WHY WE LOVE THEM

Discussion regarding Jane's Addiction news and associated projects
Message
Author
User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

WHY WE LOVE THEM

#1 Post by Hype » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:35 pm



GODS. :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:


(Creep's vid... ty... ty...) Jane's Addiction! 91!








:flip: :flip: :flip: :flip: :flip: :flip: :flip: :flip:

Japhy
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:35 am

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#2 Post by Japhy » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:52 pm

Nope. Not as good as STP, Gogol, PJ, The Doors or even The Monkees.

Good try though.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#3 Post by Juana » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:39 pm

Japhy wrote:Nope. Not as good as STP, Gogol, PJ, The Doors or even The Monkees.

Good try though.
Yep exactly, also I would like to throw in the Beach Boys, the Byrds and Wu-Tang

CaseyContrarian
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#4 Post by CaseyContrarian » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:53 pm

I prefer Panic Channel. And Muse. I wish Sonny were here to lecture on Radiohead.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#5 Post by Hype » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:04 pm

:neutral:

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8775
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#6 Post by kv » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:25 pm

Image

User avatar
tubro
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#7 Post by tubro » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:27 pm

thank you dave navarro for putting me on the guestlist at paradiso that day in 1991. you could have just walked away when some stoned stranger who had entered thru the open stagedoor as the band was getting ready to sound check introduced himself and told you he was on vacation from nyc and couldn't get a ticket. but you didn't. one of the five best shows i've ever seen. thanks, dave.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#8 Post by Juana » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:28 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote::neutral:
We had to turn it into an argument before it started, you know it would have ended up there. Someone would have posted another band from the same era and the debates would have started again. We just had to get it out there and get out in front of it.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6665
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#9 Post by JOEinPHX » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:55 pm

Image

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8775
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#10 Post by kv » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:58 pm

that is the least stevie looking picture i have ever seen...but i'd go see those 3 play anytime

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#11 Post by Juana » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:09 pm

kv wrote:that is the least stevie looking picture i have ever seen...but i'd go see those 3 play anytime
Put those three with any singer and that would be pretty sweet, and by any singer I mean not Perry as we saw what Jane's re-re-re-re-re-lapse was...

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#12 Post by Jasper » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:48 am

Six7Six7 wrote:Image
:lolol: 2009 Eric, Dave and Perk? Please. You'd just like your Pansy Channel singer to step in there and make the awesome kind of generic shit you love all over again, eh, Panic Boy?
Juana wrote:
kv wrote:that is the least stevie looking picture i have ever seen...but i'd go see those 3 play anytime
Put those three with any singer and that would be pretty sweet, and by any singer I mean not Perry as we saw what Jane's re-re-re-re-re-lapse was...
Any singer? I'm pretty sure virtually any singer added to them would result in yet another pile of shit. It would take a rare breed to make anything decent of it. Most singers just ruin the music.

The reason we (anybody with a lick of taste) love them, (Jane's Addiction, is what reasons Hype posted: 1986-1991 JA, meaning Perry, Eric, Dave, Perk. Any little interest after that has been based on the original accomplishment. Rewriting history because someone might not like Perry now - or is too stupid to understand his past greatness - doesn't make any sense.

Throwing those guys together now isn't going to result in lightning in a bottle, especially without the element of classic Perry. If they want to go ahead and prove me wrong, I'd be willing to give it a listen.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#13 Post by Juana » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:48 pm

I would beg to differ put them with the singer of Ours or someone of that sound and I think they could do something interesting. I get what you're saying but my point was the Perry we loved is gone. Good for him he has happiness, but normally happiness makes for shit music. Heartache, pain, addiction... negative feelings and hunger usually get the best results when it comes to music.

CaseyContrarian
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#14 Post by CaseyContrarian » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:18 am

Juana wrote:I would beg to differ put them with the singer of Ours or someone of that sound and I think they could do something interesting. I get what you're saying but my point was the Perry we loved is gone. Good for him he has happiness, but normally happiness makes for shit music. Heartache, pain, addiction... negative feelings and hunger usually get the best results when it comes to music.
Put them with a hack Buckley impersonator? Might as well just call Issacs.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#15 Post by Juana » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:09 am

You're missing the point, Eric is in that picture meaning hack or not if the person can sing the songs will be good because ERIC would be writing the majority of them.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#16 Post by Hype » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:12 am

Juana wrote:You're missing the point, Eric is in that picture meaning hack or not if the person can sing the songs will be good because ERIC would be writing the majority of them.
Help Wanted was, in the end, kind of disappointing. I really liked the song "Animals" when Eric sung it live w/ an acoustic guitar, but the album version seemed overly fiddled-with. I think EA's a great songwriter but he might need someone to temper his desire to keep fiddling with songs. I think that's probably one of the reasons he and Perry produced the music they did in the early days... they may not have got along very well, but I think Perry knew when to keep things uncomplicated.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#17 Post by Juana » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:14 am

then put him with Maynard and call it "Perfect Addictions"

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6665
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#18 Post by JOEinPHX » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:11 pm

Jasper wrote:
Six7Six7 wrote:Image
:lolol: 2009 Eric, Dave and Perk? Please. You'd just like your Pansy Channel singer to step in there and make the awesome kind of generic shit you love all over again, eh, Panic Boy?
Ideally I would mostly like to see Mike Patton front those 3. Or maybe Chris Cornell.

So, you're wrong.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#19 Post by Hype » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:13 pm

I'd like to see Gibby Haynes work with them again. That'd just be Decon, but without EA's vocals. :rockon:

blackula
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#20 Post by blackula » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:33 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:I'd like to see Gibby Haynes work with them again. That'd just be Decon, but without EA's vocals. :rockon:
Hell yeah! If he won't do a new Butthole Surfers record then I'd love to see that. As recent as New Years 2010 into 2011 Butthole Surfers put on an awesome show and Gibby was still kind of a madman.

bman
Posts: 1853
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:53 am

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#21 Post by bman » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:57 pm

Butthole Surfers and JAnes would be a killer tour. Please stop trying to put together super groups. Jane's members without eachother suck. Dave NEEDS Perry and vice versa. Otherwise it's just camp freddy and no one cares.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#22 Post by Hype » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:14 pm

bman wrote:Butthole Surfers and JAnes would be a killer tour. Please stop trying to put together super groups. Jane's members without eachother suck. Dave NEEDS Perry and vice versa. Otherwise it's just camp freddy and no one cares.
:neutral:

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8775
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#23 Post by kv » Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:34 pm

lol at bman ya lets compare a cover band to what those 3 could do without perry

pretty sure a shit ton of people loved decon without perry

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#24 Post by Jasper » Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:53 pm

I guess Gibby could work. I have a hard time picturing how it might sound. Iggy's the only person I can think of who I'd have any major interest seeing with a EA/Perk/Dave combo.

Maybe some lesser-known person could work, like that chick from Celebration. That's the best outside-of-the-box one I can come up with.


Six7Six7 wrote:Ideally I would mostly like to see Mike Patton front those 3. Or maybe Chris Cornell.
I don't think Patton would fit, but it's not a terrible idea, because it least it might be interesting even if it sucked. Cornell, on the other hand, would flat-out fucking blow. As if these guys need to be driven any more toward cock rawk. That guy's fine in a band like Soundgarden and that's where he should stay.

User avatar
Kajicat
Posts: 670
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM

#25 Post by Kajicat » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:22 pm

Juana wrote:then put him with Maynard and call it "Perfect Addictions"
I bet that would actually work out.

Post Reply