Jump to content

Talk:L.A. Woman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Old comments

The cover art scan is MUCH too dark. Whoever scanned it must have their screen set way too bright!!! If nobody else does I'm going to upload a bigger and clearer scan in a day or two. Lee M 00:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Pinkerton. I'm not saying I'm actually going to attempt this, but I'm sure enough sources exist for this to be possible.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doors?

Is there any particular reason why this album is credited to "Doors" rather than The Doors? Jjm905 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question; the record label credits the album to both The Doors and just Doors, and there seems to be no consistent style to the promotional posters etc. It was quite trendy at the time to move away from The. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The front cover said "Doors", but that is just artwork. Often front cover artwork will only mention a band's name (minus the article that is supposed to go in front of it). For instance, the flowers in the bed of dirt on Sgt. Pepper read only "Beatles," but we know that the album is by "the Beatles." On the original glossy British cover, printed by Garred & Lofthouse, it did not even put the band's name on the side spine, and the title of the album was upside down (on the spine, that is). Rubber Soul and Abbey Road didn't even include the band's name on the front cover. I think that in the Beatles case, they were just sick of all the hype and wanted to de-emphasize the whole Beatle thing. In fact I think the whole Sgt. Pepper concept is a humorous way of saying" "The Beatles are now dead--we are now Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band--forget about us." And, then there is the whole "Paul is Dead" thing, but I won't get into that here. As for the Doors, I'll check on this, but I think that if you look on the side spine, the cover should read "The Doors." Since we know the band to be "the Doors" and since they never officially changed their name the album is by "the Doors." Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

album cover

The description of the original album cover in the article is wrong. Yes, the abum had a rectangular cutout. But the image of the band was on a clear transparency that was glued to the cover, while the record jacket was solid yellow. 108.2.215.149 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

the inclusion in the article does not have a source so it could well be incorrect. Do you have a source for your explanation? Monkeymanman (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC) We have corrected that.

Dallas show

Don't know what there was to support the statement that the Dallas show "seemed to go well", but there was a recording found, which I heard last year, of (allegedly) that Dallas show--and Morrison was the single most drunken singer I have ever heard in rock and roll or anywhere. He barely altered his voice from a growl, made the smallest possible effort to get the lyrics right. Hard to believe any non-stoned audience member there for the music, could refer to that experience as "going well". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.223.153 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can a reference be provided for the statement that Kansas performed the night of The Doors' last show? The Kansas page indicates they had just formed and were only played localy in 1970. 22yearswothanks (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul A. Rothchild dismissed the group's differing style on "Love Her Madly" as "cocktail music".

According to Ray Manzarek in the documentary, 'The Doors: Mr. Mojo Risin'--The Story of L.A. Woman', 'Love Her Madly' was not introduced to the group until after Rothchild quit and the band had already moved recording of the album to their rehersal space.

Just thought I'd throw that out there since the quote makes it sound like Rothchild quit because of 'Love Her Madly'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyvarsity (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:L.A. Woman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


This is my favourite Doors album by a wide margin, and I used to do a cover of the title track in a band years ago (though I used a Wurlitzer on it). I'll read through the article and then assess where we are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article so soon after I nominated it. I have expanded it over the course of several months and hope it has been improved. I understand it will not be perfect right away, but I am prepared to work with you to fix any concerns. Thanks again!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Background

  • When I've improved album articles to GA, I usually start with a brief summary of the band's career. Nothing more than a sentence, just the Doors being together for 5 years and releasing 5 (?) hit albums should be enough.
  • What makes thedoorsguide.com a reliable source?
  • "In November 1970, shortly after the conclusion of Morrison's controversial trial for indecent exposure" - what was the result of the trial? Was he bailed, were the charges dropped?
  • The citation to John Densmore's autobiography needs a page number
  • "It was released without the band's input, and featured a larger-than-life image of a younger Morrison" - what does "larger than life" mean in this instance?
  • What makes archives.waiting-forthe-sun.net a reliable source?
  • Response - I replaced the doorsguide source with others. The second comment is actually answered at the beginning of the background section. As for the autobiography, I have a question: If a book (I used Googlebooks for this reference) does not have page numbers on the actual page, how do I find it? My "larger-than-life" description is used because Morrison was upset that he was made out to be more important, almost God-like, in comparison to his bandmates, but it can be tweaked. I thought the last source is reliable since it is an interview with Botnick. Do you recommend it be changed?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
If you use Google Books, there is a clever way of getting the page number - click on the "link" icon, scroll across the URL generated in the "Paste in email or IM", look for a section starting &pg=PT123# .... the "123" there is your page number. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Recording

  • Do we know anything more about why Marc Benno was chosen to play on the album?
  • It looks like Curly Turkey has gone ahead and fixed a number of things I was going to comment on.

