Talk:Deep Purple

Heavy metal

This article needs to be rewritten. It's unreadable.

I put the reference to heavy metal back into the opening statement, while leaving the more subtle explanation mostly in place. Whether anyone's personal analysis agrees or not (even whether the group itself agrees or not) it is clear that DP is highly associated with HM and this needs to be stated up front. Jgm 15:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm another 40 plus, I bought my first DP single in 1970 (Black Night) and it was Heavy Rock. Then the media got in on it, metal sounded so much nastier for their headlines. Thus DP, Led Zep, Uriah Heep and many of their fans spent over a decade explaining that they are not Heavy Metal. I thought this era was behind us - if I go into any music store I can think of now, Black Sabbath are in the Heavy Metal bins, and the other bands I mentioned including DP are in the Rock section (none of them have a "Hard Rock" section). So commerce doesn't think DP are Heavy Metal.

What about using your ears - Does DP use a wall of fuzz guitar as the mainstay of their sound? - no. Do Heavy Metal bands feature a Hammond Organ on parity with lead guitar? - no. Do DP songs focus on Satan, spirits, evil etc? - no.

I would therefore dispute that any but an inexperienced minority would continue to call Deep Purple "Heavy Metal". Refer to http://www.answers.com/topic/hard-rock - where it is noted Deep Purple's music lacks hallmarks of Black Sabbath and is generally considered hard rock rather than heavy metal.

It is reasonable to note the influences on HM though. Reszerve 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence regarding Heavy Metal, it was unbalanced. Izzallgood now. And I agree; even though they are not a heavy metal band, they definitely influenced heavy metal. firenexx 22:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that I've seen more heavy metal bands and musicians cite Deep Purple as an influence more than even Black Sabbath. Malmsteen Maiden 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't wholly accurate about the usage of the term "heavy metal". Steppenwolf used the phrase in "Born to Be Wild" in 1968, so by the 70's, this term was known. Please see the article on Sir Lord Baltimore on this very site for the first review using this term. I would say the term was rare, or perhaps not yet popular. But it wasn't "wholly unknown" Silverstarseven 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Deep Purple, particularly Ian Gillan, have refused to be labelled heavy metal and do not like to be called it. TomGreen 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They were not heavy metal, but maybe are loosely seen as the precursors of HM by some musicians. If HM musicians feel that they need to pay a tribute to Deep Purple and therefore state that they were influenced by this band, they are free to do that.--Doktor Who 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They aren't thought of in that way now due to the genres expansions into dozens of sub-genres. However, prior to the sub-genre splintering that began in 1980... In heavy metals first 15 years (1965-1980), Deep Purple were not only considered heavy metal, they were actually one of the "kings" (bad term) of the genre. Regardless of how the band actually see themselves... this is the genre they are referenced to the most. Lemmy doesn't consider Motorhead to be a heavy metal band either...BUT... that's what they are and that's what the books will still be calling them 100 years from now. 156.34.215.139 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? So, the term hard rock is just the POV of a 3 or 4 editors aged maaybe over 40? Look, to me you seem the same person (or the same group of persons), that is stalking on me wherever i go, and not only here at Wikipedia. Please go to fool someone else.Doktor Who 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalking Dok??? I'm the same editor who gave you the heads up on the potential Pink Floyd Dume7/IP 71.X fiasco. I saw the troubles you are having with particular "Mr." editor... but you can be very assured, you have my 100% support in those other "wiki-battles". I can understand how your AGF has been stretched thin. My comments before were simply in reference to the great number of books on the heavy metal subject that place Deep Purple front and center in their genre commentaries. They are usually a "first chapter" artist. And, I expect always will be. I saw them in 1972. I know what we "fogies" called them back then. But I certainly realise how younger generations would see them differently when thinking about heavy metal. They certainly don't look/sound like Slayer that's for sure. 156.34.215.139 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very sorry, please accept my apologies, I'm becoming myself a sort of bot, for sure I haven't read well your previous edit and misunderstood the whole content. Yes, you are right, I'm very stressed due to a famous "Mr." editor. I'm sure that he's the same person 71.x.x.x, cos used almost the same pattern and edit comments that he used at ambient music. So, I assume that he's able to use tricked proxies... really stressing and annoying...Doktor Who 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Lemmy insists his group are rock'n'roll - when asked if he thought some people get confused between hard rock and soft metal and all the other categories, Lemmy replied "Cunt metal? Spunk metal? Left-handed metal? Right-handed metal? Upwardly-mobile metal? This term "heavy metal" is only rock'n'roll anyway, because metal bands are the logical successors to Eddie Cochran and Buddy Holly". What Lemmy says it is and what it is and what people say it is may be different, 154.34. is quite right - the job here is recording what the (citeable) world has to say of them.--Alf ^melmac 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wise words Alfred. Cunt metal??? Sir Lemmy said that...and it's in print. Hmmm... citeable :D . Excuse me while I go work on a new Wiki-article. Kidding aside, it's almost a shame that Deep Purple have to have their infobox genres referenced. It's a growing Wiki-trend to try and de-fuse genre battles... but it makes it look cluttered. Referenced details in the main article used to be enough...not anymore. 156.34.233.178 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup in the Record Collector January 2000 edition interview with the man - tackily called MIL-LEMMY-UM.--Alf ^melmac 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And unless it's changed since I was a lad, it was always the case not to have to have cites in the lead paragraph provided they appeared in the full text which the lead summarised. Sad indeed.--Alf ^melmac 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm another 40 plus, I bought my first DP single in 1970 (Black Night) and it was Heavy Rock. Then the media got in on it, metal sounded so much nastier for their headlines. Thus DP, Led Zep, Uriah Heep and many of their fans spent over a decade explaining that they are not Heavy Metal. I though this era was behind us - if I go into any music store I can think of now, Black Sabbath are in the Heavy Metal bins, and the other bands I mentioned including DP are in the Rock section (none of them have a "Hard Rock" section). So commerce doesn't think DP are Heavy Metal.

