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

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