the doors vs the clash.

Touch me was not wimpy in the strict sense of the word....just like Light my fire (overrated in my rock book )....only commercial. Some Clash tunes sounded like they were made for the dance floor.....but weren't there other "disco bands" doing that in that period? The Clash should have been more COHERENT with their brand of rock!!

 

I see EYE to EYE with you there

 

What is your 'strict sense' of the word. Light my fire is a 7+ minute epic with a long solo and some controversial lyrics, touch me is a 3 1/2 minute ballad with sappy love lyrics, strings and a very poppy upbeat melody.

The Clash should have been A more coherent rock band? Did you want them to be the ramones and release the same album for over 20 years? The Clash only have 1 disco song that I know of alot of the later stuff is funk. Rock the cashbah walks the line I guess between the two but they have a rap song in 81 before most american black groups were releasing rap records.

I've gone through periods of liking both, I don't really prefer one over the other but imagine on a forum like this there are more doors fan which is cool, but the clash were brilliant.

 

I totally agree on that ....and that can only be GOOD

 

That's the reason why perhaps they cannot be compared in the 1st place

 

my point is you were saying touch me wasn't wimpy, its straight up pop music to me, I was seeing what your 'strict' sense of the word wimpy is?

 

It always seemed they both had strong impacts during the short time they had to make music. powerful,emtional.

 

The Clash have nothing. The Doors have 3 talented musicians and one untalented albeit interesting singer.

The Doors win by infinity.

 

Indeed, if I had to really choose between the 2 bands, I'd go for the DOORS blindfolded

 

Nothing? They had 2 of the best lyricists of not only punk but of rock n roll. Had they not had such turmoil they could have been around for a long time. As good as some of the doors stuff' was I don't think they would have faired particularly well if they continued throughout the 70's.

I'm just playing devils advocate and wish this thread would disappear because i love both bands and its a dumb comparison, but its late and I'm bored.

 

don't get how this comparison is so bad. for years and years people compare obvious bands ,like beatles vs stones, and rem vs u2,dead vs phish ,zeppelin vs sabbath, etc. . hey you know what, use your heads and try to fiqure out something thats not easy and not tailor made for comparison. lol. yea, beatles vs stones is easy becasue they existed at the same time and you can go blow for blow for who had a bigger impact. This one you goota do the math in your head so to speak.

 

You are trying to make this like some sort of super analytical debate with a clever twist in that they are not from the same era and not the same type of music. The types of comparisons we left are kind of like 'secondary' qualities like the lengths of their career and such as where beatles vs. Stones can be compared more with their music like you said straight blow to blow.

if its not obvious by now, alot of people here dont even seem to like both bands so with this extremely biased position of not even having heard say past The Clash's first album how can one make legitimate comparisons?

I dont think its unreasonable or impossible to compare bands from different eras just two odd choices I find here.

 

Duh doors

 

doors have more casual fans no qustion. But i have found in my expierence anyone i found who loves the clash , LOVES the clash. Any number of people i know have like the doors best of and thats it. love em, but not really over the top. With A few exception of course. Some love the jim morrison more then the doors itself. Where the real difference in the bands lay, not the differnce in styles.

 

Did someone say Jim Morrison wasn't talented? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I would like to see you write something better than Moonlight Drive, LA Woman, Crystal Ship etc.