I don’t think they ever rehearsed “SOTW” before the concert. In fact, it looks to me like Ritchie turns around before the solo to ask, “Should I do it? Am I doing it?” That’s how it looks from his gestures. Cheers!
Is that the first time Ritchie has been on stage performing with the keyboard player in a loud rock band setting, not being set up on the other side of the stage? Of course his amp was a smaller setup, not too bad all things considered and as Uwe suggests, could Don hear Ritchie properly from up there? Anyway all good. The days of all those Marshalls stacked up, overdriven to the hilt and sometimes destroyed, have sailed. All hail Ritchie! Cheers.
That is a wonderful image TheBlackBoots. I was hoping to see a few along those lines. Although it does look like Roger is trying to explain to Ritchie the downwards and upwards plectrum technique of playing Smoke. Ritchie is probably saying ‘are you sure about that Rog’. Ha ha ha. Thanks again, wonderful to see. Cheers.
Simon has his hand over his mouth as if shocked at what Roger is saying, ‘no Roger, it isn’t that at all’. Ian Paice looks like he is grinning, most probably thinking, "after 55 years and they’re still at it’. Poor ole Don though, he looks genuinely bored, and who could blame him, ’ guitarists, they all speak Gobbledygook’. I wonder what Gillan is thinking, ‘Rog be careful, be very careful’. Cheers.
1 Like
Do you guys really always feel like playing interpreter to figure out Uwe’s cryptic, enigmatic ramblings? I don’t 
… what a two!! OO
1 Like
Guys, Uwe suggested using italics above… and HE used italics when talking about perfect Strangers, so be careful, the lawyer is terrible…
by the way, being Italian, I love italics because in English it’s called italics, but in Italian it’s called “corsivo”
corsivo from Corsica, of course.
1 Like
Down here it’s called “cursiva” too.
Lawyers are called “bloodsuckers”, but not in reference to the DP song!!!
I can sort of see where Uwe is coming from here - PS is a very safe record in that it doesn’t do anything new, revolutionary or break new ground. I can see why Uwe feels it to be pedestrian - if you’re expecting something groundbreaking and mind blowing, it’s a bit of a let down.
If you’re not expecting a ground breaking record, but a really great DP record with great performances, PS is a smash hit with tons of energy.
It’s both a safe and kick ass record. I would suggest that how you feel about it depends on your expectations regarding what you want the band to deliver.
Me? I’m in the middle of Uwe and everyone else - it’s a great Purple record with stellar performances, but it is not as high in the ranking for me because it is so safe and not very adventurous overall. For me it’s the performances and the renewed energy of the band which make it a solid, great Purple record, but it definitely won’t make my top 5 like it does for alot of people.
Daniel and Martin, Mike explained me nicely!
I was as happy as anyone that DP came out at all - remember l’m not the world’s greatest Rainbow fan and found their output in the 80s especially nondescript - and it has some good tunes, but it is neither as daring as WDWTWA or as THOBL. Roger’s and Paicey’s bass and drumming work is nowhere near the standard they set in the 70s for themselves.
But considering their long hiatus and the pressure on them it is forgivable that they handled it safe, especially with Ritchie, a musical arch-conservative. But compared to Perfect Strangers, Perpendicular is the discovery of a new world. I see Perfect Strangers somewhere between a B- and a C+, but in 1984 it was a welcome release. The production though hasn’t aged very well and has none of the vibrancy of Martin Birch’s work with them in the 70s.
In the glossy mid 80s, I was somehow hoping for something more idiosyncratic from my favorite band, Perfect Strangers sounded like DP didn’t want to alienate Boston fans.
1 Like
To play Diablo’s advocate here for a second, Uwe, you could argue that not alienating Boston fans and going for that poppier, glossy 80s sound, while not breaking new ground for the era, was breaking new ground for Deep Purple in that it was a sound and aesthetic they’d never tried before.
What do you think?
I don’t know if I’d agree, personally, but I feel there could be a compelling argument to be made there.
PS obviously has nothing to do with Boston and their music, so it’s hard for me to take such comparisons seriously.
I also find it interesting that you became such a devoted Purple fan in the first place, Uwe, given your complicated relationship with Ritchie, where every time you mention him, a put down follows.
