B3Burner
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
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
Banned user
Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 5439
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: A Question of Proper DP Mark Numbering
...and I don't care!
|
19/11/2005, 9:56
|
Link to this post
Send Email to KillerBananas
Send PM to KillerBananas
|
B3Burner
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!
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
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
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)' !
*edited to accodate Star City's suggestion.
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
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!!
--- 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
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 ). 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
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
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
|
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)
|