On John Densmore's interview with Samuel Andreyev

I was recently served a video of an interview of John Densmore by the YouTube recommendation algorithm, most likely because I am technically subscribed to Samuel Andreyev's (the interviewer) channel (at the time of writing). I added it to my "watch later" pile—even though Samuel Andreyev has had some questionable collaborations (with Jordan Peterson among others) in the past, because the guest intrigued me. For those not familiar with the name, John Densmore was the drummer for the well-known '60s rock band The Doors, a band with which I was obsessed for a considerable period of my early teens.

I read John Densmore's first book about the Doors¹ during that period, and although I don't really remember the details of it, I certainly remember finding some passages very weird at best. I will also say that although I found Jim Morrison's lyrics interesting when I first came across them, and I do appreciate that they pushed me to write and read more poetry, I don't think they've aged super well, and there are definitely instances of I'm 14 and this is deep.² My appreciation for the music persisted, even though I don't really listen to the Doors that often anymore.

The interview was... surprising to me—and not in a very good way!—and that's what I'm gonna analyze in this post.

Music and creativity in the '60s-'70s

Samuel Andreyev opens with a question that's a little naive, saying that "I grew up in the 90's and from my vantage point the 1960s and '70s were a creative utopia", basically asking if this was actually the case. Thankfully, Densmore starts off his answer by mocking the I was born in the wrong generation vibes, mentioning that this was the period of the Vietnam War, and so just like the '90s (or any other time really) not everything was nice and rosy.

Unfortunately, this is succeeded by a rather disappointing ramble about the song The Unknown Soldier: Densmore says "[...] he [Morrison] didn't name the Vietnam War in Unknown Soldier", and that is somehow a good thing because it's not direct? This is then almost directly followed by Densmore reciting some of the lyrics of the song (specifically the bullet strikes the helmet's head part), and then chuckles because that reminded him of "Agent Orange" (Trump) getting shot? Lmfao, crazy leap, but okay???

Symbolism vs direct references

To unpack that random little ramble: okay fine, The Unknown Soldier doesn't explicitly mention the Vietnam War, but also what else could it really be about at that time and place? Andreyev continues by saying that this non-mentioning of the war shows that their art is not "mere political posturing" because "Jim Morrison writes in terms of symbols". I don't see at all how that tracks; in fact, it seems to me that you can pretend to take a political position way more easily if you write "symbolically" in this way, because you can decide what you mean after the fact! In any case, I can't really agree that it's more brave to be vague here, not to mention that (although I didn't grow up in the '60s) being against the Vietnam War doesn't exactly seem like the most fringe, edgy or dangerous (in terms of PR) political position at the time when the song was written.³ Andreyev then approves of Densmore's previous comment on the symbolism/indirect feel of the lyrics, and they both agree with Densmore basically saying that it's all connected through "archetypal undercurrents" because, and get this, both the Doors and the Beatles did LSD and got into meditation even though they lived across the Atlantic from each other and had no Internet. Wow, yeah I'm sure that has nothing to do with '60s orientalism or hippies and the like in the West, must be some primal archetype!

Back to symbolism in art though: Densmore says that "Jim liked that people might interpret his lyrics differently", which, sure, many artists do (it's neither an unpopular nor a "wrong" objective for artists by any measure). But I don't see at all how they (Densmore and Andreyev) arrive to "symbolism is better" from that, relative to what they seem to refer as more "literal" lyrics. First of all, as I mentioned before, in many instances it is much braver to call out something by name rather than be vague about it; you may be vague about it because you can't do otherwise because of some force majeure (for example you go to jail for having questioned the State or whatever), but at best it's just coping with the status quo and definitely not something that's gonna be praised as being the bravest. Secondly, the belief that people will not relate to something concrete (e.g., the Vietnam War) because they don't know of it or can't project it to their reality is hopelessly naive: if this were true, so much traditional and folk music from multiple cultures would not have survived because it references specific places, people, events and times. I feel insane that they both nod their heads when saying this even tho there are so many different counterexamples !

Social media!!! or something!!!

I swear, you should pay a fine every time you start a phrase with "ah XYZ is because of social media nowadays" in a public interview or statement. For some random reason, and while they were talking about "what if Jim Morrison were alive today, would he sober up or nah"—which, I'm sorry but it truly is a what if the moon was made of pudding type of statement to me—Andreyev decides to take a wild turn and say "do you think it has to do with social media [...] you can't go off and be stupid and make mistakes for 5 years the way you could in the '60s". First of all—again, not an expert—I'm not entirely sure you could "go off and make mistakes" (which sounds a little bit too much like a euphemism for doing something cancellable) as a famous person in the '60s more than you could now, at least when you're as famous as the Doors. Also, who are we talking about? I use social media, and I could totally do a full 180 on my life, like relocate to the other side of the globe and do the most random job, and if I wished so only people very close to me would know. Are these people aware that you actually do not have to post everything that goes through your head?

