That's what they call it. It certainly is influenced by it in some way. But, nobody is suggesting it's "real" 14th Century Renaissance. So, you can take your "hahahahaha..."Originally Posted by grego
But, I will state that some of Ritchie's most creative playing was with BM. And I'm as big a DP fan as anyone here.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
I think Page did a lot of prog rock guitar playing. Enough that Squire and White entertained the XYZ project that probably failed due to Page's addiction issues at the time... etc.
Page explored odd meters more than most rock guitarists did. There is a lot of prog in Zep for those who listen to the albums beyond the classic rock radio hits.
Of course Blackmore was doing prog rock guitar playing at times. Isn't playing a gig with the Royal Philharmonic enough to get a prog badge of honor? honorable mention? What makes Gilmore anymore of a progger than Blackmore? I never heard Gilmore attempt something like Burn.
How about Blackmore's Beethoven's 9th?
Can anyone say this isn't prog in all it's glory?
I get the OP's intent - and I suspect it hearkens back to when Deep Purple, ELP, Yes, Alice Cooper, Black Sabbath, Joni Mitchell, Mott The Hoople, Traffic, Free, Electric Light Orchestra, Jeff Beck, Led Zeppelin, ALL were under a huge multi-colored umbrella known as rock music. It was a glorious time. Everybody was pursuing individuality and the listener was the winner.
Fast forward to today and this place- and I wonder how many colonoscopies discover label makers lodged where they do NOT belong
Blackmore, like Fripp, Howe, Hackett and so many more, doesn't sound like anybody. Viva the individual.
It's been said one of the key components of his tone was a reel to reel machine, which he modified to use a tape echo unit. Apparently, the tape machine's preamp is a big part of his tone.
As has been said, Ritchie was more into the sort of riff orientated heavy rock that Deep Purple and Rainbow are associated with. I think it was Jon Lord who said Ritchie "knew what he wanted to do" once he heard Hendrix. And I'm likewise inclined to believe it was indeed Lordy who brought the more sophisticated arrangements, the sort of "progresive" element, if you will.
Well, I think it was "progressive rock" guitar playing, in so much that he was moving beyond blues based pentatonic type lines and using more classical oriented diatonic sensibilities. If you insist on calling that "prog", ok, so be it.Of course Blackmore was doing prog rock guitar playing at times
By that logic, Kiss is a "prog band" because of Beth and Music From The Elder.Isn't playing a gig with the Royal Philharmonic enough to get a prog badge of honor?
Rick Wright's synthesizer, that's what. Oh, and the clocks. And the cash register. And Gerry O'Driscoll. And let's not forget Roger The Hat!What makes Gilmore anymore of a progger than Blackmore?
I think most all the great bands of the 70's experimented with some version of prog at some point. Even John Cougar?
Certainly Boston did. What made a prog band was the amount that they did. Was it just one track or was it more than half the album? Or was it the whole album?
I think of Blackmore as one of a handful of great rock guitarists. Certainly did some prog, and has continued to show a respect and reverence for traditional musics.... much like other prog guitarists.
What do we have of Blackmore delving into odd time signatures? Anything come to mind?
Can we agree that this is a bit different that what Kiss did? Strings on a studio album....
Promise me you'll take a real look at this...
Prog? I think so...
Are you talking about I Need A Lover?! That comes off less as a "prog experiment" and more like a "we don't have enough songs to make up a full album, so we're just gonna futz around for a couple minutes before we go into the song proper, then futz around some more on the bridge".
Yes, I'm familiar with Concerto For Band And Orchestra (or whatever it's properly called). Is it "prog"?! Maybe, but so what?! It doesn't really prove anything. Deep Purple were at their best when they were being a full throttle, over the top heavy rock band. Listen to Made In Japan, or watch the California Jam DVD. That's Deep Purple in full flight, not any of this concerto silliness.
(though I'll tell ya what, I'll take Jon Lord's concerto over Keith Emerson's any day of the week).
It was clearly an attempt at prog... should I post it up here?
Of course it's prog - especially it was prog in 1969.
+1
I don't think it is silly at all if you consider the era it was in. Who was doing that? Lord writes this concerto for band and orchestra and they perform it in a great classical music hall. Sure, these days it's been done a million times.. Metallica, Green Day etc... but give them some credit for getting there first?
We are talking about progressive rock... so I think it is OK for Deep Purple to fully embrace the rock side of things and still be a prog band to some degree. They didn't indulge in the "weird" side of things as much as Genesis or Floyd, Crimson etc..
I think they stayed on the melodic side of things more and didn't venture off "songs" as much as Van Der Graf Generator... but it's just what they were doing and the elements of prog are all there.
What are ya doin', man? The whole pretense being put forth here is that the highest thing for a musician to aspire to is being a "prog" musician. Farking nonsense if I've ever heard it. Besides, Blackmore better than Page? Major LOL.
And btw, you left out Zep and Crimson in your other post. Yes has never been better than either.
I think the great prog rock guitarists were a cut above the rock guitarists because of their expansive innovation and creativity along with composing in odd meters etc.
