Roger Glover’s Firing From Deep Purple

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Siegmund, Jan 3, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Siegmund

    Siegmund Vinyl Sceptic Thread Starter

    Location:
    Britain, Europe
    I’ve never seen this adequately explained.

    The facts, though, are well-known: Blackmore was about to quite Purple and wanted to form a band with Paul Rodgers, recently of Free. Lord and Paige pleaded with him not to go. Blackmore’s antagonist Gillan had already handed in his notice, but Ritchie made his continuance in the band conditional on Glover’s also being given the boot.

    This is what I find strange: Blackmore had no issues with Glover as a musician (and, to prove it, he chose to work with him again a few years later in Rainbow) and probably none as a person, either. So, I’m guessing it was basically about money?

    Which leads me to ponder the Purple chain of command: Deep Purple were by no means a struggling rock band when Gillan and Glover joined them in 1969. They’d had a big American hit single, they had a record contract and their music was being played on the radio. You might have described them as a ‘bubbling under’ act in Britain/Europe but a ‘name’ act in America. So: did Gillan and Glover join as salaried employees, on less favourable terms than the ‘founding three’?

    I’m guessing that the terms offered to Hughes and (especially) Coverdale in 1973 were considerably less advanageous, given that Purple was by then one of the biggest bands in the world and Coverdale was no more than a semi-professional singer? Hughes had much more of a pedigree, but he was hardly at the level of Lord, Blackmore and Paice.

    So - was the idea ‘Now Ian’s gone, let’s get rid of Roger, too, and hire two young and hungry strives to replace them. We can pay them less and take a bigger cut for ourselves.’

    Probably not something anyone would like to admit to, but it sounds credible to me. Unless anyone knows any different?
     
    Murph, tug_of_war, PDK and 5 others like this.
  2. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    The only explanation I've ever heard is that Blackmore assumed that Gillan and Glover were tight since they worked together in Episode Six, and therefore he thought that if Gillan was fired, Glover would cause trouble. So his solution was to cut both of them and the rest of the band agreed. Later when Blackmore approached Glover to join Rainbow, he admitted he was wrong about Glover and apologized to him personally.
     
  3. Anno

    Anno Forum Resident

    Location:
    Penketh
    “It’s not personal, it’s business.”
     
    Murph, tug_of_war, hi_watt and 4 others like this.
  4. vinyl diehard

    vinyl diehard Two-Channel Forever

    What does that say for Lord and Paice? Pretty cold.
     
    seacliffe301, Murph and tug_of_war like this.
  5. Hootsmon

    Hootsmon Forum Resident

    Location:
    clackmannanshire
    Hughes has said in interviews that he was being scouted, and was sounded out about joining the band months (I've read late '72 but don't know how accurate that is) before Gillan officially left. Hard to think that they'd have wanted Hughes solely as a singer. Who knows?
     
  6. Anno

    Anno Forum Resident

    Location:
    Penketh
    He was only interested because he thought Paul Rodgers was joining!
     
    head_unit and kanakaris like this.
  7. Instant Dharma

    Instant Dharma Dude/man

    Location:
    CoCoCo, Ca
    I saw the thread title and thought to myself “Why fire him at this stage, they may as well retire”. Then I realized....
     
  8. Purplerocks

    Purplerocks Forum Resident

    Location:
    IN
    Yeah, with all of the $$$ laid on the table by management to keep it moving frwd, they definitely followed that rather than any “friendship”.
    Buddy of mine once said quite wisely “it’s music business, not friend business”
     
  9. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    It says that Blackmore was the de facto leader of the band in those days. Also it says that rock bands are not gangs of tight friends, they're business arrangements.
     
    Murph, Frozensoda, tug_of_war and 3 others like this.
  10. Siegmund

    Siegmund Vinyl Sceptic Thread Starter

    Location:
    Britain, Europe
    Purple has always been a ruthless machine. They got rid of Evans and Simper in the same cold-blooded way.
     
