CIRCUS MAGAZINE: A Visit with Jim in October 1970

[darkstar3]

If you look at the past postings on this thread I specifically asked Salli about the handwriting on the "corrected" copy of the transcript and she answered my question and that was good enough for me.

Posted by darkstar on Apr 25, 2006, 9:25pm

Hi Salli:

Yes, there is a drawing that you did of Jim which makes up the last page of the transcribed interview.

The transcript of your interview had a "Letter Of Authenicity" dated October 15 1994 which reads:

LETTER OF AUTHENTICITY

On October 13, 1970, I interviewed Jim Morrison for Circus Magazine. The next day I transcribed the tape.

On October 15, 1970, Jim took pen to paper and corrected the transcript. The original transcript had remained in my possession through several moves and 24 years of time. Since I would like to share it with you, this package contains a xerox copy of that transcript.

It has been reduced to 8 1/2 by 11 inch format from the original legal size and all Jim's corrections are circled for easy identification.

Along with the transcript there is a free hand drawing I did from a picture that Kurt Ingham took of Jim as he corrected the transcript. The original photo appears in Danny Sugerman's "Illustrated History."

I hope you enjoy both.

Signed Salli Steven
October 15, 1994

One question...............On the transcript that Jim corrected there are several notations in long hand within the text, margins and the last 2 1/2 pages. Is this your handwriting or someone elses?

Posted by salli on Apr 27, 2006, 10:36pm

The small sloppy scrunchyed up awful tiny handwriting is mine from my scrunchyed up period, as opposed to my now incredibly unreadable large gashes on the page. Larger only cause I'm blind and must rite large with my little penquin wings to see what I've said.

END.

In 2007 I let the transcript go because I didn't see any use in hanging on to it any longer because the interview had been posted for the public viewing by the journalist herself.

I can say I paid more for other transcripts in my Doors collecting over the years and I justified spending the $20 because it was a hell of a lot cheaper than paying $75 for a copy of the magazine. The $20 seemed like a bargain to me so I could read the interview.

The only additional question I have is why Jim Morrison corrected the transcript at all because it would seem the editor would have taken care of that prior to the interview going to print.

In all fairness, it would be nice if Salli were here to answer questions regarding the transcript herself.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

You make a fair point in defence of Salli but nontheless she SOLD the copies for 20 dollars and did not give any indication in the advert that Morrison's contribution was less than miniscule.
I am sure I once heard her claim she did not profit from this interview. I may be wrong, and if so I unreservedly apologise to Sally, but if I am correct then she clearly was not telling the truth as the advert you posted shows equally as clear that she sought to do just that at $20 a shot.

20 dollars was worth a lot more than it is today in 1994.
Salli is perfectly welcome to rejoin this forum and answer questions and believe you me I have plenty about this interview.

We will get to that later today after I have had my breakfast and done some uploading into photobucket.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

What follows is the typed transcript from the tape that was made of the interview.











This is where this begins to get interesting.
If you compare the interview posted on page #1 you will see this segment and see that several of Jim's answers are in response to questions by Kurt NOT Salli. Kurt has been written out and Jim's answers incorporated into Salli's questions.













In the interview Salli asks this question.

SALLI: Do you consider yourself more of a hero, or an idol? There was sequence in the film (NO TITLE MENTIONED) in which they describe idols as something human beings can't touch. Something they put on a pedestal. Marilyn Monroe. Something they can't really become. A hero, on the other hand, is someone that they can relate to, that they can touch, that they can become, that they can reach.

But look at the transcript and RISA asks this very interesting question with an equally interesting follow up from Kurt but they dissapear from the posted Interview and Salli asks this question.
Confused? Me too.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Again a Kurt intervention answered by Morrison edited out to look like a response to Salli.


Now this is a very interesting page. Risa asks Morrison how he thinks he will die?
Salli says it's a morbid question but seemingly not that morbid as, although it is credited correctly in the interview here, she uses it for the Circus Magazine interview which makes a big thing of Jim's answer.

Kurt and Risa get a bit part in the interview posted here but they did ask interesting questions which were used by Salli as questions she herself asked or were written out and Jim's answers incorporated into her question. We also see Kurt and Risa's very perceptive questions about heroes incorporated into Circus Magazine as a Salli question.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Once again a Kurt question on Alice Cooper used in the Circus mag and insinuated as a Salli question.
A strange answer from Jim as he was a friend of the Cooper group and Alice hung out with him from time to time. The Coopers wer on the bill at the Toronto Rock n Roll Revival which feature Lennons band. Alice Cooper said on the Biography Channel that Jim was stood by the stage encouraging them as the audience booed them.










