30 years ago...

[den]

Jim Morrison died 30 years ago.

I really like the music of The Doors. It's great stuff! I like the lyrics and the poetry.

But I don't understand the deification that is being done to Morrison's memory. He wasn't the master poet snatched away from us. If there was ever the title "Master Poet Snatched Away From Us" then it belongs to John Lenon.

But even Lenon doesn't have the same level ot worship that Morrison seems to earn.

I had to agree with Ron 'Hitler' Barassi of This Is Serious Mum when he sang "Grandfather to a generation of Depression Worhipers" in 'Morrison Hostel.'

And I laughed when I read the last paragraph on the BBC Online's article about Morrison. "And in Paris, beneath the graffiti-strewn slab, the candles and the fading blooms, lies not the decaying body of an alcohol-raddled narcissist, but an ideal of perfection - as ancient as human life itself."

Perfection for depression worshippers.

Comments

[lonita.livejournal.com]

Morrison was overrated. He only has the titles he has, because they were "door openers", and because people always show a distinct lack of perception in choosing their heros.

No pun intended.

It's akin to why most people like Shakespeare or Tolkien; not because either of them are any good, but because they are told to like them; they are socialised to like them; they are brainwashed into liking them... by school, by peers, by snobs, by the media...

Morrison's "poetry" for the most part, was crap. I think he was a pseudo-intellectual, if such thigs exist. Those who didn't like him were equated to the level of ignoramus. You know the type I mean? Art snobs?

Lennon's work always had a message; though I'd never suggest that a heavy-duty message was a requirement of being good. Lennon had a brain. Morrison had drugs. There seemed precious little honesty in anything Morrison ever did. (I guess I'm trying to imply that Lennon had far more depth than Morrison did.)

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy The Doors myself. (Though I find it ironic that the song they are most famous for, wasn't one that Morrison wrote. Actually, I find it very funny.)

[i.livejournal.com]

for someone who hasn't even read tolkien, methinks thou dost protest too much. (mixed literary reference intended) i read tolkein before any of my friends did and loved it. it is classic, like nothing before or since, and worth your effort if you ever take a long plane trip.

shakespeare never impressed me until i saw james earl jones play king lear in central park. he blew me away. shakespeare isn't for reading, he is for watching. there is a reason why some of our best actors are trained in the shakespeare tradition.

morrison had a brain, too. lennon had drugs too.
more on them above.

[lonita.livejournal.com]

Ahh, with that comment I wasn't at all trying to imply that Tolkien and Shakespeare were bad; I was just using them as easy examples of "famous persons" that may not be as hot as a lot of people would like to think they are.

There are, and I'm sure you realise this, people who like things because it is popular to like them; not out of their own perceptions.

Re:

[i.livejournal.com]

absolutely. one of my other favorite sayings is "most people buy the art they are told they should like, instead of the art they would actually enjoy living with"

[i.livejournal.com]

i don't worship either one, but i cry when i think of the loss of lennon. i don't cry over morrison's death. morrison wanted death, courted death, sought it out. lennon was about life and love and laughter. morrison was more of a poet than songwriter, lennon was more of a songwriter than a poet. lennon was a politician, morrison was a mystic. you'll notice i don't compare their music. there is no comparison. i like them both for completely different reasons.

[lonita.livejournal.com]

I think that's what I was trying to get at, but didn't. That whole thing about Morrison being a mystic. I really wonder about that. Most of the time I think it was a crock; that people only ascribed that appelation to him, and are sticking to it for fear of letting a bit of ego go.

I know art is a subjective thing, and depends solely on context and framework; but there are times I wonder if we shouldn't draw a line with some things. I am thinking, specifically, of a lot of surrealistic endeavours. (Now I know the art was not what was produced, but the process of the production.), but there are people who call the end result "high art". They have succumbed to that "oh it's new and different and all the cool kids like it so it must be good" thing.

And sometimes, that's just where I stick Jimmy.

Re:

[i.livejournal.com]

i think he was a mystic, not a Mystic, if that makes sense. he was searching for something beyond. a Mystic might have been clearer in his communication of the search and what he found.

in case you haven't seen me say it, my definition of art is anything which is more than functional. if you like it, it is good art. if you buy it, it is valuable art. art is possibly the most subjective concept there is. it has a completely unique meaning for everyone. that is why i keep my definition as broad as possible.

[lonita.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I've been looking for a more than functional way to describe art to people. That will do nicely. May I quote you on it? :>

Mystic and mystic makes perfect sense. it is like the difference between truth and Truth. Truth is a profound understanding of a thing, a "divine" inspiration, a thing which is universally understood and accepted, and likely cannot be subverted. 'truth', on the other hand, is lack of falsehood, is the striving towards honesty, that sort of thing.

While Jimmy may have been no Zen master, he may have been a seeker. I can see the point there.

(Though, just to be contrary; I have trouble, seeing as art, that one gentleman whose work was comprised of photographs of pans filled with his own urine and crosses floating in the urine.)

Re:

[i.livejournal.com]

i assume you are referring to andres serrano, who is one of the better living photographers. he had one photo in an exhibiton partially funded by the National Endowment of the Arts in Washington, DC. that photo, and Mapplethorpe's homoerotic work were at the center of a controversy which ended in the virtual gutting of all fine arts funding in this country. My personal reading of Serrano's piece was "western civilization has been pissing on christ for 2000 years".

and, yes, you may quote me. :)

[lonita.livejournal.com]

This is one of those arguments (were we debating an opposing viewpoint) that would almost instantly degrade down to Godwin's Law. :> (den, by the way, is the one who introduced me to Godwin's Law. Yay den!)

I'm sucking air through my teeth in that sort of seething frustrated manner, that only comes about because of governmental stupidity, and the ignorance of those of us who choose to allow them to "gut" us.

I suppose the whole controversy was fueled by the religious right, etc. who refused to put money into "that immoral work that spits in the eye of Our Lord And Saviour"? People who got reactionary over something controversial (and a bit tasteless :>) and couldn't see the bigger picture of the entire arts community? Or was it that whole "art isn't practical (the urine is proof), and is useless, therefore we're going to put the money into something More Useful to Mankind" thing?

Re:

[i.livejournal.com]

exactly... the very same people pissing all over christ.

My last comment on this for the night...

[lonita.livejournal.com]

...that reminds me of a quote.


"Whatever your heart clings to, that is your God."

to avoid confusion

[i.livejournal.com]

btw, i am sayng this all from the perspective of an atheist who doesn't believe jesus rose from the dead.

Re: to avoid confusion

[lonita.livejournal.com]

Glad to meet you, then; fellow non-believer. :>

Re: to avoid confusion

[i.livejournal.com]

:) i suddenly realized i was sounding like a bible thumper.

Re: to avoid confusion

[lonita.livejournal.com]

You weren't, actually. The thought hadn't even crossed my mind at all.

Nor would it have, to anyone with more than two braincells to rub together. :>