Print Page | Close Window

Were the Doors progressive?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93530
Printed Date: January 20 2022 at 21:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Were the Doors progressive?
Posted By: humor4u1959
Subject: Were the Doors progressive?
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 02:41
I think they were. Their music was quite a bit more complex than other bands back then. I'd like you to post your choice of song(s) that best demonstrate the Doors' progressive side. Thanks so much!



Replies:
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 05:20









The DOORS were very progressive rock.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 05:33
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 Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 06:30
Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.

-------------
What?


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 06:39
At least we agree on where to put them. Proto is indeed the right place.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 06:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.
Nothing else to add.


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 08:46
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.

Nothing else to add.


I disagree. The Doors were U.S. '60s progressive rock act without a doubt. The Doors just weren't a part of English Progressive Rock Movement what virtualy makes above mentioned "late 60s early 70s framework". The Doors regulary ought to be in Archives as Psych, or Eclectic, or Crossover prog act - nevermind in which one section of those exactly, but that section ought to be a progressive rock category, not "proto prog".


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 09:22
Progressive related to many other bands then? Yes.
Progressive rock..? No.

-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 10:07
I like them a lot, that's enough for me. Labels are something the industri needs for promotion, reviewers for categorization. As I listener it doesn't matter.



-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 10:19
Yes

-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]


Posted By: Sagichim
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 11:06
They certainly had their progy and experimental songs, but overall I don't consider them as a prog band.
Like David said they mixed a lot of styles. Diverse but not prog.


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 11:07
No. But they are prog or prog-related enough to warrant inclusion here. Wait... they already are here. 

-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 11:19
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.

Nothing else to add.


I disagree. The Doors were U.S. '60s progressive rock act without a doubt. The Doors just weren't a part of English Progressive Rock Movement what virtually makes above mentioned "late 60s early 70s framework". The Doors regulary ought to be in Archives as Psych, or Eclectic, or Crossover prog act - nevermind in which one section of those exactly, but that section ought to be a progressive rock category, not "proto prog".
You cannot reinvent the history of Progressive Rock to make it fit your idealised dream of what happened back then or to slot in your favourite artists, that is simply revisionist and wrong. Nor can you redefine what Prog Rock is to make them fit - if they were not described as Progressive Rock in their own timeframe we cannot decribe them as such now.
 
The Doors do not fit into any of those subgenres, even Psych is wholly inapproriate because they never made a Psychedelic Progressive Rock record (if that less-than subtle distinction flies over your head then I suggest you read the Psych/Space Rock genre definition) ... we do not add every Psychedelic Rock band there ever was into that genre, just as we do not add every Avant Garde composer into Avant Prog or every Electric Folk Rock artist into Prog Folk.


-------------
What?


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 12:38
They are THE DOORS. Nuff said. Bigger than any genre. That's it.

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 12:46
Originally posted by NotAProghead NotAProghead wrote:

They are THE DOORS. Nuff said. Bigger than any genre. That's it.




-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 12:56
^exactomundo.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 13:09
Open minded prog approach : check
Some prog moments : check
Ahead of their time : check
Good musicianship : check
 
The Doors were influential in the development of the prog scene for sure, maybe among the first prog bands, but definitely proto prog.
 


-------------
"One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 13:12
I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now, for wasting the dawn.


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 13:18
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.

Nothing else to add.
I disagree. The Doors were U.S. '60s progressive rock act without a doubt. The Doors just weren't a part of English Progressive Rock Movement what virtually makes above mentioned "late 60s early 70s framework". The Doors regulary ought to be in Archives as Psych, or Eclectic, or Crossover prog act - nevermind in which one section of those exactly, but that section ought to be a progressive rock category, not "proto prog".

You cannot reinvent the history of Progressive Rock to make it fit your idealised dream of what happened back then or to slot in your favourite artists, that is simply revisionist and wrong. Nor can you redefine what Prog Rock is to make them fit - if they were not described as Progressive Rock in their own timeframe we cannot decribe them as such now.
 

The Doors do not fit into any of those subgenres, even Psych is wholly inapproriate because they never made a Psychedelic Progressive Rock record (if that less-than subtle distinction flies over your head then I suggest you read the Psych/Space Rock genre definition) ... we do not add every Psychedelic Rock band there ever was into that genre, just as we do nat add every Avant Garde composer into Avant Prog or every Electric Folk Rock artist into Prog Folk.

I can't reinvent history of Progressive Rock, but there are some musicologists who can do it and who alredy did it!