Considering Salli is someone who has shouted a lot about copyright on both the LL and Densmore forum it is ironic that she did not seem to worry too much about taking other people's questions and incorporating them into Circus magazine.
I must admit I find this dissapointing as I don't mind Salli.
Me and her have had some damn good bust ups and discussions on the boards over the last decade and I thought this interview was one of the best Morrison interviews but this new information tarnishes my opinion of her as a journalist and a person.

The one thing I do find highly amusing is how she is basically 'hoisted by her own petard' so to speak as her desire to profit from the interview ironically revealed her deceit towards her readers in Circus magazine.

A touch of hypocrisy here from her considering she once accused a member of the LL of stealing COTL and releasing it onto the ether so everyone who wanted it could listen to it for free.
Here we see she uses Jim for profit and cares little about copyright when it comes to using other peoples words for her own work.
She is perfectly welcome to come here and defend her position as is anyone else.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

The Lost Interview Disc has more honesty as it does contain the questions asked by the people who asked them as is the Hopkins book The Essential Jim Morrison but Circus presents the interview very differently

After all Salli has profited from this interview in terms of credibility with Doors fans yet here we find that the most intelligent questions asked in the whole thing did not come from her at all

[casandra]

Thanks for the explanations about the price of Salli’s interview, Sara.

Thanks, Alex, for the images. The full transcript is very interesting. I find easier to understand The Lost interviews CD if I see the transcript. They speak very quickly and there is much background noise.

I retract some of my previous opinion. If someone was interested in buying the full transcript of the interview for $20 in 1994, it was his business to assess whether it was expensive or cheap; it was depending on his interest on reading the asks and answers unpublished on Circus (1971) or Hopkins’ Essential Jim Morrison (1992). I have no objection about this.

But if someone wanted to buy the transcript because in it there were Jim’s handwriting corrections, I follow thinking that advertisement information was not the most appropriate and maybe the buyer could be mislead for that ad. It lacks information in the ad. That’s wrong.

With regard to leave out the names of the other people involved in the interview, that was long ago. I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the editor didn’t allow it.

Kurt: You know it's really nice, except that it's a dictatorship, is Spain, along the coast. There it's like Southern California. There aren't a lot of people and it's very cheap there, but you have to deal with Franco. I have friends that live there, who say, if you're a fairly wealthy freak, you just have to have money, so you don't get hassled. There are some Englishmen who come over with seven dollars in their pocket and periodically the police roust them all.

Maybe in 1970 there were not a lot of people and was cheap to live in Spanish coast, but it isn't the same now. I was three years old then, so I didn’t realize anything.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Salli may well have gotten the benefit of the doubt from me before except for one thing.
Salli made a lot of fuss on forums about people using what she wrote in posts either for replys or to make points.
She continually cried copyright on places like the LL and Desnmore forum.
But here she used other peoples words for her advantage and does not credit them so therefore for me she no longer qualifies.

[pixiedust]

I appreciate your concern about this interview, Alex, and everyone else. I'm sorry that you think the package was so poor. It included a drawing I drew of the photograph taken by Kurt at the second day of the interview, a typed copy of the entire interview, that I typed myself, a page that told you where Jim had corrected things and a copy of the original.

I would like you to know that only eight of the interview packages were sold. Kerry Humpherys suggested I do it, because I needed the money to pay medical bills that were over $500.00. Each of the eight packages was sold in conjunction with Kerry of the Doors Collectors Magazine site. I got $16.00 per package for the eight packages that were ordered. I did the drawing because I didn't have the rights to reproduce the photo without paying $150.00 for its use. Kerry got the rest of the money as his commission and he paid the postage. Neither of us made a whole lot of money on it. I guess it was a losing deal for everyone.

Again, I apologize. If Darkstar would like her money back, since I know for sure that she bought a copy, I will be happy to refund the $20.00 to her. You have my email, Alex. You may give it to Darkstar and have her email me with her information so I can send her a check. Thank you.