What about using your ears - Does DP use a wall of fuzz guitar as the mainstay of their sound? - no. Do Heavy Metal bands feature a Hammond Organ on parity with lead guitar? - no. Do DP songs focus on Satan, spirits, evil etc? - no.

I would therefore dispute that any but an ignorant or inexperienced minority would continue to call Deep Purple "Heavy Metal"

I'm clearly younger than a lot of people here. I'm 17, 18 in September 2007. Before I'd heard much metal I always thought "but Smoke on the Water isn't really metal" - that being the only song the average kid knew. Got into the stuff, and the band has done metal. MOST of their music's got a little metal edge in it but not enough to be called metal. However as pioneers of the genre it should be recognised. I always believe Black Sabbath was the first heavy metal band, but not the first band to play heavy metal in front of a large audience - that goes to Led Zep and Deep Purple. So, why not do what we did for Led Zep? Label it proto metal, which automatically redirects users to heavy metal. It admits their influence and likenesses to heavy metal, while agreeing they're not strictly metal. I just noticed they changed it on the Zep page, but whatever...I like the idea.

(The Elfoid 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Are you both disatisfied with the current way it is explained in the lead? I think it's well couched. The problem with using our own ears on this is that that then involves personal subjective opinion, we do not have the editorial licence to do that, we need to stick with what is recorded and referenced. I am all for using common sense but in this particular area one editor's common sense is likely to be seen as a personal point of view. I don't disagree that the bands who have publicly stated that they've been mislabelled might be spot on, but if the general consensus states otherwise (and the Deep Purple records are in the Heavy Metal section in the two big music stores in my town), it's fairer to state the band's view and then how they've been viewed by the various groups (press, reviewers, labels etc.)--Alf ^melmac 10:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also notice, for those who may wish to use it to help the article along Deep Purple Inside Deep Purple 1973 - 1976 - "An independent critical review" (which they get the first year wrong on it's title :s!!) which appears to be history/review/critique with some archive footage - cheap too :) I note there that Virgin place the band in "Metal" :S --Alf ^melmac 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to noble Alf's fine words...may I politely add. Proto??? It's proper practice on Wikipedia to fix re-direct links with the the proper links. Proto is a re-direct for a good reason. It's one of those "Wiki-invented" genres that some little kid made up (like Classic metal and Traditional metal) because they didn't realise that Heavy metal began in the mid-1960s and not the 1980s. I've never seen a book about "proto metal" But there's been dozens of books about heavy metal. And, as mentioned earlier, Deep Purple is in the first chapter of every one of them. Wikipedia isn't about personal opinion... it's about verifiabilty and reference. And Deep Purple, whether it goes against anyones POV, is referenced up to gear in the genre. 156.34.231.188 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Y'know what, people: I'm losing the will to live here... 86.128.47.6 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Al

