I know its hard to compare since the Doors were only around for a short time compared to the Stones but anyway, I got into a battle with my friend about whos the better band.
Doors....but i also like the stones, just not as much. My parents are big stones fans, and my first concert ever was a stones show. I found the Doors on my own(if that's possible) so I think this is why I favor them over the Stones (which I guess I think of my parents when I hear them, not a bad thing) but the Doors I think of my own emotions and feeling not a love my parents have for a band. Does this even make sense? sorry if it doesn't.
"I'm not present, I'm a drug that makes you dream"
maybe the doors are better than the stones while on drugs....well not really, no comparision, can't spell, the stones
Of course the Doors are better than the Stones while on drugs, if you disagree you either haven't taken drugs or haven't listened to the Doors while on drugs.
i agree 100%. it's a terrible comparison. but i have to ask: if it's such a crap thread, why did you bump it four days after the last post? personally, i was just hoping it would die before i had to get involved. oh well...
"a crapload of other artists were inspired by Jim Morrison"
Yeah you're right..........and they were all crap!Didnt move far from the mothership did they?
wow. that's a hell of a statement to make on a pearl jam message board. :eek:
and furthermore, it would be like blaming alice in chains for "inspiring" godsmack and staind (although i'm assuming that AIC sucks too, right? :rolleyes: )
overall, when i try to take a step back from the whole thing, i think it's funny that everyone is getting so defensive in a comparison of two bands that have very few similarities at all.
they're two of the greatest ever in my opinion, but my personal preference happens to lean strongly towards the doors.
it seems to me that most of the doors bashing in this thread is based on irrelevant hypothetical scenarios and other superficial means of analysis that have absolutely nothing to do with their talent as musicians. you can argue that jim was undeserving of his iconic status if you want, but that has very little to do with the actual music. i'll argue that he was one of four perfect pieces in a band that had unbelievable chemistry and a truly original sound. the whole was far greater than the sum of its parts.
as for jim... his lyrics weren't spectacular, but they certainly worked for the music. the lyrics weren't really the point, anyway. people were drawn to jim because of his unique stage presence and his completely original approach to the "frontman" position. and if this made his lyrics seem more powerful than they actually were, so be it. i really wish people would stop using a semi-fictional character created by oliver stone to formulate their entire opinions of jim morrison, but i guess that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
and since this is a doors vs. stones thread, shouldn't any discussion about lyrics be a comparison between the two bands? i see all sorts of jim bashing but no rational argument as to why the stones' lyrics were better. both morrison and jagger/richards had their high and low points lyrically, in my opinion. but i don't believe that the low points take away from the music's power in either instance. if somebody could tell me why jagger and richards were definitively better lyricists than jim morrison, that would just be terrific. right now, i can't claim to see it.
I don't listen to music for the lyrics. The Stones are a rock & roll band. The Doors are a lounge act. I don't give a shit how much of a "poet" Jim Morrison is supposed to be. There is no comparison!
i agree 100%. it's a terrible comparison. but i have to ask: if it's such a crap thread, why did you bump it four days after the last post? personally, i was just hoping it would die before i had to get involved. oh well...
I have a bit of a life so won't necessarily reply to threads the second they appear.Its all relative to when I notice a thread that catches my attention.Like most on the site no doubt.
wow. that's a hell of a statement to make on a pearl jam message board. :eek:
Sorry is that a comparison between Eddie and Jim Morrison?
and furthermore, it would be like blaming alice in chains for "inspiring" godsmack and staind (although i'm assuming that AIC sucks too, right? :rolleyes: )
No A.I.C. were an amazing band.Ooohhh was that us agreeing on something.LoL.A great band and Layne is truly missed.I havent heard Godsmack but don't rate Staind.
overall, when i try to take a step back from the whole thing, i think it's funny that everyone is getting so defensive in a comparison of two bands that have very few similarities at all.
That's what I was getting at,they had very little in common musically.
they're two of the greatest ever in my opinion, but my personal preference happens to lean strongly towards the doors.