A long time ago I meet Koja ("Koya") who was leader of  Šarlo Akrobata, a Punk trio from New Belgrade, Serbia, because he use to live just a few blocks away from my place.

Šarlo Akrobata trio were 100% punk outfit when released that material what on very misterious way qualified them for Prog  Archives. Well,  because of so called "patriotic" reason, I would be happy because one punk bass player from my street is in PA'  RIO / Avant Prog section, where the legends like THE DOORS "can not be" included, because "not every avant band is prog" and so on, but ... Confused 


I find one "prog" video of Šarlo Akrobata. I just wish that The Doors fan(s) notice how sounds a PUNK band that has an advantage as "RIO / Avant prog" over The Doors.


http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3696" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3696
"... Today, we can take a broader look at the band from prog rock perspective: their inovation and elements of art rock / avant Rock ..."



This song is their athem. Maybe nice punk song, but Prog???!!

Regards!


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 13:30
Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now, for wasting the dawn.



My favourite Jim Morrison quote. Texas Radio and the Big Beat baby

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 13:50
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now, for wasting the dawn.



My favourite Jim Morrison quote. Texas Radio and the Big Beat baby
Always loved that track.


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 19:10
In all respect - if The Beatles are considered a Proto-Prog band, then surely The Doors are more than worthy.  'Proto' is the keyword.  Prog, but not 'Prog'.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 19:21
Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.

-------------
What?


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 17 2013 at 19:35
Originally posted by Tom Ozric Tom Ozric wrote:

In all respect - if The Beatles are considered a Proto-Prog band, then surely The Doors are more than worthy.  'Proto' is the keyword.  Prog, but not 'Prog'.
http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2772" rel="nofollow - Ehem... .

-------------


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 00:02
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Tom Ozric Tom Ozric wrote:

In all respect - if The Beatles are considered a Proto-Prog band, then surely The Doors are more than worthy.  'Proto' is the keyword.  Prog, but not 'Prog'.
http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2772" rel="nofollow - Ehem... .
Hmm, dunno what to say, then......Confused


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 10:32
I don't get it eitherBig smile

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 11:57
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.
 
Agreed.
 
I think the whole thing was geared more towards what Jim came up with than anything else ... and the problem was that it was a oen way road to no one knows where ... but the music left behind is astounding ... and yeah ... the feelings, the moods and the "visualness" of the words, are what sticks the most in my mind. Most of the "progressive" bands are nowhere near that at all.
 
I kinda think that in the West Coast in America, the desire to be more musically adventurous just was not there ... the "trip" was always more interesting and fun than anything else, and most bands in SF and LA displayed that and few of them went out of that element to be able to be considered ... "progressive".
 
But the influence ... is all over the place and then some, which makes it hard to not mention and include sometimes!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... favoritism is not an artistic merit! www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 14:48
does anyband have to be prog to be good?

-------------
Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran









Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 16:13
yes

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 17:09
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Bluesy Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, in what has later been seen as Art Rock (but wasn't at the time), they were never Progressive Rock, they followed a parallel path of their own that can be regarded as a progressive approach and mindset (which was not uncommon back then). Influential on the development of Prog certainly, (which is why we list them here in Proto-Prog), but none of their songs are Prog Rock within the late 60s early 70s framework, nor did it ever seem to be heading in that direction.

I agree Clap


-------------
            


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 17:38
^ I agree with most Dean's points, though in my opinion The Doors never were true Psychedelic or Acid Rock band.

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 19:26
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.
Why ask the question then - if they are Proto-Prog, then one considers them 'Progressive', no ?? - just before the fact.......


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 19:37
Originally posted by Tom Ozric Tom Ozric wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.
Why ask the question then - if they are Proto-Prog, then one considers them 'Progressive', no ?? - just before the fact.......
Dunno, don't ask me I only work here. People seem to like asking redundant questions. We get that a lot. Would you believe we've even had wet behind the ears whipper-snappers questioning whether Pink Floyd is Prog?

-------------
What?


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 19:44
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Tom Ozric Tom Ozric wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.
Why ask the question then - if they are Proto-Prog, then one considers them 'Progressive', no ?? - just before the fact.......
Dunno, don't ask me I only work here.
LOL.
Oh yes, and the Floyd ARE PROG - no questions.


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: May 18 2013 at 22:34
Progressive? Yes. Prog? No.

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">

The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: AreYouHuman
Date Posted: May 19 2013 at 00:36
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

I like them a lot, that's enough for me. Labels are something the industri needs for promotion, reviewers for categorization. As I listener it doesn't matter.



Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: May 19 2013 at 03:24
Originally posted by NotAProghead NotAProghead wrote:


^ I agree with most Dean's points, though in my opinion The Doors never were true Psychedelic or Acid Rock band.


Maby so, but they sure did pop some trips to make it happen.

-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: May 19 2013 at 03:57
no.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: AreYouHuman
Date Posted: May 19 2013 at 22:17
To return to the original questions: yes, they were beyond a doubt progressive, and I'll let it go at that without getting into all the progressive/prog hair-splitting.

Among their most progressive songs, IMO:

Break on Through
Strange Days
The End
The Crystal Ship
The Unknown Soldier
Not to Touch the Earth
Spanish Caravan
The Soft Parade
Light My Fire


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 19 2013 at 23:40
Originally posted by smartpatrol smartpatrol wrote:

Progressive? Yes. Prog? No.


I agree.

The Doors weren't for example Symphonic rock or Canterbury rock, but they were progressive rock band.

Also, I agree that the term 'prog' doesn't mean anymore a short of progressive rock only. Maybe it's not fair but that's the reality. At present day, Prog is a genre with a number of 'retro' bands who are playing recycled music of '70s symphonic rock and we call them Symphonic Prog and / or Neo Prog because those bands are able to recycle 70s symphonic rock clishes more or less gracefuly, but there's no way to recycle an essential progressive band from '60s - The Doors.

EDIT: I agree with NotAProgHead that The Doors weren't Psychedelic and / or Acid Rock band.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 13:50
The Doors weren't psychedelic?





Hmmm....from my experience, they went along with mushrooms quite well.

Anyway, from a progressive psychedelic standpoint, the monk bought lunch.





-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: King Only
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 14:15
The Doors did some great tracks.

Love how their music was used at the beginning of the "Apocalypse Now" movie.

I read the drummer John Densmore's autobiography "Riders On The Storm", a very interesting book that has a lot of information about the band without the typical sensationalism.

I've heard that the recent documentary DVD "When You're Strange" is very good but I haven't had a chance to see it yet.


Posted By: Larree
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 16:41
R.I.P. Ray Manzarek

http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/20/ray-manzarek-dead-the-doors-cancer/" rel="nofollow - http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/20/ray-manzarek-dead-the-doors-cancer/



-------------
http://larree.ws" rel="nofollow - The Larree (dot) Website


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 17:00
Damn, the news I never wanted to hear. Ray Manzarek passed away.

RIP, Ray.
Thank you for the music that means so much to me.


-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 17:06
RIP Ray Manzarek


Posted By: Pietro Otello Romano
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 16:25
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.


I do!... I don't think Doors were any good at all, on my opinion  they were just a overvalued commercial band, in line with the time that were generally on an higher level than now, but as a phenomenon they were not better than U2 or Michael Jackson. They are the shame of Prog Archives. I am sorry for the Doors fan but on my opinion they shouldn't be here at all!   LOL


-------------
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful
what we pretend to be."

Mother Night - Kurt Vonnegut


Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 16:43
^ No. No.....

-------------
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 16:57
Originally posted by Pietro Otello Romano Pietro Otello Romano wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.


I do!... I don't think Doors were any good at all, on my opinion  they were just a overvalued commercial band, in line with the time that were generally on an higher level than now, but as a phenomenon they were not better than U2 or Michael Jackson. They are the shame of Prog Archives. I am sorry for the Doors fan but on my opinion they shouldn't be here at all!   LOL
Sorry, but opinion and preference is irrelevant, they can be the worse band in the whole world ever for all it matters. We don't judge the quality of the artist when including them in the archive. 


-------------
What?


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 17:46
The Doors were one of the most innovative and experimental bands of late 60s, so they were definitely some kind of protoype of prog. Pretty much close to what we call prog actually, way closer than The Beatles.


-------------
This night wounds time.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 18:46
Originally posted by Pietro Otello Romano Pietro Otello Romano wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm I don't think anyone's questioning their worthiness for Proto Prog.


I do!... I don't think Doors were any good at all, on my opinion  they were just a overvalued commercial band, in line with the time that were generally on an higher level than now, but as a phenomenon they were not better than U2 or Michael Jackson. They are the shame of Prog Archives. I am sorry for the Doors fan but on my opinion they shouldn't be here at all!   LOL

Bzuh? "Overvalued commercial band"? It's well past April Fool's Day, so I have to assume you're being serious, if not a bit depleted in cognitive ability. The Doors certainly had hit singles, but I would suggest that they were not at all "commercial" in either composition, lyrics or philosophy. Far from it. If anything, they spurned greater commercial success.

