Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
B3Burner Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Dominant 7th #9

Registered: 10-2003
Posts: 2200
Reply | Quote
A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


I have often thought which is the more correct form of labeling the DP Marks? Or if not a question of "correct", then a question of which is the more widely adpoted and used by those on this and the other forum?

a) sublabeling each Mark II reformation, as Mark IIb, Mark IIc

or

b) giving each Mark II formation it's own distinct Mark number, which in essence would have made Mark IIb = Mark V, and Mark IIc = Mark VII. It would also have thrown off all the following mark numbers making the current line up Mark X instead of Mark VIII.

Which do you agree most with? I tend to go with a) more than b), but I can see how the argument for separate Mark number assignments makes sense. You're not just talking about the same people repeating history, but rather the same people occupying space in a different era each time they have reformed, so should that not in fact constitute whole new numbers?

Last edited by B3Burner, 19/11/2005, 9:09


---
John O'Flaherty
------------------------------
"I play the only musical instrument that's more like a piece of furniture." -- Jon Lord
19/11/2005, 9:07 Link to this post Send Email to B3Burner   Send PM to B3Burner
 
mrsnip Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Mr. Black Hat

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 3352
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


quote:

B3Burner wrote:

I have often thought which is the more correct form of labeling the DP Marks? Or if not a question of "correct", then a question of which is the more widely adpoted and used by those on this and the other forum?

a) sublabeling each Mark II reformation, as Mark IIb, Mark IIc

or

b) giving each Mark II formation it's own distinct Mark number, which in essence would have made Mark IIb = Mark V, and Mark IIc = Mark VII. It would also have thrown off all the following mark numbers making the current line up Mark X instead of Mark VIII.

Which do you agree most with? I tend to go with a) more than b), but I can see how the argument for separate Mark number assignments makes sense. You're not just talking about the same people repeating history, but rather the same people occupying space in a different era each time they have reformed, so should that not in fact constitute whole new numbers?



I tend to a, but have lost track of them.
19/11/2005, 9:48 Link to this post Send Email to mrsnip   Send PM to mrsnip
 
KillerBananas Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 5439
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


...and I don't care! emoticon
19/11/2005, 9:56 Link to this post Send Email to KillerBananas   Send PM to KillerBananas
 
B3Burner Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Dominant 7th #9

Registered: 10-2003
Posts: 2200
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


quote:

KillerBananas wrote:

...and I don't care! emoticon


And not caring is the viable "option-c" that I forgot to include. Sorry about that.

I tend to focus on the catagorization aspects of the band, and forget that others are really just interested in the music.


---
John O'Flaherty
------------------------------
"I play the only musical instrument that's more like a piece of furniture." -- Jon Lord
19/11/2005, 10:26 Link to this post Send Email to B3Burner   Send PM to B3Burner
 
JFM Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 10-2003
Posts: 430
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


I think using letters after "Mk2", as in Mk2a, Mk2b, Mk2c, is a good compromise between recognizing that it's the same lineup (Mk2) and that in certain respects they are different.

Because, you actually have three options:

1) use just Mk2
2) use Mk2, Mk5, Mk7
3) use a combination of 1 and 2, i.e. Mk2a, Mk2b, Mk2c

---
jfm

Last edited by JFM, 19/11/2005, 13:55
19/11/2005, 13:53 Link to this post Send Email to JFM
 
MrEd45 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Admin

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 9983
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


MkI (SoDP;BoT & DP): Blackmore, Evans, Lord, Paice & Simper

MkII(a) (IR;Fb;MH;WDWTWA? ) : Blackmore, Gillan, Glover, Lord & Paice (June 1969 to June 1973)

MkIII (B;Sb): Blackmore, Coverdale, Hughes, Lord & Paice

MkIV (CTTB): Bolin, Coverdale, Hughes, Lord & Paice

MkII(b) (PS;THoBL) : Blackmore, Gillan, Glover, Lord & Paice (April 1984 to Spring 1989{?})

MkV (S & M): Blackmore, Glover, Lord, Paice & Turner

MkII(c) (TBRO) : Blackmore, Gillan, Glover, Lord & Paice (Sometime in 1991/92{?} to November 1993)

MkVI (no studio recordings - onlylive gigs played): Gillan, Glover, Lord, Paice & Satriani

MkVII (P): Gillan, Glover, Lord, Morse & Paice

MkVIII ( )))s; RoTD): Airey, Gillan, Glover, Morse & Paice.


 The only real confusion I've ever encountered is when the second incarnation of MkII is referred to as 'MkII(a)' & the third as 'MkII(b)', because the person refers to the first incarnation as simply 'MkII'.
 All good though, as I'd get really confused if I saw 'MkII(d)' ! emoticon


*edited to accodate Star City's suggestion. emoticon

Last edited by MrEd45, 20/11/2005, 16:17


---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.

" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
19/11/2005, 15:48 Link to this post Send Email to MrEd45   Send PM to MrEd45 Blog
 
MachineHead 1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Talker of Total Bollocks

Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 1340
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


Not wishing to put the cat amongst the proverbial pigeons here but the crux of the alphanumeric marking is that maybe Mk 2(b) could possibly be simply referred to as Mk5 - although I personally don't subscribe to that view - it has to be 2(b) surely.

Its a pity its not all simply letters Ed - maybe just as well cos you need them all for your replies!! emoticon

---
From the moment I heard the opening strains of Highway Star... that was it!!!
Machine Head blew me away
In Rock blew my brains out

19/11/2005, 15:54 Link to this post   Blog
 
gillanagain Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 224
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


I prefer the Mk II a/b/c system for the simple reason that it's the most widespread usage. likewise I call a table a table (and a spade a spade emoticon ). not because it's the best word for that thing but because everybody else calls it a table too. it's the only way to make communication work, isn't it emoticon
otherwise, one of us would point out that Mk VIII was very shortlived, somebody else would say, wait a minute, that's the current mark, have they split up??? and the answer would be, no I mean Mk Satriani...

that said, I also think that the common usage makes sense.
19/11/2005, 22:25 Link to this post Send Email to gillanagain   Send PM to gillanagain
 
Star City Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 729
Reply | Quote
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering


I'd like to add a another level to the Mark listings...

For example the original Mark 2a-IR, each group furhter delineated by each album they were promoting....

nah....I can't balance my checkbook....I just listen to CDs I like and make annying posts in chat rooms emoticon
20/11/2005, 13:18 Link to this post Send Email to Star City   Send PM to Star City
 


Reply





You are not logged in (login)