Fair play to you peep.At least you have an opinion.
really wish people would stop using a semi-fictional character created by oliver stone to formulate their entire opinions of jim morrison, but i guess that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
I made no reference to oliver stones film which I havn't seen or have no to see.Film adaptation ften bad.I was refering to books I have read,people I know obsessed with Morrison.I myself am obsessed with another James from the 60's.Of the Marshall Hendrix kind.
This pit is for discussion and debate.Which as the nature of humans will rile peoples views.Thats why we all log in regularly.
“There should be a place where only the things you want to happen, happen”
i agree 100%. it's a terrible comparison. but i have to ask: if it's such a crap thread, why did you bump it four days after the last post? personally, i was just hoping it would die before i had to get involved. oh well...
I have a bit of a life so won't necessarily reply to threads the second they appear.Its all relative to when I notice a thread that catches my attention.Like most on the site no doubt.
wow. that's a hell of a statement to make on a pearl jam message board. :eek:
Sorry is that a comparison between Eddie and Jim Morrison?
and furthermore, it would be like blaming alice in chains for "inspiring" godsmack and staind (although i'm assuming that AIC sucks too, right? :rolleyes: )
No A.I.C. were an amazing band.Ooohhh was that us agreeing on something.LoL.A great band and Layne is truly missed.I havent heard Godsmack but don't rate Staind.
overall, when i try to take a step back from the whole thing, i think it's funny that everyone is getting so defensive in a comparison of two bands that have very few similarities at all.
That's what I was getting at,they had very little in common musically.
they're two of the greatest ever in my opinion, but my personal preference happens to lean strongly towards the doors.
Fair play to you peep.At least you have an opinion.
really wish people would stop using a semi-fictional character created by oliver stone to formulate their entire opinions of jim morrison, but i guess that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
I made no reference to oliver stones film which I havn't seen or have no to see.Film adaptation ften bad.I was refering to books I have read,people I know obsessed with Morrison.I myself am obsessed with another James from the 60's.Of the Marshall Hendrix kind.
This pit is for discussion and debate.Which as the nature of humans will rile peoples views.Thats why we all log in regularly.
“There should be a place where only the things you want to happen, happen”
I have a bit of a life so won't necessarily reply to threads the second they appear.Its all relative to when I notice a thread that catches my attention.Like most on the site no doubt.
i can't argue with this at all. hell, it's after 6 PM on a saturday where i am. i certainly don't plan on sticking around here that much longer. there's drinking to be done.
i didn't really mean anything by it. i was just hoping the thread would die. dumb topic, you know?
Sorry is that a comparison between Eddie and Jim Morrison?
you don't see a slight influence in vocal style? i do. of course, i could be wrong. but i think it's there. always have. ed introduced me to the doors by performing with them way back in the day. i was about 12 years old at the time and just starting to get into music. one of the things i've always admired about pearl jam was the way in which they introduced their younger audience (which i guess was me at the time) to the earlier influences that we all should have been aware of anyway.
I made no reference to oliver stones film which I havn't seen or have no to see.Film adaptation ften bad.I was refering to books I have read,people I know obsessed with Morrison.I myself am obsessed with another James from the 60's.Of the Marshall Hendrix kind.
oh, don't worry about that... i wasn't referring to you actually. sorry for the confusion. the second half of my rant was just a general comment on the thread (everything beginning with "overall"). and i feel like there are a lot of people in the world who take oliver stone's film as fact, which is a shame. there are aspects of the movie that are really good, but overall he basically turned jim morrison into a one-dimensional asshole.
and there's nothing wrong with a hendrix obsession. jimi is god. so i guess our tastes in music aren't as different as i would have previously assumed...
but i'll never fully understand why so many people hate the doors. i always felt kinda bad for robby, ray, and john. they were fantastic musicians (in my opinion), but have been forced to live their entire lives in jim's shadow. this was never jim's intention. the media and the record label made it happen.
i didn't really mean anything by it. i was just hoping the thread would die. dumb topic, you know?
