Talk:The Doors/Archive 1

Misc
Why aren't the 40th anniversary reissues/remixes mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.47.26 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we need additional staff supervision?
There are many articles in the Wiki that suffer enormously from POV editing. This article is perhaps not the worst, but certainly among the worst. I'm not referring the children who keep inserting the "(Random classmate) IS GAY" lines, I mean the fans of the band who keep adding the never ending "The band was the best band, like, evar, dude, in the early 60's, and Morrison is God, y'know, and it's Widely Recognized™, man" stuff. It's mildly tiring to sift thru the article in order to find this stuff. Should we ask for semi-protection? Whaddya whaddya? 82.181.201.82 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Disbandment year
I changed the year to 1973. Plus I provided references. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance of this Article
So if you type "doors" into the search box this article is what comes up. There's no disambiguation page. That's totally outrageous. There is NO WAY this band merits that kind of prominence. While they are of note, they are not the most significant, relevant nor appropriate use of the word "doors". This page is basically hijacking the search term -- ultimately for profit since "The Doors" is essentially a commercial product (from an industry proven to be anti-open information, and just plain evil). This is spam. Typical wikiality -- bands and the music industry pollute much of the pages here, for their own gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.238.211 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Calm down! If somebody really wants or needs to know what a door is, they would type in "door". Tim010987 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing when I typed "Nirvana". This means a commercial(!) band has the same name as a spiritual word. And we all know that not a single church/mosque/synagogue/etcetera has anything to do with money, ever. The same thing with the above; it's outrageous that a band(!) tries to get a share of the commercial door manufacturers market. Oh, for really outrageous stuff, there's apparently a commercial(!) band from Australia, called AC/DC(!). Leave the electric market to the electric companies, thank you very much. It's the sole and exlucive right of the electricity distributors to fleece their customers for all their worth. Further--and this really takes the cake--I know for a fact there is an article about coffee. Look for yourself, the evidence is here. This is nothing but a giant advertisement for the coffee industry. Typical. If you'd ask me, I'd keep the blood sucking, capitalist swine, entertainment Machiavellis separate from, say, the saintly, pious, inviolable arms manufacturers. The sinful din of a heinous head shop is nothing like the harmonious hum of a saintly sweat shop. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick And The Ravens
You have twiced removed ''Manzarak was already in a band called Rick And The Ravens while Krieger and Densmore were playing with The Psychedelic Rangers, but knew Manzarek from shared meditation instruction. The latter two, along with a female bass player, were rapidly recruited and the band took up a number of club residences first at LA's "London Fog" and later the "Whiskey-A-Go-Go".'' in favor of a statement that Manzarek and Morrison thought they should start a band at once. Hardly an improvement.

[Hello. Considering wikipedia is about collaboration, then these statements can be seen as fine. It is an interesting fact that once Manzarek heard Morrison's poetry/lyrics that they decided to start a band, and then did it! I thought that there was too much before the Doors info and only one short sentence about just 2 of the band members and their musical qualities. It seemed unbalanced. See reason below. But the more facts the better.]

You twice removed this: Their music tended to be focused around the swirling keyboards of Ray Manzarek, whose left hand played the parts typically associated with bass guitar, and Robbie Krieger's guitar playing, which showed the influence of flamenco, indian, the blues and classical music. in favor of nothing. Why remove this information unless it's incorrect or POV?

[I thought that this one sentence about 2 of the 4 Doors musicians to be incomplete. That's why I tried to write about the entire musical qualities of the Doors throughout.]


 * That's fair enough, but maybe instead you could add information on the other band members? Removing information, especially without explaining why, is highly suspect around here.

You've twice removed this: ''The Doors quickly earned a reputation as an entertaining live act: at their concerts anything could, and often did, happen. The best-known of Morrison's onstage antics took place at a 1970 concert in Morrison's hometown of Melbourne, FL, where Morrison allegedly exposed himself during the show's finale. Although Morrison was not photographed in the act, Dade county law enforcement subsequently charged him with lewd behavior and "simulation of oral copulation". After watching Morrison urge audience members to rush the stage at a 1966 concert, guitarist Pete Townshend of the Who incorporated the scene into the song Sally Simpson, which later appeared on the album Tommy.'' ... I understand that you are a Doors fan, and I enjoy their music also, in small doses, but this is a notorious incident that deserves coverage.

[Morrison exposed is inconclusive. It was only misdemeaner charges against him that were completed. Much more important is The Doors capabilities to bring about a common ground with their audiences. The Doors page should focus on their music.]

[The partial statement of "at their concerts anything could, and often did, happen" is pure innuendo. Just the facts...I will venture to say the Miami incident is not the 'best-known' of Morrison's antics. I believe it should not have a spot. It is too tabloid like. It played no part in what The Doors accomplished musically. ]


 * Nonetheless people know about it. The Beatles playing on the roof of Apple Studios is also not crucial to what they accomplished musically--they can gather a crowd, so what? We knew that. But we include that anyway because it's a famous incident.

And twice added this: The Doors are remembered for shaministic live performances, Jim Morrison's antics off stage, but most enduringly, the use of their musical talents to influence and entertain music lovers around the world for over 35 years. The "shamanistic live performances" I could imagine including; the antics are already included; "the use of their musical talents to influence and entertain music lovers around the world for over 35 years" sounds like a phrase lifted from a PR kit for the Doors. In other words, it's POV. Tempered quite a bit and attributed, I could imagine keeping it; otherwise, no.

[Hey, not every band of whatever era is remembered, and appreciated 35 years later...POV? It seems to be a fact that the Doors albums are selling very well. I thought this sentence was pretty well written. There's mentioning of the interesting live performances, Morrison's problems in the every day world, and yes, does very much sound PR kitty, But there is a reality of The Doors musical legacy. It's still happening. A most important fact about The Doors music is that it incorporates political and social statements that are, even today, so relevent.]


 * These are all fine points; maybe you could rephrase them and add them. I agree with you that the Doors' albums are selling well, as are many albums from 35 years ago, but if that's what you want to say, then that's what you say.  I doubt many people would disagree with you.  When you leap from the fact that they sell well to "the use of their musical talents to influence and entertain music lovers around the world for over 35 years," which seems brazenly uncritical, is when the POV bells go off.

This:  As with many other artists, Billie Holiday,Jimi Hendrix,Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison's overindulgences often coexisted with artistic creativity. Yes. So what? you left out John Lennon, Bob Marley, Frank Zappa, etc. but that's hardly relevant. Where does it get us to compare these artists? What are you aiming for--drawing spurious comparisons between distinct artists with little else in common? Or pointing us towards the tragedy that was the lives of different artists? How does that help us, and serve as anything more than anecdote?

[The artists, Jim Morrison, Billie Holiday, Jimi Hendrix,and Janis Joplin; it's not their Lives that are the tragedy, it's their Deaths. That's the relationship between them all.

[ It's a part of these famous, intelligent, incredibly creative people that thay are all "human", with notorious mistakes, problems in the spotlight, But, still able to do their art. Yes, the list of artists could go on...although Bob Marley did not have a known drug problem. notice it is a list of artists with known heavy drug use, and died behind the drugs. Besides the ingenius idea of a collaborative encyclopedia, one of the best aspects about wikipedia,is the links to the rest of wikipedia. ] [ Morrison's paraphrased statements about individual freedom are correct. Their interesting, but an exact quote might be better. Thanks for communicating. This is fun! I'm Xio. Thanks, the people using Wikipedia works so well that World Peace can't be far off...]

This: In a few short years, Morrison, 27, would disappear and be 'buried' under mysterious circumstances. Most people believe he wasn't "buried" but buried, and to state otherwise is POV. There was, earlier, a section about the belief that Morrison might be alive. This is something I will look up and add back. [edit: I was wrong, it was in the article on Morrison himself, not The Doors] This: Though Morrison's unique energy in the Doors is missed, the music hasn't ended for other band members. Calling Morrison's contribution a "unique energy" is strikingly POV. And we know that "the music hasn't ended" because the other albums were already mentioned.

[POV for another fact? When Morrison left the band, The Doors weren't the same.]


 * I agree with you on that one, and for what it's worth, I think the band is worse without Jim Morrison. If you want to convey that, though, you should find someone--a well-known music critic would be best--to attribute it to.

This: Beginning during the the 1960's The Doors tested the freedom of artistic expression by blending blues and folks music into their own form of rock-n-roll poetry. Um, no. I'm sorry. This statement needs serious rephrasing, attribution, and qualification. The Doors did not test the freedom of artistic expression, especially in light of the considerably more radical--artistically radical and trailblazing--work of The Beatles, Frank Zappa, etc. at the same time. If you wanted to mention the "rock poems" in some other way, that's fine, and a hallmark of The Doors' style, but no more trailblazing than I am when going from my room to the kitchen. Koyaanis Qatsi

[Talk about POV...they did test. People were at the tests. According to The Doors,, they were exploring past any sort of boundry.. I would say that all artists test the freedom of their individual artistic expression. It seems that's what a great artist does. In various recorded statements given by all the members of The Doors, they were doing rock-n-roll poetry. It can be more than one person or group that's doing the innovative things. If I am to understand your thoughts on the Doors being  as trailblazing as you walking from your room to the kitchen... I'm pretty sure there's no video camera taping you, no sound equipment recording your steps... and almost positive, 35 years from now, millions of people won't be watching and listening to you walk from room to room. Could be someone is POVing about The Doors being a music group that had intelligent insight into not only their own minds, but American society.


 * You have a good point that they tested the limits of artistic freedom within their own limits; however, I'd argue that that is what every artist does, from John Denver to John Coltrane. If I told you that John Denver tested the limits of artistic freedom, wouldn't you snicker?  Again, perhaps you can rein in the statement a bit.  If you mentioned other famous and influential bands with positive things to say about The Doors, or the ongoing sales of their albums, or perhaps the appearance of their albums on various best-of lists, those would be better ways to say what you're trying to say.  Or you could even mention how excited the Doors were when they found out that The Beatles bought 10 of their first album (why 10, when there were only 4 Beatles?  I don't know).  Best,  Koyaanis Qatsi 17:27 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[It's a tricky business when articles start comparing one artist against another. Years from now, will people look up an entry for Jimi Hendrix and it say; 'considering all the advances in modern music, many other new artists are much more important'. We can't always look to famous people for their views on other famous people. It stands that The Doors were an important part of rock-n-roll history. To mention that the Doors were excited about the Beatles buying their album, seems more hearsay, and not really relevent to The Doors music history. I did say that artists seem to test their own limits of creative freedom. The facts are the Doors have been quoted saying what they were doing and what they were trying to achieve. It all has to do with having fun, testing limits, and presenting ideas for people to think on.] -What do you think of this revision?--Xio


 * I think it's the exact same one you've been making, with the exact same faults I've already pointed out. Koyaanis Qatsi 06:44 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Doors are not just about Morrison. To end the article, with that they are not just remebered for their live performances and Morrison's antics on and off the stage just doesn't seem to cut it. It is misleading to write what you said about Miami. It's unbalanced to just write about how unsuccessful the Doors were after Morrison died. The band is still popular. It is so Important that The Doors were political and socially conscious with their music.


 * 1) If the Doors aren't just about Morrison, you might do better to leave the information about Densmore in, and add information on the other band members, as I've already suggested.
 * 2) The Miami incident is notorious, regardless of whether you want it to be.
 * 3) The band is still popular, possibly, I don't know. I'd venture to say that most people aren't familiar with their work released after Morrison's death, and that if they aren't they're not fond of it.  The people I know who like the Doors consider it subpar, if not downright exploitative.
 * 4) Politically and socially conscious? Ok, that should be backed up with specific lyrics.  I'm willing to believe you, but you'll have to refresh my memory.  Koyaanis Qatsi 07:32 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It would be great if you added info on other members. This is not about whether I want the miami incident to be known, whether I think it's notorious, I'm willing to quess that 1. not even 80% of people who've heard of the doors know about the incident. 2. when they have heard of it, the info. is usually incorrect. And the whole statement about Townsend is more fodder without balance.


 * I don't know anything about the other members, however I do know that by removing information on Krieger you're achieving the opposite of what you claim to want. I'll do some research so I can add about Manzarek and Densmore.
 * As far as the Miami incident goes, you're contradicting both the biographer of Morrison and the movie about him (which, admittedly, gets many things wrong). If you want to discount the incorrect story, perhaps you could cite sources showing why the story commonly believed is incorrect.  Koyaanis Qatsi 07:43 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

yes, your right, don't talk about Oliver Stone'e movie as a ruler for reality. I'm not contradicting anybody. Your saying it's so notorious, it's just got to be mentioned. I'm saying you've got 20% of the page on the Doors about misdemeaner charges against jim Morrison. Included with another story about Morrison's "crazy' character. The article is about the Doors music that was and is to still many people politically, socially conscious. But not just that...


 * Well he was charged with a felony also, "lewd and lascivious conduct," but found innocent. I no longer have the biography I read a few years back, so I'll have to visit the library once it's open.  Koyaanis Qatsi 08:00 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I hope this seems more balanced.


 * I think it looks good. you know, I had the book Densmore wrote, too, but I don't remember much about it except that he said he didn't like the drum parts in "The End."  Funny, that.  Heh.  Anyway, I'll have to go to the library to try to find something to add on him.  The other book I had was named after one of the songs, if I remember right, and had a red and yellow cover.  Koyaanis Qatsi

Super! Xio

Most critics and fans--and Densmore himself--refer to Densmore's drumming as "jazz drumming." The ones that don't, refer to it as either "imaginative" or "driving" and/or "hypnotic." I don't know how to say those things in a way that's NPOV. I guess if that's what we want to say I should find a notable critic who has said it. It may be in No One Here Gets Out Alive. I'll look for it, but it may take awhile. Oh, and I put Densmore first in the sentence simply because there was the least to say about his playing. Koyaanis Qatsi 18:18 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it reads smooth. Xio

FYI. Judge Bans Two Doors Members From Using Band's Name: http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/05/07/072605k


 * Does anyone else think that 70.58.92.117's recent contribution on September 5, namely the "Trivia" section, seems like copyrighted text? ("External" link goes to diff between versions ... can anyone help me make that an "internal" link?) Boris Alexeev 00:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it's gone now. Any help with the external/internal link is still appreciated. Boris Alexeev 16:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What is this?
'The Doors (formed in 1965 in Los Angeles, California) were a popular and influential American rock band. The best way to describe them would be "in this world there are things known and things unknown, everything inbetween are the doors."'

The top of an article is very important, so if there is no name of the guy who said this by tomorrow, this quote will be removed.

If this is some nice quote that someone made up him/herself it will be removed, this quote is too personal. IMO it should be like this

'Mr .... once described the band as : " in this world there are things known and things unknown, everything inbetween are the doors " '

So this will be changed or removed.

Adlous huxley : The doors of preception. The word are natively from his mind but jim has ploted them.


 * It is a Jim Morrison-quote, but putting it at the top of the article is rather pompous and useless. But at least it isn't any stranger's comment, but rather the Doors' motto - but it still shouldn't be used as the encyclopedic description of them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Too Morrison-centric?
This article is way too Morrison-centric, we need a lot more information on the rest of the band members here. The history section makes little to no mention of the other band members, yet chronicles every one of Morrison’s drunken misadventures. The sections ‘Early recording’ and ‘Mid career controversy’ need to be reworked. Either save the Morrison only stuff for the Morrison article (that’s a novel idea) or add more information about the other band members individually. Probability what Jimmy-boy would have wanted, don’t ya think? camtin 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Doors were" vs. "The Doors was"
This has been settled for months now. How is The Doors possibly singular? It is a plural name, even when your talking about more than one door, example: "The Doors are closed." All editors, if RJN does this again, just revert and block him on sight. 67.150.0.37 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend immersing yourself in a grade school grammar book. "The Doors" is not the same as saying "the doors in your house". It is the title of a singular entity; a band. It would be like saying "blah blah...Memoirs of a Geisha were an excellent film." Does not work. Ray Manzarek is not actually a door, nor is John Densmore... it was the name of their band, collectively. Therefore, "The Doors WAS" is not only appropriate, but the only correct use.

It sounds stupid, but that's English.71.74.11.210 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article on British vs. American English, in both version of the English language, proper nouns that are plural in form take plural verbs. One example given is "the Beatles are a well-known band". 69.29.77.122 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Doors was" is a terrible construction. In principle, names of bands take singular verbs, but when those band names are plural in form, American English follows good sense rather than that rule. Nobody in America says "The Doors was a band," anymore than they'd say, "The Beach Boys is coming to town." The difference is that in America, we say "Blondie was a significant band in the 1980s," while in England, they'd say "Blondie were a significant band in the 1980s." -68.191.214.241 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Recorded Output
The recorded output section makes critical comments on each album of the Doors - Wikipedia isn't for original research. If someone wishes to back each critical comment then they should cite the noted critics whom made these claims. LuciferMorgan 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Text
Can someone fix the "Wall 'o' Texts" that are in both the article and the Talk section? They're sort of an eyestrain to read.--69.120.52.29 01:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for the sun?
"Waiting For The Sun contains some strong tracks but is thematically weak."

We had this discussion on last.fm that this album (though it's the doors only number one-album) is the underrated album. This is my and many others favorite album and I think it's wrong to write that it's a weak album. I don't think that any of the tracks on the album are weak.

Anyone feel the same? --Azon 07:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't feel wikipedia is a place for critical assement. MAYBE if someone went out and read say, 100 contemporary reviews of "WFTS" and was able to supply an annotated list of those reviews, that would be something (it would read "contemporary critical assements of the album placed it below the band's previous efforts..." etc.) But even then I would probably baulk at the inclusion. It is a solid album, to be sure, but "Hello I Love You" is pure Top 40 fodder. Nonetheless... "Spanish Caravan," "Five to One," "Wintertime Love,"... all top shelf stuff.  I think "The Soft Parade" is a far weaker effort. Jackbox1971 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the All Music Guide review - thats exactly the kind of 'new reevaluation of a lost classic' that you're looking for ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
The Doors page has been vandalized.


 * Where's your will to be weird? P.S. It wasn't me.  [Morrison]

12/01/2008

Besides Jim Morrison the other band members are referred to incorrectly. The first picture lists "Morrison, Denseness, Mandrake, and Besieger". Robby Krieger is called "Robby Kriegspiel" in the opening paragraph and in the Former Members section. Also in the same section, Ray's last name has been changed to "Managaress". Looks like vandalism to me. Mikepjersey (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was vandalism as well. User Falloujda seems to me, at least taking a novice look at the history, to be the culprit. I could be completely wrong on that but....anyway, I fixed some of the main stuff. I have a feeling there is more so throughout the day though I will comb though the article. JDM4371 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

40th Anniversary
Someone should write something about the 40th anniversay of the doors. they just released a new book "the doors by the doors", and are also releasing a boxset called "perception"


 * Should it not be "The Doors"?--79.69.248.245 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Compilation Albums
Is there any reason why the albums are in non-chronilogical order? I am not being critical, I am just wondering. Also, shouldn't a huge band like The Doors have their own discography page? My speciality is Depeche Mode (I know... worlds apart but I am pretty ecclectic) so I wouldn't feel qualified to do one myself but some Doorjammer out there should make it happen. It would be a boon to research. Jackbox1971 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

....Doorjammer??? --71.205.212.187 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Discography
Any objection to moving the peripheral elements of the disog to a dedicated page? This would help simplify the overall structure. + Ceoil 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I created the gallery (album covers in boxes) for the albums and I have no problem with a page being made for the discog. Knock yourself out Franknotes 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that a separate page was made but I think it should now be removed from the main Doors article, there's no point having it twice. If there is no objection I'll add a link to the new discography page on the main band article. Franknotes 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Singles
Why are the singles listed on the modern rock chart? All The Doors singles charted on the hot 100. The Modern Rock chart didin't even exist then. It was created in 1988
 * Hey, regarding the non-album single "Treetrunk": the single cover really does say "Treetrunk" (as one word), not "Tree Trunk" (two words). IIRC, the same "Treetrunk" wording is used on the label. Even though the wording might be grammatically erroneous, shouldn't the article reflect this? Just a thought. --Tirolion 08:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased writing
Albulms being described as "excellent" surely breaches the Encyclopedia style? —The preceding, I think this needs a cleanup.Cubert12345 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) unsigned comment was added by Cubert12345 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Recorded Output
What the fuck is this shit? Retarded crackheads editing wikipedia? I can't believe fans would let this shit even exist in this article. I'm rewriting it even though I don't have very much authority, but bullshits been in here for too long. -- Alex Ov  Shaolin  00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Doors wikiportal
Hi there, I was thinking of creating a The Doors wikiportal and also cleaning up this whole thing (grammar, references, much more info, the complete discography, with bootlegs if possible, etc.) in the summer, maybe the next couple weeks. But I really only want to create a wikiportal if there are enough The Doors fans here on wikipedia, 'cause The Doors for me is one of my all time favorite bands. So I'd really like to make this article the best possible, maybe not going as far as a featured article, but a really good one. Help anyone? Gocsa 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And of course a Wikiproject could be created as well, or only a project with no portal, I'm just trying to get together more fans, because I don't think I'll be able to do a lot better article alone, or it may take months. Gocsa 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Doors Tribute Band Section?!
Even if these cover bands were notable, the links are to their personal websites, not Wikipedia articles. This is blantant misuse of Wikipedia, which is why I deleted the section. Hmsbeagle 12:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I aggree I'm going to re-delete it. Brandonha 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gothic rock?
WTF? I mean really, come on. The Doors isn't gothic rock. Only thing about them that is gothic is maybe the bluesy and dark sound of Morrison's voice. And that is not a musical genre. Reference doesn't say gothic rock so don't put it in the infobox because it's not true! --User:JNCooper

The doors were the first band to be described as Gothic Rock, as stated in the genre's article. I appreciate finally giving a reason to the unexplained deletions. Zazaban 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean they ARE a gothic rock band.. They may influenced gothic rock bands (they definitely did, of course), and paved the way for the gothic rock genre, but their music can hardly be called gothic rock.. AC/DC was incorrectly referred to as heavy metal numerous times, still they are a hard rock act. You see my point? I'm not saying that your reference shouldn't be in the article, it should be mentioned for sure, e.g. in a section about The Doors' impact and influence on music, genres, other bands, etc. I'm still planning on rewriting and expanding this whole article, getting it to FA and stuff like that, but I'm currently busy with other things. Gocsa 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AC/DC is both hard rock and heavy metal. I thought about putting protogoth, maybe that would be better? Zazaban 03:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but they never considered themselves heavy metal..but anyway, this article is about The Doors, not about AC/DC, so to answer your question, protogoth would definitely better, but I think we should just not write any 'goth' thing to the infobox. As I said before, a whole section could be made because The Doors influenced many other bands, not only gothic rock bands, but I'm currently too busy with another article to concentrate on The Doors, and I'm also waiting for my 'The Doors by The Doors and Ben Fong-Torres' book to arrive;) Gocsa 11:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, done songs could definatly qualify as gothic rock. Zazaban 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mazarek's movie
Please see my entry on the talk page about Ray referring to his movie. Should that movie be listed in this article? VisitorTalk 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheDoorsTheDoorsalbumcover.jpg
Image:TheDoorsTheDoorsalbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheDoorsStrangeDaysalbumcover.jpg
Image:TheDoorsStrangeDaysalbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With my recent work on King Crimson, I'd like to get this page to FA status
I'm also considering starting work on Ride (band). I may begin serious heavy-duty work on these articles sometime.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to help you with this (I love the band, and I have good reliable net sources and also the recently issued The Doors biography book), do you think we can start a The Doors Wikiproject? I think there are more fans of the band here on Wikipedia, we just have to contact them. Gocsa 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to help, I've wanted to see this article reach FA status. Doppelganger 00:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I might make a start sometime, when I'm not busy with more important things IRL.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, same here. I've got enough things to do here (currently completely rewriting an article to FA status) and in RL as well. I guess next year will be the time to do this. Gocsa 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I may just start that at some stage... I sometimes do get around to the work I suggest. This is a likely candidate for my next GA effort, which will involve massive citation, rewording and cleanup.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A face in the crowd?
I'm curious... were the Doors influenced by the movie A Face in the Crowd? The movie begins with a folk song calling for the warden to get his key that reminded me considerably of "Been Down So Long", for example. 70.15.116.59 07:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea. If you find a WP:RS feel free to add it, but avoid WP:OR.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, What?
From teh article: "Since the band's dissolution in the early 1970s — and especially since Morrison's death in 1971 — interest in the Doors' music has remained high." Also from the article: "The closing track, 'When the Music's Over', was, like 'The End', lengthy and dramatic, and helped establish Morrison's reputation as the shaman of rock." I have virtually no idea what either of thees sentences actually mean ("especially since Morrison's death" it REMAINED high?). I therefore imagine others wouldn't. Right, so I'd, like, fix that... but I don't know how, since I don't know either, as previously discussed. The Doors are fucking great on acid (no joke), but perhaps Wikipedia editing isn't such a good trip activity. --MQDuck 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats so weird about 'remained'??? He was famous already and he stayed ( / remained ) famous... whats weird in that--- would only be weird if he wasnt famous before his death, but he sure was... And whats wrong with the latter sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Doors of Perception
Is there a reference so that we know for sure that they didn't take their name from Blake's original work, but rather from Huxley's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.94.122 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I read The Doors of Perception before I actually got into the band The Doors, but I remember reading that it was from Huxley's work - because of the psychedelic drug references in it.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the booklet of "The Best of the Doors" (1985) says Morrison took the name from Blake's original work. That settles it, I think?

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is 38k long and has only 7 references. Almost the entire thing is personal opinion and unsourced factual statements. If the editors who added most of the content are still around: please source your material. Life.temp (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

MySpace page?
Is the "The Doors" page actually maintained by someone who once was in the band? If not, shouldn't that link be deleted? -- Davidkevin (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Morrison Hotel
"The 40th Anniversary CD reissue contains outtakes and alternate takes, including a different version of "The Spy" as well as versions of "Roadhouse Blues" with Lonnie Mack on bass guitar and The Lovin' Spoonful's John Sebastian contributing a bluesy harmonica."

I think the above sentence is rather misleading, because it gives the impression that Mack and Sebastian only appear on the outtakes, when in fact they play on the album version as well (the latter under the pseudonym "G. Puglese"). 88.195.99.135 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

bass player on first record
The line "On their studio albums (with the notable exception of their eponymous first record), The Doors did, however, use bass players" can be considered as being false, as there is a clearly audible bass guitar track in e.g. "Soul Kitchen" and "Back Door Man". This is most certainly the work of Larry Knechtel, a California based studio pianist and bassist known for work with the Beach Boys, Phil Spector, Simon&Garfunkel and Billy Joel.

Sources:

"The psychedelic blues-rock of the Doors’ 1967 debut featured the low end of Larry Knechtel... ...Knechtel’s greasy thump makes “Soul Kitchen” go down easy, and his driving feel ignites the blues burner “Back Door Man.”"

Bass Player Magazine http://www.bassplayer.com/article/the-doors/jun-07/28822

"played bass on debut albums for The Byrds and The Doors"

www.larryknechtel.com http://www.larryknechtel.com/LarryKnechtel/biography.htm

Hope I posted this in the right place as I am new to wikipedia.

Henrik Rae, Turku, FI hrdrae ( at ) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.63.231 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded, Listen to riders on the storm, theres a dun dun dun dun duh dun duh dun on there all the way through, to say there's no bassist is a lie, there is howeber some session bass on there (not logged in User:mczack26User_talk:mczack26

What do we need to do?
Hi all. I am JDM4371 and I am new. I am not 100% sure how Wikipedia quite works yet. I figured the best way to start was to find a subject I know and dive in. I have done some small things to the page already but nothing major. (I have also had my first Wiki Labs revision for being a fanboy, won't make that mistake again) The coding and research I understand but what I don’t know about Wikipedia is if there are communities formed around certain pages and subjects. So I post this as a test balloon and see what everyone has to say. Basically what I want to know is…….what do we need to get done? Assign me some work and I will get cracking. JDM4371 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Band member names
Besides Jim Morrison the other band members are referred to incorrectly. The first picture lists "Morrison, Denseness, Mandrake, and Besieger". Robby Krieger is called "Robby Kriegspiel" in the opening paragraph and in the Former Members section. Also in the same section, Ray's last name has been changed to "Managaress". Looks like vandalism to me. Mikepjersey (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was vandalism as well. User Falloujda seems to me, at least taking a novice look at the history, to be the culprit. I could be completely wrong on that but....anyway, I fixed some of the main stuff. I have a feeling there is more so throughout the day though I will comb though the article. JDM4371 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism
The band member names in the caption are incorrect. It appears this is not the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.219.106 (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I must have been looking at a cached version. The names are correct now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.219.106 (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I sure as hell wouldn't mind - I mean, you got comments from 2008 above comments from 2003! It's a freakin' mess... Doc9871 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Schweet! Doc9871 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like some sections aren't being automatically archived - what steps should be taken? GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Band member list
There is a ton of nonsense in the "band members" list. A bizarre band called "Doors Origins" has been apparently made up to suit some persons hypothesis. Moreover, studio musicians are being listed as members, spelling is wrong, et cetera. I fixed most of it; now I'll just have to wait for some zealous fanboi to turn it into fiction again. ;) 82.181.94.185 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And there you go; reverted it was. I fixed it back. Some information for the single-purpose editing from Napoli; there never was a band called "Doors Origins". There was, however, a band called "Rick & the Ravens". The songs were pressed as "Rick & the Ravens" promos, they were not "Doors Origins" promos. If you do not believe it, you can check out the promos yourself; the label really does say "Rick & the Ravens". If you still do not believe your own eyes, there is very little we can do for you. 82.181.94.185 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Music Genre
I am not in agreement with which the band The Doors is of genre Rock N' Roll nor Hard Rock, u compared Elvis Presley and ACDC or Led Zeppelin with The doors. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not in agreement with music classification at all, i.e. i would say the doors make 'the doors style music', led zeppelin make 'led zeppelin music'. So it doesnt really make a difference or major change to the article, but i would say the doors are rock n roll based but not hard rock.  Stuff like psycadelic rock, blues rock and acid rock are just meaningless terms that someone tries to classify every bit of music either to or against in their own pov.  I would remove them all and leave 'rock n roll' and 'blues rock' for aguments sake.(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Well, for my part I disagree with that The Doors is Rock N 'Roll, I repeat comparing them Ray Charles or Elvis with The Doors. If I were you erase everything and leave a psychedelic and blues-rock style. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)... | See this page --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * it is rock and roll based, how can you argue that, 'break on through', 'twentieth century fox', the majority of 'light my fire' and 'the end', those are some examples from the first album alone to justify this, if your talking about elvis, was 'are you lonesome tonight' classified as rock n roll? Which brings about the argument of classification issues again(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Please be mindful that it's not our call to insert our point of view with regards to what we think the Doors genre of music should be classified as or shouldn't be classified as - this encyclopedia should only have information that is verifiable and published by reliable sources. Allmusic.com classifies the Doors as Rock n' Roll, as did Creem magazine in their review of Morrison Hotel (it's actually quoted in this article for those that have taken time to read it). Just because one genre is listed doesn't mean every single one of their songs needs to conform to one editors perception of what that genre is. Riders on the Storm is certainly not rock, but that doesn't mean the band didn't play rock songs. The solution is simple - if you insert a genre, have a reliable source that backs up your claim. If you disagree with a reliably sourced genre -especially one that is used as a source later on the same article - don't start edit warring - make your case that that source be disallowed as a reliable source on all of Wikipedia. --Yankees 76 Talk 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know if you are replying to me or the editor who has recently started edit warring with music genres. I agree go with the reliable sources.  Music classification in my opinion is BS so it doesn't matter to me whats included in the info box.  Monkeymanman (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't meant as a direct reply to your post - should have been just the next one in line (fixed). The post is targeted at anyone looking to add material to the article. Classifications such as "genre" in particular need reliable sources since they're prone to having opinions and original research used (because of course, everyone is an expert in music). Per WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". Genre edit warriors far too often overlook this. --Yankees 76 Talk 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Absolutely agree.  Monkeymanman (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

music genre final
Right lets get this sorted for once, if anybody is willing to comment on what 'the doors' music genre is / are then please leave a comment apart from (at least until others have had their say) myself, eduardofoxx, or the unregistered user that states allmusic as a reliable source(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Hey! man, consider this page in relation to the genre style of The Doors. Official page in Facebook --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * yeh i have seen that before, but the problem we have here is that if you have a ref that confirms your POV then it is difficult to prove against it, for example someone (an unregistered user) is fixed on the fact that the doors are a hard rock band just because they has a ref that says so (allmusic.com), firstly i would check whether or not allmusic is a reliable ref (it probably is) and secondly try and get consensus from registered users here to what should be included in the genre bracket (which is what i was trying to do but no one is interested)(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Rolling Stone calls them a "variant of electric-blues", About.com details: "Although rooted in blues and R&B, the band developed a distinctive sound that included elements of classical and flamenco music.", before mentioning Morrison's poetic style.. Most unreliable sources tend to compromise a mixture of blues, jazz, classical, and poetry. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To what "genre" did the actual band consider (and deem) themselves to be, I wonder? "Acid Rock"?  Wrong.  "Poetry/Jazz/Blues Rock"?  Doubtful.  Who really cares?  The artists on whom "genres" are based typically scoff at "labels" for their music.  "Genre-quibbling" is useless, and yet will always be a source of contention.  Much better things to work on, like citing this article with reliable sources, I think.  Any volunteers? Doc9871 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree doc, as i have already said in one of my earlier posts, i believe they made 'doors music' as in it was that broad a spectrum of so called genres that they created their own. So are we agreed that it's not that important and it should be left to what is there already, or not?(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

good as you want, anyway allmusic may be right depending on your style, but does not mention the blues, and is known to blues style doors is more than anything, besides the other pages as mentioned, well I leave it so, anyway have reference and can not be changed. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
The bit about Pitchfork criticizing the Doors is misleading. The quote used isn't an actual criticism, just a commentary on their hipness in today's scene. The live album in question even received a 7/10 rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.167.92 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg
This image was recently removed from the article and then tagged for speedy deletion as orphaned. The rationale provided was, "We don't need it when we have a free image (mug shot) that better "tells the story")". As the uploader of both images, I doubt that I would have wasted my time if one image told the story better than the other.  A mug shot is just that: and not preferable simply because it is free (WP:UNDUE).  We have the fair-use tags for a reason, and they are used properly here.  I'm tempted to WP:BRD the change and remove the speedy tag, but I'd like some feedback first from any editors watching the page.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. - There's 175 watchers on this page besides myself and Soundvisions1.  Please speak up: this is a quiet talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As there is a comment here as well I will add a few comments here as well. The Wikipedia Policy on Non-Free content lays out clear criteria for images. The first criteria is states that Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The image is question was sent to an deltion discussion in January 2010 because Image not necessary to understand article, and no sources indicate the significance of the image itself. The result was a "keep" at the time, in large part due to the fact the FUR being used stated/s "No equivalent free replacement can be created" and "No free or public domain images have been located to represent this subject". However one must keep in mind that at that time we did not have File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg. Doc9871 upped File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg on December 11, 2009, the deletion discussion was started on January 4, 2010 and USER:Karppinen upped a cropped version of File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg on February 3, 2010, with the full version being upped March 6, 2010. The image can now be seen as not needed on that fact alone. However, it is true that live concert photographs are not the same as mug shots but in this case we have a short paragraph about a Doors concert in Miami where Jim's actions lead to his arrest. One has to now look at the Wikipedia Policy on Non-Free content, criteria 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. So now a reader needs to look at File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg and ask "How does this live concert photograph better help me to understand..." and just replace the "..." with statements from the article section on the concert. Does the image show what lead to the arrest? Does it help to show how "Morrison deliberately exposed his penis while on stage, shouted obscenities to the crowd, simulated oral sex on guitarist Robbie Krieger and was drunk at the time of his performance"? It does not. Now we have a Non-free image that fails two of the criteria and, as is made clear in the policy, this type of image may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. So because of that I tagged removed the link to the image and added a deletion tag "because it has been replaced by File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg." Which, based on the upload date of the mug shot does appear to be the case. Soundvisions1 (talk)


 * 'Note - No one has commented on this besides the two of us, but I'll post this anyway. First of all, Soundvisions1 acted in good faith in trying to help the project, and I don't think otherwise for a second.  However, I don't agree with his rationale for orphaning (thus "dooming" to deletion) this image in favor of the mug shot; and I undid his change (per WP:BRD).  I feel this should go to FFD again if it is urged that this image shouldn't be in the article.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement
In American English, band names that are plural in form take a plural verb. Please refer to the following resources for verification and further explanation and examples: Piriczki (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

American Prayer
Recently, on VH1 Classic, there is a great behind the music, which mentions a great truth concerning Jim Morrison, and the fact that He wouldn't necessarily get hooked on anything, but would experience something, and then move on. A true Shaman who must have known about Medicine Men. It seems a shame that more people didn't find it necessary to mention this detail, especially considering the love for Jim Morrison.75.203.79.189 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * might be better suited to his own article here. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Doors matrix.jpg
The image File:Doors matrix.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Band Managers
I am looking to do some research on some of the bands managers. Can anyone help me in located a list, I am only looking for the names, no more att. I have done a little digging, and have hit the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.120.115 (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Change the main picture
The main image of this article is awful. You can barely even see the band. Why did someone change it in the first place? Change it back to the original image: http://exclaim.ca/images/up-1doors.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.97.42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New Haven Incident
Is it sure that the New Haven Conert happened on 9th of December '67? On the concert posters "December 10th" is printed. --Tranfunz (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Manzarek gives the date as December 9th on pg. 271 of his book Light My Fire. The New York Times report of the incident, dated December 10th, says the arrest occurred "late last night" (meaning the 9th). Morrison's mug shot from the incident was likely taken after midnight, making it technically December 10th, as Manzarek states Morrison "...spent a couple of hours in jail, had his mug shot taken...", and we know he was released at around 2 a.m. on the 10th. On pg. 158 of the Riordan/Prochnicky book it says December 9th in a photo caption of Morrison holding the microphone towards Lt. James Kelly onstage. Now, Densmore inexplicably gives the date as December 5th on pg. 145 of his book Riders On the Storm, and No One Here Gets Out Alive is an entire year off when saying "December 9th, 1968" on page 160. The majority of the evidence points to December 9, 1967 as the actual date of the concert. I haven't seen the poster you're referring to, but can only assume that it was either a second concert planned for the next night that got cancelled, or a typo of some sort. Could you provide a link to the poster? Cheers... Doc   talk  10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I could only find reprints like this one: http://www.rollingpaperwarehouse.com/The-Doors-Concert-Poster-1967_p_746.html There's a T-Shirt in the Official Doors Store that mentions the same date, too: http://thedoors.shop.bravadousa.com/Product.aspx?cp=41800_53634&pc=BGCTDR24 --Tranfunz (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I had not seen those before, and it's definitely a discrepancy. I'll see if I can dig up anything on it, but so far I'm seeing more news items backing up the 9th. Cheers :> Doc   talk  11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Album sales
The long-standing text in the article stated that the Doors sold "over 32.5 million albums in the US" and "80 million albums worldwide." This is confirmed by the two sources that are currently cited in the article (see RIAA Top Selling Artists and Johhny Depp to narrate "The Doors" documentary). Unfortunately, with this edit, an anonymous IP changed those figures to 35 million and 100 million without explanation and this unsourced change went unnoticed until now. Based on these sources, the article should indicate that, according the the RIAA, the Doors have sold 32.5 million certified units. Keep in mind the term "certified unit" is unique to the RIAA and reflects their method of counting double albums twice toward certification so that doesn't necessarily mean 32.5 million albums. Piriczki (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are actually two other editors changing the figures: the editor in Italy who is using different IPs, and Ron Bigam, with whom you are apparently discussing this already. The edit-warring behavior from the IP editor is particularly troublesome, as they have discussed nothing and have not backed anything up with a source. The references do indeed indicate the 32.5 mil and 80 mil figures, so that seems pretty clear, barring a source that states otherwise. Doc   talk  18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs some work
Does anybody have a problem with a major overhaul of this article? The Doors really should be represented better than this. There main article is one of the worst on wikipedia. It seems to be missing the most essential information and instead includes info that is not really relevant. A lot of is list in prose form. Aside from the incident on The Ed Sullivan Show, the early television performances subsection is non-essential, as well as the Matrix information just before it. Special attention is given to The Aquarius performances, but it fails to state why they were even playing and recording these shows. They are just mentioned as if they were a couple of random shows. There is no acknowledgment to any of the other performances that were recorded for Absolutely Live. The Band Members table seems to be overkill, if anything, I feel that it should be here on the talk page instead. Just as a side note, they held the name Doors of the 21st Century, until mid-2005, and this is verified by ticket stubs, live recordings, and merchandise. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs a lot of work. A lot of the content seems to be mentioned relative to current events like CD or video releases, not in any historical context and yes, a lot of it isn't really relevant. Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it definetley needs some work. --121.219.231.111 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Lachie Bennett - Lewis

The/the
There is a discussion taking place here about whether bands should have "The" or "the" in their name.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Coincidental Huxley/Blake reference
The Doors were founded in July 1965. That very same month, the radio was playing a new release by The Beatles called "Help!" , which contains the line: "Now I find I've changed my mind and opened up the doors." Go figure. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We can put that down to "coincidence" unless a reliable source has published any connection between the line in that song and the name of this band so as to avoid original research. Good catch! Doc   talk  11:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I know, just felt like sharing my OR here. Pretty cool though, huh? Some journalist needs to contact Ray Manzarek and ask if it was a coincidence, ftr I doubt it was! It also made me re-read the 'Help!' lyrics as all about the psychedelic experience: "And now my life has changed in oh so many ways / My independence seems to vanish in the haze" ...come on! Which doesn't appear to be what the song's Wiki says, presumably for want of music historians saying it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also have no doubt, like you, that The Doors were Beatles fans. Who wouldn't be? Cheers :) Doc   talk  11:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Death years for the band members in the personnel section
Morrison died 41 years ago. There was no need to add a "(died 1971)" to his description as a band member until Ray unfortunately died yesterday. There's still no reason to alter the section with "death years", IMHO, but I'm out of reverts. If this is something that should be included, it would be nice to hear some arguments as to why. Doc  talk  12:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT STUDIO BASS PLAYER DOUG LUBAHN ??
It's bizarre that the personnel section does not so much as mention Doug Lubahn. This is from Lubahn's website at http://www.douglubahn.com/, "Through three crucial albums "Strange Days," "Waiting for the Sun,"and "The Soft Parade", Lubahn plays most of the bass lines that are such an important part of The Doors' sound."

I personally cannot confirm nor deny this claim, but it is clear listening to the studio recordings that there is indeed a bass player on the tracks (and not just keyboard bass)

I would also like to see some research/journalism on why The Doors did not tour with a bass player? Tying up Ray Manzarek's left hand 100% of the time really limited his ability to duplicate the studio keyboard lines. That said - he did do a remarkable job with the left hand bass during live gigs - an achievement in itself. If I had more time I would love to take this on myself. Moucon (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are bass players credited on every studio album except the first one, with Lubahn being one of them. It's mentioned in the article. Doc   talk  06:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug is indeed mentioned in the body of the article, but not in the "guest musicians" section. Since I am not sure of his involvement date wise I am reluctant to do the edit. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this could do the needed update.THX1136 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)