Talk:Smoke on the Water

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frank Zappa, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Frank ZappaWikipedia:WikiProject Frank ZappaTemplate:WikiProject Frank ZappaFrank Zappa articles

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Clarification

I changed the description from "chromatic" to "minor key blues etc" as this is technically more correct. I also added a comment on how it is actually played by Blackmore. 30/3/05 Modi

POV

This article--especially the first paragraph--needs fixing to conform to W:NPOV. Phrases like "immediately recognizable", "the single most famous riff in heavy metal music history", and "Ian Gillan's expressive vocal" are all personal opinions, and need to be reworded in a way that they can more easily be defended--possibly by quoting someone prominent in the music industry using similar descriptions. --Jwanders 18:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just went over the article in detail, and changed a couple of words, but I really don't think it was that bad to begin with (not surprising since I wrote much of it originally). It is undeniably a famous riff, and the word "perhaps" is in there (though you did not quote it above). The adjective "expressive" may be non-NPOV but in the mildest way, it's not like it says "fantastic vocal". Any adjective can be considered POV to this extent -- prose without adjectives is deadly (especially in an article about music or some other art form where you are trying to *describe* something), and I think "expressive" is a pretty neutral and non-controversial one. Please take a look at the current article, remove "expressive" if you must, and re-consider the POV tag which needlessly undercuts the usefulness of the article. Thanks Jgm 14:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's better than I had thought. Before I tweaked on the "immediately recognizable" bit (mostly because I'm sure I wouldn't recognize it) and then misread (and misquoted!) "expressive" as "impressive". But it still seems a little personal essay-ish to be. I mean, take this section:

"Despite the heaviness of the guitar part, constant movement and interplay within the supporting parts keeps the feel of the song from becoming leaden. The song's structure takes a contrasting verse-chorus form, with the driving verse sections building musical tension while the soaring chorus releases it."

This seems like an opinion to me, but maybe such description is necessary in art article. At the moment, however, the article seems to imply that everyone would describe this way, when I doubt most people have ever heard the song. As I said, it's better than I'd thought before and I'll take off the POV tag, but I'd be happier if the description could be attributed to the person or group that holds it. --Jwanders 19:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO, it's the most famous riff in rock history, not just metal. Malmsteen Maiden 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabulature

Anybody know if a policy has been defined regarding including tabulature in articles? On one hand, there may be a precedent as some articles (for instance, Riff) have included illustrative quotations of standard musical notation. On the other hand, tab is somewhat less standardized than regular notation and is of interest only to guitarists, muddying up the article for others. Thoughts? Jgm 11:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best move would be to show both standard notation and tablature, maybe with a little comment on how the tablature clarifies the positioning. Don't worry, the Thought Police don't punish you for using tablature. Deltabeignet 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which strings

Wouldn't it be more correct to play the riff on the D and G strings, instead of the A and D strings? Bengt 12:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it was played by the band on the a and d, as you can fret the fourths with one finger that way (b to g is a third). Joeyramoney 03:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chords are: GD BF CG GD BF DA CG GD BF CG BF GD —Bill Conrad 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most authentic sounding method is to pluck open G D as the first fifth, and pluck the passage entirely on the two middle strings (open G D) using pick and middle finger. I recall an interview somewhere where a member of Deep Purple said this was how it was recorded.

My point exactly. Blackmore himself has explained it several times. Bengt 16:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are spot on! He explains it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWl0YJN5Xf4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

This article needs to be cleaned up.

Point taken.

Soothing R 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss or Swedish fan ?

I had read the fan who launched the fireworks was Swedish, not Swiss as mentionned in the article (~~the document I read even mentionned his name~~I was probably asleep.. Dake 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC), looked more like a swedish name iirc). Dake 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the guys name was Iirc? That is not a swedish name, not even close to one.Zoeds 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iirc (or IIRC) stands for If I Recall Correctly - they weren't saying that was the fan's name. ;) 136.186.1.197 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, that explains a lot LOL --Zoeds 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned on

This article was read out on Irish radio 13/April/06 by the Irish John Peel, Dave Fanning, in a gently mocking tone.

Zepp cover?

