Talk:Jon Lord

Image

Forgot to add reason to edit. The current image has a source now. firenexx 02:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Injury

Garr, some *person* removed the phrase "due to injury" without checking first. [[1]] if you're interested... But don't do that again. firenexx 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

Lengthy additions have recently been made to the article that push WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR off to one side and result in a very unencyclopedic article. Some cleanup is nessessary. 156.34.213.113 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll say. That his surname is "Lord" should not be taken too literally! And nobody cares how he is compared with Emerson and Wakeman. Geez. Wasted Time R 02:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the "unresolved dispute"? For sure it's a bit sycophantic, but I've seen a lot worse. It definitely needs tightening up though. There is far too much history of other people interrupting the narrative flow. If I want to read the history of Deep Purple or Art Wood, I'll follow the links! Mind you, I do think it's valid to compare Lord with Wakeman and Emerson, keeping WP:NPOV. They do provide context for his career. Patrick Neylan 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've revised the whole Jon Lord entry, based on album sleeve notes from his solo and Deep Purple recordings and updated by cross-referencing to key sources and new sites, all of which are added to links. I will add sources and validation when I next revisit this topic. The essentials are all correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ovaismnaqvi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

C3 or B3?

I had always heard that Jon Lord's primary organ was a Hammond B3, but this article consistently refers to a C3. In fact, I'd heard he bought his 1970's B3 from Christine McVie of Fleetwood Mac. In any case, I think the C3 vs. B3 needs confirmation. Howenstein115 18:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The C3 and B3 have the same guts. The C3 is referred to as the "Church organ" because the cabinet shields the player's legs from being seen. "C models had full modesty panels across the back supposedly so female church organists would not worry the congregation was looking up their dress while playing." http://www.redyoung.com/hammond.html 69.115.181.74 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Moose KnuckleHead

Jon Lord's first equipment in Deep Purple was bought by Purple's management in 1968 and consisted of a Hammond C3, Leslie 122 and Hammond HR40 tone cabinet. Jon had never played a Hammond console organ before on a regular basis but he knew very well about that great sounding instrument. Due to those high volume levels in live settings a second Leslie speaker was involved as far as I know until 1970. During the In Rock tour Jon switched to Marshall amplification entirely (Marshall Major and cabinets). At some point around the days of Fireball (1971) the guts of the C3 were removed from their original cabinet and put into a white portable cabinet. That organ had existed until January 1972 when it fell into the Hudson River. Jon needed a new organ quickly so he asked Christine McVie if he could buy her Hammond C3, which she agreed to. It came with two Leslies. In 1973 after the split of the famous Deep Purple Mark II line-up, Jon switched from Marshalls back to Leslies which had been the chosen way of amplification of his Hammond C3 until the end of Deep Purple in 1976. He'd use his gear later on with Whitesnake and on his solo projects. By the time Deep Purple reformed in 1984 his equipment was in terrible shape and Perfect Strangers was recorded using Rainbow's gear which also included a Hammond C3. After being refurbished, Jon's C3 was back in action. It stayed with Purple longer than Jon himself who quit in September 2002. Don Airey took over the instrument but after some time it had to be refurbished again. That's when Don decided to store this organ and two Hammond A100 organs were bought as a replacement. Although Jon can be seen playing Hammond B3 organs from time to time, those organs were never his - with one exception though: He owned a B3 (which can be seen in the making of Machine Head video) but he never used that organ in Purple. His C3 was unique in many ways because it had been heavily modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1781:FA80:50CA:4A1A:5838:76DD (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Tributes

Do these really have a place in a wiki article? Very sad he died, yes. But is it encyclopaedic to know what various people tweeted about it? MrMarmite (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessarily encyclopeadic to know exactly what they said. The comments are just personal opinion, after all. I think the significance is more that certain people, who are themselves regarded as notable in the music business, have recognised that a person was significant in his field. Or do you think they are just "various people" and not notable at all? Else do you have a problem with Twitter as a medium of comment, as it's too pedestrian or trivial? Or maybe you just see it all as mindless twaddle from a celebrity circus that belongs only in the pages of Hello magazine or Nuts? If there had been no comment, whatsoever, from anybody, I guess his passing would not really have been notable, or newsworthy. And he would not have been seen as a worthy candidate for wiki ITN? But I'm not sure how one decides who's tributes are worthy of inclusion and who's are not. Perhaps a simple brief mention of those who have paid tribute would be better (e.g. as in Amy Winehouse? I guess more tributes might be paid at Lord's funeral, or around the time of the funeral. But these things tend to be "of the moment". Perhaps it's wrong to accord off-the-cuff tweets more permanence here than was really intended. p.s. who has had more impact on popular music, Amy or Jon? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we've got editors with heads on their shoulders watching over the true artists of our world. The "reaction" section present in many high-profile celebrity articles where the person died recently is to me fancruft, undue weight, a collection of trivia and screams out like a "In popular culture" section. Really, unless there is some secondary source commentating on the social media and worldwide reaction, there should be no Reactions section... And the individual tweets should never be posted, again, unless a reliable secondary source has commentated on that particular tweet/response. In this case, there were a few articles covering the reaction from fellow keyboardists who said stuff along the lines of "this was the guy that inspired me to play", and that might possibly warrant a couple of sentences within the death section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to trim/moderate as necessary. We can't really have a screaming "In popular culture" section (yet), can we ... because it still is!? I get a little confused about what's a primary source, what's a secondary source and what's a reliable secondary source, these days. But yes, Tweets are closer to "celebrity-stream-of-unconciousness" than anything else, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A primary source is basically the raw facts and figures. A secondary source is a commentary on those facts and figures. A tertiary source then compiles all the secondary sources to provide an overview of a topic. Whether it's reliable or not is one of our tests, and that's basically making sure there is editorial oversight, balance, and a neutral point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. Why is so much good sense provided by Canadian editors at this project?! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I think the significance is more that certain people, who are themselves regarded as notable in the music business, have recognised that a person was significant in his field."

Then why are all of these eulogies? Lord was recognized as "significant in his field" long before he died. No, I'm afraid this putative argument strikes me as a rationalization. TheScotch (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We should keep those tributes that tell us something about the man and/or how he influenced others, and get rid of any that say nothing more than "great guy, great musician". IMHO, the ones worth keeping are those from Ulrich, Wakeman, Lyngstad, Emerson and (maybe) the quote from National Turk. Those from Jones, Butler, Morello, The Kinks, Snider, Adams and McGregor add little if anything to the article. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So the accolade "great musician" is something we should just ignore. Especially if a lot of people say it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Yes, unless Rolling Stone or the like has stated it. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah right, not those dinosaur musician types, then. I mean, what do they know about music! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Birth name

I searched FreeBMD using Surname = Lord, Mother surname = Hudson, dates = June 1941, and the only name given is "John D" (Leicester 7a 689): [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

His name at birth was John Douglas Lord. As per documentary evidence held by his school. Jdlhenley (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)