Should "The Doors" be on here?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10768
Printed Date: August 11 2025 at 08:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Should "The Doors" be on here?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Should "The Doors" be on here?
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 09:56
|
I don't know about you guys but I find them more progressive then "psychedelic" which they are known to be... And anyways, psychedelia meets progressive. |
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 09:59
|
I don't see them as prog, so I would be against it! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:01
------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:03
|
No. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:42
| I think they should, if Queen and Roxy Music (which BTW I like) are here. So, they're psychedelic more than prog... then, what about Floyd with Barrett? |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:43
|
NO.I like them alot,but NO -------------  |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:45
Psychedelic Floyd is four years out of Entire Floyd...  I know Roxy and Queen are here,but that doesn't mean that everybody is entitled to prog... -------------
|
Ghost Rider wrote:Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:48
|
Yea but how do you explain Syd Barrett? Even though I love what he did His solo years were not prog at all... it was more like british pop meets psychedelia kinda thing
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:53
Uh...no comment.
-------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 10:54
|
Posted By: Damen
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 11:08
|
Hell no ------------- "It's amazing that we've been able to put up with each other for 35 years. Most marriages don't last that long these days." -Chris Squire |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 11:39
| Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyno. |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 12:14
|
Hell No
|
Posted By: Wolf Spider
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 12:25
|
Hell no, main argument: they are not prog
------------- http://www.lastfm.pl/user/tomash33 - Last.fm |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 13:55
They're pretty good, but prog? hell no ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Syntharachnid
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 14:52
|
Nope. ------------- 
|
Posted By: richeym
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 15:07
| i wish people on this site would learn the difference between progressive and original/influential |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 27 2005 at 15:16
|
I'd say they are not prog rock- I am a big fan of their music, but much of it is fairly basic blues rock with classical/ baroque flourishes on the keyboards. This doesn't equal prog rock to me at all. At the time they were a revolutionary band as music like theirs hadn't been heard before, but their huge influence doesn't make them a progressive band, as the previous poster said. |
Posted By: Hemispheres
Date Posted: August 28 2005 at 22:16
|
NO JESUS ------------- [IMG]http://www.wheresthatfrom.com/avatars/miguelsanchez.gif">[IMG]http://www.rockphiles.com/all_images/Act_Images/TheMothersOfInvention/mothers300.jpg"> |
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 06:41
|
no, not even in 3000 years ------------- "my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III") |
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 12:50
|
Maybe songs like The end or When the music´s over has a little prog, The doors is one of my favs bands... but they shouldn´t be here NO ------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: little_neutrino
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 13:04
|
No. It's neat what they were doing with blues-rock - L.A. Woman, Morrison Hotel - so you might be able to argue that way - as in, Jethro Tull was blues in the beginning too, just as Floyd was psych in the beginning. But I think they would have had to take it somewhere (i.e. into prog somehow) to be legitimately on the Archives, like Tull and Floyd did. To be fair, the Doors did have some proggish songs ...... ....mind you, there seem to be a great many "debateably-prog" acts hopping on the prog bandwagon (i.e. the Archives All a matter of taste, I guess. I still don't consider Led Zep really proggy, Physical Graffiti not withstanding. It's still awesome stuff though, guys. We shouldn't have to call it prog for it to be liked ... we have eclectic tastes, remember? |
Posted By: floydaholic
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 20:24
|
I say nay. ------------- I'll see you on the Darkside of the moon... |
Posted By: Philrod
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 20:35
|
hell no! but still, a great, great band! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Philrod/?chartstyle=Geldropdown-small"> 
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 20:39
|
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: margaret
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 22:11
find it ironic that this thread was sitting right below the thread entitled 'Does humor belong in prog'.  Needless to say I can't really see any way the Doors were prog.
|
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: August 29 2005 at 23:11
Sorry, but no
------------- "Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste. It is a process of expression." -Merleau-Ponty |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 01:48
| Just a simple No |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 16:12
| Great band, but not prog. |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 18:17
| I like the Doors, but they are not prog and therefore do not belong here. |
Posted By: daghrastubfari
Date Posted: August 31 2005 at 14:02
| They're cool but not really prog I think |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: August 31 2005 at 14:16
|
They did break new ground. Interesting music with some changes. Very psychedelic twangy guitar, good but understated drums, Farfisa organ No.