'Mk' numbers

Could somebody explain the 'Mk' numbers (Mk I - Mk VIII)? These seem to be widely used, are they sanctioned by the band? --Auximines 15:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not familiar with this, I would hazard a guess that they just cover each incarnation of the band, in chronological order. Unless there are secret lineups between the known ones, I don't see how this could be a point of any controversy.

Boffy b 21:44, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

The Mark numbers refer to the different lineups of the band. They are listed at http://www.thehighwaystar.com/FAQ/history.html. These Mark numbers are widely used, including the former and present band members themselves.

Nsoveiko Sat Mar 12 16:06:48 EST 2005

Just saw that the lineups information was moved to a floating table beside the discography (I liked it a lot). I had reorganized the discography by Marks (earlier it was too cluttered with the lineups listed beside each album). With the floating table the "Band members" headers became empty, so I joined Personnel and Discography under a single header, adding an explanation on the "Mk" notation based on your comments. I think we reached a very readable format :) --LodeRunner 14:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bananas album

The link currently points to a disambiguation page, which does not mention the album. Would someone like to fix this? — Pekinensis 20:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the links and the disambig. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The lead needs to be cleaned up

When you first get to this article, you read the first 2 paragraphs and assume it's about a song called Deep Purple. IMO the first sentence should talk about the band, then later on in the article the origin of their name can be dealt with. plattopus^talk 05:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this too and have fixed it. It now has two major subheadings, "The Band" and "The Song". I strongly suggest that separate pages be created for these two items, along with a disambiguation page. Something like, "Deep Purple (band)" and "Deep Purple (song)", with "Deep Purple" redirecting to the band, and a disambiguation to refer people to the song. Not being a pro Wikifier I don't know how to do this and would appreciate if someone else could.--Mintie 01:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it - made an article as "Deep Purple (song)" and put a link on both to each other. This should fix the problem of both being stuck together, as that shouldn't have happened in the first place. The lead still should be done a little better - anyone who knows better how disambiguities are usually addressed in the beginning of an article, feel free to stick something in. Firenexx 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole opening section is still quite poorly written though. It seems odd to start off with Episode Six, whose members weren't in at the start. Patrick Neylan 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've probably killed a few sacred cows, but the opening to this article was just rancid. After so many twiddles and fiddles it was unreadable and didn't tell the story any more. So I've rewritten it almost from scratch. Before anyone gets paranoid, I've kept everyone's fact-input in there, except the histories of Episode Six and the Flower Pot Men - honestly, if they're worth so much text, they're worth their own entries elsewhere.Patrick Neylan 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)1

one of the greatest?

As an electronica fan, I genuinely want to know if this article's affirmative tone is accurate in placing Deep Purple on the platform (I was going to say "altar", but resisted) of Greatest Rock Bands Ever. A more objective tone would be appreciated, something that might explain why Led Zeppelin's place in this higher echelon might go unquestioned, whereas as Deep Purple, not. Did Led Zepp also happen to be skilled self promoters and did Deep Purple opt for the low profile, my-quality-will-speak-for-itself way to Rock History?

I don't think this is that great of an issue. Firenexx 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the article does tend to editorialise in places. For example, the remark about "...most progressive and adventurous..." in the penultimate paragraph should probably say something more along the lines of "...is/was regarded by critics as their most progressive and adventurous (+citations)...", or be removed altogether. I would have changed it myself, but I couldn't be bothered to look up what the critics actually said ;)

J.G. 01/sep/2006

Joe Satriani

Satriani was never asked to stay permanently although he had wished it. I don't understand why people keep putting in this mistake. Joe Satriani himself has spoken of having wanted to stay in the band. I've read an article with Satriani speaking on the subject but I just don't have a copy of it. Does anybody? January 29, 2006. Peter.

