― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 16 January 2006 23:49 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― don weiner (don weiner), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 00:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― Special Agent Gene Krupa (orion), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 00:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 03:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Special Agent Gene Krupa (orion), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 03:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 03:30 (eighteen years ago) link
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.)
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:59 (eighteen years ago) link
3xpost
― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:14 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:23 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:28 (eighteen years ago) link
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...)
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:38 (eighteen years ago) link
"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
― roethlisberger, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 05:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:03 (eighteen years ago) link
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?
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:03 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:07 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:10 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:15 (eighteen years ago) link
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
― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:32 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:51 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:59 (eighteen years ago) link
Yes.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 07:02 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 07:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dom iNut (donut), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 08:21 (eighteen years ago) link
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?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 08:38 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 08:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 12:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 13:34 (eighteen years ago) link