jane's addiction: name your reasons they are so bad and hated

One of the worse listening experiences of my life and I'm so happy so one agrees that JA isn't that good.

"Stop" is good too.

ritual still fucking pwns.

i thought they were 'deeper' when i was like fourteen or whatever, but i still have a positive feeling about them. i like listening to their records. i dunno. but yeah, the heavy prog epics. as noted on the noise board thread, the bass into to "three days" is one of my fave things EVAH.

xpost

Oh, and Dave Navarro sure turned into a whore, eh?

Look, I was in high school, nobody else liked college rock. Ok, one dude liked Joy Division also so we were friends, but he was a fucking asshole. When Nothing's Shocking came out, I swear MTV played it on both Headbanger's Ball and 120 Minutes. Unheard of. Amazing. It was like the metal band that was ok for new wavers to like, and it was totally atmospheric and psychedelic. It didn't sound much anything else you'd learn about on MTV around that time. Then I bought the Three Days cassingle when it came out, totally epic. I swear that on some of those tracks Janes Addiction hit the same oddly exotic psychedelic nerve that had previously been dominated by The End by the Doors, and would later be most piqued by something like Space Prophet Dogon by the Sun City Girls.

I saw them play at Madison Square Garden, I think I was in 10th grade so like, 1990? 91 maybe? Happy Mondays opened up for them and seemed pretty useless at the time. But Janes had all their colored christmas lights and day of the dead imagery and such. Really, they were a lot better then everything that came after them, they were more then the sum of their parts (which were pretty lacking to begin with). But it brought everyone together, the metal-heads, the alternative rockers, the goths. Both of their record covers were banned at some point. Sure it was schtick, but it seemed exciting. Maybe you had to be there.

Got placed into the newly minted "alternative" section of record stores so girls would buy it.

I BELIEVE YOU ARE DESCRIBING THE DOORS, ACTUALLY.

I'll agree with that fully. Meanwhile, indirectly responsible for Lollapalooza? I thought Perry got the whole shebang rolling.

Jane's wannabes are sad figures, and this includes Farrell/Navarro since the first reunion on.

oh my...

I think if I was 18 instead of 36 ot might not impress me that much either.

I'm can't tell if this is a great compliment for Jane's Addiction, or a horrible insult to Van Halen.

That said, while they were certainly overrated, I admire that they were the only sexually ambiguous band at the time that frat boys -- at least in California -- had no qualms admitting liking (since Guns 'N' Roses saved them the embarrassment of admitting they liked Poison right before.. and also Freddie Mercury had died. Judas Priest was still chugging along though.. I think?). also, they had a few good songs on each album: "Mountain Song", "Three Days", "Classic Girl", etc. I could never listen to "Stop!", "Jane Says", or "Been Caught Stealing" for the rest of my life and be happy.

So glad Eric Avery never followed up with the reunion requests.

Oh my god! That is so awful! I hate it when girls like bands that I like. Also, I hate it when girls like bands that I don't like. Life is so unfair. I was "alternative" before there was a record section for it. Honest.

TS: Jane's Addiction vs Faith No More

p.s.: i don't give a shit about mr. bungle or fantomas, any more than i give a shit about porno for pyros.

and i don't care what anyone says, but "Stop" rocks

Cocteau Twins' "Heaven or Las Vega"
Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet"
Pixies' "Bossanova"
Depeche Mode's "Violator"
Happy Monday's "Pills, thrills..."
Breeders' "Pod"
Ride's "Nowhere"
Sonic Youth's "Goo"
Dee Lite's "World Clique"
Lou Reed & John Cale's "Songs for Drella"

These were incredible times for both techno and hip hops singles too...

i guess that's a reason a person who lived through certain times might like a band (see: your boomer-approved canon) but i don't see why it's a valid argument for any band in THESE times.

There is absolutely no fucking way these albums could possible comapre to Ritual De Lo Habitual, especially the second half.

When I first heard them as a lad: OMG this band is epic mindblowing holy shit!

Then I got older and "coolerl": Wannabe Zep hippie dumbasses

Then I got older still: Loveably wacko alt-rock dinosaurs actually has some pretty great song, now find their hippie doofy crap kinda charming.

also, GREAT live band, if you ever saw them back in the day, really amazing.

POPIST SCUM.

This admittedly doesn't take much.

I saw the Janes in 1988 and it was mind blowing. They peeled the paint off the walls and small-town me had never seen anything like it. I saw them again in 1990 on the Ritual tour and they were...sagging, indulgent, and basically, a bad cartoon. Navarro never had the funk he thought he had, and that sure showed when he joined the Peppers.