I'm finished with this thread to peep.Said all I want to say.People can be into a lot of similiar music but then be poles apart about one band/artist.lol
“There should be a place where only the things you want to happen, happen”
Of course the Doors are better than the Stones while on drugs, if you disagree you either haven't taken drugs or haven't listened to the Doors while on drugs.
No, I can't argue that. I like the stones better, but having taken drugs and listened to the both bands while on drugs, the doors are a better "user friendly" band.
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
The Doors were a way better band, the amount of great material they put out during their short career still amazes me to this day, plus if Jim were still alive I couldn't see him doing best buy commercials for big screen TV's
i didn't really mean anything by it. i was just hoping the thread would die. dumb topic, you know?
I'm finished with this thread to peep.Said all I want to say.People can be into a lot of similiar music but then be poles apart about one band/artist.lol
Stones by a landslide to me. Creatively, I put Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, and Some Girls above any Doors album. There is more to the stones than their lyrics:
1. Open tuned riffs were not started by the stones (Ry Cooder was the one who showed this to Keith) but it was mastered by Keith Richards (see: Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Woman, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, WIld HOrses, etc).
2. Live performances. During the 1972-1973 tour, their many not have been a tighter band out there (apologies to The Who), as Mick Taylor was a tremendous player (see Brussells Affair Bootleg, specifically Gimme Shelter and Dancin with Mr. D). The modern era stones (Note: their last show was NOT last night ) is as good a live act as there is out there now when Ronnie Wood is interested in playing and not waving and when Keith is sober.
3. Rhythm Section - Charlie Watts is NOT the greatest drummer to ever live, but he is the greatest drummer within the context of his band. He and Bill Wyman (and Daryl Jones as well) form a very tight rhythm section and played their roles within the band better than anyone I have seen.
4. Frontman - Jim Morrison had amazing personality and image, but his stage presence was lacking (reminds me of the Black Crowes singer actually). Part of this may be attributed to his refusal to accept fame whereas Jagger not only accepted fame, but exploited it. Mick at his age now commands a stage like no one has before him. (Eddie Vedder has great presence, but keep in mind that Pearl Jam presents themselves as a "band" where many see the Stones as "Mick Jagger and Keith Richards).
5. Longetivity - tough to compare them to the Doors here, but I cannot see the Doors being a band into the eighties. The stones, even through breakups and poor albums remained a factor for over 40 years.
There's Pearl Jam, The Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, Robert Johnson......and then everybody else.
Hands down it has to be The Doors. I respect The Rolling Stones but they are overplayed and overrated. Their music gets old after awhile. Sorry I have to stick up for my Jimmy.
Let me sleep all night in your soul kitchen....... Learn to forget....... fingers weive quick minarets speak in secret alphabet.
I'm a fan of the Stones and love a lot of the stuff they have done, but they seem one dimensional compared to the Doors. Their sound is not that far removed from their influences, while the Doors made a decided effort to be different and sound different. As a result, no one sounds like the Doors, they made an attempt to be unique and achieved that goal while writing compelling music. Even the Doors' bluesy songs don't sound like straight blues, and are tweaked in a unique, cool way. I don't think the same can really be said of the Stones.
As a frontman the powers that Jagger was only playing with, Morrison had a complete understanding of. In Jagger's defense he did realize right away that he couldn't do as many drugs as Keith and keep living, however! I am continually being blown away by discovering things that I had previously thought to be Morrison's poetic gibberish or a throw-away line actually to have profound meaning and depth; concepts that I am only now understanding by randomly coming accross them in some obscure book, Morrison had a grasp of in his early 20's, or even before. A lot of people who write off the Doors as juvenile I think miss this aspect of them.
Sleep on horseback
Far moon in a continuing dream
Steam of roasting tea
I am continually being blown away by discovering things that I had previously thought to be Morrison's poetic gibberish or a throw-away line actually to have profound meaning and depth; concepts that I am only now understanding by randomly coming accross them in some obscure book, Morrison had a grasp of in his early 20's, or even before. A lot of people who write off the Doors as juvenile I think miss this aspect of them.
