Forum
Fixed, I also noticed he was incorrectly spelt as Samper not Simper. Cheers.
I think you are overstating the influence of those MKI albums, even amongst Stone Rock circles. It's clear that they were never that revered or popular and that hasn't really changed much since their release in the late 60s.
I'm not saying they liked making videos etc but let's be honest they still actually made them. There are official promo videos for Perfect Strangers, Nobodys Home and Knocking At Your Back Door from 1984s Perfect Strangers and then Bad Attitude and Call Of The Wild from 1987s House of the Blue Light. On top of that, they also clearly filmed shows from the The Perfect Strangers world tour.
For me, their declines happened many times. After "Shades of.." they declined, after In Rock they declined, after Machine Head they declined, after Burn they declined and then after House of the Blue, which could also be seen as a decline in it's own right.
IMO they haven't surpassed Sabbath, they were always ahead, but Sabbath have clearly surpassed them in current popularity, certainly when looking at streaming. Paranoid is clearly held in greater esteem these days than Machine Head, as it has streamed over 1B compared to MH just over 500m.
To enrich the debate I will segment the topics:
1. The MK 1 stage does have a strong cult fan base and in the stoner rock and psychedelic scenes it is quite revered. It didn't have a mainstream impact like the MK 2 and MK3 phases but still surprisingly the 3 Rod Evans era albums averaged over 1.5 million copies in addition to the great sales of the single Hush. I think this data is far from modest although not so spectacular.
2. I don't consider the declines you've mentioned (eg, lower Fireball sales after Deep Purple in Rock) outside of the norm of normality that teetered with strong 70s names. The decline came consistently after Slaves and Masters .
3. According to the spectacular study that was done and according to your analysis Deep Purple had numbers slightly ahead of Black Sabbath and fantastic, despite deserving much more. But the numerous management and relationship crises in the band would make it impossible to reach the level of Led Zepellin, who had a Peter Grant as manager to make a difference.
4. As for the band's non-adaptation to the era of music videos on MTV, although they did make clips, the format was terrible and sloppy, totally inadequate to what countless glam metal or pop metal bands did.
5. Regarding the Streaming phase not being very good for them, it is a phenomenon that occurs with bands with a more "prog" footprint but with excellent physical sales in their careers, such as Yes, Jethro Tull. And let's be honest that the Ozzy factor has always made a huge difference in the media impact in favor of Black Sabbath, which I think is unfair, considering his limited contribution to the band's musicality, when considering Iommi/Butler's strength.
Come on Rodolfo, you’ve went from MKI being “legends” a few posts ago, to them now having a “strong cult fan base” lol
You honestly think to decline from a Top 30 album (Shades of..) and Top 5 single (Hush) in the US, to not charting at all by Deep Purple, only a year later, is a normal decline? They’d also declined as a band and seemed lost by the time of Deep Purple, not sure as to their direction or style of music.
On top of that there is also a noticeable decline post Burn and the departure of Blackmore. Even in their stronger markets, there was an obvious downturn in its performance, which was further exacerbated with Come Taste The Band. It’s clear by this point that their star was fading and the public were losing interest in their music.
Perfect Strangers was a great return to form in 1984 but there is an evident decline on 1987s House of the Blue Light, with 2m less sales and back to Come Taste The Band levels. In fact there is less of a decline between HOTBL and Slaves and Masters (1.1m) but I will agree, it was at this point that they seemed to completely fall of the radar.
I think from the off and through the 70s Led Zeppelin were on a completely different level to Purple and Sabbath and it's stayed that way ever since. I do agree Purples videos are not much to look at but just remember Led Zeppelin didn’t have any at all and look how hugely popular they were in the US, in the 1980s, without even existing.
The Ozzy factor is what it is, it’s neither fair or unfair. Robert Plant didn’t contribute much with regards to Led Zeppelins musicality, yet he is also a significant part of their image, success and impact. The problem with Purple Is they are a pretty faceless band. They do not seem to have been portrayed or plastered in the mainstream, as much as the other two bands, even though I reckon Zeppelin are quite a faceless band also.
Please don't get stressed my friend, this is a debate between fans and although I value and praise your work at Chartmasters I am deeply aware of the band's biography and its good and bad phases. I usually see you getting a little irritated with other interlocutors here when there is disagreement, which I personally consider totally unnecessary and meaningless.
The concept of "legend" is different from "legendary" or "popular". There is perhaps difficulty in understanding this concept. A legendary band is one that, even without popularity or significant sales of their albums, marked a scene or are a reference for bands of a certain style. In this category we can mention bands fundamental to rock history but not so popular, such as King Crimson, Soft Machine, UFO, Uriah Heep, Wishbone Ash, Nektar, Free, Velvet Underground, MC5. These bands have little or no certifications but are essential for rock styles and their development. Or are they a musical or creative failure because they're not that popular? In this group I frame the MK1 phase of Deep Purple. Although not as famous as the MK2 and MK3 phases, as much as you may not agree, it is rather considered by bands like Kadavar, Vintage Caravan and others in the current stoner/psycho rock scene.
