The Jane's Addiction Schism

Discussion regarding Jane's Addiction news and associated projects
Post Reply
Message
Author
Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

The Jane's Addiction Schism

#1 Post by Inter » Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:40 pm

If Jane's Addiction were a Religion there would have been a major Schism in 1997.

On one side would be the people(like myself)who were 100% against the idea of Perry naming his new band (Perry,Dave,Steve,Flea)with the old band's name 'Jane's Addiction' and dragging those old songs out of the 80's into the late 90's and beyond....
While on the other side would be the people who were(for many different reasons)unopposed to the idea of him doing just that.

From our side's point of view it seemed like a ridiculous inauthentic uninspired thing to do.
We(or maybe I am speaking for no one other than myself)would have had no problem with him getting together again with Dave and Steve to make new music but with a new band name and new ethos to reflect where they were in their lives at that moment in time(1997 not 1987).

There were a handful of things which made Jane's Addiction (85-91)a very special band
and to my mind none of those things were present or available in 1997:

Youth
Messed up people
Art as Essential Therapy
(Sex as therapy and drugs as therapy and rock n roll as therapy)(a great but pretty fucked up band)

Those three things especially (plus of course a whole host of other things,not least of course the absence of Eric,and many would
say the absence of Casey's love and guidance.
Janes without Eric would have been like The Doors without Ray Manzerak
And Janes without Casey would go on to produce those limp art covers of Strays and Escape Artist(not to mention the 'dull dazzle' music contained within I'm sure,never actually listened to them through)

The whole idea of trying to bring Janes back to life,to me was tasteless,
it was like being offered a mug of decaffeinated coffee when all I wanted was caffeine
or being offered a glass of alcohol-free beer when all I needed was alcohol:
or even worse,it was like someone had given me a great gift in the 80's but then come back in the 90's to demand their gift back only to piss and shit all over it:
for me the whole idea stank,and to this day has left a bad taste in my mouth.

My belief was that Perry tried to reform Janes for all the wrong reasons.
I think he was smart enough to know that his legacy would be forever associated with Jane's Addiction,
and so I think he wanted to get back in there to clean it up(clean the mess up)as he didn't want to be solely remembered as some kind of great anti-christ anarchist-type artist fucked-up on drugs and sex and rock n roll.
I think though he was disingenuous or even hypocritical when he said that the people who were against the reforming of Jane's Addiction were afraid of change(or stuck in the past):
the irony there being that he was afraid to form a new band with dave and steve and make new music instead of dragging Janes out of his own past or sentimental cabinet.
Even as a small compromise(for those of us opposed to his idea)could he not have even just called his new band instead

THE BAND FORMELY KNOWN AS JANE'S ADDICTION
or
THE JANE'S ADDICTION TRIBUTE BAND

So,in 1987,Janes had on their side:
Youth
Messed up people
Art as Essential Therapy

While,in 1997 'Janes' had on their side instead:
Old Age
Mellowed out people
Art as mere entertainment

On Youth:
Perry was 27 in 1985
In rock n roll terms even that is almost ancient
(Jim Morrison was dead by the age 27 with his last album sounding like the work of an old mature man)
But Perry,in fairness to him,had kept himself fresh and vital and strong for a long time,but by 1997 he was almost 40 years old
and had mellowed out so much by then.
Janes was a raw youth alternative art rock band with everything that implied:
it was never meant to fall into the hands of ageing married men...

On Art as Essential Therapy:
No one would wish the death of a mother on any young person(it's hard enough to face even when old)
Perry and Dave though went through their own private hell by losing their mums at such an early stage of their lives
Both of those guys needed therapy,but instead of professional help,they took refuge in Art as Therapy(and refuge in drugs and sex)
Now Art as Therapy combined with Youth combined with Trauma combined with Drugs and Sex is a very potent mix,and those three early albums testify to that potent power.
But by 1997,those guys were so mellowed out,and had matured a lot by then,so much so that their Art no longer felt like Therapy
but instead felt more like mere entertainment(which is fine if that is all you demand from music:
I only like art which burns to speak though.

On Messed up people:
I take my hat off to Perry,he was messed up in those early days but he was not afraid to mature as a man.
By his 40's he was becoming a better man:
I liked what I read in an interview one time,wherein he talked about holding a child(I think his first son)and thinking to himself
that suffering and strife is easily found,and so why the need to always be the battering ram,why not be a peaceful man.
He was maturing for sure,
but again that's why I felt,that at that time,Jane's Addiction was the wrong vehicle for that softening change within himself(he was no longer the battering ram,he was the aging man.

Did he really need(in 1997)or even fully want to start singing again about his love for Whores (and of course Dave's love for whores)(and Perry's own days working as a whore)
Did he really want to remind himself again about how he Fucked Casey Over In 1993,and about how he Let Jane Bainter Down,and how he plastered his Cousin's memory unfairly(unflatteringly)over the ritual album cover and the song three days:
I am pretty sure that girl wouldn't want to be remembered as just some heroin junkie who had a threesome with her cousin.
Did he really feel the need to insult again 500 million buddists with his song Pigs in Shit (or Pigs in Zen)
And insult 2 billion Christians with his tripe 'erotic jesus loves his Marys'
And insult a billion plus Muslims and Jews with his 'God is Dead,he ain't there at all' lyric(not that that was ever his intention I'm sure)
And remind himself,when singing Classic Girl,how his Santeria-style wedding ceremony to Casey was to him nothing more than a mock-up or mockery.