Nah, most semi-educated teenagers read crap Kerouac novels and dabble with a bit of Nietzsche. It's a rite of passage.
I'm a fan of the Stones and love a lot of the stuff they have done, but they seem one dimensional compared to the Doors. Their sound is not that far removed from their influences, while the Doors made a decided effort to be different and sound different. As a result, no one sounds like the Doors, they made an attempt to be unique and achieved that goal while writing compelling music. Even the Doors' bluesy songs don't sound like straight blues, and are tweaked in a unique, cool way. I don't think the same can really be said of the Stones.
As a frontman the powers that Jagger was only playing with, Morrison had a complete understanding of. In Jagger's defense he did realize right away that he couldn't do as many drugs as Keith and keep living, however! I am continually being blown away by discovering things that I had previously thought to be Morrison's poetic gibberish or a throw-away line actually to have profound meaning and depth; concepts that I am only now understanding by randomly coming accross them in some obscure book, Morrison had a grasp of in his early 20's, or even before. A lot of people who write off the Doors as juvenile I think miss this aspect of them.
Some excellent points, but I must encourage you to listen to the following songs to see the range that the Stones have and see how far away some of these sound from Chuck Berry:
1. Dead Flowers (Sticky Fingers)
2. Shine a Light (Exile on Main St)
3. Miss You (not my favorite, but different than what they normally did, its on Some Girls)
4. Laugh I Nearly Died (A Bigger Bang)
5. You Don't Have To Mean It (Bridges to Babylon)
6. Back of My Hand (A Bigger Bang)
7. Monkey Man (Let it Bleed)
8. Have You Seen Your Mother Baby Standing in the Shadows (Big Hits High Tide and Green Grass)
9. Hot Stuff (Black and Blue)
10. Heaven (Tattoo You)
There are ten songs with ten distinct different styles. When I play the Doors, whom I do like, they all have the exact same feel to me.
There's Pearl Jam, The Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, Robert Johnson......and then everybody else.
Two bands you can't compare.
To me The Doors win, and btw if Ed admits it or not, he learned to scream from Morrison, check some mid 90's stuff.
There are many anecdotes about the doors vs rolling stones from the 60's.
Morrison was a performer, he had a different concept of performance on a rock concert than anybody else at the time.
He actually left the doors when he left for Paris. He had different plans before he died. The most important artist/fan of his is Patti Smith.
The guy got a bunch of bad publicity from some of the people who knew him that cynically exploited him.
I knew who I was before other people started telling me who I was. J.Joplin
Comments
I say old.
Of course the Doors are better than the Stones while on drugs, if you disagree you either haven't taken drugs or haven't listened to the Doors while on drugs.
naděje umírá poslední
yeah, watch out for those people. they might not be pretentious enough to be taken seriously. :rolleyes:
i agree 100%. it's a terrible comparison. but i have to ask: if it's such a crap thread, why did you bump it four days after the last post? personally, i was just hoping it would die before i had to get involved. oh well...
wow. that's a hell of a statement to make on a pearl jam message board. :eek:
and furthermore, it would be like blaming alice in chains for "inspiring" godsmack and staind (although i'm assuming that AIC sucks too, right? :rolleyes: )
overall, when i try to take a step back from the whole thing, i think it's funny that everyone is getting so defensive in a comparison of two bands that have very few similarities at all.
they're two of the greatest ever in my opinion, but my personal preference happens to lean strongly towards the doors.
it seems to me that most of the doors bashing in this thread is based on irrelevant hypothetical scenarios and other superficial means of analysis that have absolutely nothing to do with their talent as musicians. you can argue that jim was undeserving of his iconic status if you want, but that has very little to do with the actual music. i'll argue that he was one of four perfect pieces in a band that had unbelievable chemistry and a truly original sound. the whole was far greater than the sum of its parts.
