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

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