The Doors "Other Voices"

Not if Jac was aware that Morrison was no longer committed to the band. If Jac passed, someone else would have given them a deal.

 

I see your point but Robbie sounded a lot more intense and assertive w a fuzz-tone on his guitar and more light and flamingo-styled w/ it off. He could get a little more in your face and assertive more then you might suspect. I saw him do just this in concert. He could have possibly adapted. Possibly. Also, they could have perhaps used a vocalist on one or two selections to take the weight off them like a couple of jazz ensembles were doing at the time....Robbie could maybe then dial it back at that point and get more subtle as he seemed to prefer (and as you deem him). Whatever the case may be, they weren’t headed that way, I guess. Things were starting to change around them as well and that had to have been an issue.....The Eagles, Steely Dan, Barnstorm, etc emerging and kinda taking over.
Even bands as confident as Traffic were starting throw in the towel. They might have been a tired of esch other by then as well as they must have lived a thousand lives togther w Morrison etc. Not to mention set in their ways.

 

Looking at the cover of Full Circle - who else but the Moody Blues would put out such an ugly garish cover as late as 1972? - and Elektra usually had good covers.

 

How true. Electra-Asylum was more where it was at by then, I guess....now those were really great albums covers...
Jackson, Joni, Jo Jo Gunne, Eagles....no kitsch on them......

 

Yeah, but it came with a zoetrope!

 

I think where I might totally agree w you is regarding the sort of endurance it takes to play jazz...
RK may not have had that sort of focus....Certain rock players do, however, such as Garcia.

 

AC DC managed to carry on with even greater success after the death of their singer and main lyricist, Bon Scott.

I think The Doors could have done the same but I suspect they were in a state of flux prior to Morrison's death, not knowing for definite if he would come back.

I suspect they worked up material instrumentally which was already worked on at the L.A. Woman sessions. Musically speaking Other Voices sounds well studied and rehearsed.

After Morrison died time was running out and no singer was available to replace him at that time so they took a quick decision to write lyrics and sing the songs themselves.

Lyrically speaking the album is full of thinly disguised references to people leaving, dying, burning out, drifting away etc. It's hard to believe that apart from maybe Down On The Farm any of the lyrics were finished prior to Morrison's death. In fact the shadow of Morrison is cast all over the somewhat downbeat and gloomy atmosphere the songs live in.

With some more time spent on the lyrics (although they are nowhere near as bad as some suggest) and a better singer, the album could have been great.

 

A very different band in ‘70, it’s true. Five To One from the Boston late show isn’t a bad moment. The whole Vancouver show is excellent, I think. As I recall the Hawaii Light My Fire is fun too.

 

I think you're overlooking the most obvious thing; immediately working on another album distracted them from grieving Morrison's death. I would guess it was good for them to do OV but once they continued after that it caught up with them and they fractured internally.

 

No, I'm not overlooking that. I'm really not overlooking anything. The only thing I can't explain are Siddons' remarks in a single interview. I did say above that he (Siddons) might've misremembered or confused the timeline. Or, maybe he was full of shi t and just blurted something untrue out for no logical reason. Strange things have been known to crop up in Doors-related interviews. It's funny that nobody ever brought up those Siddons' comments with him in subsequent interviews. I mean, replacing Jim Morrison? That's huge, dontcha think?

I'll continue to believe that The Doors were NOT actively working at replacing Jim based on these factors:
- Jim didn't DEFINITIVELY say that he was leaving the group.
- Jim wasn't gone long enough for the group to "write him off".
- Jim made a phone call, an inquiring phone call to bandmate John Densmore.
- The positive L.A. Woman recording process and the overwhelming success of the album was enough to sustain Ray, Robby, and John and want to continue in that vein.
- They were waiting for Jim's appeal to settle, waiting for Jim to run out of money, and waiting for Jim to want to sing again.
- If they truly wanted to replace Jim, when he died, why didn't Ray, Robby, and John simply replace him with another lead singer?
- In the forty-eight years since Jim left for Paris, other than one Bill Siddons' comment, there has not been a single person claim that Ray, Robby, and John were actively working to replace Jim.
- Does anyone really think that, in the end, Ray Manzarek would've replaced Jim Morrison in The Doors?
- Jim Morrison was too great to replace. Somebody above made the comparison to Bon Scott and AC/DC. Jim was much bigger than that. There weren't many rock stars bigger than Jim Morrison, even in 1971.

 

I hsven’t seen too many suggestions that maybe they were quite happy to be free of Morrison, hence the apparent excitement and burst of songwriting and recording. They’d never admit that now, sure, but I suspect there was at least relief, if not happiness about it.

 

Relief that they would never write and record with Jim again? Relief? I don't think so.

 

September seems a bit late considering the album was in the shops in late October. Test pressings would have been made several weeks in advance of that. It seems the album was in the can by September which puts the recording sessions awful close to Morrison's death.

 

I think you overlook the reported animosity between the parties due to Morrison’s unreliability and especially after Miami. 48 years removed it seems crazy that the band would have wanted to part ways with Morrison because of his post-death iconic status, but that is not necessarily how it was viewed circa 1970/1971. The band was established and wanted to work, and if Morrison was unwilling, they were going to consider other options.

 

The Doors have been more of a propaganda machine than they have ever been a band. It makes perfect sense that replacing Jim never got mentioned, and was stricken from the record. Before Apocalypse Now, probably no one cared to even ask. I think it's ridiculous to even speculate that Stull may have "laid down a vocal". The nature and meaning of the comment "Stull was going to replace Morrison" could mean anything from they auditioned him and he was the best fit, right down to they had the contract drawn up but Morrison died and they re-assessed. It was a meaningful statement from Siddons, but pretty much was a throw away comment.

Remember, The Doors also had plans for Japanese and Australian tour dates in 71, which obviously never materialsed. For all we knew, it was canceled after the Dallas (late) and New Orleans flops, or it could have been planned way ahead of time and cancelled on purpose simply to allow for Morrisons bail and no flight restrictions, pending sentencing and probably appeal.

 

I think it's in the Bob Chorush interview, Morrison actually suggests he hopes the band will go on to do more jazzy experimental stuff, I think he even said "instrumental". The notion of the band shedding Morrison, or at least a sense of relief and refreshment was not absurd at all.

 

How on earth did the band think it was a good idea to release these albums so soon after Jim's death? They were really out of touch it seems as to what made the doors sound like the doors cause even musically these albums dont sound much like the Doors.

 

No, In The Eye Of The Sun maybe sounds nothing like a track off L.A. Woman from a musical perspective.........if you're unfamiliar with both. To me they are cut from the exact same cloth.

 

Strictly reserved to unconditional The Doors fans and completists

 

Again, the band was recording prior to his death. The plan was likely to release something during the second half of 1971 with or without Jim (because they were committed to continue working without him prior to his death). The timing of his death may have added some complications, but from their perspective, why let the momentum of their career diminish by delaying the release of new material? It isn't as if there was some sort of notable backlash from the public because they failed to properly mourn Morrison's passing. The band's popularity decreased because they simply were not as good and their music did not resonate to the masses like it previously did. Their biggest mistake was not bringing in a new lead vocalist.

 

Change their name and move on. Putting out 2 Doors albums directly after Jims death that don't sound a thing like the Doors was pretty skeevy

 

Why change their name? It was their band. Three of them remained. They worked hard to establish themselves. Why start over? Don't get me wrong, I do not particularly like the post-Morrison era, in fact, I think OV and FC are two of the worst albums ever released by a mainstream band, but I don't begrudge Ray, Robby and John for wanting to continue working under the name they helped establish.

 

The band was completely tone deaf to what made them The Doors. No Jim no Doors it should have been pretty apparent to them even then.
Why start over? Cause they didnt sound a thing like the Doors without Jim. It was pretty much false advertising to Bill the two post Jim albums as the Doors.

 

I suggest you revisit both albums, as there are quite a few moments that sound very Doors-like. I don’t see those albums as false advertising, as Jim wasn’t The Doors, and he’d be the first to admit that. Singer, front man, and lyricist, he was. But, he wasn’t a musician. The 2 post-Morrison albums play up the others’ talents, and I’ve no issue with them wanting to go forward. Things didn’t work out, though. Such is life.

 

I spent several years going back and forth on what I thought would've been best for Ray, Robby, and John after Jim died - and it's still NOT clear cut in my mind what would've been the best thing to do. So I can only imagine what they were going through. But this I'm sure of. Had the three surviving Doors weathered the storm (pun intended), gotten the solo projects out of their systems, and returned as The Doors with a new lead singer or without a new lead singer in the late 1970's, I believe they would've found an audience who would've supported any new recordings or live performances. The back catalogue was too good, the three survivors were too talented to not come up with at least interesting albums, and the concerts would have been a celebration of the music - no matter who was singing the songs. I guess the differences that led to them breaking up - and never officially reforming - were pretty strong, sadly. I say sadly because I think we lost several decades of good, maybe great music on record and in concert.