Satriani was asked to become a full member of the band ( at least in the same context as Steve Morse is now). This was validated to yours truly by Ian Paice, the drummer in 2001!! Not sure if this counts as absolute verification, but I'll try and find the written confirmation I've seen in several interviews since Harryurz 09:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Live 8

This article makes no mention of Deep Purple's appearance at the Live 8 festival in Canada. Wikioogle=world take over 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorted!

J.G.: 01/Sep/2006

Confused

"In 1967, a band called The Flowerpot Men and their Garden was formed, formerly known as The Ivy League." ... this is nonsensical as if they were formed as The Flowerpot Men and their Garden, they couldn't have formerly been known as anything else. Cloudz679 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

References

References ( for my contributons anyway) added- most of what others have posted I can confirm is included within said reference literature so can someone remove the unreferenced tag? cheers Harryurz 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Links

yesterday i added link to The Highway Star. it was promptly deleted. now the article contains links to:

• the official site http://www.deep-purple.com which has very little info besides latest album, current lineup and tour dates
• list of links from http://www.gillan.com -- calling them "authorized". there's nothing "authorized" about this list, it's a matter of Ian Gillan's personal preferences. as important as he is for Deep Purple, he does not speak for the whole band.
• link to allmusic.com page, which is very supeficial and is known to contain errors.

i argue that the article would be much more informative if it contains the following links:

• offcial homepage
• The Highway Star http://www.thehighwaystar.com/
• DPAS http://www.deep-purple.net/
• Deep Purple Diary http://members.aol.com/nigelyoung/
• Deep Purple web index http://www.deeppurple.co.za/

Nsoveiko 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is very strict about links. Basically - no fansites unless they have a long history of credibilty and notability and offer more info than that already available in the article. And they have to have concensus before they are allowed. The discussions has never been brought up...until now. If 1 fansite is to be allowed then I am certainly for The Highway Star. But if anyone else has preference they may post it here. Once a concensus os reached then the link can be added...inspite of Wiki-policy...based on that concensus. Does DP have a DMOZ entry. Because if they do that can be included and negate the reason for all other links...minus any "official" links which are always allowed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Highway Star has been around since 1993 and if any site has a long history of credibility and notability, this is it. It was also the official site between 1996 and 2001, when management decided they need something more "corporate". but i'd still argue that DPAS has no less credibility. their site is more recent, but Simon Robinson has been involved with DP reissues since 1977. AFAIK, he is now partially employed by Deep Purple (Overseas), the pre-1976 management company. Nsoveiko 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the concensus of 2 :) . Which is all Wiki needs to see. Unless a differing opinion suddenly pops up...link away. And, simply to mimick other prominent band articles, links to official websites of any current members seem to be the norm as well. I've been reading Highway Star as long as it's been around. I'd say it's place secure...even with the addition of a DMOZ link. If there is concensus of course. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An edit has been made saying http://www.deeppurple.org/ is the "official" site - which the site does say,but hey, I could make my web site say this. Any thoughts people?--C Hawke 07:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither Highway Star nor Brian Currin's site have links to ".org" in their links sections. But Highway Star does have this new blurb. If anyone thinks it looks legit put it back in. 156.34.214.105 10:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-Release and Withdrawal of "NEC 1993" Album

I've just been reading about the recent Sony BMG re-release of the "NEC 1993" album without Ian Gillan's knowledge and his plea to fans to 'not buy it'. Sony BMG has also withdrawn the album from sale and is recalling it as well as investigating why Gillan was not informed of the re-release. (info here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6400545.stm). Im relatively new to the whole Wiki markup language, so wouldn't be confident writing a section for the main page on this subject (and am not sure that it should be on the main page, maybe it should be on the seperate 'Lineup & Discography' page). What are peoples thoughts? Anyway... if no-one picks up on this, I might add a small section to the main page sometime over the next few days. Malbolge 18:00, 27 February 2007 (GMT).