Music

  • "Despite its troubled beginnings, L.A. Woman contains some of the Doors' most mystical and ethereal music" - this sounds too POV to go in the main text, perhaps it should belong in the "Release and reception" section?
  • "Artistically, L.A. Woman took the musical experimentation of the original band to the farthest logical extreme, mixing blues, psychedelia, and jazz, often within a single song" - as above
  • "Combining Morrison's wistful imagery with hypnotic double-tracked spoken word" - as above, "wistful imagery" sounds too POV for an encyclopedia article

Live performances

  • What makes liveforlivemusic.com a reliable source?

Release and reception

  • For citing the original sleeve, I find it's best to use {{cite AV media notes}}, and using the original serial number (if you've got the LP, it'll be easily identifiable on the jacket).
  • "although he lamented "Been Down So Long" and "L'America" - what does "lamented" mean in this context?

Personnel

  • As above, if you're citing the 2007 Rhino CD, provide the specific serial number. The credits don't correlate with the original LP (which credits Manzerek simply as "piano/organ").
  • "Been Down So Long" has two guitars (lead on the left, slide on the right) - are they both Krieger? This slightly contradicts the prose which claims everything was live bar keyboard overdubs

Summary

  • I've trimmed down the prose so it's a bit more readable. Of the unresolved issues above, I think we can sort these out fairly quickly, so I'll put the review on hold for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Response - Ritchie333 I have addressed some of the concerns. I moved the booklets and liner notes to the appropriate format and changed the source in the live performance section. I changed the wording in the reception section as well. If it is okay with you, I wish to further discuss the music POV issues. Personally, I do not agree with the statements word for word, but the sources I read generally relate to what I wrote. If I added more sources to those sections could they stay? I just think the music itself needs to be described, but in many ways how it is described is an opinion. However, that is unavoidable in this case. I will alter or remove it if it comes to that because I want to reach GA, but I want your viewpoint before I proceed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Several issues of sourcing have not been addressed - these need to be fixed before the article can meet the GA criteria. Also the suggestions for adding a brief sentence as an intro for those who don't know much about the Doors, and adding why Mark Benno was at the sections haven't been addressed. I find it's better to address each point individually rather than just summarising, as it's too easy for issues to be missed out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I addressed the sources, sorry, I did not realize I used the doorsguide as many times as I did. I also included a sentence about the Doors' five hit studio albums, and found out Benno was involved because of his work with Leon Russell.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some more copyedits based on comments here and on talk. We could probably do a bit more "spit and polish" on the article, but for now I think it meets the GA criteria, so I'll pass the review now. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Some comments from Curly Turkey

Background

  • The first paragraph of the background is a bit confused, jumping from 1970 to 1968 to 1971 without any apparent rhyme or reason.
  • A capsule history of the band up to this point would be welcome.
  • The new songs were a departure from the heavily orchestrated pieces on the earlier album—the departure had already been made with the "back to basics" Morrison Hotel. Did they "depart" twice?
  • featured a larger-than-life image of a younger Morrison—larger than the rest of the band, but "larger than life"? An encyclopaedia avoids hyperbole.
  • upsetting him enough to threaten signing with another label. As their contract required one more album, they were unable to follow through with the threat, so they continued: careful with pronouns—"he" suddenly becomes "they".
  • It has been suggested—need to attribute these things
  • His investment in the band deteriorated further—I had to read this a couple of times before I got what "investment" likely meant
  • For recording, the Doors hired Elvis Presley's bassist Jerry Scheff and rhythm guitarist Marc Benno to round out their sound, with Scheff, in particular, contributing on every track except "L'America".—this commentary is sourced to the back cover of the vinyl?
  • a professional-quality 8-channel recorder—is there a difference here between "professional" and "professional-quality"? And is the qualifier even necessary?
  • aside from the keyboards played by Manzarek—this sounds like all the keyboards were overdubbed ...?
  • Botnick explained, "The overall concept for the recording session was to go back to our early roots and try to get everything live in the studio with as few overdubs as possible".—this quote seems redundant—we've already been told they've gone back to basics and that they avoided overdubs.
  • Mixing was completed at Poppy Studios—was mixing begun elsewhere?
  • I notice a lot of language that's too informal for an encyclopaedia: "dry up", "give it another six months", etc. You also want to avoid subjective qualifiers such as "overly", "infamous", etc.
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Music

