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

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.)