That concert is actually part of the 2006 box set "On Tour MCMXCIII", and I'll bet that's the specific release Gillan's talking about. It does contain that specific concert - Birmingham NEC 9 Nov 93. I was going to write a stub about that box set, so I'll probably include this new info too. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

no, he refers to the NEC 1993 show re-released in january separately (along with Stuttgart). i agree that the story doesn't belong to the main DP article (why BBC and Reuters picked it up is beyond me, probably somebody at BMG's PR department is well connected and decided to show with big fanfare how they care for an artist). but a separate article on the box set might be the right place. Nsoveiko 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That box set includes the Stuttgart concert too, there's now an article at On Tour MCMXCIII. It would be nice to have a definite source to say that this is the release Gillan was talking about. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

he was definitely talking about NEC 1993 released separately, not as part of the box. see http://www.thehighwaystar.com/news/2007/02/27/nec-1993-withdrawn-by-bmg/ and the link to BBC interview there. Nsoveiko 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Commercial success

"Their second, and most commercially successful line-up featured..." is this actually true? Hass the current line up sold more CDs and concert tickets? I have no idea, but they have been stable now for several CDs and been constantly on the road, plus their audience is probably bigger.--C Hawke 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

second lineup means mk.2 and not the current lineup. Nsoveiko 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

exactly, my point is that I wonder if the current line up has been more commercially successful than mk 2 were in the 70s - sure the mk2 ad more press coverage, appeared on TOTP, and were widely known, but were they as commercially successful as the current line up?--C Hawke 07:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

current (post-1994) lineup could probably rival mk2 in terms of the number of concert tickets sold. i'm not aware of any public data to prove one way or another, so this is just a speculation. there's also no breakdown of how many album copies each lineup sold, but judging from the chart positions (http://www.thehighwaystar.com/rosas/discog/dpcharts.html) mk2 wins here head and shoulders above the rest. take 3 biggest markets (US, UK and Germany) for example:

Concerto 149/26/22

In Rock 143/4/1

Fireball 32/1/1

Machine Head 7/1/1 (+ platinum record from RIAA)

Made In Japan 6/16/1 (+ platinum record from RIAA)

Who Do We Think We Are 15/4/4 (+ gold record from RIAA)

Deepest Purple 148/1/- (+ platinum record from RIAA)

Perfect Strangers 17/5/2 (+ platinum record from RIAA)

The House Of Blue Light 34/10/1

Nobody's Perfect 105/38/-

The Battle Rages On 192/21/14

Come Hell Or High Water -/29/-

Purpendicular -/58/16

Abandon -/76/16

Bananas -/-/3

no data on Rapture of the Deep, but it didn't make the charts in US or UK either, maybe in Germany.

Nsoveiko 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it is the "commercial" bit I think is debatable. Is their a word that we can replace this with, that indicates that the mk2 lineup had the highest profile reflected in chart positions, media attention etc? As I don't think their is any debate that the mk2 lineup had the highest profile and were, of their time, superstars. --C Hawke 11:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that MkII is not only the most commercially sucesful but also it is always refered to as the classic line up in music magazines, websites etc. 88.1.244.225 11:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC) DP ROCK!

100 million?

