bizarre - the new Doors lineup

This one is truly from the twilight zone. I was looking at the latest issue of Rolling Stone (the one with the really nice pic of Jennifer Love Hewitt on the cover) and I came across an announcement that Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger are creating a brand new line-up of the Doors with Stewart Copeland filling in for John Densmore on drums and none other than Ian Astbury of the Cult on vocals.

I have no idea how you could possibly have a band called the Doors without Jim Morrison out front. Ian Astbury may have some physical and vocal similarities to the Lizard King (see VH1 Storytellers) but Astbury is NO Jim Morrison. It just seems kind of wrong to me.

 

Like Creedence Clearwater Revisited? What exactly are they able to revisit without John Fogerty?

 

>>>>Why didnt Densmore want to do it?

 

1.) Because he's not a whore

and

2.) Even if he wanted to do it, he has a hearing disorder which prevents him from being able to drum anymore.

 

Thats too bad because he really brought a lot of "seasoning " to the Door's sound. A really great drummer for them!

 

When Jim Morrison passed, the DOOR was slammed shut on the "Doors". GIVE ME A BREAK...What a ****ing joke! Morrison is not replaceable then or now...

 

A case of history repeating itself as a farce.

 

The Doors themselves recorded two albums without Jim Morrison before giving up the ghost -- Other Voices (which includes the best post-Morrison track, "Tightrope Ride") and Full Circle. And they called themselves The Doors. So it's possible.

That said, it's hard to imagine this working....

 

Re: Re: bizarre - the new Doors lineup

 

>>>well, they cant be the Doors WITH him, so why not be The Doors without him?

 

Densmore fully supports this reunion and is being paid a percentage of all revenues. He would be part of it if he medically could. While I find it very unfair to call the participating members "whores", the decision to tour was made by all three surviving members, not just Ray and Robbie.

 

Hey people, they're musicians, they all gave you a lot of joy through their music with Jim, and now they want to play some live shows. They decide the way to draw the crowds would be to call themselves the Doors rather than some other unknown name (a good idea). Everybody with half a brain knows this ain't the Jim Morrison lineup - i.e. they know what they're getting into when they buy a ticket. Either go or don't go, but give these guys a friggin' break!! You owe them for the greatness they brought to this planet - they don't owe you ****. And they certainly don't need to make you feel better by just rolling over & playing dead.

In other words, show some respect!! There's an awful lot of BS talk from some of you who need to grow up.

 

Every discount album bin I encountered thru the 70's had at least a copy each of those post Morrison albums. Even being the record hog that I am, even being the Doors fan that I am, I failed to buy either one.

Some bands can get along without significant original members, The Searchers have been without both Tony Jackson and Mike Pender for years now and still survive quite well on the cabaret circuit. But they aren't the caliber of The Doors either. Big Brother & The Holding Company, where did they go without Janis? While I think they're still out there with a female shouter for a front, they still don't rise above the bar circuit. How far did Michael Clarke take his version of The Byrds before he died. "Gee hon, let's go see the Byrds tonight!" "Great, who's from the original band?" "The drummer". "Who was he?"

A strong lead like Morrison can't be replaced I'm afraid, no matter how good the recreation turns out to be.

Best!

 

Did anyone in the band say they're trying to replace Morrison? I'd certainly like to see a quote, since many of you here are presuming that's their goal.

 

>>>on the other hand, if they were your favorite band, I think you would want to go to see them even with only one original member. Hey, its one night of your life, you know what I mean?

 

Amen. People who appreciate Robby & Ray will appreciate this show. I bet it will be fun, just not the Doors of old (not that anyone said it would be )

 

Ian Astbury stated that he has idolized Jim Morrison since he was fifteen. As frontman for The Cult, he has borrowed more than a little in terms of style from late singer. In fact, his new hairstyle in the photo featuring the new lineup is reminicent of Jim circa 1967.

Basically, if they were looking to go into a different direction they might have hired say someone like Chris Martin to front the band (not that he's planning to leave Coldplay anytime soon).

 

Hey - If Jimmy Page and the Black Crows can draw a crowd playing Zeppelin songs, why the hell not. Reveiws of the "Doors" first gig (a charity affair out on the left coast) were mostly positive, the band was tight and Stewart Copeland really drove home some extended jams. (Quite frankly - it is sort of nice to hear about him hitting the skins again).

