I would choose Jim Morrison. Some people confuse some silly movie, or a bad source, and then pass it along as fact, and when many people accept it, its hard for them to break that pattern of thinking, especially if someone has a reputation for bashing some guy for whatever reason. It’s rare to see people do a 180, admit they were wrong.
I would always tell people to take first-hand accounts first. Find interviews - video, audio, and text, and then with that foundation, you can read second-hand sources and decide for yourself. And even then, I would start with the best sources - family, band-mates, etc. He was a lot more than just some drunk who did crazy things.
I’d also name Roger Waters. If you read back to interviews in the 1970s, you can read Gilmour saying he was lazy, and how Rick wasn’t pulling his weight. I think people misunderstand Roger’s personality, too. I guess someone has to drive, but some might confuse a character from “The Wall” as being Roger, just because there are a few similar traits, which is very common among artists, who use many inspirations to create.
And then you have these idiots who’ll say “Why doesn’t he just stick to what he did best in the 1970s” - not knowing he’s been so consistent with his political beliefs, but that its THEM who have the problems, and can only attack because of ignorance.
I’m inclined to agree. Syd has this “unimpeachable genius” label that’s an accepted truth in many circles, but I don’t think it’s borne out by objective listening, really. He may have been innovative and influential in his day, but that really only means he’s partly responsible for how good other people sound, not * necessarily* that his output is especially listenable now.
Early man’s discovery of cooking may be hugely important in the story of how food evolved, but it doesn’t mean burnt mammoth would win any Michelin stars today.
Agreed regarding Jim Morrison. He certainly wasn’t the master poet so many of us young adults thought he was at the time, nor was he the world’s finest human being, but the amount of exaggerated hype that now surrounds him is irritating.
I actually never cared for any type of poetry… I love the music, and I love his individualism, and especially his disdain for authority, and he actually lived it, instead of just saying it.
True. But he wasn’t a lot more than a popular singer.
Let’s not go too far the other way and pretend Jim Morrison was some artistic genius. He was the sixties equivalent of Pharrell Williams. Except with a serious substance abuse problem.
As someone who loved Jim with the Doors and saw them four times (Oct 67, June 68, Dec 68, Aug 70), I couldn’t agree with you more. He wasn’t an especially good singer, much less an artistic genius. Didn’t stop me from enjoying watching and listening to him though. He had impressive stage presence.
I don’t know who Pharrell Williams is, but as I see it Jim’s problem (besides his horrific overuse of psychedlics followed by alcoholism) was that he was more or less playing a character onstage and off, mistakenly assuming that people knew this. He later told an interviewer that he’d seen “Jim Morrison” as a theatrical persona but “I guess they thought I was crazy.” Then of course his alcoholism took over and he became an obnoxious slobbering drunk. Such a waste.