Anyway, this whole point really comes across as "you can't do XYZ today, because of woke" to me and even Densmore kinda calls it out: "I mean the good thing is you can't have a secret little war", although I'm not sure that's the best example today. They go on to talk about the lack of privacy today, which, sure, and then mention "technological fasting", which is not checking your emails, to which I say I wish I could (also, completely unrelated to privacy). From not replying to emails we jump to yet another random subject...

Isolating yourself in order to create

Densmore says: "[...] an artist trying to create something [...] a book, a movie, whatever [...] you need such focus, it's a singular task. And you have to cut out all media, especially in writing". Again: lmfao, what?

I can fully understand that this may be a hard requirement for Densmore. I can even understand that many people may feel this way. But, again, there are so many examples of other artists who absolutely did not create like this! Hemingway continuously talks about going out and writing in cafés in Paris while observing people or talking to people, Bob Dylan talks about meeting people and seeing things that directly inspired songs... what are we talking about??? Plus, it's just so silly because in my personal experience not only should you not isolate yourself, but in a way you actually need to consume media and experiences and talk to people to create! But I guess that's not valid, because Densmore thinks isolation is "the key to creativity" or whatever. It's actually hilarious because right after that he adds "it's a... isolation kind of thing... you know, unless you're a band, that's different" LMFAO yeah or you just realized that what you said before directly contradicts your own experience maybe?

Oh no, we're talking about musique concrète now, and more platitudes

Andreyev, to his credit, tries to make the interview interesting by asking how the Doors interacted with contemporary movements and composers like Stockhausen. Densmore's response is mostly about how Stockhausen's charts were "crazy" because "[...] there's normal musical notation you know, treble clef bass clef whatever, and he had pasted things where it went up and over [...]". This may sound nitpicky, but I was kind of disappointed here: from someone who supposedly "brought jazz to the Doors", I was expecting a much more interesting answer. I can understand that, for someone who is not familiar at all with the advances of classical music post Beethoven, Stockhausen or Boulez probably seem insane, but for a musician to be that impressed 60+ years later after different types of notation were introduced is kinda wack.⁴

This then turns into Densmore saying "music basically is math". At this point, and as a lover of both, I'm like ooh, this is interesting! Sadly, this is followed by "you look at music notation and it's a lot of numbers and counting, especially in classical [...] you're counting bars before you come in". Uh-huh. Well that's my fault for not noticing the pattern of naive platitudes I guess. But it's not over yet, as he says: "what turns the numbers into music is the feeling". Oh god. While I don't necessarily disagree with this technically, I have to admit that I've never heard a phrase that is more full of itself yet completely empty. What does that mean, lol. Look, I can do it too: "music is like, uh, trigonometry, but in sound". Sounds deep am I right? I won't even mention all the bizarre stuff that ensues, but it's fair to say that I have no idea what Densmore is on about during this part (and I'm not entirely sure he knows either).

Continuing into avant-gardeism, they talk about the song Horse Latitudes and "what if that was too out-there". Densmore talks about how Jefferson Airplane happened to walk into the studio right as the Doors were recording Horse Latitudes, and how they were shocked by how experimental the song is. Now, I'm aware that, writing this in 2024 and having grown up much later than Densmore, I inevitably look at that era with some bias, but it is truly insane to me to pretend that Horse Latitudes was somehow extremely experimental or pushing limits or whatever. The song is fine, it's pretty interesting I guess, and I personally like how the lyrics are crafted. But a moment ago we were talking about Stockhausen, lol. There were simply much more experimental things happening during that time, and something that the Doors did that may have pushed the boundaries of extremely popular, mainstream rock just a little does not deserve, IMHO, this much attention. Wow, you wrote a song without a chorus.

On parallels between the '60s and today

After some more rambling (and repeating of previous points), we get to Andreyev's next topic-shifting question: "Do you see any parallels between the intense anxieties and tensions of the '60s and what we're going through right now [...]". Densmore starts very strong with "[...] the Vietnam War polarized the whole country into for and against the war similar to today where we've got [...] the red states and the blue states". Oh brother. So what is implied here (at best) is that voting Democrat in the US and being anti-Vietnam War in the '60s is the same thing? Highly debatable, and I don't even wanna think about alternative interpretations of that analogy (or about how the stakes are just not the same or comparable). He then proceeds by saying a lot of (quite random) stuff, like how the Vietnam War was wrong and the protests against it helped stop it (true, but what does that have to do with the question) and McNamara knew it (??? alright) and "we have to look forward"... hm. Andreyev then says "it's actually possible to change these situations [...] a lot of young people feel like they're just victims of circumstances [...]" (which I think is unintentionally woke lol), which triggers something in Densmore, because we get the following completely unhinged response: "yeah, um... "the environment needs help and criminal jus[tice]-" all these issues... uh... man, seeing carnage of Vietnam every night on television [...] that was more painful than now [...]". LMFAO that is truly an INCREDIBLE, incomprehensible thing to say while there is a genocide happening in Gaza and you can barely go online without seeing multiple images of mutilated children. Jeez. I get that the Vietnam War scarred an entire generation, but how much of a self-important boomer do you have to be to say that "kids have it easy now!!!" on that subject when literally multiple wars (of which a literal genocide!!!) are being broadcast live online. Equally unhinged is the following sentence: "if we didn't have 8 years of Bush we wouldn't have the courage to go for a black man". First of all, oh yeah, because Obama was so much better,⁵ but also like... what? So, things can change, but for them to change we need to inflict years of suffering upon ourselves to the point where things change because we can't take it anymore? What???

