The Doors Forum

Not having known him as you have, I am really curious why he was able to get away with so much. It couldn't have all been fame, could it? I remember Densmore wrote in his book that Jim was the most powerful person he'd ever met. Certainly he was a charismatic performer and was a talented singer. But many including Pam tolerated his "physical form of sport." Was it your experience that he was actually that charismatic or was it actually more like a baseless glamour that was his allure. Or sadly was it just that he was willing to fund everyone's party. Thanks for what you have given us so far. I know for me, you are providing a real look at Jim Morrison that I'd always hoped to get.
best,
Joriki

First, Jim became a star as the fame of the group increased through 1966 and 1967. With the release of Light My Fire and the meteoric rise of the group to fame (assisted by crystal ship and the references to Meth in crystal form) he was a fascinating figure. He was this wierd guy who did wierd things on stage and sange strange sounding songs about some pretty wierd topics.

People were drawn to him.

The acceptance, with enthusiasm, of this performance encouraged him - so he thought - to push greater extremes of behavior. Then, as we have proposed, came Amsterdam where his drig abuse nearly killed him. That brought on a sequence of events wherein he displayed greater drunken extremes more frequently.

It was not so much that anyone tolerated it. They allowed it. They felt helpless to deal with it. They did not want a confrontation and they did not want his behavior. But for some unknown reason they failed to take any steps to stop it.

What could they have done. draw the line on the stage - Stop that behavior or get out.

Remember that they had well developed plans to proceed without him. Those plans did come to reality in the fall of 1971.

They did not tolerate it. I know that is a contradiction. They simply did not know how to deal with it and being in that position, the failed to do anything at all.

Ray, in his book, admits that they failed in this matter. That they should have taken steps. But remember one important thing. Jim WANTED to behave this way. Until Jim's attitude changed there was nothing they could do except fire him and it was a sense of loyalty and fear that stopped them from doing that.

Fear that with another singer, they would fail. In the end it was not the lack of Jim as singer that brought failure. It was a change in the style and arrangement of the music that made them less attractive. It is the same situation now. However people who listed to "Riders" not have heard nothing but recordings of the original group. It is exciting to see a performance live. Unless it is absolutely terrible, there is some spark in a love performance that no recording, no matter how accurate, dynamic, or well done, that can compare with a live performance.

They confused arrangements with singer and that was costly for everyone.

This is a controversial subject. I am sure there are opinions other than mine and some may well disagree. However I move back to Amsterdam, where the 3 Boys went on stage and brought the house down. (Maybe they were enthusiastic about seeing me all dolled up in my custom tailored British Clothes and the Boys were the second fiddle)

IF - they could do it then, certainly they could do it again elsewhere. On that point I make my stand.

I hope I have answered a Very Controversial issue.

You´re right Vince, the Amsterdam show was great. Ray did great vocals, doing all the improvisations that Jim used to do.