Please Explain To Me ... Jane's Addiction
One of the bigger rock tours this summer promises to be the Nostalgiapalooza tour with Nine Inch Nails and Jane's Addiction, who will attempt to relive the summer of 1991. Trent Reznor announced the plans for the tour on his Web site last week; more information is trickling out -- expect a Nissan Pavilion date to be announced shortly -- and people are starting to get excited.
Now I've got no problem with Nine Inch Nails. Trent Reznor is surely responsible for some (most?) of the worst lyrics of the past couple decades, but his first two albums plus the "Broken" EP mostly stand the test of time. He's always tried to stay artistically, creatively and commercially forward-thinking; he brings up-and-coming acts on tour with him; and he hates lots of things. He's OK in my book.
But Jane's Addiction? Maybe you just had to be there. Maybe if you were a teenager in the late-'80s/early-'90s there was something about Jane's Addiction that was exciting. That's my reasoning whenever I find myself defending Smashing Pumpkins. "I was 13, what do you want?" But outside of "Jane Says" -- which was one of the best modern rock radio hits until that appalling steel drum version became ubiquitous in the late-'90s, rendering all versions of the song unlistenable -- this was a band with little to offer.
All the worst aspects of late-'80s L.A. excess and ridiculousness -- and if you look at the picture above, you know I'm not just talking about the music -- were present. The music was some unholy hybrid of metal, funk and psychedelia with Perry Farrell's space-cadet lyrics on top.
And even if you can defend the Jane's Addiction of almost 20 years ago, how can you possibly want to see Jane's Addiction in 2009? You do realize that Dave Navarro is in the band, right? The dude who starred in two reality shows about his relationship with Carmen Electra. He might not be as bad as Flava Flav when it comes to forever rendering his future musical endeavors artistically irrelevant, but he's certainly near the top of the list. And he didn't have nearly as fall to far.
So ... please explain.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: owl1 | February 25, 2009 10:41 AM
Posted by: wiredog | February 25, 2009 11:13 AM
Posted by: bweisholtz | February 25, 2009 11:20 AM
Posted by: M__N | February 25, 2009 12:02 PM
Posted by: EricS2 | February 25, 2009 1:26 PM
Posted by: hannnah | February 25, 2009 1:32 PM
Posted by: SSMD1 | February 25, 2009 1:40 PM
Posted by: polyester | February 25, 2009 1:58 PM
Posted by: azulaco1 | February 25, 2009 2:02 PM
Posted by: TMiami | February 25, 2009 2:55 PM
Posted by: sawyers100 | February 25, 2009 3:00 PM
Posted by: leviathant | February 25, 2009 4:15 PM
Posted by: EKruse | February 25, 2009 6:25 PM
Posted by: peaceman68 | February 26, 2009 9:23 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.