Much of Nothing's Shocking will always remain classic to me because I can't separate it from my college years--the incredible anticipation I had for that album to come out and how it more than delivered. And as donut alluded to, my entire fraternity was batshit about 'em.

About that reunion -- sorry "relapse" album they did.. i heard a few songs off it, and it isn't bad really... The one radio hit was actually quite nice! it actually removes some of the things I didn't like about them initially. That said, the album isn't anything that's stood the test of a year, much less stood the test of time.

Since the initial break-up of Jane's, I think this is where Mr. Garrison speaks wisdom, in relation to Mr. Peri-Pheral, and his motivations (which isn't exactly uncommon for greater bands, granted.)

3xpost

Do you know what I mean by a lack of stylistic identity, though? When I listen to a record by Voivod or ABC or the Three O'Clock, it seems to me that I'm experiencing a definite aesthetic. Jane's Addiction seemed half-assed to me in the sense of ... well, what the hell were they supposed to be, anyway? It doesn't seem based on much of anything at all and it didn't seem to me that they INVENTED some whole new thing either.

while I don't dislike Jane's, I'm not sure I get how they permanently changed shit profoundly, as you state

Jane's Addiction signing to Warner represented one of the first times that major labels engaged in a bidding war for an "underground" or "alternative" or whatever the word for sub-mainstream bands was back in the late-80s. They helped make the world safe for groups who did things differently. The alt-rock explosion which took place from 1991 on would not have happened without them. Not only Janes's of course, but please don't underestimate their role in all of that.

Well, ok, but Warner Brother's also release Wire's 154 for U.S. distribution back in 1979.. A far more difficult album. It may not seem so in retrospect, but they also took a chance on the B-52's that same year as well. Those are just two of many examples of major labels taking a chance on releases that were far less commercially promising than Nothing's Shocking, imho... Wasn't Devo involved in a major bidding war amongst majors even earlier?

Again, I'm not saying Jane's contributed nothing, but I don't think they ended up being anymore influential in the long ran than, say, Mudhoney even (who at least admit that they thought they were just a blip on the radar after it all...)

"what the hell were they supposed to be, anyway?"

your opinion's your opinion, but this isn't fair. what the hell is anyone supposed to be? were the stooges psychedelic, garage, or blues? i mean, come on. jane's sounded nothing like mr. bungle or faith no more. this "generic alternative hard rock" is a retrospective label; at the time they were unique, and part of how much they ruled is how much they got absorbed by other bands

I mentioned three bands from around the same time that I see as having a more defined aesthetic. Jane's Addiction were some kind of hard rock, but based on what? Psychedelic, but again, based on what?

Wasn't saying they did.

>this "generic alternative hard rock" is a retrospective label<

Now, how do you know that I was not using it at the time? Let's throw Guns 'n' Roses and Pearl Jam in there while we're at it.

Well, ok, but Warner Brother's also release Wire's 154 for U.S. distribution back in 1979.. A far more difficult album. It may not seem so in retrospect, but they also took a chance on the B-52's that same year as well. Those are just two of many examples of major labels taking a chance on releases that were far less commercially promising than Nothing's Shocking, imho... Wasn't Devo involved in a major bidding war amongst majors even earlier?

You're correct in that the majors had previously taken some chances with bands whose commercial prospects were dubious at best, but these experiments, for the most part, didn't alter peoples' perceptions or change the way the music business operated. Jane's Addiction and Sonic Youth were the two highest profile "underground" signings of the pre-"Nevermind" era. They blazed a trail and then Nirvana showed up and steamrolled over everything. In 1985 would it have been possible for a noisy punk band to knock Michael Jackson out of Billboard's #1 spot? The reason it was in 1991 is because in the wake of Jane's Addiction, Sonic Youth and even Soundgarden; record companies were actively seeking different types of bands and actually putting some money and promotion behind them. This was a fundamental shift whose effects are still being seen.

I've met Perry. It went like this:

SCENE: Portishead show 1995, after the concert itself, milling about in the American Legion Hall vestibule.

ME: "Hiya. Hey, I heard you were hosting Love and Rockets after their studio burned down or something?"

PERRY: *laughter* "Why don't you ask Kevin? He's right over there!" *points to the towering figure of Kevin Haskins*

ME: "Hey thanks!"

I then talked to Kevin for ten minutes.

Right Tim, that at least sounds sane.;) I still have trouble seeing JA as "generic" in terms of any actually existing genre from that time since their sound sounds pretty unique to them. But I think I'm starting to see what you're saying. Is it that you think that they don't seem to have a solid background in any particular tradition other than playing on/with a general idea of what a ROCK! BAND! is supposed to be like?

xpost

Sorry I misread you, Matos, but that last sentence seems to imply that you were projecting the reprehensible asshole/sans druggy charisma onto them.. that's all.

how are the effects still being seen?