So why reform Janes in 1997 then?
Just to throw a big party at a big bouncy castle(or castle)is that why?

The one criticism I would make of myself(or what I have learned from that incident)is to never put your own emotions in someone else's hands:
i should never have allowed myself to have been effected by what Perry(or anyone else)did with their lives and their past art.
All that is in the past now though(I think)
i really dont care now if Perry keeps 'Janes' going for another 40 years and even don't care if his wife and kids replace him and steve and dave as future band members after that.
Jane's Addiction for me will always be the music and art made between 1985-1991 (anything after that inspires me not)

And you know what,
from his point of view(Perry's own retrospective point of view)it turned out just fine---------he entertained people who wanted to see him play under that name Janes again,he made tonnes of money and even met his future wife:
so,
should I begrudge him,
no,
goodluck to him and goodluck to everyone else here and there with their life

User avatar
nestos
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:47 am

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#2 Post by nestos » Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:01 am

Sativa, hu ?

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#3 Post by Juana » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:34 am

TL;DR

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#4 Post by mockbee » Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:15 pm

TL;RA

:lolol:

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#5 Post by Hokahey » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:24 pm

I mean, I skimmed it. Not a lot of coherent thought. Also, who gives a shit? They've been at least semi ridiculous for 20+ years now. I don't even hold early Jane's in some kind of extreme exalted place any longer. They were a soundtrack to some incredible years in my youth. But they've always been who they are. They were just putting on a better show back then.

bman
Posts: 1835
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:53 am

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#6 Post by bman » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:31 pm

Damn. I applaud the deep thoughts and desire to write them out! I used to ride the subways of NYC imagining the perfect set lists. But Sativa and coffee??

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#7 Post by Hokahey » Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:57 pm

Inter wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:40 pm
.
Did he really feel the need to insult again 500 million buddists with his song Pigs in Shit (or Pigs in Zen)
And insult 2 billion Christians with his tripe 'erotic jesus loves his Marys'
And insult a billion plus Muslims and Jews with his 'God is Dead,he ain't there at all' lyric(not that that was ever his intention I'm sure)
Wait, did you ever actually like Jane's Addiction? Because you rail against who they became while also bitching about iconic lyrics from iconic songs from the era you favor.

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#8 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:27 am

Hokahey wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:57 pm
Inter wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:40 pm
.
Did he really feel the need to insult again 500 million buddists with his song Pigs in Shit (or Pigs in Zen)
And insult 2 billion Christians with his tripe 'erotic jesus loves his Marys'
And insult a billion plus Muslims and Jews with his 'God is Dead,he ain't there at all' lyric(not that that was ever his intention I'm sure)
Wait, did you ever actually like Jane's Addiction? Because you rail against who they became while also bitching about iconic lyrics from iconic songs from the era you favor.
Of course I liked Janes(esp their first album plus the songs Ted just admit it and Summertime Rolls and a few songs off Ritual.
Iconic lyrics? alot of those lyrics were crap(but that's just my personal opinion)
And I wasnt even bitiching about those lyrics,the point I was making was,did those lyrics truly reflect where Perry was emotionally and artistically at that time(1997 not 1987:
up to then he would always boast about moving forward artistically "if I die tomorrow,you want me to sing yesterday's song to you,fuck no"
And by 1997,in my eyes at least,he was far too mellowed out to be singing those old angst ridden songs.

For me,his decision to reform his old band was a step backwards:
and I personally refused to go on that journey with him,hence my jocoseriuos reference to Schism.
As for railing about what they became,I have no interest in knowing about what they became:
I never had a desire to listen to The Band Formely Known As Jane's Addiction
The only interest i have recently is to find some good retrospective interviews with Perry wherein he talks about the early days(up to 1989 or thereabouts.
I emailed you before about that Professor of Rock interview as it seems like a good one(I still cant find a copy of it though-------if anyone has a link to it thanks.
I sent you(and to some other guys)the link to(I think)the WTF Marc Molan interview with Perry which was an excellent retrospective interview i thought.
If anyone knows of any other interview of equal quality let me know,thanks.

https://www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/2T3Fy/
(Episode 1025)





.

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#9 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:28 am

bman wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:31 pm
Damn. I applaud the deep thoughts and desire to write them out! I used to ride the subways of NYC imagining the perfect set lists. But Sativa and coffee??
Thanks Bman

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#10 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:29 am

mockbee wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:15 pm
TL;RA

:lolol:
No worries

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#11 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:29 am

Juana wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:34 am
TL;DR
It was long,too long I'm sure.

