Were the Doors progressive?

rdtprog wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: Silly question really. The Doors were perhaps the ultimate progressive rock band, that is without ever playing 'prog'. They were among the very first acts who brought the arts into the rock template. Nietszche, Baudelaire, Kerouac, Ginsberg, ancient Greek tragedies, Native American spiritually and etc etc etc - and that is just in the lyrics. The music mixed rock with classical piano sprees, cabaret, circus themes, folk, free improv, jazz, blues and flamenco. One of the most progressive bands of all time imo. The question was not so silly because it gives you the chance to show the difference between being innovative and playing prog rock unless you find it silly that we could not argue that it's the ultimate progressive band, which i doubt looking at the end of your comment that said imo...

I was being tongue-in-cheek.
The Doors were never a "prog band", which I did mention earlier, but they were incredibly progressive for their day.....and they played rock. Ergo rock that is progressive

Uh? I like the Doors and U2! (And because of the U2 bashing here, I tell you that my favourite albums of them are the first three ones Boy, October and War.)

addictedtoprog wrote: Their placement in proto-prog is as much justified as it is for The Beatles..

Not even close when you consider The Beatles influence on the early progressive rock movement were so much more tangible than The Doors. What significant progressive rock band did the Doors influence to form in the first place that equals King Crimson, Yes or even Can?

Really even early Pink Floyd were more Beatles influenced than the Doors. The Doors were a very good band but The Beatles influence dwarfs the Doors let's be realistic and not try to downplay the obvious influence The Beatles had.

Edited by NYSPORTSFAN - July 24 2014 at 19:43

Yes they were very progressive in those days...

Dean wrote: made a couple of symphonic Prog albums in the RPI style and for that they qualify for addition here.

I missed those albums. Did Jim sing in Italian and all?

Things may come and things may go but the I Pooh debate goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ... And on and on and on and on....

ExittheLemming wrote: Pietro Otello Romano wrote: richardh wrote: I don't like The Doors or U2. The Doors are one of those bands that when a song by them comes on the radio I have to turn it off. Its interesting that Robert Plant dubbed The Stranglers 'The British Doors' yet I like The Stranglers.  I bought Joshua Tree but found it just gave me a headache and I got rid pretty quickly. The way 80's music was produced often had that affect on me though. I am totally agree, and above all I don't think they are prog at all. There are artists refused by the administrators that even if is debatable if they are better than the Doors, at least they are in the boundaries of progrock: Cat Stevens (Foreigner suite), Joe Jackson (Heaven and Hell, Night Music) etc... Consequentially my question is about the the nature of this site, is it a site about prog music, or just a site of good contemporary music? Because if its the latter, it is ever trickier, which are the parameter to discern the good music from the "bad"? Is Morricone bad music? Or are the Pooh, (that are listed here) good music? No-one is claiming that the Doors were a Prog band. They are listed here as Proto Prog which means (amongst other things) that they AIN'T a Prog band. They are however deemed to have contributed to that bridge between Psyche and Prog that occurred during the late 60's. As Dean has already pointed out, there are no parameters on PA to discern good music from bad music: artists are considered for inclusion based on their relevance to Prog Rock. Cat Stevens was nominated but rejected here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=74623&KW=Cat+Stevens but I can't find a similar nomination for Joe Jackson (whose work I like and he's written a symphony but that doesn't make him relevant to Prog Rock) Are the Pooh a band you think worthy of inclusion or are you just talking s.h.i.t.e?

No I don`t think at all that Pooh are worty of inclusion, I just let you know that they are already included. Check the link: http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3832
and get the information before talking s.h.i.t.e.
all the best

Pietro Otello Romano wrote: richardh wrote: I don't like The Doors or U2. The Doors are one of those bands that when a song by them comes on the radio I have to turn it off. Its interesting that Robert Plant dubbed The Stranglers 'The British Doors' yet I like The Stranglers.  I bought Joshua Tree but found it just gave me a headache and I got rid pretty quickly. The way 80's music was produced often had that affect on me though. I am totally agree, and above all I don't think they are prog at all. There are artists refused by the administrators that even if is debatable if they are better than the Doors, at least they are in the boundaries of progrock: Cat Stevens (Foreigner suite), Joe Jackson (Heaven and Hell, Night Music) etc... Consequentially my question is about the the nature of this site, is it a site about prog music, or just a site of good contemporary music? Because if its the latter, it is ever trickier, which are the parameter to discern the good music from the "bad"? Is Morricone bad music? Or are the Pooh, (that are listed here) good music?

No-one is claiming that the Doors were a Prog band. They are listed here as Proto Prog which means (amongst other things) that they AIN'T a Prog band. They are however deemed to have contributed to that bridge between Psyche and Prog that occurred during the late 60's. As Dean has already pointed out, there are no parameters on PA to discern good music from bad music: artists are considered for inclusion based on their relevance to Prog Rock. Cat Stevens was nominated but rejected here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=74623&KW=Cat+Stevens
but I can't find a similar nomination for Joe Jackson (whose work I like and he's written a symphony but that doesn't make him relevant to Prog Rock) Are the Pooh a band you think worthy of inclusion or are you just talking s.h.i.t.e?

richardh wrote: I don't like The Doors or U2. The Doors are one of those bands that when a song by them comes on the radio I have to turn it off. Its interesting that Robert Plant dubbed The Stranglers 'The British Doors' yet I like The Stranglers.  I bought Joshua Tree but found it just gave me a headache and I got rid pretty quickly. The way 80's music was produced often had that affect on me though.

I am totally agree, and above all I don't think they are prog at all. There are artists refused by the administrators that even if is debatable if they are better than the Doors, at least they are in the boundaries of progrock: Cat Stevens (Foreigner suite), Joe Jackson (Heaven and Hell, Night Music) etc... Consequentially my question is about the the nature of this site, is it a site about prog music, or just a site of good contemporary music? Because if its the latter, it is ever trickier, which are the parameter to discern the good music from the "bad"? Is Morricone bad music? Or are the Pooh, (that are listed here) good music?