Advice to aspiring musicians(?)

After discussing Densmore's other ventures into theater, music and literature, they come to this weird segment where it suddenly turns into a sermon about how young artists "shouldn't aim for Madison Square Garden", which... okay, sure I guess (although this is nothing new)? But then, wouldn't you know it, Densmore delves into yet another random rant-ramble: "[...] I mean, it's... "I WANNA BE RICH I WANNA BE RICH" [...] the best example of that not being the way to go is Trump" HAHAHA HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH TRUMP, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING. I can't keep up, seriously. So, the conclusion here is that Trump (orange angry bad guy) is rich, and Trump "doesn't seem happy", ergo you shouldn't strive to be rich (as an artist specifically?). Truly some Ionesco shit right here. I'm not even gonna go into how privileged of a take this is coming from someone who was in one of the most commercially successful rock bands of all time. Densmore then enlightens us with the following quote: "[...] it's like fertilizer, when hoarded it stinks, when spread around things grow, and the corporate beavers are damming out the flow, because currency comes from the word current". Oh my god this reads like a tumblr post from 2010. He then quotes Bob Dylan's "don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters." which, lmao, simply has no connection whatsoever to what he was just saying. I swear this entire interview is randomly generated. Soon after we also get "we avoided someone trying to fit Jim's leather pants [...] that was a metaphor [...] I mean sonically as well as sexually". What. Are. You. On. About.

New musical projects

I'm not gonna lie, this interview did not exactly open my appetite for Densmore's current/new music, but as if that wasn't enough he goes on to talk about how Public Enemy's Chuck D told him they should make music together, specifically saying something like "Chuck D + John D = DOPE", with "DO" referring to "Doors" and "PE" referring to Public Enemy. This (quite expectedly, based on what we've seen so far) blew John Densmore's mind. Someone should show him those random multi-hour supermixes of vague conspiracy theories on YouTube that are based on reading too much into symbols, he'll probably love them. He goes on to say how he rapped on this project with Chuck D; it's not out yet, so I can't say anything about it, but this naive musical venturing of a white person who has nothing to do whatsoever with hip hop and its cultural heritage has historically proven to be a very bad idea. Densmore immediately proves my point by blessing us with some of his lyrics: "[...] everybody gets older, but not everybody gets elder // the elder is the roof that shelters the youth // that looks down the road laying tracks of where to go". Wow, you couldn't waterboard this type of lyric out of me. It is true that he tries to do new stuff and not just replay music from the Doors though, I will give him that.

What was this entire thing even about?

If I hadn't deconstructed the Doors enough after my early teens, this interview was definitely the last nail in the coffin. Again, this doesn't mean that I think the band is horrible or whatever; I still listen to them from time to time, and hey, they were so popular and people still listen to that music today for a reason. But, through John Densmore's old man ramblings in this interview, I think you can sort of start to see the cracks, where "lyricism" and "musical genius" were heavily supported by, let's be honest, the psychedelic, hippie, "everything-is-one" aesthetic and associated symbolisms. This is why I insisted so much on the whole "being abstract and symbolic" thing: it's certainly a powerful tool, but it's also exactly the type of thing that allows you to never have to admit what you really wanted to say, and to pretend that there is actually some substance underneath the layers and layers of abstraction and indirection.

Beyond that, and in a certain sense, of course it's cruel to expect more of Densmore than of any other 80-year old. At the same time, most 80-year olds don't randomly hop on podcasts to say whatever goes through their heads. I think it's important for Densmore (and anyone else of a similar status) to remember that just because they're well known or just because they were in a successful band (no matter how successful), we don't owe it to them to put them on a pedestal and listen to them ramble about anything and everything. This is proven by the fact that, in multiple occasions during this interview, he did say things that I agreed with. But all of this is surrounded by tons of snippets of random opinions about things he knows a little (or nothing) about, platitudes, and blanket statements, stuff that only he believes and that he gives out like gospel without backing it up with anything. I don't know, I think it's a good to get a reality check now and then and maybe think before taking a microphone or go on stage to unconditionally spread your wisdom.