[casandra]

For my part, I accept your apologies and in turn, I ask your pardon if I offended you at something. My words have been a little harsh. I undersand you, that was a necessity, and I think it is right, doing that sale to pay medical expenses. I guess that was not enough.

[pixiedust]

Alex, I'm going to try to clear things up here and I appreciate your allowing me to respond.

(1.) I never saw the ad that was placed in the DCM for the Transcript Package. Kerry sent me the requests for the packages along with money for mailing them. (See my post above.)

(2.) I just looked at the original article as published in Circus 1971.

In the original article in Circus (1971) in the first column on page 44 it reads:

"Risa: How do you think you'll die?
Morrison: I hope at about age 120...etc."

In the second column on page 44 Kurt makes a comment.

"Kurt: For awhile there was a cycle in pop stardom...etc.
Q: Using the definition that a hero....etc.
Morrison: A hero is someone who rebels...etc."

On page 45 Kurt's name appears again.

"Kurt: Have you seen Alice Cooper or the Stooges?
Morrison: I haven't heard them...etc."

So, in the original you will see Risa and Kurt's names. Risa's question about dying is one I have always said and thought was brilliant. I have always tried to credit Risa with her question about dying in any post that had to do with that subject.

Kurt is credited with the questions and comments he asked and made that were used. I am simply identified as "Q:" Jim is identified simply as "Morrison:"

I am pretty sure that Darkstar or someone else who posts here has a copy of the original article and can post pages 44 and 45 for all of you to see, cause I'm computer dumber than dumbest.

The "hero" question as it appeared in the original Circus article was as follows:

"Q: Using the definition that a hero is someone you can reach out to and an idol is someone unreachable, do you consider yourself an idol or a hero?"

So the question is not what you quoted above. It's not what you hear on the CD. It's not what I wrote when I submitted the article. I had written Risa's name in front of that question. It was shortened/edited in New York in a hurry to meet the deadline. I can only assume that Gerry Rothberg simply forgot to put her name back in front of that question. Until you pointed it out, I hadn't noticed that change. I feel horrible and stupid not to have noticed until now. I just assumed that it was there. Risa should have received credit for that question.

All editing decisions made once the article left my hands in Los Angeles and landed on Gerry's desk in New York were made by Gerry and as Editor/Publisher of Circus, it was his right to make any changes he felt necessary for column space/magazine layout and continuity of text.

I think you'll find that a lot of quotes that appear in the transcript and on the CD of the interview do not appear in the original 1971 article.

I had nothing to do with this latest reproduction of the interview. If I had, both Risa and Kurt would have been credited. So would "Q:" and so would "Morrison:" instead of just putting the question in bold type and the answer in regular type. In this resurrection of the interview, the editors also did not use the original photos that went with the original story.

(3.) Alex said: "Salli made a lot of fuss on forums about people using what she wrote in posts either for replys or to make points."

Of course I did, if I felt I was being misquoted or misunderstood.


(4.) Copyright. You're right! I had gigantic hissy fits about copyright. I believe that someone who takes the time to do something creative from writing to videos to film to art etc., and attach a copyright to that work, deserves to be paid for the use of whatever creative work is under copyright. Many creative copyrighted works were copied and posted for free on the internet and those who produced those works never got paid for their use. Not all creative people are wealthy...or even breaking even. Some actually live below the poverty line. Because those works appeared for free on the internet, many creative people lost out on the ability to make any substantial money from the work they had sweated to produce. Currently rules and laws are being put into place to protect intellectual and creative copyrighted properties.

Again, thanks for letting me explain. - Salli Stevenson

[pixiedust]

Thanks for your understanding, Casandra. You said what you felt and no fault there.

[darkstar3]

Apr 6, 2011 17:47:51 GMT pixiedust said:

I appreciate your concern about this interview, Alex, and everyone else. I'm sorry that you think the package was so poor. It included a drawing I drew of the photograph taken by Kurt at the second day of the interview, a typed copy of the entire interview, that I typed myself, a page that told you where Jim had corrected things and a copy of the original.

I would like you to know that only eight of the interview packages were sold. Kerry Humpherys suggested I do it, because I needed the money to pay medical bills that were over $500.00. Each of the eight packages was sold in conjunction with Kerry of the Doors Collectors Magazine site. I got $16.00 per package for the eight packages that were ordered. I did the drawing because I didn't have the rights to reproduce the photo without paying $150.00 for its use. Kerry got the rest of the money as his commission and he paid the postage. Neither of us made a whole lot of money on it. I guess it was a losing deal for everyone.