Just in terms of the types of bands who can have their records reach the top of the mainstream charts now, as opposed to before.

Yes.

Having said that, said blowhard deserves a lot of credit for masterminding LollaP. Never attended a single one myself, and hated half of all the various performers, but I found all that musical cross-fertilization to be inspiring, even exciting. Ice Cube raving about Ministry (or NIN? can't recall), Henry Rollins getting inspiration from Ice-T - all that stuff woulda been inconceivable in my college-radio days just a few years previous.

If I want eclecticish classic/hard rock with psychedelic and prog pretentions, I'll get it from a band that's smart enough to go in for shamanic bullshit only as a joke. One that has more good songs, some actual compositional training and a better groove, while we're at it. You know, Phish. They started in 1983.

as for Janes' sexual politics significance, I refer you to the second post of this thread. anyway, you needed a band to do this stuff for you? in 1989? you had heard of Prince, yes?

That said, I think I was a bit turned off when my skanky hippy next door neighbour told me she fucked Farrell in exchange for some smack back in '90 when they toured here. Urgh.

Vommo!

The first year or so was OK and then...

Calling Nothing's Shocking "commercially promising" is revisionist history based on the hindsight that the record opened doors for music that sounded like it to be commercially promising. Let's look at that year's Pazz & Jop:

http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/pazznjop/03/search_return.php?poll_year=1987&type=A

Seems that the stuff that actually sold records didn't sound much like Jane's Addiction.

Also, the disc floundered as the band tried to get support slots with anyone who would let them. But the disc never really took off. I also remember the derision from many when they were nominated for the first Metal Grammy (the Jethro Tull fisaco).

And mentioning 1979 in comparison to 1987 is fair only because in both years the majors sensed something bubbling and tried to react (with the expected mixed results).

Brian is right--comparing a distro deal with Wire is way different than the resources devoted to the Janes (signifcant investments in recording, marketing, and touring.) But in 1979, it would have been riskier to sign Wire and develop them in the US given the conditions I note above.

I remember hearing them for the first time, in this long-gone rekkid shop in newcastle, the guy put "nothing's shocking", "ocean size" on - "hey check this new rock band out" and it kicked in and I was like whoa fuck is this paul rudolph's new band or something? It was one of those moments that reaffirms yer faith in rock music, like thank fuck someone still "has it". Me and my friend both bought copies on the spot, and we both basically played the album out over the next few months. I've had "ritual..." since it came out, and it's impossible to play that one out, it's still great, especially "3 Days". Also, I saw them 3 times and 2 of those times they were AWESOME, 2 of the best concerts I've ever seen, it still makes me happy thinking about them, even despite all the lame shit, prono for pyros, the reunion, navarro joining the fucking useless chilli peppers, we shot all those who like them, etc.

And yeah, as for using a Pazz & Jop poll from 1987 to exhibit why Nothing's Shocking was a commercial risk for releasing... I'm in the "WTF?" camp there as well. Nothing's Shocking and Jane's were in a completely different scene from anyone mentioned in the P&J polls... "Jane Says" got played heavily on KROQ in L.A. in 1987 (from the self-titled album on XXX records, and later a promo of the studio version.) -- which was the station that prospective labels would listen to far more often than the other pop radio stations in L.A. -- and give the amount of record execs in L.A., having them take on the band for a full studio album deals seems really unsurprising. You have KROQ to thank for breaking Mary's Danish and Tone Loc nationally later that year, for that matter.

Is it that you think that they don't seem to have a solid background in any particular tradition other than playing on/with a general idea of what a ROCK! BAND! is supposed to be like?

Tim, if I got what you're saying, I think it's kind of like when someone from Arraymusic mentioned when he'd recently jammed with Alex Lifeson and was surprised when AL couldn't really jam on a 12-bar blues; he only really knew how to play his own songs. He contrasted him with Jimmy Page, who had a real grounding in playing songs from the blues tradition and some folk + extensive experience as a pop session guy. (And Jane's probably do sound more like Rush than Zeppelin.) I could see what he was saying there, although I don't think of it as a necessarily bad thing. But I don't really see why this kind of critique would be true of Jane's Addiction and not of Kelly Osbourne or Boston or probably the majority of rock bands post-1975 or so.

I like some Phish OK but they must have some material that's a lot heavier than anything I've heard for the comparison to make sense.

(I'm really not super-obsessed with the band. In fact, I barely know anything at all about them as personalities, which may be why I don't get a lot of the hate. But I'm intrigued by the criticism Tim makes.)

