Post by TheWallsScreamedPoetry on Dec 26, 2010 17:55:32 GMT
1971 Doors Contract Amendment, Why did 'And The Doors' not trust Jim?
Of all the information that has come out from this recent trial for the heart and soul of The Doors this bit makes me most uncomfortable.
Sub Section 11 Amendment to the Old Doors Partnership Agreement March 11th 1971
”On March 11th 1971 the parties executed a one page amendment to the Old Doors Partnership Agreement. It sets forth a specific provision prohibiting the use of the name, The Doors, by any partner upon termination of the partnership for any reason other than the death of a partner. The amendment was prompted by a concern that after L.A. Woman was delivered to Elektra, Morrison might leave the band and form another band in Europe using the name 'The Doors.'
Manzarek testified that he signed the one-page amendment when it was prepared but did not read it and did not understand its purpose.
Abe Somer testified that he recalled some concern about the band splintering, and that the amendment, as well as all of the band's agreements, were explained to the band members before they signed."
The court found Mr. Somers' testimony to be credible and accepts it as true."
From Pt III Statement of facts….
Proposed Statement of Decision
By Judge Gregory Alarcon May 2005
I would be interested to know whose idea this shabby bookend to The Doors career was in the first place and also more than interested to know what prompted this distrust of Morrison and the subsequent shackling of him to prevent him forming a Brit version of the Doors when he moved to Europe.
If we examine the judges comments it at first glance seems that Ray was in the clear as he did not have a clue what the document was when he signed it as he did not read it at all. A bit odd I have to say for a guy with a degree in economics.
So from that it seems that Robby and John went behind Jim and Rays backs and thought this shameful document up. But as we all know as Doors fans Robby was a tad shy and it would seem to be a total sea-change for him to suddenly do something like that….so it must have been the dastardly drummer who never liked Jim in the first place……but if we examine further we see Abe Somer The Doors lawyer (described fondly as a pit-bull lawyer by Elektra boss Jac Holzman) testified that he explained this document to all four Doors before they signed it. And the judge made the point that Abe’s testimony was found credible and true whilst Ray’s was not.
And as Ray and Jim were the most extrovert members of The Doors it would seem more credible that Ray had a hand in this as well as the other two if not was the instigator himself.
The only other explanations are that the lawyers thought it up for a laff and conned The Doors into signing it under the guise of getting autographs for their kids or Jim thought it might be a good idea to make sure he did not stab the other three in the back when he got to Paris. Which don’t seem too credible do they.
So we are left with the musical side of the Doors not trusting the lyrical side to stay loyal to the band when he went for a few months rest in Europe.
Lets examine the matter of loyalty for a moment shall we.
The lyrical side
1)The lyrical side was asked early in The Doors career to ditch the musical side and go solo by the bands then manager. So what does the lyrical side do? He goes to the musical side and tells them what’s gone on and they get a new manager.
2)The lyrical side decides that jealousies within the band might rear their ugly heads and arguments about who wrote what would cause major disruptions. So he brings up the idea that all 4 band members share everything the band makes equally. For the major if not sole songwriter in the group at that time it was an outstanding piece of foresight born of integrity and a belief in the music against all the cash he could have raked in off his song writing royalties.
The musical side
3)The musical side flog Light My Fire to Buick for a few grand apiece without consulting the lyrical side. Who then threatens to smash up a Buick live on stage if they don’t stop the deal.
4)This 1971 amendment to the current Doors contract.
So weighing everything up we find the musical side sadly lacking on the loyalty front whilst the lyrical side did the right thing by the band.
True Jim was a drunk who managed to bugger up whole tours with his refusal to chain his mouth shut. True he was not the most reliable in the studio and caused all the major problems The Doors ever had. But one thing he never did (as far as we know) was stab his band-mates in the back. Which was what this document saw the light of day to prevent.
So is there some information about Jim in 1970-1971 that we are not privy to that gave rise to this distrust or is this just a shabby chapter in the death throes of a great band who were realising that their career was about to end as their lead singer rode off into the sunset to go to Europe…perhaps forever.
To be honest this is a bit more information than I ever wished to know. I am happy it served its purpose in winning the trial for the side of integrity but now that I know of its existence I find my all time musical icons are not quite as unique as I used to think.