Again, I apologize. If Darkstar would like her money back, since I know for sure that she bought a copy, I will be happy to refund the $20.00 to her. You have my email, Alex. You may give it to Darkstar and have her email me with her information so I can send her a check. Thank you.

Thank you Salli for your kind words. Thank you for coming to the forum and posting replies to this thread.

I think the interview transcript that I purchased was well worth the money I paid for it and if I was offered the same deal today I would take it. It was worth my $20.00 just to be able to read the interview in it's entirety.

[pixiedust]

Ok, but if you ever need the $20.00, the economy being what it is, let me know. - Salli

[darkstar3]

Apr 6, 2011 21:51:35 GMT pixiedust said:

Ok, but if you ever need the $20.00, the economy being what it is, let me know. - Salli

No worries. I appreciate your kind offer but a refund is not necessary. I enjoyed having the transcript for the many years that it was in my possession. I didn't see any reason to keep it since you were kind enough to post the entire transcript on this forum. Thank you for your generous contribution to Doors fans. I want you to know I appreciated your thoughtfulness very much.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Apr 6, 2011 21:12:19 GMT pixiedust said:

Alex, I'm going to try to clear things up here and I appreciate your allowing me to respond.

I have been running forums on the internet since 2001 Salli and in that time I have NEVER denied anyone a chance to respond.
I have only ever banned two people from a forum of mine and neither case was anything to do with opinions simply a matter of what they were using the forum to do.

As to most of what you posted in your defence. Fair enough!
The interview reprint changed the emphasis from the three involved to the one. As you say. Not your fault.
However the selling of the transcripts is down to you, and even though I will give you the benefit of the doubt with regards the advert, it was bordering on deceitful what was being sold for the price that was being asked.
If I had bought a copy of this from you then you can be certain I would have taken your offer of my 20 bucks back.
What was sold by you and DCM was 20 dollars of nothing.
I am sure I have seen you refer to the fact Jim edited your transcript and I am sure people have discussed this with you on the boards such as the Doors Official Forum which never did allow people as much freedom as places like the Densmore forum and what I do here.

From what I have myself seen about this on forums I had a vision of Jim 'editing' your transcript rather than the odd random comma, 'a' or bracket.
So you can see how easily it is to view your complicity in this with DCM as a 'little bit dodgy' as we say here in the UK.
I have said already that me and you have had plenty of bust ups in our time but I don't mind you and also don't mind Kerry, who I met in Paris in 2003 and found to be a rather nice fellow.
He will be there in July and I hope to chat with him again then.
It may well have only sold 8 copies but I am sure both of you envisaged it selling a lot more. So the number it sold was irrelevant compared to the thought behind the actual selling of it and the way it was presented. Which even though you claim ignorance of you must have been well aware that the selling point was the Morrison editing.
So fair enough, as I say but still I for one feel you lose a lot of the credibility you built up in the Doors world from this article by your touting of it for 20 bucks via DCM.

As to the notion of copyrights I think that that idea began to die as soon as the Internet made an appearance. Of course people such as yourself still will cry foul but in your case you lost any credibility with this particular case as soon as you began selling it for 20 bucks.
If I had paid you 20 bucks for this stuff I would have been of the opinion that I could do anything I felt with it as it was now ‘mine’ and I had bought and paid for it.
The only case to answer would come from the crediting of the author for their work which here we always do, or at least try our best to do. Other than that….it’s a sign of the times, the zeitgeist of the new century, the spirit of the age.
Facebook, Twitter, blogs and all the trappings of the internet render copyright obsolete and a dinosaur concept. Arguments will still erupt over the issue I am sure but it is a concept I don’t recognise any more myself. I have seen my own ideas I have posted on the Internet taken and used in places I have never visited and accept it as a consequence of the power of the Internet.
If you want to defend your copyrights don’t sell it for gain or slap it over the Internet!.

It’s good to see you come here and indeed clear up the misapprehension caused by Circus magazine and you managed to regain some credibility in my eyes in doing so.
Regardless of the reason why you did what you did you have lost a bit of that credibility for me because of your actions.
A classic example of what our Doors world that we fans inhabit really is.
And nothing in it is quite what it seems.
Which makes it so interesting to people such as myself.
I have enjoyed this thread for the debate and for the interview itself, which was excellent. The conversation does indeed work better than a formal interview and this case is a good example of that.

