NARC Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 ok' date=' who does deserve that sort of status? watch the live footage, regardless of wether he was pissed or not he was still an amazing showman. as for your comment about him being a dirty drunk, well if we discredited every drunk/drug addict rockstar then we'd have very few left wouldn't we? and they'd be boring as fuck.[/quote']Agreed. So who do you admire flossie? bet they all drink like horses. Focus on the music; its not all Jim Morrison, but even so, its good to have someone in music who actually reflected in music what they did in reality. I dont care if Morrison was a waster, the Doors are simply more talented and charismatic than practically every other band of the 60sPS im 18, not a kid, and i dont take drugs, but thats my choice, and im not gonna be influenced by rockstars killing themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Agreed. So who do you admire flossie? bet they all drink like horses. Focus on the music; its not all Jim Morrison' date=' but even so, its good to have someone in music who actually reflected in music what they did in reality. I dont care if Morrison was a waster, the Doors are simply more talented and charismatic than practically every other band of the 60sPS im 18, not a kid, and i dont take drugs, but thats my choice, and im not gonna be influenced by rockstars killing themselves. [/quote']I don't hold that being a junkie makes you charismatic and talented, in Morrison's case it made him a paranoid twat, surely you could argue that decades worth of great music might have been created if he hadn't been a junkie. Most of the bands i like have had dalliances with drugs, and at points it has disrupted the band but its not a reason why they were good it tended to damage years worth of creativity. One of my all time favourite albums 'Misplaced Childhood' was written about an acid trip. Its strange that so many people seem to think that the drugs made them what they are, in some cases its one of those things that sometimes build confidence in people - but there are other ways - i hate the fact that music is so intertwined in drugs. The Doors really didn't change the musical landscape inthe way the Beach Boys, the Stones, the Kinks or the Beatles did, now it's true all these bands were into drugs but they never really let it destroy them in the way the Doors did, it's not something they should be revered for. Anyway sorry for the rant, the whole drugs in music thing is something that i really don't understand, i've never understood why those who kill themselves on drugs end up becoming so revered.CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NARC Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 you're right in certain ways, but I cant understand how people believe the Stones had such a huge effect and influence, the Doors were far more behaviourally and musically radical. I'll admit I dont know a huge amount about their history, but having seen the film I dont belive that Morrison was fucked 24/7 for 3 years or whatever. Its refreshing to have people that challenge normality in the way he did (despite myself not wanting to follow that particular path!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 i've always wanted to hear the two albums the doors made without morrison but they are really hard to get hold of. i dont see the doors as being that radical, they were a good band for sure, there's no denying that and morrison was a fine poet but personally i think they were 'average' to quote simon cowell.of all that lot, the most inspirational and influential band without doubt were the velvet underground, equally at ease whether making a complete racket (sister ray) or singing sweet lullabies (sunday morning) they paved the way and inspired for a hell of a lot of artists even some of todays current crop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Regardless of how much of a drug addled twat morrison was himself no one can deny that the sheer level of poetry in his lyrics was well beyond the cheesy cock wash that brian wilson and mick jagger churn out over and over again. the doors were an awesome band. nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Agreed. So who do you admire flossie? bet they all drink like horses. Focus on the music; its not all Jim Morrison' date=' but even so, its good to have someone in music who actually reflected in music what they did in reality. I dont care if Morrison was a waster, the Doors are simply more talented and charismatic than practically every other band of the 60sPS im 18, not a kid, and i dont take drugs, but thats my choice, and im not gonna be influenced by rockstars killing themselves. [/quote']i think if there were any bands or artists in the 60s who used drugs to a positive effect in their music i would say the Velvet Underground, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart, and in that same breath i would also throw Lee Scratch Perry in there too.i don't think the Doors were more talented and charismatic than the Beatles or the Velvets were, their music certainly wasn't as inventive or experimental as anything Captain Beefheart or Frank Zappa did way back then, it wasn't as lyrically astute or thought-provoking as anything Bob Dylan did nor do i think the Doors had the talent or technical ability to make an album as innovative or ground-breaking at that time as anything i have heard on Pet Soundsi just think Jim Morrison wasted his talents too early and that reflected on the music as later albums show, i just think this typical mythologising of rockstars who died young has a lot to do with the myth surrounding Jim Morrison, i don't think rock music particularly missed him or his talents when he died, he pissed every bit of talent he had up the wall in the end, he certainly isn't a tragic loss to music, i think there were already better bands pushing rock music onto the next level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 you're right in certain ways' date=' but I cant understand how people believe the Stones had such a huge effect and influence, the Doors were far more behaviourally and musically radical. I'll admit I dont know a huge amount about their history, but having seen the film I dont belive that Morrison was fucked 24/7 for 3 years or whatever. Its refreshing to have people that challenge normality in the way he did (despite myself not wanting to follow that particular path!) [/quote']i agree with you regarding the Rolling Stones, they were a bunch of middle class coke-hags rehashing rhythm & blues music, if anything they were just a retro band made cool at the timethe only thing keith richards could do right was not overdose on heroin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 would've thought pink floyd had more right to be in this 60s hall of fame list than simon & garfunkel :? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Regardless of how much of a drug addled twat morrison was himself no one can deny that the sheer level of poetry in his lyrics was well beyond the cheesy cock wash that brian wilson and mick jagger churn out over and over again. the doors were an awesome band. nuff said. Denied ... rambling schoolboy tosh...and I must say the Velvet Underground are equally over rated.By the way Flossie, Pink Floyd were in the 70s Hall Of Fame program Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Denied ... rambling schoolboy tosh...and I must say the Velvet Underground are equally over rated.By the way Flossie' date=' Pink Floyd were in the 70s Hall Of Fame program[/quote']Eh, that would be a shit comment regardless of the fact that i haven't been a schoolboy for over seven years. Agreed velvet underground were shit. Pink Floyd had some awesome Barrett era stuff in the 60's so in my opinion they'd have been better in the 60's section. by the way since when was playing bass in elgin regarded as a talent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 by the way since when was playing bass in elgin regarded as a talent? Nice one LOLI prefer the 70's Floyd stuff and I suppose their most popular stuff is then and that's why they are in that grouping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NARC Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Zappa - now you're talking. Some of that "baby snakes" dvd is brilliant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camie Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Would like to see Kinks or Bob Dylan get this one.I think Bob Dylan should get this though as he has done far more musically and for music itself than kinks have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 bob dylan. obviously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AmbientMood Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I really don't see why people in this day and age would want to listen to bob dylan - his songs are boring and the standard of singer songwriters has increased so much.Musically, The Doors are better than a lot of other 60s stuff and with a great controversial frontman....however, they didn't really contribute as much for music as the likes of the Stones etc, which really should be what determines who goes into the hall of fame.What is this 'pet sounds'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Ba ha ha The Stones were always in the wake of the Beatles...christ they even had to get them to write their first real hit and then show them how to write their own songs. As for the bad boys The Stones just acted the part...it was a PR ploy by ex NEMS employee Loog Oldham.It is a hard pick as all the artists had a real impact on what we have today. I'd go for Dylan or ArethaThe Stones has balls. The Beatles wrote a few catchy pop songs and then let themselves be homogonised into teen icons. They didn't make fucking lunch-boxes with the Stones on the side....waits for some joker to find a Stones lunch box on Ebay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 The Beatles were writing "drug" songs' date=' experimenting with samples and tape loops and playing stadiums while Mick n' Keef were still learning how to write songs. The Stones based their public persona on being the opposite of the Beatles, while still hawking merchandise with the same intensity. Mick dolls were a particular favourite of teenie boppers at the time.The Beatles were the greatest band of all time. Without them, the Stones would still be backing Alexis Korner and Mick would be selling tickets.[/quote']Brilliantly put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NARC Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yeah' date=' it's good for what is, but he did his best stuff with the Mothers Of Invention.If you liked "Baby Snakes", see if you can find a copy of "Does Humour Belong In Music". Similar type of material, but a bit more caustic and Frank keeps his shirt on (thankfully).[/quote']haha. I like some of his 80s stuff, ive got "Ship Arrived Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch". Yet to fully listen to his earlier stuff (courtesy of the 'Ox) but a songs such as "Prelude to the Afternoon of the Sexually Aroused Gas Mask" and "Ian Underwood Whips It Out" cannot fail to be anything less than brilliant! PS now i know why the Doors are "reluctantly" played in exodus...hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen B Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 The Hollies, haha, I remember a while back my dad was listening to them and made me listen to part of a song to ask whether that "bwoom bwoom" sound is what we call a "guitar bass". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen B Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 I listened to the Beatles 1 compilation the other day and it occurred to me that as far as singles are concerned the Kinks, the Doors and the Beach Boys all blow them out of the water. The Beatles singles really lack catchy melodies, Help seemingly being the only single with a strong melody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammer Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 It is opinion but I'm staggered with your comment. If you listen to any of those bands in the same way (single after single) I'm sure you'd find many a duff / lame track whereas The Beatles are quality right through and damned diverse too. But if you don't dig them...I listened to one of recent Who compilations and there's a lot of fair to middling stuff and the production seems to go from brilliant to rubbish even with the same producer. Further down the food chanin, The Small Faces are another band with a patchy track record. Some great singles but very average most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 The Stones based their public persona on being the opposite of the BeatlesSurely the best reason to like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AmbientMood Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 How on earth can you say that the Doors were better than a "lot of other 60's stuff" if you don't even know what Pet Sounds is?Oh christ not the Beach Boys - I hate the beach boys with a passion, my bassist has been known to force feed it in the car - far too singalong. so no, I don't think the Beach Boys write more interesting music than the doors I think they write cheesy pop music. But then I don't think the doors write as interesting music as Herbie Hancock, or zappa or beefheart or any of the insane 60s German bands I listened to the other day.As with the Bob Dylan thing, just listen to Katie Melua or Damien Rice (and im too tired to think of anythign else right now) or (from a closer time period to Dylan) John Martyn, Nick Drake. I just think Dylan's music is boring and hasn't really stood the test of time thats all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AmbientMood Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 I listened to the Beatles 1 compilation the other day and it occurred to me that as far as singles are concerned the Kinks' date=' the Doors and the Beach Boys all blow them out of the water[/quote']The Beatles only really gets good with Sgt Pepper and beyond. But then they get really good! I too bought the number one cd and think its totally dire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NARC Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Listen to the Revolver' date=' Rubber Soul or Hard Days Night albums instead. Beatles 1 doesn't work as an album. It's a matter of opinion, but I would say that the Beatles were far stronger on melody than either The Kinks or The Doors.[/quote']My mum's got "Rubber Soul"...just doesnt inspire, i think its a question of sound...just not what my ears appreciate, the beatles. Im an 80s/90s man through and through Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.