I agree, Sundar. I'm not holding bands up to any particular litmus test w/r/t their roots.

What it comes down to me for me, though, is aesthetic definition. Again, with those three bands I mentioned (Voivod, ABC, the Three O'Clock), I feel like there's a central core to what they wanted to do. Seeking this in a band like Jane's Addiction, I feel like I'm looking into a void.

what does that even mean?

This is a fascinating thread for how little it's possible to totally dismiss or praise (without conditions) this band.

explain this.

They were never really arty or subversive, though = If they were arty, it was in a bad, inneffectuual amateur boho-lifestyle-cum-hippie way. Not that that's bad, everyone needs a hobby. But in the era of Reaganomics that was probably seen as pretty unusual, before preppy-slacker-hippies became the new dropping out. Nowadays it's just regarded as passe.

That was how I read it perhaps :/

If the stories are true, they kept that for the gay porn phone lines they worked on.

-- fandango (...), January 17th, 2006.

how does jane's addiction make animal collective look "tidy"? i can't even begin to hear this when comparing them. though you're right about the strokes. i guess.

Strokes -- whoever did "Eep Opp Urk (Uh Uh)" on The Jetsons

also, i'd be quick to concede that Bret Michaels is probably a bigger homophobe than Perry Farrell, given some evidence, but quick, tell me who got called 'fags' more - Jane's Addiction or Poison?

You can like it, shrug it off, love it, or hate it.. but Jane's were hardly a surprise to anyone when they became big.. at least to L.A. folks. It had been brewing for quite a while.

(the whole attempt at a "gay" angle is more distracting from the qualities of the band, in retrospect... what's more interesting is how they became the token L.A. rock band for L.A. anglophiles to like, instead of the Chili Peppers, Fishbone, Lock Down, or whoever else was around then..)

KROQ just had a way of making everything they played on the radio sound like they came from either of two planets: a) Hollywood, or b) England. Somehow, Jane's were able to get fans of both sides of the listener fanbase to like them. The latter is more interesting to explore, IMHO.

That was great.

Atmosphere aside they were absolutely ferocious live, and they knew it. I won't forget how shit hot they were at those Lollapalooza shows, and how every night they were dropping jaws on the opening acts crowded to the side of the stage — Siouxsie and Rollins and the Buttholes, etc. — all craning their necks for a better look, to be closer to whatever it was those guys managed to tap into for a very brief period.

http://www.rscotthorn.com/Test%20Rock/images/Perry%20Ferrell.jpg

http://www.karenmasonblair.com/images/gallery/Perry%20Ferral.jpg

mega xpost

no, and I'm not much for them because of it. to the extent I do like them, it's despite the fact that they're not kidding. Zep is the only one that really does it for me, though, and the stuff I like best is when they tone down the bullshit (Rock 'n Roll) or knock it the fuck over (Levee)

we aren't really mentioning the fact that janes was a goddamned buzz clip and was on almost every morning right before i left for middle school. and as i was only just then getting to know about contemporary music that wasn't complete rubish, they were mind blowing. everything about them was. i see it differently now, mind, but at the time the seemed to present exactly what i wanted from a rock band. and i could find their records in the mall.

how they got there is, of course (sorry), a good question. that album on XXX is far enough away from GNR to let me think record co.'s thought they could market to the same audience. maybe it was the KROQ...i never understood how LA works.

btw, Ian..i think i still have a couple old bootlegs on tape under my couch...one form lollapalooza in Atlanta...perry pretends to talk to moses...and they do the "don't call me nigger, whitey" cover with ice-t...classic (sonds kinda crappy, but...)...ill try and get it to you

xpost: hah...see the teenage me thought that was an amazing thing to say (re: the sandle)

I get my "magic" from, well, beauty. Not an "air of danger and possibility" (which was certainly better-purveyed by, you know, W. Axl Rose etc.). I'm sure there was a strong communal element to Janes shows, and I might well have gotten off on that if I had been there. But I prefer my community to be composed more of people who are seeking things they weren't offering.

This is the reaction that I had, too. I think if the Pixies had made it to my town, it woulda been them. But listening to Jane's Addiction now is akin to looking at photos of my old hair-dos.

How many Charisma points do you have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_Addiction

Fuck the haters.

Pashmina OTM.

frosting, beaters...oh, i best go outside

For me this is the most OTM thing on this thread. I'd like to add that I also feel sorry for people who can't seem to like a band unless the frontman is idol worship material. Who cares if he was a cracked-out asshole? I'll never understand people who let that figure into the equation.

the cracked out downfall only matters if yr looking for an idol rather than a soundtrack. most people, esp when they're young, like their bands to be idols. so figuring that in is only as stupid as the worship itself.