|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: An average record, with a few songs that save this from being a complete failure. After the failure with which Mark II said goodbye to the world ( Who Do We Think We Are), David Coverdale replaced Ian Gillan, Glenn Hughes replaced Roger Glover and thus, Mark III was born. By 1974 the band had already changed 3 bass players and 3 singers, a trend which would be continued for many years, resulting in 8 incarnations of the band with Ian Paice and Jon Lord as the constant members until the latter's unfortunate departure in 2002.
So, Burn, the debut of Coverdale is just an average record. I know this is a controversial opinion, but hear me out. Yes, the record grooves. Yes, the record has great solos. Yes, the album features Burn which is a Purple classic. But there’s one thing ruining every song here, even the best ones. It is Coverdale. Now don’t get me wrong, as far as technique and range goes he is brilliant. But he is incredibly insincere in his singing, with that irritating tone in his voice that just comes off as a Gillan/Plant parody. Want proof? Look at the second track, which at the hands of Gillan could become a minor track in the album, but as it is, sucks horribly. The chorus is moderately catchy, as well as the riff, but the delivery of Coverdale is banal. Lay Down, Stay Down boasts an even stronger riff, but the vocal melody is unmemorable, plus David’s clichéd wailing doesn’t cut it.
And as far as riffs go, both the title track and Mistreated qualify. Excellent riffing on both songs, plus great hooks to get past Coverdale’s voice. And the energy on both songs is great, too, with relentless rhythm sections on the former and ferocious grooves on the latter.
But Sail Away is partially good; it has a good riff, verse and chorus and nice soloing from Blackmore on the outro but is kind of bland emotionally. Which is a major problem of the record in general. Apart from the two riff-fests I mentioned above, no other track is emotionally investing. Sure, the songs are powerful, but this is Purple we’re talking about; they are supposed to have powerful rockers, after all. But beyond that? Compare any song here to Pictures Of Home for instance. The latter is not only powerful; the melody sung by Gillan is great and untrivial, unlike most melodies here. What’s even more, his singing is more attention-capturing and thrilling than Coverdale’s. Not conventional ‘hard rock whining’, but really sincere and authentic. Words cannot describe the difference; it is one of those instances where you just have to listen carefully to understand.
Anyway, What’s Going On Here is another ordinary, muffled rocker with little melody and again Blackmore carrying the song. In other words, the formula of this Purple incarnation doesn’t work. A great riff, a typical, slightly catchy melody at best, a slice of funk grooves thrown in some songs, a duet between Hughes and Coverdale (oh god) and then some nice soloing by Blackmore, accompanied by Lord. That’s all there is to this album. At least the formula of Mark II was more exciting musically and emotionally, not to mention it had better playing from everyone. Finally, ’A’ 200 is an overlong instrumental. Cool 'space' effects but why do you have to make it 4 minutes when it doesn’t expand its musical theme?
Anyway the record is just a trivial release by Purple’s standards; only hardcore fans or admirers of Coverdale’s voice will be satisfied. It has none of Purple’s previous instrumental prowess, with most of the solos and grooves being good, but not bringing the house down like on the earlier records. I don’t know; apart from Burn and Mistreated and some parts of Sail Away this album is useless, both as a musical statement and as an introduction to the new members of the band. If you’re in for generic hard rock and uninspired songwriting (for the most part), get this at all costs.
| other reviews of this album |
Nagrarok (4.5)
With Burn, Deep Purple did more than just revitalize themselves....
|
|
Album Rating: 4.5
This review makes me really sad.
Not gonna neg it but I disagree almost with its entirety. Some of the points which i disagree are the following,
"8 incarnations of the band with Ian Paice and Jon Lord as the constant members until the latter's unfortunate demise in 2012."
Lord retired from Deep Purple in 2002.
"But he is incredibly insincere in his singing, with that irritating tone in his voice that just comes off as a Gillan/Plant parody."
Can't see any resemblance to Gillan and the comparisons with Plant are inaccurate. He only sounded like Plant on Whitesnake's post Slide It In albums. But because most people have only checked 1987 from Whitesnake, they compare him with Plant all the time.
"But Sail Away is partially good; it has a good riff, verse and chorus and nice soloing from Blackmore on the outro but is kind of bland emotionally."
Second most emotional track of the album behind Mistreated.
"Not conventional ‘hard rock whining’,"
Coverdale was far from conventional ‘hard rock whining’ especially at the time. How many vocalists were better than Coverdale at his prime?
"It has none of Purple’s previous instrumental prowess, with most of the solos and grooves being good, but not bringing the house down like on the earlier records."
Burn has some of the best playing by Blackmore or Paice.
"If you’re in for generic hard rock and uninspired songwriting (for the most part), get this at all costs."
But if you want some incredible rocking just get Bridges to Babylon.
Anyway, not gonna continue with that but I think your dislike for Coverdale has clouded your judgement but it's your opinion so it's all good.
| | |
I totally agree about the Coverdale part man.
Pos'd.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
I agree with manos on this one. Burn is definitely one of DP's greatest albums imo.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
@manosg
''Lord retired from Deep Purple in 2002''
-I stand corrected and will edit that ASAP
''Can't see any resemblance to Gillan and the comparisons with Plant are inaccurate. He only sounded like Plant on Whitesnake's post Slide It In albums. But because most people have only checked 1987 from Whitesnake, they compare him with Plant all the time.''
-But Plant himself disliked Coverdale for sounding like a copy of him. And he isn't even a copy of early Plant; he reminds mid-70s Plant with the more 'helium' intonation in his voice. And Coverdale's vibrato is suspiciously close to Gillan's, imo.