------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Trihas
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 13:33
|
Doors? -------------  
|
Posted By: NegativeTrend
Date Posted: September 05 2005 at 14:58
Quoted for truth. ------------- 
 |
Posted By: kirklott
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 16:09
|
This whole Should The Bay City Rollers/Kajagoogoo/Blind Melon be on progarchives? is really wearing me down. There should be some sort of commitee to elect bands, otherwise progarchives.com will be no different than allmusic.com (i.e. ALL music) ------------- "Progressive rock is the key to the continuance of human evolution." - Charles Darwin |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 20:35
| They definetely had prog sensibilities but NO. Great band still. |
Posted By: sgrurru
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 10:21
sorry but if The Doors are prog then just about ANYONE can be prog...let's say even Britney Spears...how about her..is she prog? ------------- Da qui messere si domina la valle |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 17:51
| This band was a perfect and dynamic progressive blend of jazz, blues, rock, classic and folk. I have to underpress a lot of primitive anger when I read all those suspicious and reluctant language against an addition of The Doors, I simply don't understand because The Doors were a part of the progressvie rock movement in the late Sixties?! |
Posted By: RaphaelT
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 20:24
|
They deserve to be here more than Queen. ------------- yet you still have time! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 01:05
|
No, they weren't. (Great band, though!) NO! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 01:07
Still NO! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
My granny deserves to be here more than Queen, but two wrongs don't make a right.Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 01:40
Is your granny Annie Haslim? |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 01:52
I agree with Erik. If we had to think to prog in a strict and formal way, then we had to work a lot to exclude many bands included in progarchives (ex. Queen) and big part of the albums of those groups like for ex. Genesis' late Collins period! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 02:02
Mine doesn't include the Doors or Queen -- or Zeppelin, or metal, or fusion, or Zappa, or.... ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: -bp-
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 02:03
|
NO! stop adding all these bands that arent prog :(
------------- 
|
Posted By: Mlaen
Date Posted: September 17 2005 at 06:45
 NO!
|
Posted By: Steve
Date Posted: September 17 2005 at 07:24
 Well, just to say that the doors
were years ahead of their time and in my opinion, were in that case
Progressive and have not dated as much as some of their contemporaries.
Surley any music that pushes the boundries is Prog.
------------- See The Swan Fly High |
Posted By: Gluonio
Date Posted: September 17 2005 at 09:32
No ,they shouldn't be included!But why should they?Is the inclusion here some kind of recognition for them?Come one we are talking about one of the greatest bands ever(and i love them) but...!Why are people here so anxious to include their favorite bands ?It's not a big deal you know!I mean i love the site and all but it's just about a specific kind of music.You can love other kinds of music you know,don't feel guilty for that and don't try to inlude everyone here! ------------- ...But my dreams are for dreaming and best left that way-and my zero to your power of ten equals nothing at all... |
Posted By: little_neutrino
Date Posted: September 17 2005 at 14:39
|
It always seemed to me that the race was on to see who had the most variety in musical tastes .... so keeping bands in their correct genres would win. |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: September 17 2005 at 18:14
|
Agree with you! |
Posted By: Simkim
Date Posted: September 17 2005 at 23:39
I'd say no if hadn't saw Queen and Deep Purple here  |
Posted By: Prodigal
Date Posted: September 18 2005 at 16:05
| The Doors are great, but they're not prog. |
Posted By: krauthead
Date Posted: October 17 2005 at 16:29
|
Some Doors albums are really good, but I voted 'hell no' because if that's prog I'm outta here! ------------- *Dancing madly backwards on a sea of air* - Captain Beyond |
Posted By: Don Quito
Date Posted: October 17 2005 at 16:45
|
There's no way The doors are progressive... I see them more as classic/blues rock than any other thing. ------------- KEEP THE PROMISE YOU MADE |
Posted By: horza
Date Posted: October 17 2005 at 16:49
|
i love the doors - they are one of my fav bands - but they ain't prog ------------- Originally posted by darkshade: Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot. |
Posted By: Don Quito
Date Posted: October 17 2005 at 16:56
|
My opinion is that all these kinds of thread started once the category of prog related was openned. I believe there is no such thing as prog related. There are so many bands in that category that fit perfectly as art rock. Let me recall some of them: Jon Anderson / Asia / Syd Barrett / Adrian Belew / Peter Gabriel / David Gilmour / Allan Parsons Band-Project / Roxy Music / Saga / Styx / Roger Waters / Supertramp
------------- KEEP THE PROMISE YOU MADE |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 06:26
The Doors and Morrison were grounbreaking artists but IMO they do not belong to prog rock. Otherwise, how can you include them and exclude similar Californian bands which blended psychedelic, rock, folk and blues like JEFFERSON AIRPLANE, LOVE, QUICKSILVER MESSANGER, GRATEFUL DEAD, BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD... 