Did Led Zeppelin ever record this song? I've seen it credited to both LZ and Deep Purple, and I've heard two distinctly different versions of it. PennyGWoods 07:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I wasn't aware the Led Zeppelin did any covers... -KingUrth

I've never heard of Led Zeppelin covering this song, but Black Sabbath w/ Ian Gillan on vocals used to play it live. Bengt 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Timeline

The article says they recorded a bit at the Pavillion, got kicked out, then found the Grand Hotel. Then it says SOTW was recorded at the Pavillion. Impossible: The song talks about the Grand Hotel. Barticus88 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "the band was only able to lay down backing tracks for one song before the local police shut them down." So that supports the idea that SOTW was not recorded at the Pavillion.

It was not the song with lyrics, it were backing tracks what was recorded at the Pavillion. The anniversary CD booklet says so. --Yms 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty for beginners?

I'm no guitar player, but if guitar is like any other instrument, wouldn't a song "noted for its extreme difficulty" not be "the first song learned by many beginner guitarists"? I assume the beginner guitarists are playing a simplified version. Also, young brass players also learn an arrangement of it as one of their first 'real' songs.

- Probably a bit of both, I wouldn't have said it's notable for "extreme" difficulty at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.60.187 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

- I'm inclined to agree with the above - it's not a song with a complex structure or any truly difficult parts (from a guitar player of 2 years). The possible exception is Blackmore's instantly recognizable guitar solo, which is quite a challenge to play but not something I would call extremely difficult, or expect an encyclopedia to do such a thing.

The outro-solo is performed on Jon Lord's organ. I guess that one is challenging as well. —69.136.244.218 01:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of covers

This song has been covered many many times. I think the wiki should contain a list of (well known) covers. Edwin Smulders 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since R&B (rhythm and blues) was a term invented by Jerry Wexler in the late 1940s to replace the term "race music," it would appear to be inappropriate to describe Pat Boone, the whitest white white man to ever sing rock and roll, as an "R&B" singer. As would be the term, "legendary." His version of SMTW is a trip, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.111.90 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the "stupid with a flare gun"

I sent a mail to Claude Nobs ("funky Claude") to ask him about the "stupid with a flare gun". He answered that the guy has never been identified and that he could have fled to some countries in Eastern Europa. I'm wondering what this guy is thinking today about all this story and the song :) Dake 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was "Stupid Motherfucker" garbled for radio play (some stupid motherflagger)

Must have been Carlos the Jackal.

IBM commercial

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't IBM use this riff for a series of commercials a few years back? I seem to recall it being used for a technology-related ad around 2000. MalikCarr 06:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Version a "Minor Hit"?

"Smoke On The Water" brings back (as they say) fond memories of my youth.

To my recollection it was a huge Top 40 radio hit. You heard the song everywhere. I even recall hearing it playing on amusement park rides at the time.

However, the version I'm speaking of is the Live version from the "Made In Japan" LP and not the original from the "Machine Head" album.

When I finally did hear the original (I'm guessing a year or so after the "..Japan" LP release) it sounded rather odd. The 2nd most significant part of the song I knew (the audience "rhythmic clapping" - for lack of a better term - that follows the opening riffs) was somehow "now 'missing'".

Needless to say, I've not heard much of the song since that era (I'm not a classic rock radio listener and so forth). But honestly, I don't recall the studio version being a "hit", period (unless maybe it was on AOR stations which I never paid much attention to - I was a "top 40" Guy). --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1970's and early 1980's, the studio version was played a lot on rock radio. Then, around 1984 or so, a bunch of corporate folks invented the term "classic rock" and created dozens (hundreds?) of "classic rock" radio stations. These stations tend to play the Made in Japan version as often as they play the studio version... at least, in my experience. In any event, both versions should be considered "hits" by any reasonable definition. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But I'm talking mid 1970's, summer and the sound of an audience clapping in time to an opening guitar riff. This could be heard many times daily on Top 40 stations all over the United States. It wasn't till a year or two later that I finally heard the studio version.

And I don't listen to "classir rock" stations these days.

My cousin, a major heavy metal fan, bought the album within one or two years of its release, he would have been thirteen or fourteen then, and I heard some years later of how his dad had grown exasperated with the sound of SOTW, played on and on. "That song contains only three chords!" (a very common remark from parents at the time of course). "Sure" my cousin replied, "but they know how to make the very best of them". The song was absolutely impossible to avoid in the seventies, it rapidly became part of the musical furniture of the era far outside of the hard rock community.

No, my memory is that the live version was not a minor hit at all. It was quite the opposite.

Proposed correction to sheet music

Since the song is in G minor, the sheet music ought to have the proper key signature. And then the accidental B-flats can be dropped. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Deeppurple-SotW.jpg

Image:Deeppurple-SotW.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Smoke on the Water.jpg

Image:Smoke on the Water.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

It is mentioned that a shop in Denmark Street has or had a singn that ask potential buyers NOT to play Smoke on t Water. Was that before or after it was used in Wayne's World or after. And was the joke in Wayne's World based on real live events?