''Second most emotional track of the album behind Mistreated.''
-Well, emotion is possibly the most subjective thing about music, so to each their own, I guess.
''Coverdale was far from conventional ‘hard rock whining’ especially at the time. How many vocalists were better than Coverdale at his prime?''
-A lot. Gillan, Plant, Peter Gabriel, Greg Lake, Freddie Mercury, Dio all are much better than Coverdale. And I'm not talking (only) about technical prowess. All the gentlemen named above are original, sincere and untrivial. Coverdale sounds like a pastiche of rock/blues cliches.
''Burn has some of the best playing by Blackmore or Paice.''
-I fully agree with this and stated it in the review. Perhaps, the generalization in the end of the review about the playing confused you, but I was talking more about the majority of the tracks not (my personal) highlights. I will edit that section to make it more clear, because it looks a bit confusing to be honest.
''But if you want some incredible rocking just get Bridges to Babylon.''
- Well, Bridges is hardly a masterpiece, for sure, but its better moments are rocking. Same goes for Burn, its just that it has fewer of those moments (imo).
| | |
"But Plant himself disliked Coverdale for sounding like a copy of him. And he isn't even a copy of early Plant; he reminds mid-70s Plant with the more 'helium' intonation in his voice. And Coverdale's vibrato is suspiciously close to Gillan's, imo."
It's almost as if you've never actually heard Coverdale sing for Deep Purple (you must have been listening to some weird version of this album with someone else singing). Coverdale sounded absolutely nothing like Plant during the 70's. When people liken him to Plant they're talking about his singing with later-era Whitesnake, no one ever says he sounded like Plant during his Purple days.
You realise Coverdale is the one with the deep bluesy voice right? Hughes is the one who sounds like he could be on helium.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
@JamieTwort But he is not a complete copycat of Plant. It's just that his voice is largely influenced by him and resembles him in style. No, they don't have the same tone colour, but he is a derivative of Plant and Gillan, there is no questioning that. He has no originality compared to these two.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Well, it's a bit funny to read that Plant disliked Coverdale for sounding like him because I honestly believe that he didn't especially in the 70s. And the funnier is that if he disliked Coverdale for that reason, how should he feel about some of his band's tracks sounding suspiciously similar to other songs? (eg. Stairway to Heaven)
"emotion is possibly the most subjective thing about music"
agreed
"A lot. Gillan, Plant, Peter Gabriel, Greg Lake, Freddie Mercury, Dio"
Well six aren't a lot haha. But it's a matter of taste so I'll pass.
"Well, Bridges is hardly a masterpiece, for sure, but its better moments are rocking. Same goes for Burn, its just that it has fewer of those moments (imo)."
For me Burn is infinitely better than Bridges.
| | |
@doctor: Coverdale has an entirely different style to either of those so he is in no way derivative of them, there's no questioning that.
| | |
wtf is this
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
2.5? Lol.
| | |
I don't really have a problem with the rating or his opinions on the album (even though I disagree) cos it's his opinion but what he's saying about Coverdale is just objectively incorrect.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
oh man what is going on in here?
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
This is probably the most boring of DP's classic era.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
@JamieTwort what is 'objectively incorrect'? Coverdale has no style of his own, unlike the guys I mentioned above. Plant? Hard rock/blues archetype and influencing every other hard rock singer since Zep's debut.Gillan? Thunderous and wild, influencing heavy metal singers. Ozzy? Giving a new, dark dimension to heavy metal vocal deliveries. Freddie? The quintessential arena rock vocalist and extremely diverse (he's been everywhere from operatic passages, to classic rock, pop, disco, country, even jazz etc.).Peter Gabriel? The epitome of theatricality. Greg Lake? Sensitive at one moment, ferocious the next one, and influential to prog rock. I could go on but there is no use. What did Coverdale bring to the table anyway? He just took Plant's way of singing and blew it out of proportion with exaggerated vocal deliveries. Throw in a bit of Gillan aggresiveness and we're set.
| | |
I'm saying that him ripping off Plant/Gillan's singing style is objectively incorrect cos he sounded nothing like either of them during his time with DP where he sang in a completely different style and didn't try imitate either of them.
"He just took Plant's way of singing and blew it out of proportion with exaggerated vocal deliveries."
How did he? Find me one example on this album where you think he sounds like he's ripping off Robert Plant with this extra 'helium' intonation in his voice that you talk about.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
@JamieTwort Let me explain myself a little better. When I say that he sounds like Plant, I am talking about the attitude. Not the tone colour of his voice. I stated that before, I think. Of course Coverdale's tone differs from Plant's, which differs from Gillan's, which differs from....you get the point. But that's normal. What's not normal is having the same c*ck-rocking attitude in his singing. Example? 'Mistreated','Might Just Take Your Life' and basically the whole album, with overreliance in screaming deliveries and 'acrobatic' vocals. Notice again, I am not talking about his tone or technique.It is different from Plant's, that's for sure. The effect, though, is the same (see:C*ck rock deliveries). In that respect , Plant is the one responsible for that vocal style. What is Coverdale responsible for?
| | |
Can think of literally zero vocal moments on this album that remind me of Robert Plant.
| | |
Yeah, Coverdale's voice is a lot more bluesy and soulful than Plant's
| | |
I certainly think you're entitled to have this opinion, but the entire foundation for your criticism of the album seems, well, incorrect. Can't follow you on this one.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
And on this album there are no Coverdale vocal 'acrobatics'. The 'acrobatics' are being performed bu Glenn Hughes. Certainly no cock-rocking attitude on here too.
| | | |
|
| |
