Jane's on Letterman

Discussion regarding Jane's Addiction news and associated projects
Message
Author
blackcoffee
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:24 pm

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#76 Post by blackcoffee » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:38 pm

trevor ayer wrote:yeah but the spectacle was the beginning of the end for perry .. he got distracted with all that bullshit and forgets he is singing a song .. he probably writes in that distracted state now .. back pre 90's they were all IN the song .. pulling every little nuance they could find out of the song to make it all more meaningful and powerful .. now its just the 'watch perry pretend he is hot for his wife, while pretending he is not hot for the other dancer' show .. watch perry dry hump etty and dave, and maybe if he can get his eyes off of daves tiny bulge for a moment he will remember he is singing a song. ... hey anybody remember when perry used to play guitar on 3 days????? ps... it sounded fucking great! no backing trax required .. and he sang that fuckin 3 days song out of tune so many times .. but for some reason it didn't matter at all .. i wish perry would just flip the fuck out and tell etty and her friend to get the fuck off the stage and never come back .. i never want to see janes choreograph anything .. no bleeding saggy back freeks swinging .. no big stupid looking naked lady billboard on stage .. i will take the parachute pants on kettle whistle any time .. that was fuckin awesome on the jubilee .. but other than that .. i wanna see perry flip out and smash all that back track shit .. get rid of the hearing aid and just tell off all the talk show hosts and say fuck it .. we are done being bon jovi .. wait a minute .. maybe a janes addiction country cross over is on the horizon .. it worked for bon jovi ... maybe keith urban and bob rock can fill drew carey and rich costeys shoes ...



Spectacle was always the case. Hence the adornment of the stage during ritual. I thought it was beautiful. But a young Jewish fan might question Perry not identifying with his heritage. Just enjoy what you can

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

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#77 Post by Hype » Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:08 pm

blackcoffee wrote:
trevor ayer wrote:yeah but the spectacle was the beginning of the end for perry .. he got distracted with all that bullshit and forgets he is singing a song .. he probably writes in that distracted state now .. back pre 90's they were all IN the song .. pulling every little nuance they could find out of the song to make it all more meaningful and powerful .. now its just the 'watch perry pretend he is hot for his wife, while pretending he is not hot for the other dancer' show .. watch perry dry hump etty and dave, and maybe if he can get his eyes off of daves tiny bulge for a moment he will remember he is singing a song. ... hey anybody remember when perry used to play guitar on 3 days????? ps... it sounded fucking great! no backing trax required .. and he sang that fuckin 3 days song out of tune so many times .. but for some reason it didn't matter at all .. i wish perry would just flip the fuck out and tell etty and her friend to get the fuck off the stage and never come back .. i never want to see janes choreograph anything .. no bleeding saggy back freeks swinging .. no big stupid looking naked lady billboard on stage .. i will take the parachute pants on kettle whistle any time .. that was fuckin awesome on the jubilee .. but other than that .. i wanna see perry flip out and smash all that back track shit .. get rid of the hearing aid and just tell off all the talk show hosts and say fuck it .. we are done being bon jovi .. wait a minute .. maybe a janes addiction country cross over is on the horizon .. it worked for bon jovi ... maybe keith urban and bob rock can fill drew carey and rich costeys shoes ...



Spectacle was always the case. Hence the adornment of the stage during ritual. I thought it was beautiful. But a young Jewish fan might question Perry not identifying with his heritage. Just enjoy what you can
Jews have a history of not identifying with their heritage. In the 1590s, they called them "Marranos" or "Conversos".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano :wiggle:

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#78 Post by Larry B. » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:26 am

"Marrano"? :conf:

That word means "pig" in Spanish... I've just looked it up, and it still holds that meaning (a person who converts to Judaism secretly), although it's the first time in my life I've read it used in that sense.

Well, I've just learned something new :wiggle:

Tyler Durden

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#79 Post by Tyler Durden » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:28 am

trevor ayer wrote:yeah but the spectacle was the beginning of the end for perry .. he got distracted with all that bullshit and forgets he is singing a song .. he probably writes in that distracted state now .. back pre 90's they were all IN the song .. pulling every little nuance they could find out of the song to make it all more meaningful and powerful .. now its just the 'watch perry pretend he is hot for his wife, while pretending he is not hot for the other dancer' show .. watch perry dry hump etty and dave, and maybe if he can get his eyes off of daves tiny bulge for a moment he will remember he is singing a song. ... hey anybody remember when perry used to play guitar on 3 days????? ps... it sounded fucking great! no backing trax required .. and he sang that fuckin 3 days song out of tune so many times .. but for some reason it didn't matter at all .. i wish perry would just flip the fuck out and tell etty and her friend to get the fuck off the stage and never come back .. i never want to see janes choreograph anything .. no bleeding saggy back freeks swinging .. no big stupid looking naked lady billboard on stage .. i will take the parachute pants on kettle whistle any time .. that was fuckin awesome on the jubilee .. but other than that .. i wanna see perry flip out and smash all that back track shit .. get rid of the hearing aid and just tell off all the talk show hosts and say fuck it .. we are done being bon jovi .. wait a minute .. maybe a janes addiction country cross over is on the horizon .. it worked for bon jovi ... maybe keith urban and bob rock can fill drew carey and rich costeys shoes ...
What you are saying backs up my argument that Jane's was not a band that was ever meant to last. They weren't supposed to be about getting old, doing reunions, having your wife on stage, having your kids watching side stage, etc. When they killed it in '91, it should have remained dead. Jane's was a young man's game. Beyond all of the silly things on stage in recent years (ridiculous outfits, unattractive dancers, cheesy lasers, etc)...the band (specifically Perry) totally lacks conviction; what he does now is a schtick...he does not "live it".