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#12 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:30 am

nestos wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:01 am
Sativa, hu ?
No Sativa,sorry

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#13 Post by Juana » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:38 am

Inter wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:29 am
Juana wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:34 am
TL;DR
It was long,too long I'm sure.
I mean I got the gist of it but remember for some '97 was the first time they got to see them albeit sans EA but still if that newer generation never got to see the original band it is what it is, to them it could have been amazing, perspective is a key thing to remember. I get you like the original 85-91 version but that '97 version likely got a whole new group of people into looking back to the 85-91 version. Either way rock on, enjoy what you like, life is too short to compare versions etc.

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#14 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:19 pm

Juana wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:38 am
Inter wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:29 am
Juana wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:34 am
TL;DR
It was long,too long I'm sure.
I mean I got the gist of it but remember for some '97 was the first time they got to see them albeit sans EA but still if that newer generation never got to see the original band it is what it is, to them it could have been amazing, perspective is a key thing to remember. I get you like the original 85-91 version but that '97 version likely got a whole new group of people into looking back to the 85-91 version. Either way rock on, enjoy what you like, life is too short to compare versions etc.
I guess why it hurt me so much was cause I believed that Perry was this great non-compromising-his-art-kind-of-guy,and I used to always admire artists like John Lennon who,even though they fronted the greatest and biggest bands,refused to go backwards once they broke up
I hear what you say,I hear the logic(and you make a good case)but it leaves me feeling cold at least.
I never heard Jane's 85-91 play,and I'm totally okay with that as those three albums plus some great bootleg concerts were enough:
and a huge part of the joy for me,back then,was believing that those guys were too honest artistically to ever go back.

trevor ayer
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:44 am

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#15 Post by trevor ayer » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:06 pm

eye think perry was trying to get janes back together and maybe do something real with them in 97 but eric said no and so maybe that is why they became a greatest hits band instead of putting out more great music from the OJ line up .. maybe it was just all downhill cashing in from there because you cant cut the guy that wrote all the music and get the same vibe .. i wuz just listening to hardcharger from howard sterns party and thinking it really does sound like some old janes addiction idea .. its got a lot of those basic perryisms and vocal phrasings .. kinda reminds me of aint no right .. hardcharger wasn't half bad and that wuz right before the hammerstein show .. eye waz bummed when they reformed with flea .. i mean besides his finger plucking .. i was happy they had ended on such an artistic high when they did .. i just think perry just said fuck it .. time to make money since its gonna be studio musicians from here on out and the results are what happens when a bored friendless genius just wants to make some cash fast .. corporate rock and new age mediocrity u can dance to ..

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#16 Post by Inter » Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:57 pm

trevor ayer wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:06 pm
eye think perry was trying to get janes back together and maybe do something real with them in 97 but eric said no and so maybe that is why they became a greatest hits band instead of putting out more great music from the OJ line up .. maybe it was just all downhill cashing in from there because you cant cut the guy that wrote all the music and get the same vibe .. i wuz just listening to hardcharger from howard sterns party and thinking it really does sound like some old janes addiction idea .. its got a lot of those basic perryisms and vocal phrasings .. kinda reminds me of aint no right .. hardcharger wasn't half bad and that wuz right before the hammerstein show .. eye waz bummed when they reformed with flea .. i mean besides his finger plucking .. i was happy they had ended on such an artistic high when they did .. i just think perry just said fuck it .. time to make money since its gonna be studio musicians from here on out and the results are what happens when a bored friendless genius just wants to make some cash fast .. corporate rock and new age mediocrity u can dance to ..
It was only recently that I discovered that it was in fact Eric and Dave who really broke up the band in 91(to sober up and get clean and stay alive basically)
For some reason i had thought that it had been primarily Perry's decision to break the band up.
With that in mind now,I can understand(i guess)that he secretly fantasized about getting the band back together again.
But how could he(perry)not know,after listening to Deconstruction,that that would be near impossible to happen,as it was so obvious that Eric had turned over a new page in his life:
"now I don't want to spend another day looking back"

trevor ayer
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:44 am

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#17 Post by trevor ayer » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:48 am

such a ballsy move at that for eric to sing lead .. if they had another singer it could have meant anything but for eric to basically present janes without perry was a really bold slap in the face to perry .. eric is stuck between not getting the credit he deserves as the musical driving force of the band, and thinking he really had the chops to cut perry out but keep dave .. perry had the same dynamic but opposite .. perry tried to prove he didn't need eric and skated by with pfp but failed ultimately .. pete was a good direction .. strays was rubbish cutting out both pete and eric .. lotsa ego battling and insecure posing going on .. perry bore the blame of douchery but eric was just as douchy, dave and steve seem to be along for the ride and couldn't care less .. they could get together and make some great music but they both seem in love with electronic goofyness .. thank gawd the OJ never went there and hopefully never will .. i still cant believe trent butchered the bass sound on whores as bad as he did .. the musical sensibilities are gone with this crew .. best left untapped at this point

Inter
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Re: The Jane's Addiction Schism

#18 Post by Inter » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:53 pm

AMEN

Post Reply