Knowledge is not always our friend …just like alcohol!
Of all the information that has come out from this recent trial for the heart and soul of The Doors this bit makes me most uncomfortable.
Sub Section 11 Amendment to the Old Doors Partnership Agreement March 11th 1971
”On March 11th 1971 the parties executed a one page amendment to the Old Doors Partnership Agreement. It sets forth a specific provision prohibiting the use of the name, The Doors, by any partner upon termination of the partnership for any reason other than the death of a partner. The amendment was prompted by a concern that after L.A. Woman was delivered to Elektra, Morrison might leave the band and form another band in Europe using the name 'The Doors.'
Manzarek testified that he signed the one-page amendment when it was prepared but did not read it and did not understand its purpose.
Abe Somer testified that he recalled some concern about the band splintering, and that the amendment, as well as all of the band's agreements, were explained to the band members before they signed."
The court found Mr. Somers' testimony to be credible and accepts it as true."
From Pt III Statement of facts….
Proposed Statement of Decision
By Judge Gregory Alarcon May 2005
I would be interested to know whose idea this shabby bookend to The Doors career was in the first place and also more than interested to know what prompted this distrust of Morrison and the subsequent shackling of him to prevent him forming a Brit version of the Doors when he moved to Europe.
If we examine the judges comments it at first glance seems that Ray was in the clear as he did not have a clue what the document was when he signed it as he did not read it at all. A bit odd I have to say for a guy with a degree in economics.
So from that it seems that Robby and John went behind Jim and Rays backs and thought this shameful document up. But as we all know as Doors fans Robby was a tad shy and it would seem to be a total sea-change for him to suddenly do something like that….so it must have been the dastardly drummer who never liked Jim in the first place……but if we examine further we see Abe Somer The Doors lawyer (described fondly as a pit-bull lawyer by Elektra boss Jac Holzman) testified that he explained this document to all four Doors before they signed it. And the judge made the point that Abe’s testimony was found credible and true whilst Ray’s was not.
And as Ray and Jim were the most extrovert members of The Doors it would seem more credible that Ray had a hand in this as well as the other two if not was the instigator himself.
The only other explanations are that the lawyers thought it up for a laff and conned The Doors into signing it under the guise of getting autographs for their kids or Jim thought it might be a good idea to make sure he did not stab the other three in the back when he got to Paris. Which don’t seem too credible do they.
So we are left with the musical side of the Doors not trusting the lyrical side to stay loyal to the band when he went for a few months rest in Europe.
Lets examine the matter of loyalty for a moment shall we.
The lyrical side
1)The lyrical side was asked early in The Doors career to ditch the musical side and go solo by the bands then manager. So what does the lyrical side do? He goes to the musical side and tells them what’s gone on and they get a new manager.
2)The lyrical side decides that jealousies within the band might rear their ugly heads and arguments about who wrote what would cause major disruptions. So he brings up the idea that all 4 band members share everything the band makes equally. For the major if not sole songwriter in the group at that time it was an outstanding piece of foresight born of integrity and a belief in the music against all the cash he could have raked in off his song writing royalties.
The musical side
3)The musical side flog Light My Fire to Buick for a few grand apiece without consulting the lyrical side. Who then threatens to smash up a Buick live on stage if they don’t stop the deal.
4)This 1971 amendment to the current Doors contract.
So weighing everything up we find the musical side sadly lacking on the loyalty front whilst the lyrical side did the right thing by the band.
True Jim was a drunk who managed to bugger up whole tours with his refusal to chain his mouth shut. True he was not the most reliable in the studio and caused all the major problems The Doors ever had. But one thing he never did (as far as we know) was stab his band-mates in the back. Which was what this document saw the light of day to prevent.
So is there some information about Jim in 1970-1971 that we are not privy to that gave rise to this distrust or is this just a shabby chapter in the death throes of a great band who were realising that their career was about to end as their lead singer rode off into the sunset to go to Europe…perhaps forever.
To be honest this is a bit more information than I ever wished to know. I am happy it served its purpose in winning the trial for the side of integrity but now that I know of its existence I find my all time musical icons are not quite as unique as I used to think.
Knowledge is not always our friend …just like alcohol!