as for jim... his lyrics weren't spectacular, but they certainly worked for the music. the lyrics weren't really the point, anyway. people were drawn to jim because of his unique stage presence and his completely original approach to the "frontman" position. and if this made his lyrics seem more powerful than they actually were, so be it. i really wish people would stop using a semi-fictional character created by oliver stone to formulate their entire opinions of jim morrison, but i guess that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
and since this is a doors vs. stones thread, shouldn't any discussion about lyrics be a comparison between the two bands? i see all sorts of jim bashing but no rational argument as to why the stones' lyrics were better. both morrison and jagger/richards had their high and low points lyrically, in my opinion. but i don't believe that the low points take away from the music's power in either instance. if somebody could tell me why jagger and richards were definitively better lyricists than jim morrison, that would just be terrific. right now, i can't claim to see it.
I have a bit of a life so won't necessarily reply to threads the second they appear.Its all relative to when I notice a thread that catches my attention.Like most on the site no doubt.
wow. that's a hell of a statement to make on a pearl jam message board. :eek:
Sorry is that a comparison between Eddie and Jim Morrison?
and furthermore, it would be like blaming alice in chains for "inspiring" godsmack and staind (although i'm assuming that AIC sucks too, right? :rolleyes: )
No A.I.C. were an amazing band.Ooohhh was that us agreeing on something.LoL.A great band and Layne is truly missed.I havent heard Godsmack but don't rate Staind.
overall, when i try to take a step back from the whole thing, i think it's funny that everyone is getting so defensive in a comparison of two bands that have very few similarities at all.
That's what I was getting at,they had very little in common musically.
they're two of the greatest ever in my opinion, but my personal preference happens to lean strongly towards the doors.
Fair play to you peep.At least you have an opinion.
really wish people would stop using a semi-fictional character created by oliver stone to formulate their entire opinions of jim morrison, but i guess that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
I made no reference to oliver stones film which I havn't seen or have no to see.Film adaptation ften bad.I was refering to books I have read,people I know obsessed with Morrison.I myself am obsessed with another James from the 60's.Of the Marshall Hendrix kind.
This pit is for discussion and debate.Which as the nature of humans will rile peoples views.Thats why we all log in regularly.
I have a bit of a life so won't necessarily reply to threads the second they appear.Its all relative to when I notice a thread that catches my attention.Like most on the site no doubt.
wow. that's a hell of a statement to make on a pearl jam message board. :eek:
Sorry is that a comparison between Eddie and Jim Morrison?
and furthermore, it would be like blaming alice in chains for "inspiring" godsmack and staind (although i'm assuming that AIC sucks too, right? :rolleyes: )
No A.I.C. were an amazing band.Ooohhh was that us agreeing on something.LoL.A great band and Layne is truly missed.I havent heard Godsmack but don't rate Staind.
overall, when i try to take a step back from the whole thing, i think it's funny that everyone is getting so defensive in a comparison of two bands that have very few similarities at all.
That's what I was getting at,they had very little in common musically.
they're two of the greatest ever in my opinion, but my personal preference happens to lean strongly towards the doors.
Fair play to you peep.At least you have an opinion.
really wish people would stop using a semi-fictional character created by oliver stone to formulate their entire opinions of jim morrison, but i guess that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
I made no reference to oliver stones film which I havn't seen or have no to see.Film adaptation ften bad.I was refering to books I have read,people I know obsessed with Morrison.I myself am obsessed with another James from the 60's.Of the Marshall Hendrix kind.
This pit is for discussion and debate.Which as the nature of humans will rile peoples views.Thats why we all log in regularly.
i can't argue with this at all. hell, it's after 6 PM on a saturday where i am. i certainly don't plan on sticking around here that much longer. there's drinking to be done.
i didn't really mean anything by it. i was just hoping the thread would die. dumb topic, you know?
you don't see a slight influence in vocal style? i do. of course, i could be wrong. but i think it's there. always have. ed introduced me to the doors by performing with them way back in the day. i was about 12 years old at the time and just starting to get into music. one of the things i've always admired about pearl jam was the way in which they introduced their younger audience (which i guess was me at the time) to the earlier influences that we all should have been aware of anyway.
so we're in agreement then... more or less...
oh, don't worry about that... i wasn't referring to you actually. sorry for the confusion.
and there's nothing wrong with a hendrix obsession. jimi is god.
but i'll never fully understand why so many people hate the doors. i always felt kinda bad for robby, ray, and john. they were fantastic musicians (in my opinion), but have been forced to live their entire lives in jim's shadow. this was never jim's intention. the media and the record label made it happen.