On the decline in sales are inherent to the instabilities of management and internal conflicts already discussed. And the lack of a marketing aspect or overriding charisma (like Ozzy or Robert Plant) played a part too. But even so, according to Chartmasters' own calculations, Deep Purple had 92.5 million copies, Black Sabbath 78 million. So even with all these critical factors, slightly higher. I think your analysis has a critical (and understandable) slant on the even greater potential in popularity that Deep Purple could achieve - at the level of a Led Zepellin. But we must remember how difficult it was to reach the mainstream, even being musically superior to certain bands.
In conclusion: Deep Purple's data, as you highlighted so well, are fantastic, despite deserving greater recognition. But the mainstream is volatile and unfair: just look at the current oblivion of once-big names in the 70s and 80s, such as Yes and Jethro Tull.
I’m not stressed, that’s just my style of writing…kind of blunt and to the point. Maybe if so many didn’t irritate!
I personally feel the words legend and legendary are bandied about far too easily and readily, when it comes to musical artists. It seems it’s the norm these days to overstate a historical acts importance, popularity etc. I am sick of watching music documentaries, where every act they study is heralded as seemingly being bigger, greater, more influential etc than they actually were or are.
I’m not saying that acts have not been influenced by MKI, there are obviously some out there who love them and their music, I certainly do, but in the grand scheme of things, their influence does not stretch that deep. Not that it is really of any consequence but I severely doubt I could strike up a conversation about the merits or music of MKI Purple, with many people I know.
Your average guy on the street though, has likely never heard of most of those acts, let alone able to name or recognise their music. I absolutely love Free, one of my favourite acts ever and have a lot of time for Uriah Heep and Wishbone Ash (Pilgrimage is a particular favourite) but again, their influence and appeal is very, very small.
I don’t think there is really anything more to say or add to the decline issue.
Yeah this "Unholy Trinity" thing is nonsense... Sabbath is largely regarded as the first metal band. Zeppelin and Deep Purple were just hard rock.
Great job! It is interesting to note that outside the US their success is comparable with Led Zeppelin.
In my opinion the step made by Led Zeppelin towards a hard rock sound is no more important than bands like Cream and The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Besides that, Deep Purple In Rock is not heavily influenced by Led Zeppelin, it is in fact much havier with songs like Hard Lovin Man, Bloodsucker, Speed King, Into the Fire and Flight of the Rat. Also there is very little blues in these songs, unlike Zeppelin. I can hear much more Hendrix than Zeppelin there. The same can be said about Sabbath, which I think is much more influenced by Cream, and I don't see much Led Zeppelin there. So one could argue that Hendrix and Cream started it before Led Zeppelin.
From what I've read over the years and seen quoted by guys like Blackmore, Glover, Butler, Ward and Osbourne, about Zeppelin bursting on the scene, their sound, hearing their first album, seeing them live, it's clear to me these guys see Zeppelin as the originators of the whole hard rock genre and were heavily influenced and inspired by Led Zeppelins early sound and success.
To me, Cream, Hendrix, The Who, The Yardbirds, The Kinks, The Jeff Beck Group etc were all important in the development of hard rock but none of them were truly hard rock.
I agree with Butler when he said "Zeppelin paved the way for us. They very much started the genre, and we cashed in on it.”. I' agree with that and think it was Zeppelin that ushered in that whole wave and change towards heavier music in 69/70 and this is where hard rock really kicks off and becomes a genre. It even went mainstream in the UK in 1970, with Purples Black Night hitting #2 and Sabbaths Paranoid hitting #4, with both acts appearing on Top of the Pops!
They opened the doors in terms of success, there is no question about it, not in terms of creating hard rock. And just as Hendrix and Cream, Zeppelin isn't completely hard rock either, part of their songs is hard rock, others lean more towards blues or folk. At the same time, in 68/69, there were other underground bands that were actually heavier than Led Zeppelin such as Blue Cheer and Andromeda (listen to their song Too Old, there isn't even comparison in terms of aggressiveness).
I suppose nobody created hard rock, it's just a term that critics etc attached to a style of music that started to develop in the mid to late 1960s.
Saying that, I do believe Zeppelin were the first to harness everything together and become the kind of archetypal hard rock act, kind of defining the genre throughout the 1970s in style, image, sound etc.
I know Led Zeppelin is much more than just an out and out hard rock band like say AC/DC but that will eternally be what they are predominately labelled as.
I'm not sure why people keeping tell me "so and so was heavier", "that was heavier" etc. I've never said there weren't heavier acts around, just that Zeppelins heavier sound, influenced and inspired both Sabbath and Purple and that they were the ones that really originated the genre, in the mainstream.
I like Blue Cheer and that Andromeda album but IMO their stuff just doesn't have that dynamic, jump out the speakers sound, that Led Zeppelin I and II have, which just sound so much better produced.
Another key for me is Plant, love him or hate him, there is no getting away from him on Zeppelins debut album, Blue Cheer and Andromeda or indeed Deep Purple, just didn't have such powerful and dynamic vocals on their music. Not many, if any, up until this point, had come across on vinyl, sounding like Plant did in January 1969.
There were certainly hard rock songs before Zeppelin, but when we think about originators or pioneers we usually think in terms of albums, and in that sense I think their debut album can be considered as the real start of hard rock.
