that altered said sound through different periods.

While they have excellent work that spans several decades, I would say their best run of albums includes In Rock, Fireball, Machine Head and Burn. Note that Who Do We Think We Are came out during this time but I did not include it because I don't think it's as good, save for the song Woman From Tokyo which is a classic. Zeppelin and Sabbath did not have any clunkers during their peak runs. I think that's the difference.

1

FullRollingBoil t1_j9c6vvn wrote

The sound quality of a lot of old DP albums is rough to me. Outside of SOTW, they didn’t put out many radio friendly hits, and by the time they got popular, they started replacing members

1

HokageBiden t1_j9ca1pt wrote

Their sound is too diverse. ‘Hush’ and ‘Highway Star’ sound like two completely different bands.

1

KODO5555 t1_j9d5ijc wrote

They pretty much were two different bands. Like Syd Floyd then Waters/Gilmore fFloyd

1

Paublo57 t1_j9ca8jt wrote

I think rainbow's music with Dio has aged a lot better tbh

1

BlueBloodLive t1_j9ci7e2 wrote

It's an interesting one, they definitely deserve a similar status imo, although you named some bands that were basically torchbearers for a whole movement, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Pink Floyd, The Who to perhaps a lesser extent, but happy to be corrected.

There's no doubt about Blackmore's ability and he should be in the conversation but the more mainstream names are always going to be mentioned more as years go by and new people discover the old bands, thdy usually start with the names they recognise.

Saying that though, never mind Smoke on the water, Highway Star and Black Knight should be essential listening for any budding rock fan!

1

Jamarac t1_j9d95ss wrote

It likely has less to do with the music, the musicians capabilities, or their creative decisions and more with marketing and business strategy over the last 40 years by the band and their labels.

1

Kadink t1_j9dmu3i wrote

I think the revolving door of members had a lot to do with it, They were basically three bands, and the famous lineup only was together for four (plus one live) albums,

1

C00lerking t1_j9dyqi8 wrote

My favorite Led Zeppelin song is Achilles Last Stand but I don’t recall ever hearing it on the radio, probably because it’s an 8 min epic story song. Not suitable for radio format. Is it possible that DP music falls into this trap? Long songs that don’t encapsulate nicely for radio play?

1

Snoo_33033 t1_j9er8xb wrote

Deep Purple hasn’t aged well because they were not that good to begin with. Their lyrics are horrible and the vocals are mid, anyway. The overall technical ability isn’t bad, but the end product is mediocre at best.

TLDR, they don’t deserve acclaim.

1