Forum
I think their numbers are fantastic.
As a band, I love their music and do feel they should be more regarded and popular than they are. They are and have been, infinitely more successful than a lot of less regarded acts, that are clearly more popular today.
I've never agreed with that "Unholy Trinity", although the three are seen that way. Led Zeppelin started it, they were the originators. Both Sabbath and Purple decided to change their sound upon hearing Led Zeppelin.
When I referred to MK1 as a caption it was in relation to being influential to a stoner rock scene for example, not as an ultra pop stage. Regarding Deep Purple not adjusting to the era of MTV music videos, it is a fact, even described in its official biography, and it did affect its impact in the late 80s, when the music video era was massive. It seems that when we analyze the decline in their sales (after Slaves and Masters) we are talking about a band with little impact on commercial success - which is a mistake, of course, so much so that according to Chartmasters' own study, Deep Purple has surpassed slightly the Black Sabbath. So my analysis was to basically explain how the sales decline causes from Slaves and Masters. Therefore, we have to be cautious in analyzing and delimiting the period of decline. As your own article mentions up to 25 years of career Deep Purple had sales in excess of 1 million. Yet to this day they fill arenas. Just see the incredible results of the tour of the Rapture of the Deep album - which paradoxically was the album with the worst commercial result of its long career.
You can find many figures in the articles of the artists, although not all:
1 The Beatles 23,030,000
2 Mariah Carey 21,000,000~
3 Carpenters 10,160,000 (fanofmusic)
4 Michael Jackson 10,100,000
5 Queen 9,941,000
6 Madonna 9,895,000
7 Led Zeppelin 9,000,000~
8 Deep Purple 8,607,000
9 Celine Dion 8,360,000 (fanofmusic)
10 Simon & Garfunkel 8,290,000
Possibly Billy Joel and ABBA should be here too, not sure.
MJD or Anthony might have better figures for some of these.
If we start the discussion on who should be more appreciated and popular, we will never finish it. To name a few, people like Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart or Lou Reed / Velvet Underground were authentic musical geniuses who wrote masterpieces superior to Deep Purple, but if you don't take root as sales because your musical proposal is too difficult, nothing can be done. Deep Purple have however sold a considerable number of albums, there are many other realities that have not been sufficiently recognized by the listeners.
Led Zeppelin started what exactly? Sabbath sounded heavy from the start (imo the only ones from the so called "trinity" that played real metal).
Zeppelin's sound is way softer, at least on the first album. I can just as much say that The Beatles started "it" (whatever it is), Helter Skelter is heavier than anything LZ did during their first years and released before their debut.
That's a lot of compilations! I think only Elvis has more. Thank you and waiting for IRON MAIDEN! 🙂
Roger Glover: “I think Episode Six had 13 or 14 singles out, none of which made it. I had visions of me doing a one man, one guitar thing. Then I heard Led Zeppelin and that changed all my ideas musically. I suddenly realised that I wanted to be in a heavy band.”
Geezer Butler: “Zeppelin paved the way for us. Obviously, we used to get compared to them – they were the heaviest thing, up until we came along. They very much started the genre, and we cashed in on it.”
Ritchie Blackmore: “We thought we had to change singers because of Robert Plant. We were playing at Mother’s in Birmingham and Robert got up to sing with Terry Reid. We thought: Christ almighty! He was so dynamic. And the next two weeks we were looking for a singer, people who had Robert Plant’s dynamic approach. So it was thanks to him."
“Zeppelin – I liked their hard approach when they came out and did Whole Lotta Love. I immediately tuned in with that type of style because before then we were fiddling around with orchestras, I thought: something’s wrong; I’m not giving all that I can. Thanks to them for the inspiration."
I'm not meaning it like that. I mean that, considering how popular and successful they were, I feel that they should have retained more popularity, especially compared to other acts from their day, who were perhaps less successful and popular back then, but seem more well known, popular and loved today.
I suppose acts like ELO, KISS, Black Sabbath, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Van Morrison.
Kiss still have great live numbers in the US, less album sales. Black Sabbath as popularity perhaps have a little more after the return of Ozzy in 2011 but nothing exceptional, the others for me just not.
But was Black Sabbath in the 70s that much less popular ?
Probably not hugely less successful but DP certainly performed better than Sabbath, chart position wise, in numerous countries.
All those acts I mentioned were less or as successful as DP but time seems to have been far kinder to them, than DP. They all seem to be more revered, well known and popular these days.
Between Iron Maiden, Kiss and Pearl Jam we are very close in total album (all types) sales.