[pixiedust]

Thank you for your candor, Alex.

There's no point in discussing copyright with you. We clearly disagree.

In response to your, "If I had bought a copy of this from you then you can be certain I would have taken your offer of my 20 bucks back. What was sold by you and DCM was 20 dollars of nothing.

I am sure I have seen you refer to the fact Jim edited your transcript and I am sure people have discussed this with you on the boards such as the Doors Official Forum."

They have discussed this, but I've never said Jim's corrections covered the whole transcript. When asked, I've always said it was a few minor spelling and punctuation corrections, a total of eight or nine corrections.

Not worth the $20.00? - OK. You would have received an immediate refund, BUT may I remind you that people buy Jim Morrison items all the time - items that don't have anything personal attached to them by Jim at all. No signature/autograph, no word, no anything. They pay good money for those items.

Examples are the countless unsigned generic "young lion" photos in art work, on t-shirts, magnets, posters, tennis shoes, Christmas ornaments, fake lyrics sheets, etc.?

Currently on sale is a painting by Denny Dent on Ebay for $25,000. No signature from Jim, no autograph, no letters, no words.

At least Jim personally corrected my transcript, however small the number of corrections. I think my freehand drawing of Jim wasn't too bad. I didn't ask for $25,000 for it. I asked for $16.00 for the entire package. Kerry got the rest of the money. Again, I did not see how Kerry marketed it and I did not determine the price. Kerry knew what the market was for Doors' items at that time. I didn't and he indicated it was a fair price.

As to how many packages I thought would sell? By 1994 I had learned not to count any chickens before they hatched. I didn't expect to sell any, but just in case Kerry did get an order, I put together a total of five packages, because that was all I could afford to reproduce at Kinkos at that point. I was surprised that we actually sold eight.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Candour is my middle name Salli as I am sure you are aware.
As you say pointless arguing about copyrights as we will just go on repeating ourselves.

Whilst your point is indeed valid on the sale of Morrison items and indeed some prices such as the painting you bring into your argument may at first glance seem a bit overpriced.
This does also at first glance seem like an excuse highlighted to deflect attention away from your particular bit of selling on the back of Morrison.
Because we are discussing your particular Morrison item, not some blokes painting, and for me yours does have a touch of deceit about it.
Whether it was deliberate or not I do not know and never will but I do give both of you the benefit of the doubt over it as I do try to see the best in people if I can.

People make money out of Morrison everyday selling all kinds of tat.
It's hard to be too critical of them really as the Jampol led Doors are the biggest moochers from Jim Morrison on Planet Earth.

It is sad because Danny Sugerman did try to be fair with the fans as he was just like us.
BMR was an incredible idea but sadly he was unable to complete it due to ill health and The Doors brought Jampol in to 'assist' Danny and it all went downhill from there.

But still your item is not one of the best sold in the name of The Doors/Morrison.
I will give you that the drawing you made of Jim is very good and the interview is excellent.
But regardless of what you said about how you talked about Jim's editing you have to concede that anyone reading the advert would have been expecting a little more than they eventually received.

[pixiedust]

Alex, I see your point. I'm not sure what I would expect after re-reading the ad. I like to think I would have been more specific as to what Jim actually contributed.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Apr 8, 2011 22:36:18 GMT pixiedust said:

Alex, I see your point. I'm not sure what I would expect after re-reading the ad. I like to think I would have been more specific as to what Jim actually contributed.

I am absolutely certain what I would expect from this rather misleading advert and that is I would expect to receive something Jim Morrison edited rather than some indecipherable indistinct nonsense consisting of a couple of 'a's, one tiny word which could have been written by anybody, a comma, and a bracket.


I do recall you speaking about this editing on other forums and I don't ever remember you being specific as such but I do recall you giving the impression that Jim Morrison 'edited' your work.

For me this whole episode has been very damaging to one person. That person would be you Salli.
Your reputation on Doors forums came about because of this interview and sadly you have let yourself down enormously.
Your reputation will suffer because of this.

You should seriously reflect on this episode because you have shown yourself to be no better than all the other people who use Morrison for gain.

Not your finest hour I am afraid to say