smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Larry O Dean" <larryodean@poetrycenter.org> |
| Subject | Re: I'll stand up for the Doors |
| Date | Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:00:41 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Stewart's points are also well taken. I was going to throw Love in there as
well, since I love Love, but I think overall the Doors' oeuvre is more
consistent, song-for-song than Love's. Ditto his Cure observation as well.
Stewart Mason writes:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry O Dean"
> <larryodean@poetrycenter.org>
>
>> This is a well-reasoned and impassioned reasoning for the Doors. I second
>> it, and would add, for what it's worth, that considering the era in which
>> they were popular, they were an anti-hippie band with a much darker
>> agenda, kind of like a West Coast Velvet Underground. That alone sets
>> that apart from 99% of their contemporaries.
>
> You could say the same thing about Love, however -- remember that they
> were so much a direct influence on the Doors that the Doors signed with
> Elektra mostly because they were Love's label -- and I would argue that
> Love were way more effective at it. I admit that as others have said, the
> Doors are one of those bands whose fans I hold against them, much like how
> I would have liked the Cure a lot more in high school if Cure fans weren't
> so annoying, and I acknowledge that the Doors were a direct influence on
> many artists I like much more, Patti Smith and Nick Cave first and
> foremost. But there's just something about the Doors that I personally
> find unsatisfying, and I think it's mostly a combination of the
> pretentious lyrics and Jimbo's overall persona. I just can't get past all
> that Lizard King crap.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.