To me, PS was innovative like knocking At Your.. and the title track PS is a mid-tempo song unlike anything I’d heard before, with those distant atmospheres…“Under The Gun” was a punch in the face, even though it was a pacifist song. Hungry Daze, a little prog hyperbole…
In short, for me it wasn’t like listening to the country-tinged “Lazy” or “Maybe I’m a Leo,” or something Beatles-esque from Who Do We Think We Are (the last mk2 before PS)…
1 Like
Exactly, Andre. KAYBD is the quintessential DP track, yet it stands alone somehow in that there’s no other DP track like it. So striking right out of the gate.
1 Like
Agree Daniel, poor ole Uwe is tormented by Ritchie…there is something not quite right there…Cheers.
1 Like
I have to disagree with Uwe quite strongly on this one. Perfect Strangers is actually one of my favourite Deep Purple albums, and in my book it is one of the strongest albums of the Mk II reunion period.
I really don’t hear a band simply playing it safe or “slavishly catering to fan expectations”. To me, there is an enormous amount of energy on that record. It sounds like five musicians who had been apart for almost a decade and suddenly had the chance to play together again.
And yes, there are echoes of the classic Purple sound. Of course there are. But I don’t see that as a weakness. Why would I want the first Mk II reunion album to sound like Purpendicular? That would have been a completely different band and a completely different moment in their history.
For me, the title track alone is enough to make the album special. It has atmosphere, power and one of those great Ritchie solos where you immediately know who is playing. And then there is “Wasted Sunsets”, which I absolutely love. Ritchie’s playing there is incredibly expressive without needing to show off. “Son of Alerik” is another favourite of mine – one of those pieces where his guitar almost seems to tell the whole story by itself.
And I also really like the contrast between the heavy material and the more melodic songs. “Knocking at Your Back Door”, “Mean Streak”, “Gypsy’s Kiss”, “Under the Gun” – to me there is plenty of variety there.
I actually find it quite interesting that Uwe compares Perfect Strangers with Purpendicular. Of course Purpendicular is much more adventurous. It was also made by a completely different version of Deep Purple, with Steve Morse, and after another major change in the band’s musical vocabulary.
But I don’t think “more adventurous” automatically means “better”.
Perfect Strangers has a different strength. It is the sound of Deep Purple rediscovering themselves.
And I also don’t agree with the idea that Ritchie was simply being “musically arch-conservative” here. Yes, he clearly wanted the band to reconnect with the heavier Purple/Rainbow tradition. But listen to the guitar work. There are plenty of unusual harmonic choices, different textures and some very carefully constructed solos. Ritchie was not just copying his 1972 self.
Actually, one thing I find fascinating about the album is how much older Ritchie and newer Ritchie are both present. You get the classic heavy riffing, but also the more melodic and controlled soloing that had developed through Rainbow.
As for the production, I can understand the criticism more. It certainly doesn’t have the rawness or organic feel of the Martin Birch records from the 70s. But I don’t think it has aged badly enough to undermine the album. In fact, that glossy 1984 sound is part of what makes it Perfect Strangers for me. It belongs to its time.
And maybe that is the biggest difference between our perspectives: I don’t need Perfect Strangers to sound as dangerous as In Rock.
It was 1984.
Deep Purple had been gone for years.
The five members had all moved on musically.
And they somehow managed to come back together and make an album that still sounds recognisably like Deep Purple while also sounding like a band that had lived through the 70s and the whole Rainbow/Whitesnake/rock explosion of the intervening years.
That is pretty impressive to me.
So yes, I will happily accept that Perfect Strangers is not everybody’s favourite Purple album. But a B- or C+? No chance for me.
For me it is comfortably in the A range, and probably one of the first Deep Purple albums I would reach for when I want to hear Ritchie with Mk II again.
And maybe this is where my Blackmore bias really shows: give me “Wasted Sunsets”, “Son of Alerik” or the title track any day. Those solos still do it for me.
4 Likes
I agree with Andrea, in the 80s PS had a modern sound without being AoR, the songs were excellent from the first to the last.
but it is true that Purple went for sure, without risks,
and it was the main reproach from the music critics who reviewed it.
on PS they were all Ritchie’s songs, Lord declared that the quality of what he had written did not even come close to Ritchie’s ideas.
they were quality ideas, absolutely hard and bloody, but zero innovation.
Ritchie had already reached his stride, and PS was a “comfort zone” for the band and the fans.
Perfect Strangers is for me much more adventurous than Purpendicular, less risky than Purpendicular, but more adventurous than everything that came from 1984 to today, given the quality of the ideas it was also more creative than everything that came up until 1993.
THOBL even if it broadened the panorama, suffers from the compromises that the band had to make, PS is a fluid album and the production has enhanced this fluidity
1 Like