WHY WE LOVE THEM
WHY WE LOVE THEM
GODS.
(Creep's vid... ty... ty...) Jane's Addiction! 91!
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
Nope. Not as good as STP, Gogol, PJ, The Doors or even The Monkees.
Good try though.
Good try though.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
Yep exactly, also I would like to throw in the Beach Boys, the Byrds and Wu-TangJaphy wrote:Nope. Not as good as STP, Gogol, PJ, The Doors or even The Monkees.
Good try though.
-
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
I prefer Panic Channel. And Muse. I wish Sonny were here to lecture on Radiohead.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
that is the least stevie looking picture i have ever seen...but i'd go see those 3 play anytime
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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...kv wrote:that is the least stevie looking picture i have ever seen...but i'd go see those 3 play anytime
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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?Six7Six7 wrote:
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.Juana wrote: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...kv wrote:that is the least stevie looking picture i have ever seen...but i'd go see those 3 play anytime
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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.
-
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
Put them with a hack Buckley impersonator? Might as well just call Issacs.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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE 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.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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
then put him with Maynard and call it "Perfect Addictions"
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
Ideally I would mostly like to see Mike Patton front those 3. Or maybe Chris Cornell.Jasper wrote: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?Six7Six7 wrote:
So, you're wrong.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
I'd like to see Gibby Haynes work with them again. That'd just be Decon, but without EA's vocals.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.Adurentibus Spina wrote:I'd like to see Gibby Haynes work with them again. That'd just be Decon, but without EA's vocals.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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
pretty sure a shit ton of people loved decon without perry
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
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.
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.
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.Six7Six7 wrote:Ideally I would mostly like to see Mike Patton front those 3. Or maybe Chris Cornell.
Re: WHY WE LOVE THEM
I bet that would actually work out.Juana wrote:then put him with Maynard and call it "Perfect Addictions"