I actually kinda resent the rest of DP for firing Rod and Nick. I understand they wanted to go in a heavier direction, but I think they were capable. And I feel that Rod's talent was totally wasted because of the "Bogus Deep Purple" incident in 1980. Sure it might have been cringeworthy, but he didn't deserve to have his career ruined because of it. I heard "Hush" on Q 104.3 the other day and it made me happy because they play zero DP songs not named "Smoke on the Water".
The Rod Evans incident frustrates me to this day because he was so STUPID to do it. Anyone with half a brain should have known that that was going to blow up in his face. It was fraud, and he let himself be drawn into it. Could the original DP have gone heavy? Yeah, probably - both Rod and Nick carried on in good hard rock bands - but I'm not sorry that DP teamed up with Gillan and Glover. I think history has vindicated their decision.
Huge Deep Purple fan but only really like some stuff from the first lineup/first three albums (mainly the self titled third, especially Chasing Shadows and Blind). I have no doubt that if they hadn't replaced Evans and Simper with Gillan and Glover Deep Purple would be just a footnote in rock history, albeit an enjoyable one.
I like the early MKI albums. While a couple of the songs got played on the radio they didn't get overplayed and today I can listen to those albums without feeling I've it all a million times. Scott
If I recall correctly, Rod Evans was quite alright with being fired. In the case of Nick Simper, it was something completely different, and he felt betrayed by the rest of the band since they had been rehearsing and developing ideas with Ian Gillan and Roger Glover behind his back. I think those three first Purple albums are really interesting (the self-titled third one is in fact great, and I enjoy it more than In Rock or Machine Head, I must say).
Big Purple fan and really dig the first line-up. Must admit, they are more American sounding than some of their British counterparts; the reliance on covers, while making them their own, and Evans' voice being quite macho and of its day puts them in that territory for me. Also the very busy guitars and the overall gusto of their material, perhaps this is also what put off English listeners for these first few years. There are quite a lot of highlights, though, brilliant organ playing, the fusing of classical music and the harder edged, slightly psychedelic rock... And of course great songs. Blind, Love Help Me, April, Listen Learn Read On, Anthem... Quite a few songs that can hold their own. Not to mention their sublime covers of Help and River Deep - Mountain High. Don't regret the road they chose, though... Still, the Mark I era holds up pretty well.
Early Deep Purple is actually my favorite Deep Purple of all, especially The Book of Taliesyn. It's a shame Rod Evans and Nick Simper became but a footnote in the band's history, though, I guess Rod didn't really help matters...
What bothers me is that the first 3 albums are almost treated (by the label) as being non-canon with the group's work More so than Come Taste The Band even. The first 3 Purp albums (both digital and physical) come with hideous redesigned covers
Rod's voice was before its day if anything. I've seen him described as a crooner, which I think I agree with
Indeed they do. The Book of Taliesyn features one of my all-time favorite pieces of artwork ( busy and rich, just like the music therein ) but the CD reissue is simply atrocious. It's almost as if they're afraid people will mistake the then band for some other "Deep Purple".
Deep Purple in general seems kind of "forgotten", none of their songs get a lot of airplay except for Smoke on The Water. I intentionally avoided listening to them for a while because I had associated them with that song so much.
I do like Mk. 1 Deep Purple. Their debut is great, and the self-titled third album is still something special today. I like the band in general because - even if we only look at the first years rom 1968 to 1976, there is such a large variety in their music. Each line-up has something unique to offer, and Mk. III, for example, only made two studio albums, and they are so different, with Stormbringer going into a soul/funk direction (which Ritchie Blockmore supposedly completely disliked, yet his funky playing on the album is outstanding in my opinion). Their music is very varied, but it is still cohesive in my opinion. Can't really say which line-up or album I like best.
The artwork looks like an 8 year old made with MS paint back in 1997! Even the CD itself is ugly. Thankfully, you can simply reverse the booklet to get the right album art. Also, it's sad that Rod is likely receiving 0 cents from these albums being purchased.
i love and appreciate early DP, but I'm certainly glad that mk ii existed, and in fact pretty glad that every single distinct iteration of the band did what they did, except maybe we coulda done without the Slaves and masters one, whichever mk that was......do i fantasy-miss an imagined next few lps that the original five could have made? I guess sorta but i wouldn't trade that fantasy for the first few mk iis. All turned out well! Nic Simper Tyrannis!
As far as I'm concerned, the first line-up of Deep Purple is the best one. Firing Nick Simper was a huge mistake. Apparently the other three members felt that Simper was too friendly with Evans and they thought Simper would gripe if they kept him on after Evans was let go. Clearly they were wrong -- Simper never worked with Evans AFTER Deep Purple, so they couldn't have been that close as friends.