  • showed up to the sessions on time, drinking less—this is introduced as if the reader should know Morrison was in the habit of showing up late or had a drinking problem
  • Despite its troubled beginnings, L.A. Woman contains some of the Doors' most mystical and ethereal music—what do troubled beginnings have to do with mystical or ethereal music?
  • represented the best of Morrison's songwriting abilities—subjective
  • the only work during the L.A. Woman sessions were a few drum overdubs—should that be "with" rather than "were"?
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You make some great points, but I might beg to differ on one slight thing: There is a huge difference between a commercial eight track multi-track vs. the typical consumer eight track that people had in cars. The consumer eight track used a cheap plastic cartiage device that that had terrible sound quality, whereas the professional eight track was an extremely large and expensive reel-to-reel multi-track machine (usually made by Ampex or Revox) that was used in the studio for recording all of the basic tracks that would be later mixed down onto a two-track machine. So, I think that it should definitely be pointed out that it was a professional eight track. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it likely to read "eight-channel recorder" as "8-track tape"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good solution. I know that you already knew the difference--I just wanted to make sure readers don't get confused, that's all. You just proposed a great solution. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Dallas show

Your article states "The concerts were well received, proving the Doors were still a capable live act"...I was at the Dallas show in 1970, and it was horrible. The band did have some good moments throughout the show, but Morrison was obviously inebriated. Matter of fact, he was drinking on stage and made a pyramid of empty beer cans on the front of the stage, at least 12 of them during the 2 1/2 hour show; which he proceeded to kick into the orchestra pit at the end of the show. It's a wonder that he didn't fall off himself, but some roadies came out and assisted him out. As to Kansas opening as was asked in another comment, I only remember a "no-name" band opening the show. They didn't make an impression on me.Frankzappatwin (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"The faint, ghostly backdrop"

The final paragraph in the Music section says "The faint, ghostly backdrop heard throughout the song was the last recording of Morrison with the Doors". What does this mean? Was Jim Morrison playing an instrument called "faint ghostly backdrop"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.208.223 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Two "official" music videos exist

The one with visions, showing L.A. nightlife, and the one showing Jim in various situations, often on stage. 82.177.40.11 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Who made these videos and when?


Liner notes

Album liner notes are used as sources for several citations. Problem is, they don't seem to support the statements/details:

  • "For recording, the Doors hired Elvis Presley's bassist Jerry Scheff and rhythm guitarist Marc Benno to round out their sound.[22]" – "22. L.A. Woman (liner notes). Elektra Records. 1971. EKS-75011."
  • The 1971 LP cover only lists Scheff on bass and Benno on rhythm guitar on four songs; there is no mention of Presley nor how they affected the Doors' sound (Botnick mentions Scheff's association with Presley, see below).
  • "Morrison enjoyed not having multiple takes, as on The Soft Parade, and showed up to the sessions on time and sober, unlike sessions for that album.[27]" – "27.abcde Botnick, Bruce (2007). L.A. Woman (booklet). Rhino Records. R2-101155."
  • Botnick's essay mentions "as few overdubs as possible", but not connected to Morrison or Soft Parade. Also, Botnick writes "Jim was there from sunup to bedtime. No drinking, beyond an occasional cerveza", but again no comparison to Soft Parade and "on time and sober" is not a very good paraphrase.
  • "To highlight the melancholy of 'The WASP (Texas Radio and the Big Beat)', Densmore devised an early use of synthesized drums.[27]" – as above
  • Botnick writes "Then we had John [Densmore] with the very drum kit that he used on the first album" and "'Texas Radio' was an in-studio composition whose source was Jim's poetry book. Robby had the melody already, and the arrangement took around an hour to materialize." Nothing about synthesized drums or melancholy.
  • "L.A. Woman was released on April 19, 1971.[27]" – as above
  • Botnick doesn't mention the album release or date; his essay focuses on the recording sessions.
  • "Note: Sources for this [Personnel] section are as follows:[27] – as above
  • Botnick writes "Jim recorded all his vocals standing in the bathroom doorway. Ray had his Wurlitzer, Fender Rhodes, and a Hammond B3; Jerry had his amp; Robby and Marc Benno had two amps each. Then we had John with the very drum kit..." He does not say Manzarek played tack piano, Vox Continental, rhythm guitar, Gibson G-101 or on which songs (tracks) any of these were used. He also does not identify which tracks Scheff and Benno contributed to. The album credits pages (no author identified) lists the musicians (shortened here): "Morrison–vocals, Krieger–guitar, Manzarek–piano, organ, Densmore–drums, Scheff–bass, Benno*–rhythm guitar" with *s next to Been Down So Long, Cars Hiss by My Window, L.A. Woman (song), and Crawling King Snake. The credits also list "Produced by Bruce Botnick & the Doors", "Cover photography: Wendell Hamick", Album concept design: Carl Cossick", but no Sax or Siddons (Botnick mentions "band manager Bill Siddons").

TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs) (now a banned user) added the Botnick source in 2015,[1] but the "Personnel" section was already there before they started to edit the article.[2] Propose to remove the info not supported by the 2007 liner notes, unless someone is able to provide other reliable sources. Since the Doors' articles have been subject to extensive vandalism, it is important that the source material be verifiable.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Great. Agree its a keep so. Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Support pruning any material that is not supported by sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L.A._Woman/Archive_1&oldid=1003554217"