Could well have been without any trigger from the media or the movies, especially if it was a musical instruments store. SOTW has long been one of the most widely recognized chunks of rock music ever, the riff is as universally known as the Marseillaise or Jingle Bells.

I can well imagine some guitar shop owners who felt they couldn't stand hearing the tune plonked out one more time.Strausszek (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics?

Should the lyrics be here? Isn't putting them up here copyright infingement? soldierx40k 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be exagerated?? If you type "smoke water lyrics" on google, you'll get about 425.000 results... User:nicholasmorassutti 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use allows copyrighted material to be used for academic use or for reviews; both can arguably apply to an article discussing the song and its lyrics. There's no infringement issue here. 75.71.42.157 (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Smoke on the Water.jpg

Image:Smoke on the Water.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Intro

Deleted ranking statements. These are opinion (even if I agree) and not appropriate for the factual introduction of an article. This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name. I checked and the statements are in the body of the article, so no content has been deleted from the article. Hdnsb (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it worth mentioning the lyrics meaning?

that it's just a description of what happen to the band at the time.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.5.218 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uses in popular culture

Seeing as how the song's riff is extremely popular, is it necessary to state, "This song is used in x TV show or y sporting event or z video game"0?

Yes. Just as the Volkswagen or Ford car page must list every instance of the use of a VW or Ford. <--- sarcasm.

No. only the most notable or historic uses deserve mention. Some very long trivial popular culture lists disappear on Wikipedia when they start to clutter an article.

Zappa's involvement

Is it this concert, or am I thinking of another one, where there was only one door for the audience to get out of the stadium and only one door for the band, and Zappa himself had to evacuate everybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.243.13 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First learned/most played

I just want an answer here - is everyone removing that line because they disagree with what it's stating? or because they don't want to find any sources? Luminifer (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Line

There was an unsourced statement that the song was also well known for its one note thumping bass line. Only a musician or bass player would know this, which would make it difficult for the song to be well known for it. The song is known for the simple guitar riff. If the initial asssertion is to remain in the article, it needs a source. Thanks. HM211980 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven origins

Ritchie claims the riff is the fifth symphony backwards source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn1sUIs5yeE&feature=related this should definately be mentioned.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube can't be used as a source because it is against the rules to knowing link to any site which hosts copyvio content. Most music interviews, concerts and videos hosted by Youtube have been uploaded to that site without the knowledge or consent of the proper owners. So Youtube can't be used. Wether B (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should remove the edit I did on the "Message in a Bottle" page, than which used a youtube video interview with Eric Bloom right? Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 00:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK, Youtube can't be used as a source, but surely the interview itself can be, right? Just find where it came from and use that. Youtube didn't create the interview; just find the original source for the interview and use that instead.

BTW the policy Wther B refers to is that it's against the tules to link to any site that hosts material that violates copyright. Um, that has nothing to do with using it as a source. Just don't link to it. 75.71.42.157 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see this

brass band version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.158.98.12 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some stupid at Flare gun

Discussion over deleting mention of this incident, over at Flare gun Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single B side

This was one of the very first singles I owned, so I played it to death. My version (I'm in the UK) had "Child in Time" on the B side. Was this an unusual pressing, as it isn't mentioned in the text?86.152.240.56 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian mode?

The main riff sounds more Dorian than blues. Even the vocals tune sounds Dorian. If it is Dorian - is that deliberate or did the band do it cause it 'sounded right?' Lgh (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lord at least was classically trained and he would have been familiar with these church modes. J.S. Bach employed Dorian in a few of his organ pieces too, and the impact of Bach's music on Purple over the years is well attested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.33 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Dorian. The claim that it's Dorian seems to be "original research", but it doesn't seem to have any basis in music theory. I'm going to delete this reference. Please don't restore it unless you can provide a reliable source ("it sounds more Dorian than blues") is not a reliable source.139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soprano

