Some Bastard said:
Speaking of which, In Rock came out the same year as Black Sabbath. And although they're both great albums there is not one riff on Black Sabbath that's as utterly Metal as "Hard Lovin' Man", the closing track on In Rock. Likewise In Rock doesn't have bluesy rock tunes like "The Wizard" or "N.I.B."
1. Metal has never at any point been reducible to a single sonic signature. If 'metal' riffs = metal, then Disturbed is a thousand times more metal than anything Deep Purple has ever done. But that's not how it works. Instead, metal is a full fledged artform - not an aesthetic alone, but a
movement in which execution and ideal go hand in hand. Heavy metal is 'heavy' because of its sound: it is also 'heavy' at the conceptual level. While Sabbath's aesthetic expression during those formative years (1970-75) was clearly heavier and more consistent than anything produced by their supposed competitors, where they really seperated themselves from the pack was at the conceptual level. Nothing in the work of any of their contemporaries remotely approaches the suffocating exestential blackness of "Black Sabbath," "Electric Funeral," "Hand of Doom," "Children of the Grave," "Lord of This World," "Killing Yourself to Live," and "Hole in the Sky," among others. Black Sabbath isn't considered the well spring JUST because they created the basic outline of metal's sound, but also are responsible for the fundamental philosophical direction of the genre. Deep Purple contributed nothing of significance, and only enter into this discussion because they were in the right place at the right time playing somewhat distorted rock music.
2. Sabbath's creation of heavy metal took place over the course of several albums - what happened after 1970 is at least as important as what happened in that year. And here is where it becomes crystal fucking clear how much more significant Sabbath was than any other band of the era.
3. "Black Sabbath" and "N.I.B." are both infinitely heavier than anything on
In Rock.
But somehow recent musical history has dictated that Deep Purple can't be part of Heavy Metal history anymore, even though they once were.
No, they were never metal. There was just a time when people didn't understand the historical arc of the genre enough to properly place certain early bands.
Why is that? Perhaps because over the years they have mellowed with age and are now grey old stadium rockers?
No, because the accretion of bands and experience over the years has made it much more clear than it once was that Deep Purple fundamentally diverged from what was to become heavy metal.
And it is therefore not 'hip' anymore to be influenced by them, even though Heavy Metal would have sounded completely different without them?
There isn't a single metal band of any significance with a discernible Deep Purple (or Uriah Heep or Led Zeppelin or BOC) influence. To suggest that they substantially impacted the genre's sound in any way is fucking ludicrous.
The irony, of course, is that there is a "Big Three" so to speak (Sabbath, Priest and Motorhead - all subsequent metal is in some sense derived from a combination of these bands), but the only actual member which you identified (Black Sabbath) is the one whose influence you seek to minimize.
Do I? How so?