The source for that "100 million records sold" claim is ridiculous. Publicist cruft. If that's the best source you can find, I think the 100 million sales claim should be deleted. The same source also claims that Deep Purple In Rock is the best selling rock album in the world. This is obvious publicist flights of fancy. Calling it gross hyperbole doesn't even go far enough. 74.77.208.52 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The numbers 100-120 million records sold were cited in different sources many times, ilikemusic.com is no better or worse than the others. And In Rock was HUGE all over the world, except in North America. The article calls it "the biggest selling rock album of all time" which is not true, but as far as PR exaggerations go, only by a small margin. Nsoveiko 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a horrible source and plainly publicist cruft. If there is a better source out there, please use it. I saw the same sort of cite for The Who selling 100 million albums worldwide and deleted it from their page. There is a page that lists sales claims for music artists. Both Deep Purple and The Who are listed on that page at 100 million. That's fine, because the page is only about sales claims and both bands have that claim properly cited. But this page is saying Deep Purple has sold 100 million albums as though it is a fact. A better source is needed to say that. Until a better one is found, I will change the line to reflect that it is a claim. I would suggest deleting it entirely as I did to The Who's page. 74.77.208.52 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep making the change to reflect that it's a sales claim until a better source is provided. Stop changing it back, because you don't have a leg to stand on. That source has already been acknowledged as containing PR exaggerations. It's a horrible source. There's no reason to accept the 100 million sales claim any more than there is reason to accept that same source's claim that Deep Purple in Rock is the best selling rock album of all time. It's publicist cruft. It does not meet the standard of documented fact. Not even close. 74.77.208.52 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at the BPI and RIAA sites (UK and USA record award sites) show; UK 6 Gold and 10 Silver LPs, which means at least 1.2 Million. In the USA 10 Gold, 4 Platinum and one multi-platinum (but no clue as to how multiple it was - but elsewhere it is listed as double) so that is at least 11 Million. So that leaves 90 Million or so for the rest of the world to make up. Which to me is a LOT - seeing UK and US would be their biggest single markets. --C Hawke 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. but the key words here are *at least*. BPI and RIAA awards do not reflect all the sales. they are not awarded automatically. the record company has to apply for it, present paperwork and probably pay a hefty processing fee. if a record company is not willing to do so, for whatever reason, there's no award. and judging from the history of Deep Purple changing labels over the years from EMI to their own label, to Polygram, to BMG, back to EMI and now to Edel, they never been happy with their record companies. Nsoveiko 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Deep Purple's chart history, in comparison to a band like, say, U2, makes it extremely unlikely that they have sold in excess of 100 million records. Deep Purple are hard rock icons and justifiably celebrated for their influence in the realms of hard rock and heavy metal. The lead of this article properly mentions their stature in that regard. Including in the lead what is likely gross hyperbole from a publicist is beneath wikipedia and beneath Deep Purple, imo. 74.77.208.52 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In tat case I'm in favour of removing the entire sentence --C Hawke 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As am I. How about a vote? 74.77.208.52 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OT, hey somebody knows where can i get lyrics of this group?... I don't know english so it is difficult to me to understand the lyrics please, if you have the lyrics send me an email: qdjorge@gmail.com... SORRY but i've search in many websites...

I replaced this as EMI publishing corporation was provided as a cite and adequately supports the statement.--Alf ^melmac 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The REASON we have third parties like soundscan and the RIAA keeping track of record sales is because the record labels themselves can't be trusted due to CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

EMI can't exactly be called a good source - if this claim was anywhere near the truth tray would be listed here http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt - so until a better source comes along we cannot say anything - see my earlier comment about only 10 million in US sales that have been part of record awards - accepting that this misses some if the record company doesn't apply it will still be a long way short of 100 million. --C Hawke (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have more faith in the EMI source if the band had stuck with them for all their career, which as been stated above, they haven't.--C Hawke (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For my part I am now happy with the 100 million as I have found a reference that quotes a band member interview on the bonus disk of Total Abandon [1] - I have no idea how to add this as a reference though - some people may say it is in Gillan's interest to inflate the figures but the context of the interview seems to indicate he was pissed at not getting any of the money, not self trumpet blowing - the forum post also states that this level of sales started way before Wikpedia, so it is not a case of circular references--C Hawke (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Another good reference.

The proper format for that would be the {cite video} template:

{{cite video | people = | title = | medium = | publisher = | location = | date = }}

The tech data for the Total Abandon DVD should be easy enough to find via Google or Amazon.

The other references should be formatted using the proper templates as well. See Wikipedia:Citation templates. All in due time. Wiki wasn't built in a day. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

DP official web-page

DP's has subscribed new official web-page: www.deeppurple.org as for www.deep-purple.com it's no longer DP's main official page. even the shop on d-p.com is closed. only tourdates will be updates there.

what about dp.org? this's brand new official web-page with band history, news, discography, forum, polls, audio, tour, shop and V.I.P ticket packages for DP shows. so, let's in this article mark deeppurple.org as official band site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.247.41 (talk) 17:36, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Tone cleanup

13-Oct-2007: I didn't find much to rewrite for making the tone or style of the article more appropriate: the article contains many terms from the music-industry, but only the following few slang or hyphenated phrases were replaced:

• "famously bad" weather as "bad";
• "go down without a fight" as "stop";
• "came up with" as "developed" & "found itself in" as "traveled";
• "writing was on the wall" as "in danger";
• "big break" as "big break for commercial success";
• "pull the plug" as "disband";
• hyphenated "live-concert" or "then-concert" and "line-up"; and
• italicized show title "Hair" (musical).

Many commas were added to clarify the phrasing.