Jazz guitarists can be one trick pony's, and classical guitarist don't offer much in variable tonality yet alone the energy that rock offers to an audience. The great prog guitarists had a freedom to draw upon many different genres, not just jazz, classical, rock or blues etc. I think a great prog guitarist is much more interesting and versatile. I don't think it is a nonsense ambition.
There are many who would put Blackmore above Page as a player. Take a poll. It's not a ridiculous assertion... maybe to you?.... but I think you'd find it split in opinion.
This is not a topic Blackmore Vs Page, this is a topic about that that Blackmore was, back in the day, more progressive guitarist than blues-rock oriented Page. For example - when and where Page was recorded something like Blackmore' solo at Rainbow's Stargazer where he used Phrygian dominant scale?
Last edited by Svetonio; 08-19-2016 at 05:45 AM.
Bitchie Rackmore.
Blackmore is magnificent but I find Page a more adventurous player. See things like 'Friends', 'Four Sticks', 'Kashmir' and all the 'guitar orchestra' overdubbing he was doing on Presence.
These songs you mentioned weren't considered as progressive rock back in the day as LZ were a rock / hard rock / blues-rock band.
Well, at the present day, "we" tagged as prog every act which "we" accepted as such ["prog"] - probably 'cause the post-modern era is also a post-intelectual era where the tag "prog" is a badge of honor for some of the 70s acts.
But historically, LZ [and consenquently Page] never were considered as progressive rock band back in the day - nor any of their songs.
On other side, DP were considered as "full-blown" progressive rock band in the late 60s / early 70s i.e. In Rock the album.
In fact, DP [and consenquently Blackmore] were one of the pioneers of the genre.
Your first sentence is pure elitism. Blackmore may be a better guitar player, but he hasn't and never will reach the level of creativity that Page reached as an innovator and a visionary. Not to mention producer, sound engineer, etc.
As far as jazz guitarists being one trick ponies, I'd suggest you listen to more than a few before spouting such nonsense. Pat Martino, for instance, could smoke many of these fools when he was just 18.
This is mostly subjective, but I'm still at a loss as to what you're trying to prove here. If you're a Blackmore fanboy, that's one thing, but the music world isn't a sports fantasy league where you get to revise history by imagining some alternate universe that just isn't there. I'd suggest you just sit back and enjoy what you enjoy, and not worry about classifying everything to validate your own tastes.
You need to grow up. No other way to say it. If anything Rainbow or Blackmore's Night EVER did compares favorably to anything Zeppelin did when it was at its height, I will roadie for Ace Frehley.
Boy, this thread is getting definitely silly.
Progressive leanings and out an out prog was evident in nearly every major rock band in the early/mid 70s: The Who, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Queen, Tull, Uriah Heep, Floyd, and yes, Deep Purple. To say otherwise merely ignores the music of that period in an arbitrary and futile attempt at drawing a ridiculously subjective line in the sand regarding what is and what is not prog. If Jon Lord quoting passages from various classical composers on Made in Japan's "Space Truckin'" or composing an entire concerto is not what any level-headed person considers "prog", then you're quite unclear on the concept, and how things were back then (when no one referred to anything as prog as far as I can recall - there were great rock bands who did whatever the hell they wanted, creatively speaking, and then there were the rest struggling along with one fomula or another).
In between rock anthems, Townshend composes Quadrophenia, which clearly has classical pretensions and sounds prog to me; Tull releases TAAB and APP, but usually keeps song lengths at under 8 minutes throughout the 70s; Yes goes off the deep end after Close to the Edge and releases TFTO and Relayer, then realizes they might be alienating their fanbase and release the more stripped down Going for the One; in between extended blues tunes and crunching hard rock, Zeppelin has songs like No Quarter, Kashmir and Achilles Last Stand on three consecutive albums; ELP falls into the pit of eternal prog gloom after Works and never returns; there are still arguments as to whether Floyd is prog or not prog, but for every Echoes, there is a Seamus, and for every Shine on You Crazy Diamond there is a Have a Cigar; the same distinctions apply to early Queen, with the full out prog of The March of the Black Queen alongside the proto-metal of Ogre Battles.
Bah, I've drank too much coffee this morning.
"And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision."
Occasional musical musings on https://darkelffile.blogspot.com/
Based on the original question, the answer is yes. Blackmore is a great guitarist. Not sure who he needs to be measured against?
It's just remarkable how pretension is always pushing boundaries on here, and what is even worse - just for the sake of the individual, not for the sake of music. One of the reasons why I rarely care for 'objective' discussions about music these days, sooner or later they end up irrelevant most of the times to me.
Last edited by Rick Robson; 08-19-2016 at 11:39 AM.
"Beethoven can write music, thank God, but he can do nothing else on earth. ". Ludwig van Beethoven
One correction to an otherwise well stated position: there is no "objective", and nostalgic sentimentality always rules. I know that we are most likely to connect to music we heard in our teens, but this kind of stuff is ridiculous and has caused me to reconsider whether or not I really want to be associated with other music "fans" in any way, shape or form.
Fwiw, I haven't even given Blackmore a second thought since "Perfect Strangers" dropped in 1984.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks