Talk:The Soft Parade

This article reads like a review
Far too much opinion.

I agree. 195.93.21.3 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Doors, a *psychedelic* rock band? What a load of rubbish.

There was a great band from the Netherlands called The Soft Parade from 1990-1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansbos (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Naked Parade?
I faintly remember a discussion/interview(?) with the Doors' present management regarding a possible re-mixing of the album, akin to the Beatles' "Let It Be -- Naked". Meaning, naturally, the songs performed in quartet format, instead of being backed up with the (arguably sugary, by present day standards, at least) strings and horn sections. Of course, this would be somewhat of a cop-out as well, since the Doors did use additional studio musicians on their later records. Does anyone else have any info on this? Has anything of this been publicly disclosed in any reliable media (seemingly the 'Net doesn't count)? Be that as it may, it would be a very interesting album. Arguably a lot better, as well. --Tirolion 08:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Krieger would like to do a orchestra-less mix. He's said so in many interviews. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Which album in the chronology?
Doesn't say in the first sentence. Nandor1 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How did this article get to be a "good article"?
This article is problematic in a variety of ways:

It compares The Soft Parade to the Beatle's White Album and to Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland; isn't The Soft Parade more like Nights In White Satin and the Who's rock opera Tommy than the examples listed?

The article morosely dwells on what idiot critics said, 40 years ago and what idiot critics are saying now.

The article mentions Waiting For the Sun by The Doors in a context that implies Waiting For the Sun is a gold standard by which to measure all other Doors' work. For some of us, The Soft Parade is a gold standard by which we measure other Doors' efforts.

Any article that does not mention the brilliant bass hooks of the two bassists does not do justice to the album. There is no mention of the brilliant blending of Violin, Harpsichord, French Horn, Trombone and Saxophone with The Doors. The album Waiting For the Sun has a certain same-same-same sound that is absent on The Soft Parade album. It is disingenuous to compare the two or to use the Beatle's White Album's sales as a dollar-amount-tick.

Fans of The Soft Parade are often people who have worn-out numerous copies in vinyl, cassette tape and CD.

The article needs to be re-written in a much less biased fashion. The 15 tracks on the 40th Anniversary Edition are a rare glimpse into The Doors playing as an extremely tight-knit unit with other musicians. Some of the critics claim 'you can hear Morrison's legal calamity' on the album. Actually, you can hear some of Jim Morrison's absolutely most stellar singing on The Soft Parade.

The current article reflects one point of view and that one is extremely critical. The writer obviously likes Waiting For the Sun; does that mean all of us must do the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D80:13D0:44CC:4652:5E60:25B8 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Good article" does not mean perfect. It also doesn't mean you will agree with everything it says. I'll get back to that, but there's a more obvious problem: WP:NPOV.


 * You disagree with what both contemporary critics said and what more recent critics have said. That's fine. You want to replace what "idiot critics" say in the article with what you and other fans say. That's not fine.


 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Professional critics opinions are part of that. If independent reliable sources have something to say about what fans think/thought of the album, that would be part of it too. Your individual opinions are not encyclopedic.


 * What makes a "good article"? Summarizing Good_article_criteria:
 * Well written (grammar, spelling, layout, etc.) - I don't see major problems here.
 * Verifiable with no original research - This is where your opinion conflicts with good article standards. We want verifiable, sourced material with no original research. You essentially want to replace some of the verifiable material with your own original research. It meets those criteria (though you dislike the criteria).
 * Broad coverage - I think we are good, not great, on this. Part of this is Wikipedia's tendency to focus more on newer artists. Sia, for example, gets more coverage than Jelly Roll Morton.
 * Neutral: Here we mean fairly representing what reliable sources say, which would include accurately reporting what critics say/said. I see no problems here (i.e., what we say the sources say is actually what they do say).
 * Stable (not currently the subject of on-going disputes).
 * Illustrated, if possible - The album cover is necessary. More would be better, but there is likely little available.
 * All things considered, it is what Wikipedia considers a WP:Good article. It is not what you consider a "good" article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)