  11. Siegmund

    Siegmund Vinyl Sceptic Thread Starter

    Location:
    Britain, Europe
    I'm not sure he was the 'artistic' leader all the time - he seemed to share that position with Lord,; but it was Blackmore's idea to pursue 'hard rock' after Lord's Concerto project and that move made them hugely successful, thus strengthening Ritchie's position in the band.
     
    dkmonroe likes this.
  12. evarlam

    evarlam Forum Resident

    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    Deep Purple started in early 1968, as corporate scheme by HEC Enterprises with one goal: make big $$$$ in pop music industry. From the beginning (with Jon Lord as the initial leader), they were not a gang of closely related buddies, playing the cowboys at public school, but a group of well seasoned professional musicians, quite experienced and "battle hardened" since the early 60's. Only Ian Paice, who was the youngest of the bunch, had the least professional experience till then. They knew each other previously, but they were no buddies: simply met often at the studios for session recordings etc.This explains how a group of people who hardly knew each other achieved such a wonderful results recording in less than 3 days their first album "Shades of DP". Despite the fact the road and everyday routine brought them very close, and some level of friendship was established, they never forgot that it was "business" above all. In my book, Blackers was the most "mercenary type" figure of DP. Always kept his true emotions well hidden, being awkward and weird to everyone, and judging his peers and band mates purely on a basis of their artistic merits (and if he felt that he could work with them) and not by some "friendship" factor. For Blackers DP was a "job", a professional project. When he felt that a current project goes no where for both artistic and commercial reasons, he quit. I think he was extremely honest when he said in a very recent interview that he was so happy that DP found an excellent guitarist like Steve Morse, and this way himself (Blackmore) felt at last free, not having to be "chained for ever" with DP. It sounds cynical and dry opportunism, but that's Blackmore's way of professional thinking.
    Back in 1972-73, there were two major factors behind the unfolding drama: the band still could not succesfuly penetrate the huge US market (despite the success of Machine Head and MiJ), and thus becoming themselves huge in the LZ level, and secondly, the growing tension between IG and Blackers. Ian Gillan's ego was inflated to enormous proportions (together with his alcohol abuse) and for a hard-necked seasoned professional (who played with legends of RnR) like Blackers this was intolerable. Remember, when mixing of "In Rock" finished, IG complained that at places his vocals were "buried", and Blackers told him "Who do you think you are? the f***ing Tom Jones?". So, at some point the glass cracked completely and to add to the drama, Blackers felt that he needed a "reboot", like in 1969, when they fired Simper and Evans, a new start aiming at bigger success (especially in the US). So, as the de facto artistic driving force, he enforced his will for a drastical change (I don't say 'leader", because more less DP members were equals and divided equally writing credits and royalties - and always Blackers respected enormously Jon Lord as a musician and as a personality, he was the "father figure" of the band, being also the oldest in age).
    Roger Glover , the cheerful "stinkin' hippie" was, unfortunately a victim of this drama, and yes it was just "business", and the pursuit of bigger and bigger and bigger success.
     
  13. Hootsmon

    Hootsmon Forum Resident

    Location:
    clackmannanshire
    I know that Rodgers was first choice but does that tie in with Hughes joining? Do you have a theory about Glover's sacking?
    It's always seemed to me that it may have been a Blackmore decision regarding Glover ie he came in with Gillan, he's Gillan's mate so I'm pushing Glover out when Gillan leaves. But instead of telling Glover well in advance he drops a bombshell. I'd be interested to know exactly when Glover was told he was out.
     
  14. evarlam

    evarlam Forum Resident

    Location:
    Athens, Greece


    From 4:10, all the drama backstage surrounding the events. Keep in mind what RG says: "Ritchie was always looking for something new". This is the key, in my opinion!
     
    Hootsmon likes this.
  15. Thank goodness. The song they've released from their upcoming (August?) album is quite good.
     
    head_unit likes this.
  16. dlokazip

    dlokazip Forum Transient

    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Truth be told, I don't think Blackmore really knew what he wanted at the time. There are, also, rumors that he wanted to start a power trio with Phil Lynott and Ian Paice.

