Were the Doors progressive?

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.

R.I.P. Ray Manzarek

Edited by Larree - May 20 2013 at 16:42

RIP Ray Manzarek

^ No. No.....

Edited by Horizons - April 27 2014 at 16:51

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.

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?

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?

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

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....