I'm finished with this thread to peep.Said all I want to say.People can be into a lot of similiar music but then be poles apart about one band/artist.lol
I like your name, can I meet you someday?
Ohh wots in a name???
1. Open tuned riffs were not started by the stones (Ry Cooder was the one who showed this to Keith) but it was mastered by Keith Richards (see: Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Woman, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, WIld HOrses, etc).
2. Live performances. During the 1972-1973 tour, their many not have been a tighter band out there (apologies to The Who), as Mick Taylor was a tremendous player (see Brussells Affair Bootleg, specifically Gimme Shelter and Dancin with Mr. D). The modern era stones (Note: their last show was NOT last night
3. Rhythm Section - Charlie Watts is NOT the greatest drummer to ever live, but he is the greatest drummer within the context of his band. He and Bill Wyman (and Daryl Jones as well) form a very tight rhythm section and played their roles within the band better than anyone I have seen.
4. Frontman - Jim Morrison had amazing personality and image, but his stage presence was lacking (reminds me of the Black Crowes singer actually). Part of this may be attributed to his refusal to accept fame whereas Jagger not only accepted fame, but exploited it. Mick at his age now commands a stage like no one has before him. (Eddie Vedder has great presence, but keep in mind that Pearl Jam presents themselves as a "band" where many see the Stones as "Mick Jagger and Keith Richards).
5. Longetivity - tough to compare them to the Doors here, but I cannot see the Doors being a band into the eighties. The stones, even through breakups and poor albums remained a factor for over 40 years.
As a frontman the powers that Jagger was only playing with, Morrison had a complete understanding of. In Jagger's defense he did realize right away that he couldn't do as many drugs as Keith and keep living, however! I am continually being blown away by discovering things that I had previously thought to be Morrison's poetic gibberish or a throw-away line actually to have profound meaning and depth; concepts that I am only now understanding by randomly coming accross them in some obscure book, Morrison had a grasp of in his early 20's, or even before. A lot of people who write off the Doors as juvenile I think miss this aspect of them.
Far moon in a continuing dream
Steam of roasting tea
--Basho
Nah, most semi-educated teenagers read crap Kerouac novels and dabble with a bit of Nietzsche. It's a rite of passage.
Some excellent points, but I must encourage you to listen to the following songs to see the range that the Stones have and see how far away some of these sound from Chuck Berry:
1. Dead Flowers (Sticky Fingers)
2. Shine a Light (Exile on Main St)
3. Miss You (not my favorite, but different than what they normally did, its on Some Girls)
4. Laugh I Nearly Died (A Bigger Bang)
5. You Don't Have To Mean It (Bridges to Babylon)
6. Back of My Hand (A Bigger Bang)
7. Monkey Man (Let it Bleed)
8. Have You Seen Your Mother Baby Standing in the Shadows (Big Hits High Tide and Green Grass)
9. Hot Stuff (Black and Blue)
10. Heaven (Tattoo You)
There are ten songs with ten distinct different styles. When I play the Doors, whom I do like, they all have the exact same feel to me.
But The Stones have my vote.
To me The Doors win, and btw if Ed admits it or not, he learned to scream from Morrison, check some mid 90's stuff.
There are many anecdotes about the doors vs rolling stones from the 60's.
Morrison was a performer, he had a different concept of performance on a rock concert than anybody else at the time.
He actually left the doors when he left for Paris. He had different plans before he died. The most important artist/fan of his is Patti Smith.
The guy got a bunch of bad publicity from some of the people who knew him that cynically exploited him.
Have been around forever. Like their stuff much more (Sympathy for the devil! Can it get any better?)