the doors vs the clash.

Thought instead of comparing bands from the same era, how about 2 not from the same era. Little ,more challenging. While you might think
they have nothing in common, they infact alot in common. 1. both bands around only for short time. only had 5-6 albums. 2. both hailed as very important bands in the history of rock music. 3. Somewhere , on some level, they have similar political views. 4. Both had unfinished business when they ended and could only pretend to know what they could have done had they continued. 5. Both had post-classic line up albums that no one cares about right or wrong.

 

You Stumped me...()(*&*(*&#*#(@___(.)(.) @#R$#

 

Both had lead singers who've since died ?

 

The Clash were better, at least that's what I think.

 

The Clash and I took different paths after the first album, but at least they were sharp and to the point... The Doors I always found to be rather unwieldy and pretentious.

Maybe you had to be there... I was there with the Clash, maybe that makes the difference. The Doors were another generation's thing.

 

At a certain point The Clash went slighty wimpy, but songs like Rock the Casbah, London Calling, Should I stay or should I go are masterpieces to say the least. Tha Doors were more psychedelic in their own right and never went wimpy on the listeners.....that's the diff I reckon

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1N27phf3ds&feature=related"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1N27phf3ds&feature=related

 

they expeirmented with far more genres then the doors ever did. its hard to choose.

 

its also sad listening to the last real album of each band knowing they didn't continue.

 

what a wack topic the two dont even compare.

 

I agree with h4lf. They can't be compared... Still, I prefer The Doors, just because of the musical genre and such. But I like The Clash too, they had great moments.

 

after seeing the queen,ac/dc ,pantera topic on here, if we can ahve that topic we can have this one. Trying to go outside of the box. How many beatles vs whoever, u2 vs rem, ramones vs clash, zeppelin vs the who ,can we have? I mean if you can;t go outside the box on this message board , where can you?

 

First off I said you stumped me op since I agree this is a dumb topic and thread but since its stimulated talk I'll respond.

You don't think a song like 'Touch me' by the doors is wimpy? An aside from 'lOndon Calling' all those songs you mentioned from the clash was their 'wimpy' period.

Someone mentioned The Doors being pretentious, The Clash released a 36 song, 3 lp record in 'sandinista'. That reeks of pretentiousness to me.

 

Me Or at least, I said I always found them to be rather unwieldy and pretentious.

Just a personal opinon, I was talking about the actual music, and how I respond to it. Actually, I did really like one Doors Album - An American Prayer, put together from old tapes of Morrison after his death. If only they hadn't included that live cut of Roadhouse Blues, though...tedium to the nth degree [again, a personal opinion].

A 3-disc album would not in itself be pretentious, surely ? It's the music it contains that might be thus described.

 

Well its both to me. A triple album from a punk band is pretty pretentious. Then yes the music practically all for lack of a better word black music except for the few actual punk songs on there. Obviously whites have played black music before (rock n roll) but just the way its done on 'sandinista' is a bit over the top.

 

Ah well... were the Clash by that stage in their career actually a punk band anyway ? I didn't think so at the time, nor I seem to recall did many others who'd got the first album back in 1977.

As I said earlier, I'd lost interest by the time of the second album, let alone Sandinista !

 

not even a fan of London calling?

I still think they maintained punk ethos even if their music wasn't punk sounding which to me is actually more punk than alot of punk. To me punk was an attitude not a specific way the music sounded.

 

No, just the first album, and the White Man In Hammersmith Palais single, then we parted ways. I heard bits & pieces, of course, after that, but was never tempted to buy into it.

True, but I recall a quote of the time by John Lydon is the aftermath of the Pistols break-up...The demise of the Sex Pistols stopped the Rolling Stones of the 1980s ever happening...or words to that effect. I think it seemed to a lot of people that it didnt - the Clash took on that mantle instead, and perhaps rather too enthusiastically.

I suppose to put it bluntly - a lot of people felt they'd sold out their principles.

 

I can understand that, I was not around at the time so I can't really say how it 'felt' obviously. Like some Nirvana fans probably saw 'NEvermind' as an overt sellout since it was more polished or Metallica fans with The black album.

 

I wouldnt even put The Clash in the same universe as The Doors.As soon as someone tries to rock the casbah i turn into a BackDoor man