After proofreading, I removed the "{{tone}}" tag. -Wikid77 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing from the discography

Polygram 1992: Knocking at Your Back Door: Best Of Deep Purple In The 80's is missing from the compilations. 88.217.80.7 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor Quality References

This article, like the vast majority of music articles on wikiality, has references that are neither primary sources, nor independent ones. Most are in some way related to the band or to the media. Most are commercial sources and are promotion the commercial product that is the band and their recordings.

In essence this is no more than a fan site with references to press releases. This is NOT encyclopedic, it's promotional material for a commercial product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.234.40 (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality? You're trying to base your opinion on a Stephen Colbert gag? Were you looking for the Unencyclopedia? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi my friends: I`m Ian Piece, i`m a member of Deep Purple and i want to say that this page is not a VERY GOOD page because i saw too many errors, ok, i want to change the page of deep purple it is not because i don`t like ir jeje, but i want to be a banner for this page (i had much experience in computers..) (a year ago i was the banner for metin2.es,pages of ootball and music) so.. i don`t know... i like to be abanner for this pager.... see you! bye!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.164.128 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that Ian Paice would have been able to spell his own name, and even a couple of other words. Which makes me think that you are not, in fact, Ian Paice. --Rodhullandemu 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jon Lord - keyboards, backing vocals (1968-2002)

The band wasn't active from 1976 to 1984, so I think this should be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.156.156 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Deep Purple in Russia

"In February of 2008, the band made their first ever appearance in Russia [24]"
This is not true, they played in Russia many times before that occasion.
Tour dates

For example:

2002:

New Ice Arena, St. Petersburg, Russia Sunday March 17
Olympiysky Sports Complex, Moscow, Russia Tuesday March 19
Ice Arena, Belgorod , Russia Wednesday March 20
Ice Arena, Rostov-na-Donu, Russia Friday March 22
Ice Arena, Samara, Russia Saturday March 23
Palace of Youth, Ekatirinburg, Russia Monday March 25

2004:

Palace of Sports, Yekaterinburg, Russia Thursday 7 October
Palace of Sports, Kemerovo, Russia Friday 8 October
Palace of Sports, Krasnoyarsk, Russia Saturday 9 October
Ice Sports Palace, Khabarovsk, Russia Monday 11 October
Palace of Culture, Vladivostok, Russia Tuesday 12 October
Palace of Culture, Irkutsk, Russia Thursday 14 October
Ice Sports Palace (Sibir), Novosibirsk, Russia Saturday 16 October
SKMTL Arena, Samara, Russia Sunday 17 October
Arena 2000, Yaroslavl, Russia Tuesday 19 October
Olympiyski Hall, Moscow, Russia Thursday 21 October
New Ice Arena, St. Petersburg, Russia Friday 22 October
VDNH, Ufa, Russia Sunday 24 October
Palace of Sports, Nizhny Novgorod , Russia Monday 25 October
Palace of Sports, Rostov-na-donu, Russia Tuesday 26 October

and so on...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.99.254.253 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

No, no, no! This is the format used for featured lists of band members, e.g. Dream Theater and Slipknot. Personnel and discography of Deep Purple should be deleted to make way for this article and Deep Purple discography, which I am currently in the process of finalising in my sandbox. Andre666 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you will be copying the personnel back to this page before it gets deleted? Or making a separate page out of it? By my reading youare going to make a new article just for the band member table on the other page. Correct?

My bad... didn't see the new page. Faulty Wiki-radar. All is well. And overdue for combo personnel/discography article anyways. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that Personnel and discography of Deep Purple, should be deleted, then create a Deep Purple discography, and Deep Purple band members bothe articles separate, also read that List Of DP band members it's been suggested to be merged into DP"s page, strongly disagree.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Seen as though Deep Purple had several different line ups, i strongly suggest that the photograph is replaced with one of the classic mk2 line up, as it was the most prominent and infamous lineup, the lineup nowadays cannot match that of its glory days, and the 2 replacement musicians i.e morse etc are exactly that; replacments, purely for convinience. I personally think it does the group no justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.206.40 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox image is supposed to be the most recent free image available. Wikipedia isn't an amateur fansite. Peter Fleet (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The band now is different to the band then, and the picture should account for this. Andre666 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this article about Deep Purple, a reprint of an interview by Chris Welsh that appeared in Melody Maker on 26 September 1970. However, I would like to recommend the piece on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section on this page. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [2]
Mike harkin (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)