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: October 20 2005 at 17:21
| In my opinion we are too much focused on Seventies progressive rock like King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant and ELP. If you divide the two words progressive and rock you can namel bands like Love, The Doors, early Santana and Jefferson Airplane progressive rock bands, they made innovative/sophisticated=progressive rock music, it's up to the soon to be founded 'Prog Archives Court' which bands will be added to this site. My personal opinion is that many of these bands made more genuine progressive rock than a lot of the prog metal - and neo-progressive rock bands and Eighties Yes and Genesis or Anthony Phillips solo. Yes, that sounds very personal and subjective! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 22 2005 at 02:50
|
Our sub-genre description says:
Only a couple of questions:
I don't have an answer, does anybody here? But I do believe that for example that USA Psyche bands as Sweetwater in their short life were closer to Prog than the early Moody Blues. Iván PS: I'm not asking to include them, but aren't The End, Light my Fire, etc. much more closer than anything many Pshyche British bands ever did? Again I don't know, but I have serious doubts about Psychedelia and Prog relation.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: October 22 2005 at 09:50
|
I COMPLETELY agree, I mean. listen to that prog metal crap... Prog is not about noise... In prog you can easily recognize every instrument playing, listen to Yes, Gentle Giant and then listen to Dream Theater... I mean what the hell?! its like 2 completely different worlds, at least The Doors resembles them more, with many of their works and sounds. Prog Metal is probably the worst thing that happened to prog since the fall of Syd Barrett. |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 15:07
|
^^ I also agree with both of you up there! I personally find The Doors or Grateful Dead far more progressive than, say, Dream Theater or other metal, but what to do? I am not sure.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 15:23
|
Progressive, yes - definitely. Especially for the time - they were, Ahem, Far Out. Prog Rock, um, not reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally. But they produced some tracks that were very proggy in nature, e.g. "The End", "Spanish Caravan" - even "Riders on the Storm" and "Light My Fire" have progginess going on, and there are little progressive goodies in many other songs. And I agree with some of the above sentiments comparing them to some other bands... However, since none of their albums are close to full-blown prog, I choose no. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 16:44
agree |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 16:45
so true! Yes what's funny is that people seem to be shocked by such an addition, but are not about the inclusion of atrocious mainstream bands like Queen, without talking about the metal or prog-metal which is mostly prog by name. |
Posted By: lizard
Date Posted: October 25 2005 at 21:17
|
agree..true!..jim hade a prog figure caracter! just kidding |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 02:30
|
That's because Queen (who are NOT atrocious, BTW, they're incredibly good), produced some great prog albums. Don't forget sell-out bands like Genesis who also went mainstream, and Yes, who tried to sell hit records... I agree about prog metal though - it's just prog by name on the whole. |
Posted By: Peace Frog
Date Posted: October 26 2005 at 15:00
|
Yes, my name is Peace Frog, and I am a Doors fan, but this is a prog site, and the Doors are definitley not prog. They have some long songs, and experiment some, but they are more psychedelic than prog. Among their proggiest songs, I'd have to say Riders on the Storm, When The Music's Over, and the Soft Parade. Very good band though. ------------- http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Genesisprog
Date Posted: November 04 2005 at 13:28
|
The end,Light my fire,the soft parade,when the music is over,riders on the storm-need more reasons?? ------------- Frank Zappa,Pink Floyd,Yes,Genesis,Rush,King Crimson,Jethro Tull,E.L.P,Rick Wakeman -They have one similarity- I Love Them all ! |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: November 08 2005 at 14:23
|
There is a slight difference between American and British psychedelia - the former (Doors, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Steve Miller, Love etc.) is somehow more rooted in American folk/country/blues rock and usually not associated with "progressive rock", while the latter (Pink Floyd, Nice, Soft Machine, Yardbirds, etc.) is generally accepted as one of the strongest foundations of "progressive rock" or "art rock" if you wish... me think
|
Posted By: kenmeyerjr
Date Posted: November 14 2005 at 20:31
|
As much as I love the Doors, I wouldn't say they were progressive at all, almost singular, but not progressive. ------------- If you like art of musicians, check my site (the music section) and tell me what you think! http://www.kenmeyerjr.com |