Deep Purple versus Led Zepplin
April 26, 2007 9:41pm CST
In their heyday both these bands were mentioned in the same breath, but as time has gone on Zepplin have assumed mythical status (mainly due to superior management) while Purple although enjoying something of a renaissance have slipped well behind. Yet for me Deep Purple MK 2 were always better. Gillan had a better voice, Blackmore always moved me more than Page, Paice was technically a better drummer than Bonzo and JP Jones probably was Glover's equal And of sourse Deep Purple had the awesome talents of Jon Lord who reinvented the Hammond organ. What Zepplin had that Purple didn't was a shrwed, canny Manager who made things happen big time However, it has to be said that in general Zepplin's songs wer more appealing to the general population, whereas Purple's main strength was its live performance and the interplay between five very different individuals. I'd like to read what other's think
2 Dec 07
I like them both, but i can say that Zeppelin is a legend.Maybe cos they are slightly older, maybe cos they started with blues inspiration, i dont know. However, i prefer Deep Purple, because they have more nice songs than Led Zeppelin, of course it is logical if you consider Purple have created far more albums than Zeps. Both bands have great musicians, Lord is a masterpiece of musicians, and Gillan is probably the best vocalist ever.
10 Jun 08
Its funny you should say that Zeppelins songs were more appealing to the general population when they weren't into releasing singles and preferred to concentrate on the live format, much like Purple in fact. I think Zeppelin have the edge because their songs were more varied and more cutting edge. I also think Zepplin's interplay between individuals was even better than Purple's, the understanding between Bonham and Page/Jones in particular was uncanny.