I thought the Doors sounded pretty good on that VH1 special they did with rotating vocalists last year. Why shouldn't this music be revitalized in a live setting? All in all - while Jim Morrison cannot be duplicated, but I'll bet the guy from The Cult remembers more lyrics, and shows up on time more often than ol' Jimbo ever did.

 

That still doesn't mean he's trying to replace Morrison. It's an exercise in fantasy and they're having some fun too. Personally, I like Ian Astbury, and think this could work FWIW.

 

I agree with you Mike V! I think that Ian is the best choice around. Yes, this is not the original The Doors, but many people that have not seen them live can now see half the band at least. Hell, The Who is not really the original line-up
Btw, if I not remember wrong, Ian Astbury was one of the first choice for Oliver stone for the movie The Doors, I think. But Ian turned down the offer. The Cult if one of my favorite groups ever.

 

One-off gigs with rotating vocalists is one thing, but starting a new line-up of THE DOORS with the guiding force behind the band missing (not to mention the original drummer) seems ridiculous to me.

Just imagine Paul and Ringo getting together with two new guys and calling the band the Beatles. Heck, Paul could just leave out Ringo and hire Phil Collins to play drums. Makes no difference.

By the way, Plant and Page at no time formed a new line-up, called it Led Zeppelin, and went out on tour without Jones and Bonham.

 

It's not really fair to compare the new Doors to Creedence Revisted. I would bet the majority of people who pay to see the current CCR are expecting to see a band featuring the guy who sang all the hits (even if they don't necessarily know his name). There are a lot of very casual fans who don't know the story of Fogerty's problems with the other guys, and don't realize he's not in the current band. The current CCR exploits that ignorance/confusion intentionally to sell tickets.

Whereas in the case of the Doors, I would be shocked if anyone who buys a ticket will be unaware that the original singer of the band is dead and will not be performing that night. So what's the problem... no deception, no ripoff. I think the Doors without Morrison is like the Who without Moon... but if people want to buy a ticket to either of those shows, and they aren't being duped, I have no problem with that.

 

Well, maybe this is just a matter of whether or not this is in good taste then. I remember when Yes had some legal wranglings, the band simply went on tour as "Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman and Howe - An evening of Yes music plus". That tactic didn't seem to hurt ticket sales very much - maybe a similar approach should have been taken here.

 

Good points, but still the disrespect shown these people is my issue. If they want to call themselves the Doors, OK. I personally am not interested in seeing them, though I imagine it might be a lot of fun. And if Paul decided to do what you propose, I'm sure the fan backlash would be great (since they are the biggest band in the world ever), but this is his right. It was part his band, and never was it ours. Whether it works or not with fans has to be measured on a case by case basis, depending on circumstances, fan support and personal choice, and everyone knows the circumstances with these bands. If people don't want to go, they don't have to. These guys are smarter than you give them credit - they know what the fans will or will not support and make their choices accordingly. That's why the Who is still touring, and why Paul will never get the Beatles together. Page & Plant easily could have called themselves Led Zep (it would have been easier if they got Jones' blessing) but they didn't. So what. Fans would have flocked to see them either way. Ultimately, they chose one way, but the other way would have not made them any less virtuous. That's the way they wanted to play it and it worked for them, so good. I'm glad.

 

Shortly after John Entwhistle died, I remember Roger Daltrey saying that "The Who" is still printed on the tickets but what audiences are seeing is not The Who as originally conceived. I think that if Roger and Pete were to record and tour together in the future (which I'm sure they will), they would bill it as Daltrey/Townsend as opposed to the Who.

Naming a band after the last names of its original/permanent members (i.e. Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, and Howe) might indeed be a more reasonable and tasteful compromise. One thing that did occur to me though is that although this might work for Plant/Page, Daltrey/Townsend or ABW&H, I don't know if Manzarek/Krieger or Manzarek, Krieger, Copeland and Astbury would resonate as much with average ticket buyers.

Speaking for myself, this is not an issue of respect, all the parties involved are fine musicians in their own right. I guess what I'm asking is not if "can" they do it but "should" they do it, in terms of honoring the memory of the one who has died.