    Management was working them to death. Blackmore wasn't happy and needed to lash out. Gillan was an obvious target, but it looks like Glover got caught in the crossfire.

    After Blackmore worked with Glenn Hughes, Craig Gruber, Jimmy Bain, and Bob Daisley, it would seem that he grew to appreciate what Roger brought to the table, which is why he brought him into Rainbow. Once Gillan left Deep Purple for a second time, Ritchie knew not to repeat his mistake, so they simply hired Joe Lynn Turner and kept Roger. (Roger Glover and Bob Nouveau are the only bassists Ritchie has worked with for any length of time. His opinions of the others seem to range from indifference to outright disgust.)

    In short, Ritchie made a mistake, which he later had to admit to himself.
     
  17. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    I always figured that after he insisted that they go heavy rock and then everything exploded for them, they were just like, "OK, we'll do whatever he says, it seemed to work out OK that one time." :laugh:
     
  18. evarlam

    evarlam Forum Resident

    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    Yes it's true about Blackers that often he didn't really know what he wanted, and got bored too easy! So what he did always? a total "reboot"! When LZ I released, he exclaimed to his band mates "that's what I want!". Rod Evans was not a bad singer but not up to the new task (although he tried and to some point proved with Atomic Rooster that he could be a good hard rockin' singer), and Nick Simper was in the crossfire, so got the boot as well (I get with a grain of salt what years after the events Ian Paice told, that he didn't get along well in muscial terms with Nick Simper and that he regarded him as an "old school rockabilly 50's" bass player - which he's certainly not..... DP and their management always treated Nick like Stalin treated Trotchky, 'photoshop" him out of the band's history )
     
    dkmonroe and dlokazip like this.
  19. dlokazip

    dlokazip Forum Transient

    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    I don't feel sorry for Roger Glover because, in the end, he was made whole. I don't feel sorry for Glenn Hughes because he reaped what he sowed.

    Nick Simper got screwed.
     
    Mikewest, GodShifter, chewy and 2 others like this.
  20. vinyl diehard

    vinyl diehard Two-Channel Forever

    Unlike Golden Earring.
     
    head_unit, hi_watt and slipkid like this.
  21. dlokazip

    dlokazip Forum Transient

    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Oo, that's creepy. I'm listening to Golden Earring's To The Hilt for the first time right now. :eek:
     
  22. grouploner

    grouploner Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I'm not an expert on any of the theories posted, but as a teenager during 1972-73, I can say that Deep Purple was at least as big as Led Zep in the US during that period. I can't really see that they could have been more popular.

    They didn't sustain that popularity level in America, but at that time they were huge.
     
  23. JakeKlas

    JakeKlas Impatiently waiting for an 8-track revival

    Location:
    United States
    What I find interesting is that in getting rid of Glover and bringing in Hughes, Hughes starts presenting music that Blackmore doesn’t care for. Things are great for Burn, they get a bit too funky for Stormbringer which has a lot of Hughes’ influence, and Blackmore leaves. (Not necessarily just because of funky music.)

    How interesting things might have been if Glover had stayed and they just replaced Gillan with Coverdale.
     
  24. Slash-n-burn

    Slash-n-burn Forum Resident

    Location:
    Northern England
    And yet Black Sabbath, who were bigger than neither Purple nor Zep 45+ years ago, have racked up more album sales than Purple at least in the US.
    I’m not sure what summaries can be drawn there...
     
    head_unit and zphage like this.
  25. evarlam

    evarlam Forum Resident

    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    The management and band's goal was not to be one hit wonders but to be equally big as LZ! The future events proved that LZ had and still have an enormous legacy in the US, while DP almost got forgotten. Jon Lord said that it was during the MKIII era that DP were going to be really huge, and almost conquered the US market.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
    marklamb likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine