Deep Purple's Slaves and Masters

I am by no means a big Deep Purple fan. If anything I consider myself a very casual fan of the band. They have some great albums (In Rock, Machine Head, Burn, Perfect Strangers) but also a slew of releases that I care very little about. Ironically, I am a big Rainbow fan and I like just about any Rainbow album tenfold better than any Deep Purple album. I even like the rather short-lived, shaky and unfocused Graham Bonnet (of whom I am not a fan) led version of the band.

This brings me to Slaves and Masters, which in a twist of irony feels and sounds closer to a Rainbow album than a Deep Purple album. That fact may be obvious enough from the line-up which consists of essentially the same key members from the JLT Rainbow era: Glover, Blackmore and Turner. Jon Lord's distinguishing keyboard sound was the only (vague) reminder that I was listening to a Deep Purple album.

As I see it, this album must be heard by anyone who is a fan of Rainbow, especially with JLT. The style found on this album is an amalgamation of the three JLT Rainbow albums.

Apart from being a Rainbow fan, I also like JLT a lot. I never cared for Ian Gillan's voice - I have just never been impressed by his style. If anything, Gillan's style is flat and lifeless, lacking any real emotion and character. I fear I may be walking on eggshells here but that is how I feel about his voice.

Aware that I may start a rift, or alternatively find myself in the minority, I find JLT to be a far superior singer than Gillan who, even in his prime, would screech annoyingly high notes that would come out of nowhere and that for most part seemed to detract from the song rather than add to it. JLT, however, gives each song a meaning. Everything he sings just falls into place the way it should. The songs sound both rockin but also very soothing. You don't feel like a migraine is about to come over you.

It's unfortunate the album was released under the Deep Purple moniker. I can't help but feel that had Slaves and Masters been released as a Rainbow album it may have generated more attention and wider acclaim. As it currently stands, this album has not withstood the test of time and as a whole, it appears to be viewed as another forgotten DP album in a long string of DP albums overshadowed by the success of their earlier 70s albums.

I am huge Deep Purple fan and I like both Ian Gillan and Joe Lynn Turner but to call Ian Gillan one of the greatest rock vocalist in rock history flat and lifeless is the only time I ever heard of Ian Gillan being referred to this way.

Joe Lynn Turner is an excellent vocalist in his own right, and personally I love 'Slaves and Masters' but this is a far cry from classic Deep Purple as it gets, great songs, excellent production, but as you stated this is more Rainbow then Deep Purple, I am still huge fan of the album but Joe Lynn Turner did not fit in with the framework Deep Purple had built.

As much as I am a fan of JLT, I 100% disagree with you, Ian Gillan is a superior singer then JLT, even at 65 years Ian Gillan still delivers, the guy is incredible vocalist and has recorded some of the most iconic metal tunes in rock history.

It's one of the best rock albums IMO.

See, I probably would feel the same way about Ian Gillan if I actually had a better appreciation of Deep Purple's albums. Their 70s albums, especially the ones with Gillan, just do not hold the same appeal to me as the ones from the line-ups which did not feature Gillan.

My feeling about DP is that for most part their albums seem very disjointed. It is somewhat ironic but like I said I like Rainbow a lot but couldn't really give a hoot about most of those early - mid 70s DP albums.

I may however need to revisit those earlier albums. It's possible I will come back with a different opinion.

I've never liked Slaves & Masters, one of the only DP albums I'll never own.

DC, you might like it if you like at as a Rainbow album, unless of course you did not care for the Joe Lynn Turner era of Deep Purple.

Quote :

I have just never been impressed by his style. If anything, Gillan's style is flat and lifeless, lacking any real emotion and character. I fear I may be walking on eggshells here but that is how I feel about his voice.

No, I understand what you mean. You like Arch Enemy. That says it all.

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

I have just never been impressed by his style. If anything, Gillan's style is flat and lifeless, lacking any real emotion and character. I fear I may be walking on eggshells here but that is how I feel about his voice.

No, I understand what you mean. You like Arch Enemy. That says it all.

Anbody who places Turner and Bonnett above Gillian and uses the above criteria for justification and/or clarification of their position. Well

EVERY lp Bonnett has sang on sounds the same from Rainbow to Alcatraz to MSG to Chris Imp...........monotone and no emotion whatsover (IMHO)

At least Joe T has more ramge than Bonnett.

I would like to hear either Joe or Graham sing "when a blind man cries" and give it jusice.

James B, I am also a fan of Graham Bonnett, and feel that the man has an incredible range, that being said Bonnett is no Ian Gillan.

IMO Ian Gillan is one of the greatest rock vocalist in history and the man's influence cannot be overstated.

manny wrote:

James B, I am also a fan of Graham Bonnett, and feel that the man has an incredible range, that being said Bonnett is no Ian Gillan.

IMO Ian Gillan is one of the greatest rock vocalist in history and the man's influence cannot be overstated.

Just said the man was monotone and has no emotion. (IMHO)

Kinda makes one wonder why it's always an album and out for him besides the Alcatraz stuff ?

James B. wrote:

manny wrote:

James B, I am also a fan of Graham Bonnett, and feel that the man has an incredible range, that being said Bonnett is no Ian Gillan.

IMO Ian Gillan is one of the greatest rock vocalist in history and the man's influence cannot be overstated.

Just said the man was monotone and has no emotion. (IMHO)

Kinda makes one wonder why it's always an album and out for him besides the Alcatraz stuff ?

Two reasons from what I read, he is not songwriter and live Bonnett is either hit or miss, and very rarely constant. Based on comments made by both Blackmore and Schenker.

Bonnett is monotone?

Pitchy perhaps, but monotone?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Bonnett is monotone?

Pitchy perhaps, but monotone?

maybe a wrong "term" to use, I don't know. Everything sounds the same and has the same delivery tone. Kinda like Kevin Costner and/or John Malkovich. Every role they speak the same way.

one-dimensional perhaps?

Temple of Blood wrote:

one-dimensional perhaps?

works for me

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

I have just never been impressed by his style. If anything, Gillan's style is flat and lifeless, lacking any real emotion and character. I fear I may be walking on eggshells here but that is how I feel about his voice.

No, I understand what you mean. You like Arch Enemy. That says it all.

Thank God you are back Spec.

You see, I knew I was going to get these sort of reactions but that is the main problem with the 'metal' crowd. If I had waltzed in here and said I hated Bruce Dickinson's voice, despite the fact that I am giving you my personal opinion I'd probably be universally shunned.

The problem I find is that we are all susceptible to these sort of reactions - we take what others say about something we like as some sort of personal affront and try to come up with all sorts of infantile come backs to justify the other person is wrong.

Yes I do like Arch Enemy and I'll take any Arch Enemy, or even any cover of any DP 70s era over hearing Gillan sing anything. But why would that bother you? I am just stating my personal preference. I'm not saying what you like is wrong or that you should think like me. It would be boring if we all thought Gillan had a classic voice - just because Deep Purple is "universally recognised" (i.e. many more like this band than another band) doesn't mean I have to feel the same way about it.

I also expect more mature comments from 40-somethings - especially when I stated right away that I in fact am NOT a big fan of Deep Purple and even said I would most likely one day revisit those early 70s Deep Purple albums.

This thread was not so much about how long and hard you'd do Gillan but rather about the Slaves and Masters album. If you have nothing meaningful about this album to say then I always find the best policy is to just move on to another thread where you can contribute.

I still reeling over your statements regarding Ian Gillan, IMO the guy sings with power and feeling.

Ian Gillan and Joe Lynn Turner are so different, the only reason anyone would even think of comparing the two vocalist is because they both did stints with Deep Purple, and Blackmore brought in Joe Lynn Turner into Deep Purple for one reason and one reason only, to give them a more commercial rock radio sound like he had done with Rainbow, the album did very well but at the end of the day Deep Purple fans did not feel he fit in with Deep Purple.

From various interviews this version of Deep Purple was using Aerosmith's comeback as model for their own comeback, Deep Purple felt they had lost ground in America after 'House of Blue Light' did not sell as well as "Perfect Strangers'.

Joe Lynn Turner even stated they had planned on working with outside songwriters to write more radio friendly songs, if this was truly the plan no wonder his days in Deep Purple were numbered.

IMO as good as Joe Lynn Turner is, the true voice of Deep Purple belongs to Ian Gillan.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

You see, I knew I was going to get these sort of reactions but that is the main problem with the 'metal' crowd. If I had waltzed in here and said I hated Bruce Dickinson's voice, despite the fact that I am giving you my personal opinion I'd probably be universally shunned.

The problem I find is that we are all susceptible to these sort of reactions - we take what others say about something we like as some sort of personal affront and try to come up with all sorts of infantile come backs to justify the other person is wrong.

Yes I do like Arch Enemy and I'll take any Arch Enemy, or even any cover of any DP 70s era over hearing Gillan sing anything. But why would that bother you? I am just stating my personal preference. I'm not saying what you like is wrong or that you should think like me. It would be boring if we all thought Gillan had a classic voice - just because Deep Purple is "universally recognised" (i.e. many more like this band than another band) doesn't mean I have to feel the same way about it.

I also expect more mature comments from 40-somethings - especially when I stated right away that I in fact am NOT a big fan of Deep Purple and even said I would most likely one day revisit those early 70s Deep Purple albums.

This thread was not so much about how long and hard you'd do Gillan but rather about the Slaves and Masters album. If you have nothing meaningful about this album to say then I always find the best policy is to just move on to another thread where you can contribute.

Don't get your knickers in a bind. I assume you were commenting on my comment. I couldn't care less what you think about Gillan. I was saying that I see your POV. You like Arch Enemy and that band sounds to me like my grandmother being raped with a dirty pair of salad tongs. I wouldn't expect someone who can appreciate that as music would appreciate Gillan as a vocalist. Also, if you are going to elaborate on your own comment about "mature comments" with one like "how long and hard you'd do Gillan", you already have defeated your own purpose. YOU brought up Gillan and I was commenting on THAT part of your original post. If you don't want a subject commented on, then don't mention it. Now quit cryin' and put on your shoes...I'm taking you and your mum out for ice cream.

Manny, I like your thought process and I can definitely see your angle on this issue. In fact I feel the same way about two of my most favorite bands too: Iron Maiden and Judas Priest which both had different singers from those who sang on their classic albums.

I am certain that if someone said Blaze was a better vocalist than Bruce I'd state a similar view as yours. In fact on that note, I would say the X-Factor while a superior album to either No Prayer and Fear of the Dark, still has many flaws and is perhaps held back at times due to Blaze's limited range.

I personally am a fan of 'Slaves and Masters' I think the songs are good, Joe Lynn Turner sounds great and gives a flawless performance, I consider it a Deep Purple album because, well frankly that is the name slapped on the album.

I think if they called the band Rainbow, IMO the album would have gotten a better reception from fans and critics, I still think it is a great album despite the name, but this was not material that Deep Purple would have even attempted with Ian Gillan IMO.

Joe Lynn Turner makes the album sound very "metal".

This is why it's one of my favourite DP albums.

SpectreFate wrote:

Don't get your knickers in a bind. I assume you were commenting on my comment. I couldn't care less what you think about Gillan. I was saying that I see your POV. You like Arch Enemy and that band sounds to me like my grandmother being raped with a dirty pair of salad tongs. I wouldn't expect someone who can appreciate that as music would appreciate Gillan as a vocalist. Also, if you are going to elaborate on your own comment about "mature comments" with one like "how long and hard you'd do Gillan", you already have defeated your own purpose. YOU brought up Gillan and I was commenting on THAT part of your original post. If you don't want a subject commented on, then don't mention it. Now quit cryin' and put on your shoes...I'm taking you and your mum out for ice cream.

I am bemused by you sarcasm or arrogance. Your inference that because I like a band like Arch Enemy my tastes are somewhat inferior because I cannot appreciate a singer that you and others like shows very poor judgment on your behalf. I expected people to disagree with me and I think Manny raises some good points but I didn't expect anyone to judge my tastes on this board. This is the sort of behaviour you'd encounter on Blabbermouth, which is why I refuse to post there. But replies such as these really make me question why I even bother to post on a metal-related board - in fact I don't post anywhere else precisely because I don't care to deal with other peoples immaturity and insecurity.

In any case I am somewhat disappointed. The many ideals that metalheads preach about open-mindedness and so on go out the window when we end up pointing fingers at what people like or dislike.

Hey Rokket, I think you are taking this a bit too serious, lighten up. It`s only music we are discussing, and it`s only Spectrefate .
And Gilbert, just out of curiosity, what in the hell do you mean by saying JLT makes this album sound very "Metal"????

Perhaps you are right, I don't even know why I got so defensive.

In fact, I must say that after I replied to Spectrefate I kinda thought wtf I am going too far with this. Sorry dude no heart feelings.

Olafsto, you're right it's only music. It's not like we are splitting the atom - although I certainly seem to have overreacted in that manner. Maybe subconsciously I was hoping others would agree with me.

I really don't like picking arguments or getting worked up over these things and it is outside my character generally to do so.

Anyway I didn't mean to get anything start or upset anyone and equally so I'm sure no one here meant the same to me.