As far as people defending them and saying that Jane's was always about spectacle, I don't buy it. Ritual was tasteful, subtle, and most importantly, real. It wasn't until Porno for Pyros that Perry got into spectacle. And to me, the Relapse tour was an extension of that. It was like Jane's on steroids; it wasn't an entirely accurate representation of what Jane's had been. It was Perry being way over the top in order to appease people that missed the band's original existence and take it to mythic proportions. I don't really have a problem with it because it was pretty fucking cool. Especially because Perry was still that guy from the past; it was still believable because it was still his reality: sex, drugs, debauchery, and completely unbridled hedonism. Now it is just for show. Perry has become what Bono was making fun of with his Fly character on the Zoo TV tour. It's all just an illusion.

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

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#80 Post by Kajicat » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:32 am

Tyler Durden wrote:When they killed it in '91, it should have remained dead....
I think Relapse proved there was still life in Jane's in 1997. Plus, it was already awesome with Flea on board but it would have been even better had Eric decided he wanted to do the reunion. If Jane's didn't break up in '91 we could have had one of two more excellent albums after Ritual. I can only dream...but yeah I agree that Jane's should not be a family band, but a youthful experience. Wifey on stage is a terrible move. Kids watching from the side ain't so bad: Flea has been doing that for a long time and it doesn't stop him from getting naked or acting crazy. I even thought it was pretty cool during the OHM era when he wrote "Hi Clara" on his body.

Tyler Durden

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#81 Post by Tyler Durden » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:39 am

Kajicat wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:When they killed it in '91, it should have remained dead....
I think Relapse proved there was still life in Jane's in 1997. Plus, it was already awesome with Flea on board but it would have been even better had Eric decided he wanted to do the reunion. If Jane's didn't break up in '91 we could have had one of two more excellent albums after Ritual. I can only dream...but yeah I agree that Jane's should not be a family band, but a youthful experience. Wifey on stage is a terrible move. Kids watching from the side ain't so bad: Flea has been doing that for a long time and it doesn't stop him from getting naked or acting crazy. I even thought it was pretty cool during the OHM era when he wrote "Hi Clara" on his body.
Sure...but the RHCP always seemed like caricatures to begin with...so them going through the motions in front of their kids, etc doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They never reached the heights of the original Jane's sacred artistry and aesthetic. Again, Jane's wasn't built to last, so to speak.

User avatar
guysmiley
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: PDX/Fukuoka Japan

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#82 Post by guysmiley » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:01 am

I'm back from a few days off. Fuck this. Yes there are harmonizers out there and good ones. the back track and drum pads are over kill. Can we get ride of the dancers already? You guys are in you 40's and 50's. This is pure LA strip shit, and I'm sick of it. Can you just age already. Maybe like Neil young or Mike Watt? I hate this band now, I only check this site out of habit anymore. See you all and a few days.

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

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#83 Post by Kajicat » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:52 pm

Tyler Durden wrote:Sure...but the RHCP always seemed like caricatures to begin with...



Tyler Durden

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#84 Post by Tyler Durden » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:03 pm

Kajicat wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Sure...but the RHCP always seemed like caricatures to begin with...


Exactly.

That last one is priceless. I genuinely felt bad for the host. :lol:

User avatar
sonny
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:14 am

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#85 Post by sonny » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Kajicat wrote:

I dig the silver coat :lolol:

From the start of the performance I was like meh but about halfway through I really started to enjoy it, and I thought the ending was pretty climactic. A good showing on national TV for them. Looks good. You can really appreciate Perky's playing on this song when you're able to see it along with hearing it, especially his hi-hat work...which makes me wonder if he really wasn't playing nearly as boring as we thought he did on TGEA. It would be cool to see more of the songs live to see what really goes into Perk and Dave's parts.

Perry is reeeeeally lookin' old at the 2:54 mark :hehe: love the guy though keep rockin' it, we all get old one day...we all float down here.
good song. perry's vocals in the verses and chorus are so dramatically different. i realize there's a backing track, but it just doesn't sound right. i think he was off sync with the backing vocals a few times to which made for a weird sound.

this song and irresistible force clearly have choruses that are too big vocally for perry to pull off. considering how much jane's addiction is a live band i would've avoided such huge choruses that couldn't be reproduced live.

as i said in my review, many of the new songs, good or bad, are gonna be tough to put next to the old songs. most of the old songs were worked out live, even the strays songs were worked out live, before taking them into the studio and i think it's clear for this band, they should take time to flesh out songs live or in rehearsal before piecing them together in a studio.

CaseyContrarian
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#86 Post by CaseyContrarian » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:40 pm

Um, did you just quote Pennywise the Clown, from It?

Kajicat wrote:

I dig the silver coat :lolol:

From the start of the performance I was like meh but about halfway through I really started to enjoy it, and I thought the ending was pretty climactic. A good showing on national TV for them. Looks good. You can really appreciate Perky's playing on this song when you're able to see it along with hearing it, especially his hi-hat work...which makes me wonder if he really wasn't playing nearly as boring as we thought he did on TGEA. It would be cool to see more of the songs live to see what really goes into Perk and Dave's parts.

Perry is reeeeeally lookin' old at the 2:54 mark :hehe: love the guy though keep rockin' it, we all get old one day...we all float down here.

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

Re: Jane's on Letterman

#87 Post by Kajicat » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:18 pm

Tyler Durden wrote:
Kajicat wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Sure...but the RHCP always seemed like caricatures to begin with...
Exactly.

That last one is priceless. I genuinely felt bad for the host. :lol:
Totally. I felt bad for the host and the female guest on the show who seemingly is about to be gang raped by RHCP. God I love those guys. :boobs:
CaseyContrarian wrote:Um, did you just quote Pennywise the Clown, from It?
:nod: Good catch.

Post Reply