[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Deep Purple (no Who)



On Fri, 10 May 1996, Ian Derby wrote:

> > It's basically the same thing as I like about the Who that I like about 
> > Deep Purple:  at their best, they were thoroughly inimitable.  For the 
> > Who, that's both musically and lyrically, for Deep Purple, it's just 
> > musically, while for someone like John Fogerty, it's lyrically but not 
> > necessarily musically.
> 
> For once in my life (Stevie sing!) I have FINALLY come across someone 
> else who understands why the WHO were so great and my personal choice as 
> the greatest rock band to ever exist.  The Who can't be imitated.  I 
> read/hear this stuff on how it's such a great tribute to a certain band 
> that they copy your sound/style/etc.  Bullshit!  It shows that the band 
> in question can be easily copied, which isn't the greatest tribute at 
> all.  Now of course you can say that the greatness of a certain band is 
> that none of it's imitators got it right.  Yet these copiers came close 
> enough to the point that you recognized it as a direct reference to this 
> band.  You know who I'm talking about, it's the same ones who are still 
> worshiped on AOR (the dying breed) radio today.  Pink Floyd gave up it's 
> cry of originality the second Roger Waters decided to take over.  

Basically, inimitability arises from several factors, but most 
importantly the following four, all of which the Who had:

1.  Superb lyricist:  look at the bands that stand alone:  the Who, the 
Beatles, CCR.  Townshend, Lennon/McCartney, Fogerty.  3 of the best 
songwriters in rock music.

2.  Superb rhythm section:  it may seem counterintuitive to place this 
so highly, but consider that at least one of the members of the rhythm 
section of the Who, the Beatles, Deep Purple went significatly beyond the 
usual expectations of his instruments.  Special mention also to Doug 
Clifford of CCR, whom everyone forgets in listing drummers.

3.  Having played together for significant amounts of time--we're talking 
years.  I have yet to hear a band that played with the same kind of 
instinctive cohesiveness that the Who demonstrated live from 1968 on.

4.  Progress--in listening to LZ, I really don't think they moved 
forward; Aerosmith wrote their best song for their first album; on the 
other hand, the Beatles of 1967 had moved ahead from the Beatles of 1962.

Note that I did not include mention of a 'guitar hero'--there are so many 
of these that having a great guitarist hardly makes you unique.  In fact, 
NOT having a great guitarist is often what makes a band great--because 
they don't waste all that time on egotistical 10-minute solos whose 
quality depends on the arrangement of the stars.

--LP.