The song is used in The Sopranos several times. Some users remove the relevant text without any serious objections. The section is about usage and the series use it several times. The Sopranos are well-known, we have even articles on separate episodes. While a user doesnt believe to one of the sources, two other sources are added to prove the song was really used. So whats the problem? 95.84.236.194 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count three other editors besides myself who have reverted it. Thus far, this would constitute clear consensus against its inclusion.
If more editors made an effort to actually seek out reliable sources, as opposed to presenting whatever they've scavenged off of the web, we could be spared most of the controversy we see regarding sourcing. Nonetheless, I saw a blog and a YouTube video. With few exceptions, both are typically viewed as unreliable. The third source is the only one which appears to be possibly reliable. As I'm on my phone rather than a real computer, I didn't investigate it further.
To ensure long-term credibility (and by extension, viability), Wikipedia plainly needs less emphasis on pop culture of the past 10–20 years, not more. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources [1][2][3][4]. 95.84.236.194 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the edits reverting the change, I see one with no reason given, one with a nonsensical reason (deletion? huh?), and two that suggest notability is the issue. I don't see verification as a problem. The assertion that the song is a favourite of character Tony Soprano and is used in multiple episodes of the show is easily verified by referring to the content of "The Sopranos". (I assume so. I have never seen an episode, myself.)

In assessing notability, I suspect there might be some generation based parochialism involved. Personally, the new Deep Purple release was a memorable part of my youth, and I was reluctant to appreciate a connection with a TV show, which I've never seen, created more than twenty-five years later.

I suggest that Wikipedia's credibility and viability would benefit from, not emphasis on, but inclusion of pop culture of the past 10-20 years. On reflection, I favour including the paragraph.

Willondon (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the inclusion once when it was poorly sourced and described as "one of the favourites of Tony Soprano." It's common to list television shows that a song features in, and I have no problem with that. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why enter the UK chart in 1977?

So the song charts everywhere in the world in 1973 except their native UK, which catches up four years later. There must be a story there. Does anybody know what it is? — Labalius (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single release details

There's not much detail here about the release of this as a single: what was the B side (in various territories)? when was it released as a single in the UK? didn't it chart in the UK in 1973 when it was first released? If not, why not? 81.154.143.3 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title song

Sorry, although I'm not a smoker, but why Deep Purple wrote "Smoke on the Water"? Wisnu Aji (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this is explained clearly in the article! Mezigue (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mezigue. Wisnu Aji (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition section has incorrect/meaningless information

The 'Composition' section contains the following:

"A performance by the original Mark II lineup was filmed in 1973 in colour during a US concert in New York City for Live in Concert 1972/73. Blackmore played the intro on the 3rd and 5th fret"

Three points:

It makes no sense to say he played it on the 3rd and fifth frets, unless he played the same chord over and over
The person who wrote that seems to believe he played it, still in G minor, by playing something like this, *starting* with 3 and 5:

   e|--------
   B|--------
   G|--------
   D|---3-5--
   A|-5-1-3--
   E|-3------

But I've just watched a video on YouTube which appears to be the concert in question, see YouTube video cF9eVTUSklA?t=28 and clearly what he's playing is the same riff, with the same fingering pattern, but in D minor, a fifth (or one string) below. When the rest of the band comes in, he plays in G minor as usual. He does wander about on stage a bit and there isn't a clear shot, but anyone who can hear the music can tell that it's D not G, and there's no doubt that 'on the 3rd and fifth frets' is wrong.

So, regular riff:

   e|--------
   B|--------
   G|---3-5--
   D|-5-3-5--
   A|-5------
   E|--------

What he played at the very start of this song:

   e|--------
   B|--------
   G|--------
   D|---3-5--
   A|-5-3-5--
   E|-5------

Any guitarists care to ratify what I'm saying? I'll give it a couple of days then make an edit if it's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosechapel (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each approach is correct. Ritchie is known not to have performed songs in the same manner. — Voxamarkin (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration for the riff

I know this may be too speculative for Wikipedia, but considering that "Smoke on the Water" is one of THE iconic guitar riffs of all time, it's fascinating that apparently Tom Jobim wrote it:

http://musicallinkssite.weebly.com/links.html

https://bdeeppurplefanforum.runboard.com/t3320

https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/pw5as2/did_deep_purple_plagiarize_late_brazilian/

https://web.archive.org/web/20041026174611/http://www.gardenal.org/marcadiabo/materias08.htm

https://whiplash.net/materias/news_758/297671-deeppurple.html

It already made it into the Portuguese Wikipedia page: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_on_the_Water

I'm not going to decide whether it's well-sourced enough to include on the article, but I thought I should leave it here. Jules TH 16 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It bears some similarity to the Brazilian song "Maria Moita". No mention of this in the article. 2A00:23EE:14F8:11AD:307C:84FF:FED7:4822 (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]