For instance, Jim Morrison refused to censor the song "Light My Fire" on the Ed Sullivan Show, and they were never invited back again. Even the Rolling Stones, the supposed bad boys of rock, backed down and changed the lyrics of "Let's Spend the Night Together" for the Sullivan Show due to its enormous popularity. But Morrison did not care.

Definitely proto-prog, and certainly more adventurous than half the bands labeled prog.


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: ElectricWanderer
Date Posted: May 06 2014 at 07:50
I've always liked The Doors, but I've also noticed that there is a very persistent group of people among "classic rock" music listeners who absolutely despise them. I've never understood it. Probably it's just another one of these cases where a band became very successful and didn't fit into their tastes so they feel compelled to find any excuse to push them down.

POR also mentioned U2, which is an another good example of this. I know a lot of people who "hate" U2. As far as I know, none of them ever listened to any of the albums U2 made at their peak. They just know some of the overplayed hits and have a vague general image of Bono being some sort of an a****le. Hence, U2 must suck. Sure.

The Doors are great.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 06 2014 at 15:29
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.


Posted By: Pietro Otello Romano
Date Posted: May 12 2014 at 04:59
Originally posted by richardh 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?


-------------
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful
what we pretend to be."

Mother Night - Kurt Vonnegut


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: May 12 2014 at 19:23
It's a site about prog and prog-related music. Some is good, some bad, and nothing's better than the Doors. Smile

Anyway the aim of the site is to present prog rock in its various forms. I hope you've seen About page:  http://www.progarchives.com/about_us.asp" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/about_us.asp


-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 17 2014 at 07:11
Originally posted by Pietro Otello Romano Pietro Otello Romano wrote:

Originally posted by richardh 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" rel="nofollow - 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?
 



-------------


Posted By: Michael678
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 05:43
today marks a 1 year anniversary of a sad tragedy that happened on this day last year: this man died from bile duct cancer...




-------------
Progrockdude


Posted By: Pietro Otello Romano
Date Posted: June 19 2014 at 07:33
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Pietro Otello Romano Pietro Otello Romano wrote:

Originally posted by richardh 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" rel="nofollow - 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


-------------
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful
what we pretend to be."

Mother Night - Kurt Vonnegut


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: June 19 2014 at 08:03
sarcasm just flies over your head methinks (it's a missile not a frisbee)


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 19 2014 at 09:11
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....

No, they are not a Prog band, though the fount of all misinformation, wikipoodiah, says they are. They were/are a pop band that in the 70s made a couple of symphonic Prog albums in the RPI style and for that they qualify for addition here.


-------------
What?


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: June 19 2014 at 09:17
LOL

-------------


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: June 19 2014 at 09:23
Originally posted by Dean 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?

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: June 19 2014 at 14:46
I say it again, the Doors are bigger than Psych, asid and whatever. They are the DOORS, nuff said.

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: addictedtoprog
Date Posted: July 23 2014 at 23:18
Yes they were very progressive in those days...


Posted By: addictedtoprog
Date Posted: July 23 2014 at 23:19
Their placement in proto-prog is as much justified as it is for The Beatles..


Posted By: NYSPORTSFAN
Date Posted: July 24 2014 at 19:38
Originally posted by addictedtoprog 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.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: July 25 2014 at 01:37
I've always believed that the Doors were more influential to the so-called Post-Punk bands like Echo & the Bunnymen, the Banshees, Joy Division, the Fall and the Cure et al rather than the vast rump of early 70's Proggers.
For me, the Doors first album was as influential and far reaching for the heavier and darker end of the rock spectrum as the Beatles were to pop music. Praise indeed, I'm sure you'll agree.



-------------


Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: July 25 2014 at 03:22
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.)
Both were influential for rock music in their ways, but none of them I see belonging to the musical genre of 'prog rock', IMHO.


-------------
http://theprogressiveweb.blogspot.de" rel="nofollow - Visit me in Second Life to talk about music.


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: July 25 2014 at 03:54
Originally posted by Guldbamsen 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...


-------------
Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran









Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: July 25 2014 at 05:30
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:


Originally posted by Guldbamsen 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

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: July 29 2014 at 01:10
I have to agree with Guldbamsen. It depends on how to define progressive. If progressive as in "prog", they don't meet it. If progressive as in push the boundaries in rock, then definitely.

-------------
He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk