a look back at rdlh

Discussion regarding Jane's Addiction news and associated projects
Message
Author
creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

a look back at rdlh

#1 Post by creep » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:52 pm

i thought some of this was interesting and sort of funny with their thoughts on perry.

this sums them up pretty good too.

"Jane’s Addiction got caught in a wave that was meant to remake the music industry—they rode the crest, made some pretty good records, started Lollapalooza, helped the record industry cash in (willingness aside), and then wiped out ten feet from the shore. When the wave did make it to the beach, it was a tepid showing that washed up the mangled remains of the band at the feet of the few bystanders who hadn’t already left."


http://www.popmatters.com/post/186469-c ... -habitual/
Counterbalance: Jane's Addiction's 'Ritual de lo Habitual'

Mendelsohn: I’m almost done torturing you with my early 1990s nostalgia. One more and then it’s over (at least until I work up the courage to go back to Nine Inch Nails’ The Downward Spiral). This week it will be Jane’s Addiction’s Ritual de lo Habitual. When I picked this album, both Ritual and Jane’s Addiction’s first album Nothing’s Shocking were relatively close on the Great List, hovering in the back half of the top 300. Not wanting to talk about two Jane’s Addiction albums and since they were both ranked about the same, I flipped a coin. Ritual de lo Habitual won. But since the last revision, both albums have taken a little tumble. Nothing’s Shocking currently resides at No. 391 while Ritual de lo Habitual fell to No. 420. Not a big deal, I thought. But now I’m starting to second guess myself. Would you have preferred to listen to Jane’s Addiction’s major label debut? Or the record that helped cement their status as figureheads of the Alternative Nation?

Klinger: Honest to God, I could not care any less. I decided some time ago that Perry Farrell was just about the most irritating figure in the entire alt-rock pantheon (if you assume, of course, as I do that Courtney Love was a false flag Manchurian candidate created by the Clinton administration to distract Gen-Xers from Whitewater). So yeah, whatever. We might as well listen to his ten-minute extrapolations in which he regales us with yarns about his many deeply spiritual sex and drug exploits and how much he enjoys stealing from people who own stores. If you or me or any normal person got stuck at a party with Perry Farrell, we couldn’t run far enough fast enough. But yeah, let’s listen to Ritual de lo Habitual. What the hell. Six of one.

Mendelsohn: There we go. I was starting to feel like you couldn’t work up enough Gen-X wrath to truly go after this record properly, especially after your blasé reaction to Soundgarden’s Superunknown. I was afraid I’d lost you to the miasma. I guess the real kicker is how spot-on you are in your assessment of Farrell. The man is a walking, talking rock ‘n’ roll cliché — from the giant ego (that destroyed his band), to the raging drug habit (that destroyed his band) and the constant, inane chatter (that destroyed his band), to the whole getting clean and then releasing more music that isn’t anywhere as good because the combination of frantic youth, megalomania, and drugs is gone (because it destroyed his band). We’ve seen this before. We will see it again. And you aren’t wrong about the lyrical content. Farrell writes like a 16-year-old boy, his simplistic lyrical bent makes Jim Morrison look like John Keats.

But there are still two Jane’s Addiction records on the Great List. For all of Farrell’s failings as a frontman, he was still in one of the better bands of an era, helped open the door for alternative music, and ushered in the 1990s with enough critical appeal and commercial success to leave a lasting mark. I thought maybe you’d be a little more forgiving of Ritual de lo Habitual. Yes, it’s a little long-winded in spots, but it is sharp in all the right places and rocks with an upbeat, propulsive nature that was eschewed by their contemporaries in favor of droning nihilism. Jane’s Addiction brought a sort of sunny California disposition to the proceedings that was fairly quickly drowned out by the steady drizzle of Seattle’s gloom rockers. In comparison, what’s not to like?



Klinger: Somehow I’m managing to find plenty to not like. But OK, Mendelsohn, I’ll throw in a couple things here to humor you. The band does manage to get into a good groove fairly regularly (even that damn “Three Days” has its moments, although in a ten-minute song you should be able to get it right at least a couple times — call it the Broken Clock Effect). It’s especially effective when I’m able to not picture Perry Farrell karma dancing or whatever I assume he’s doing throughout these proceedings.

But also, and no one is more surprised than I am to hear me say this, Farrell does manage to graft a pretty good melody onto those grooves on a pretty consistent basis. For every time he irritates me, like on that profoundly annoying “sex and my drugs and my rock and roll” dub parody they stick in there without crediting Ian Dury (Is it not a parody? Then God help us all.), he also exceeds expectations with something like “Been Caught Stealing” where his voice skates around the clichés and sails into melodies that most singers might not have thought of.



Even so, I am very excited to be in a situation where I don’t have to listen to this album, let alone actually think about it. Is that wrong? I know I’ve said that we should spend more time embracing the things that shake us out of our need to be cool, but in listening to Ritual de lo Habitual, I’m hearing what happens when you’re maybe a little too into saying “Yes” to stuff. Something about this record just brings out the Puritan in me.

Mendelsohn: Have you tried taking the crucifixes out of your ears? That might help. Jane’s Addiction was all about “Yes”, until bassist Eric Avery and drummer Stephen Perkins started saying “No”. Guitarist Dave Navarro has famously said that he doesn’t remember recording this record because of all of the heroin he was using. Both Navarro and Farrell were heavy into the hard drugs — it fueled the vibe of reckless abandon that drives this album but eventually forced the group to disband. Then, true to the rock cliché that he is, Farrell got clean, found healthy living, and tried to recapture his glory days and nostalgia dollar with little success — far less, I might add, than his contemporaries Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden, who offered up a decidedly darker view of rock and its trappings of excess.

But now I’m a little curious: what is it about this record that has you itching to throw it back on the shelf (or garbage) as quickly as possible? Is it just Farrell’s frontman antics? The overly long rock-outs? “Three Days” does go on for far too long but there is that section toward the end of the song — do you know the one I’m talking about? — with the great build-up that encapsulates everything that is great about rock ‘n’ roll, and I’ll wait for that part all day long. So what is it, Klinger?



Klinger: After listening to a 10-minute rock-out that eventually makes its way to climax, you know what it’s really hard to be in the mood for? Another 10-minute rock-out that probably also makes its way to some sort of climax. Christ, even the Doors understood that. So yes, overly long. I’m a busy man, Mendelsohn, and I’ve no time for this sort of rock frippery.

And maybe I’m just over-romanticizing the promise of this so-called alternative music, but I can’t help thinking about it all in the context of the time. Once the business figures out how to monetize something, it ends up creating a schism between the people who are more than willing to swim after the dollar on the fishhook and the people who aren’t — and who then end up sounding like dogmatic churls in the process. I know which side of the fence I generally find myself on, and I don’t like my voice when it gets all churlish, but there’s not a lot I can do about it. The Alternative Nation sounded to me at the time like a synergistic merger between Viacom, AOL-Time-Warner, and Starbucks, with a crapton of musicians being used as pawns, chewed up, and spit out. Is that Jane’s Addiction’s fault? No. But maybe if they had been allowed to grow more organically they might have been able to keep their egos and excesses in check long enough to age gracefully and mature musically. That may be giving Perry Farrell too much credit, but I’m feeling a lot calmer after venting so much spleen.

Mendelsohn: Like any social uprising — be it the Spanish Inquisition, or the Temperance Movement, or the Alternative Nation — it’s all smiles and back-patting until one day it isn’t (whether that has to do with too many executions, running out of booze, or the eventual disillusion of the music consuming public the outcome is always the same). It’s a pattern we will forever be repeating. Jane’s Addiction got caught in a wave that was meant to remake the music industry—they rode the crest, made some pretty good records, started Lollapalooza, helped the record industry cash in (willingness aside), and then wiped out ten feet from the shore. When the wave did make it to the beach, it was a tepid showing that washed up the mangled remains of the band at the feet of the few bystanders who hadn’t already left. But for those couple of years in the early 1990s, Jane’s Addiction managed to make high-powered rock that should be able to stand the test of time — that is, if you have the time.

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5518
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#2 Post by Hokahey » Thu Nov 06, 2014 5:23 pm

Man these guys are pretentious. For god's sake. I'd rather listen to Superhero on repeat than have to listen to these twats prattle on about music.

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8796
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: a look back at rdlh

#3 Post by kv » Thu Nov 06, 2014 5:24 pm

anyone who claims they can name 419 records they like better then rit...is gonna be someone i don't care to hear from talking about janes

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#4 Post by nausearockpig » Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:45 pm

:lolol:

It might've helped if they mentioned more than two songs and that piss-cup thing.... Maybe if they had've discussed each song as 1) an individual song and 2) as part of the record then their "review" might hold some water..

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6708
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: a look back at rdlh

#5 Post by JOEinPHX » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:14 pm

kv wrote:anyone who claims they can name 419 records they like better then rit...is gonna be someone i don't care to hear from talking about janes

I kind of feel the opposite. If they could turn me on to that many great records than by all means I want to hear what they have to say... As well as know what all those records are so I can listen to them.

tvrec
Posts: 771
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:59 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#6 Post by tvrec » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:25 pm

I honestly didn't know (or at the very least don't remember) the Ian Dury plagiarism.


User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5725
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#7 Post by Pandemonium » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:37 pm

Ugh. I hate contrived two person discussions/reviews like this. It's all "let's act like this is a water cooler or bar stool conversation about subject x and hope our personal charm carries this shtick through." I surprised they didn't give the album a rating of 1 to 5 lattes.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#8 Post by nausearockpig » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:45 pm

Pandemonium wrote:.... I surprised they didn't give the album a rating of 1 to 5 lattes.

:lolol:

Image

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5518
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#9 Post by Hokahey » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:11 am

tvrec wrote:I honestly didn't know (or at the very least don't remember) the Ian Dury plagiarism.

Well I'll be damned.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5725
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#10 Post by Pandemonium » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:26 am

hokahey wrote:
tvrec wrote:I honestly didn't know (or at the very least don't remember) the Ian Dury plagiarism.

Well I'll be damned.
Someone on another rock band list or maybe a usenet newsgroup I was on back in the late 90's brought this up and after hearing the Blockheads tune, I really thought aside from Perry "appropriating" and ultimately twisting the main quote into a rant against Warner Bros without crediting the source, that it was more like a clever homage to the song versus an outright uncredited rip-off. Thanks in large part to Bono of U2 swiping snippets of lyrics and inserting them into various live U2 compositions starting in the early 80's, this sort of thing became kind of a chic way to name check a band's influences but it was rarely done on an album without credit given to the source due to obvious royalty reasons. Looking back on it now, there should have been some sort of credit to Ian Dury. The fact it is almost a non-album track (it wasn't included on the '77 debut album until later pressings and wasn't listed on the sleeve - it was basically a hidden track) leads one to think that Perry thought he could snake the lyrics without getting nicked for partial royalties on "Ain't No Right" which the bit is really part of the song.

erotic cheeses
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#11 Post by erotic cheeses » Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:33 pm

Ritual is a badass album, these guys are jokers, simple

bman
Posts: 1883
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:53 am

Re: a look back at rdlh

#12 Post by bman » Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:11 am

I read the replies here and not the review. Who cares.

Any chance Janes does a RDLH 25 year show this summer? Or is Perry doing Kind Heaven! :noclue:

User avatar
crater
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:09 pm
Contact:

Re: a look back at rdlh

#13 Post by crater » Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:46 pm

tvrec wrote:I honestly didn't know (or at the very least don't remember) the Ian Dury plagiarism.

I thought this was common knowledge? And I don't feel that Perry stole this and tried passing it off as his own. I feel it's more along the lines of Krist Novoselic singing Get Together before the start of Territorial Pissings.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6708
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: a look back at rdlh

#14 Post by JOEinPHX » Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:50 pm

bman wrote:I read the replies here and not the review. Who cares.

Any chance Janes does a RDLH 25 year show this summer? Or is Perry doing Kind Heaven! :noclue:
There will be shows, but Perry will spend them talking about his balls.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2975
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: a look back at rdlh

#15 Post by Bandit72 » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:09 am

Pandemonium wrote:Ugh. I hate contrived two person discussions/reviews like this. It's all "let's act like this is a water cooler or bar stool conversation about subject x and hope our personal charm carries this shtick through." I surprised they didn't give the album a rating of 1 to 5 lattes.
This is how I feel. And how much copy would be left if you cut out all of their pretentious bollocks and only printed objective criticism of the music?

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#16 Post by nausearockpig » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:22 pm

Bandit72 wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:Ugh. I hate contrived two person discussions/reviews like this. It's all "let's act like this is a water cooler or bar stool conversation about subject x and hope our personal charm carries this shtick through." I surprised they didn't give the album a rating of 1 to 5 lattes.
This is how I feel. And how much copy would be left if you cut out all of their pretentious bollocks and only printed objective criticism of the music?

Challenge accepted:
Counterbalance: Jane's Addiction's 'Ritual de lo Habitual'

Comments about the album:

Mendelsohn: This week it will be Jane’s Addiction’s Ritual de lo Habitual.

Klinger: We might as well listen to his ten-minute extrapolations in which he regales us with yarns about his many deeply spiritual sex and drug exploits and how much he enjoys stealing from people who own stores.

Mendelsohn: Yes, it’s a little long-winded in spots, but it is sharp in all the right places and rocks with an upbeat, propulsive nature that was eschewed by their contemporaries in favor of droning nihilism.

Klinger: Somehow I’m managing to find plenty to not like. The band does manage to get into a good groove fairly regularly (even that damn “Three Days” has its moments, although in a ten-minute song you should be able to get it right at least a couple times — call it the Broken Clock Effect).

But also, and no one is more surprised than I am to hear me say this, Farrell does manage to graft a pretty good melody onto those grooves on a pretty consistent basis. For every time he irritates me, like on that profoundly annoying “sex and my drugs and my rock and roll” dub parody they stick in there without crediting Ian Dury (Is it not a parody? Then God help us all.), he also exceeds expectations with something like “Been Caught Stealing” where his voice skates around the clichés and sails into melodies that most singers might not have thought of.

I know I’ve said that we should spend more time embracing the things that shake us out of our need to be cool, but in listening to Ritual de lo Habitual, I’m hearing what happens when you’re maybe a little too into saying “Yes” to stuff. Something about this record just brings out the Puritan in me.

Mendelsohn: Guitarist Dave Navarro has famously said that he doesn’t remember recording this record because of all of the heroin he was using. Both Navarro and Farrell were heavy into the hard drugs — it fueled the vibe of reckless abandon that drives this album but eventually forced the group to disband.

But now I’m a little curious: what is it about this record that has you itching to throw it back on the shelf (or garbage) as quickly as possible? Is it just Farrell’s frontman antics? The overly long rock-outs? “Three Days” does go on for far too long but there is that section toward the end of the song — do you know the one I’m talking about? — with the great build-up that encapsulates everything that is great about rock ‘n’ roll, and I’ll wait for that part all day long. So what is it, Klinger?

Klinger: After listening to a 10-minute rock-out that eventually makes its way to climax, you know what it’s really hard to be in the mood for? Another 10-minute rock-out that probably also makes its way to some sort of climax. Christ, even the Doors understood that. So yes, overly long. I’m a busy man, Mendelsohn, and I’ve no time for this sort of rock frippery.

And maybe I’m just over-romanticizing the promise of this so-called alternative music, but I can’t help thinking about it all in the context of the time.
Comments not about the album:

Mendelsohn: I’m almost done torturing you with my early 1990s nostalgia. One more and then it’s over (at least until I work up the courage to go back to Nine Inch Nails’ The Downward Spiral). When I picked this album, both Ritual and Jane’s Addiction’s first album Nothing’s Shocking were relatively close on the Great List, hovering in the back half of the top 300. Not wanting to talk about two Jane’s Addiction albums and since they were both ranked about the same, I flipped a coin. Ritual de lo Habitual won. But since the last revision, both albums have taken a little tumble. Nothing’s Shocking currently resides at No. 391 while Ritual de lo Habitual fell to No. 420. Not a big deal, I thought. But now I’m starting to second guess myself. Would you have preferred to listen to Jane’s Addiction’s major label debut? Or the record that helped cement their status as figureheads of the Alternative Nation?

There we go. I was starting to feel like you couldn’t work up enough Gen-X wrath to truly go after this record properly, especially after your blasé reaction to Soundgarden’s Superunknown. I was afraid I’d lost you to the miasma. I guess the real kicker is how spot-on you are in your assessment of Farrell. The man is a walking, talking rock ‘n’ roll cliché — from the giant ego (that destroyed his band), to the raging drug habit (that destroyed his band) and the constant, inane chatter (that destroyed his band), to the whole getting clean and then releasing more music that isn’t anywhere as good because the combination of frantic youth, megalomania, and drugs is gone (because it destroyed his band). We’ve seen this before. We will see it again. And you aren’t wrong about the lyrical content. Farrell writes like a 16-year-old boy, his simplistic lyrical bent makes Jim Morrison look like John Keats.

But there are still two Jane’s Addiction records on the Great List. For all of Farrell’s failings as a frontman, he was still in one of the better bands of an era, helped open the door for alternative music, and ushered in the 1990s with enough critical appeal and commercial success to leave a lasting mark. I thought maybe you’d be a little more forgiving of Ritual de lo Habitual.

Jane’s Addiction brought a sort of sunny California disposition to the proceedings that was fairly quickly drowned out by the steady drizzle of Seattle’s gloom rockers. In comparison, what’s not to like?

Have you tried taking the crucifixes out of your ears? That might help. Jane’s Addiction was all about “Yes”, until bassist Eric Avery and drummer Stephen Perkins started saying “No”.

Then, true to the rock cliché that he is, Farrell got clean, found healthy living, and tried to recapture his glory days and nostalgia dollar with little success — far less, I might add, than his contemporaries Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden, who offered up a decidedly darker view of rock and its trappings of excess.

Like any social uprising — be it the Spanish Inquisition, or the Temperance Movement, or the Alternative Nation — it’s all smiles and back-patting until one day it isn’t (whether that has to do with too many executions, running out of booze, or the eventual disillusion of the music consuming public the outcome is always the same). It’s a pattern we will forever be repeating. Jane’s Addiction got caught in a wave that was meant to remake the music industry—they rode the crest, made some pretty good records, started Lollapalooza, helped the record industry cash in (willingness aside), and then wiped out ten feet from the shore. When the wave did make it to the beach, it was a tepid showing that washed up the mangled remains of the band at the feet of the few bystanders who hadn’t already left. But for those couple of years in the early 1990s, Jane’s Addiction managed to make high-powered rock that should be able to stand the test of time — that is, if you have the time.

Klinger: Honest to God, I could not care any less. I decided some time ago that Perry Farrell was just about the most irritating figure in the entire alt-rock pantheon (if you assume, of course, as I do that Courtney Love was a false flag Manchurian candidate created by the Clinton administration to distract Gen-Xers from Whitewater). So yeah, whatever.
If you or me or any normal person got stuck at a party with Perry Farrell, we couldn’t run far enough fast enough. But yeah, let’s listen to Ritual de lo Habitual. What the hell. Six of one.

But OK, Mendelsohn, I’ll throw in a couple things here to humor you.

It’s especially effective when I’m able to not picture Perry Farrell karma dancing or whatever I assume he’s doing throughout these proceedings.

Even so, I am very excited to be in a situation where I don’t have to listen to this album, let alone actually think about it. Is that wrong?

Once the business figures out how to monetize something, it ends up creating a schism between the people who are more than willing to swim after the dollar on the fishhook and the people who aren’t — and who then end up sounding like dogmatic churls in the process. I know which side of the fence I generally find myself on, and I don’t like my voice when it gets all churlish, but there’s not a lot I can do about it. The Alternative Nation sounded to me at the time like a synergistic merger between Viacom, AOL-Time-Warner, and Starbucks, with a crapton of musicians being used as pawns, chewed up, and spit out. Is that Jane’s Addiction’s fault? No. But maybe if they had been allowed to grow more organically they might have been able to keep their egos and excesses in check long enough to age gracefully and mature musically. That may be giving Perry Farrell too much credit, but I’m feeling a lot calmer after venting so much spleen.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6708
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: a look back at rdlh

#17 Post by JOEinPHX » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:26 pm

I think Jane's Addiction's legacy would have been seen far more favorably if Perry hadn't spent the last 20 years going out of his way to shit on his own credibility. Look at anyone who has written one of the top 500 greatest rock albums of all time, and tell me how many of them went on to be a 24th rate DJ.

These guys are basically saying "You were cool for 3 years, then did 20 years worth of shit, and now the good 3 years sounds totally dated and doesn't hold up. No soup for you. :tiphat: "

Don't be so hard on them. They are right.

I'd be annoyed if I knew 10000 better, and more deserving, records worth talking about and had to review Perry's Farrell's fake art project.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2975
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: a look back at rdlh

#18 Post by Bandit72 » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:53 pm

nausearockpig wrote:
Bandit72 wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:Ugh. I hate contrived two person discussions/reviews like this. It's all "let's act like this is a water cooler or bar stool conversation about subject x and hope our personal charm carries this shtick through." I surprised they didn't give the album a rating of 1 to 5 lattes.
This is how I feel. And how much copy would be left if you cut out all of their pretentious bollocks and only printed objective criticism of the music?

Challenge accepted:
Counterbalance: Jane's Addiction's 'Ritual de lo Habitual'

Comments about the album:

Mendelsohn: This week it will be Jane’s Addiction’s Ritual de lo Habitual.

Klinger: We might as well listen to his ten-minute extrapolations in which he regales us with yarns about his many deeply spiritual sex and drug exploits and how much he enjoys stealing from people who own stores.

Mendelsohn: Yes, it’s a little long-winded in spots, but it is sharp in all the right places and rocks with an upbeat, propulsive nature that was eschewed by their contemporaries in favor of droning nihilism.

Klinger: Somehow I’m managing to find plenty to not like. The band does manage to get into a good groove fairly regularly (even that damn “Three Days” has its moments, although in a ten-minute song you should be able to get it right at least a couple times — call it the Broken Clock Effect).

But also, and no one is more surprised than I am to hear me say this, Farrell does manage to graft a pretty good melody onto those grooves on a pretty consistent basis. For every time he irritates me, like on that profoundly annoying “sex and my drugs and my rock and roll” dub parody they stick in there without crediting Ian Dury (Is it not a parody? Then God help us all.), he also exceeds expectations with something like “Been Caught Stealing” where his voice skates around the clichés and sails into melodies that most singers might not have thought of.

I know I’ve said that we should spend more time embracing the things that shake us out of our need to be cool, but in listening to Ritual de lo Habitual, I’m hearing what happens when you’re maybe a little too into saying “Yes” to stuff. Something about this record just brings out the Puritan in me.

Mendelsohn: Guitarist Dave Navarro has famously said that he doesn’t remember recording this record because of all of the heroin he was using. Both Navarro and Farrell were heavy into the hard drugs — it fueled the vibe of reckless abandon that drives this album but eventually forced the group to disband.

But now I’m a little curious: what is it about this record that has you itching to throw it back on the shelf (or garbage) as quickly as possible? Is it just Farrell’s frontman antics? The overly long rock-outs? “Three Days” does go on for far too long but there is that section toward the end of the song — do you know the one I’m talking about? — with the great build-up that encapsulates everything that is great about rock ‘n’ roll, and I’ll wait for that part all day long. So what is it, Klinger?

Klinger: After listening to a 10-minute rock-out that eventually makes its way to climax, you know what it’s really hard to be in the mood for? Another 10-minute rock-out that probably also makes its way to some sort of climax. Christ, even the Doors understood that. So yes, overly long. I’m a busy man, Mendelsohn, and I’ve no time for this sort of rock frippery.

And maybe I’m just over-romanticizing the promise of this so-called alternative music, but I can’t help thinking about it all in the context of the time.
Comments not about the album:

Mendelsohn: I’m almost done torturing you with my early 1990s nostalgia. One more and then it’s over (at least until I work up the courage to go back to Nine Inch Nails’ The Downward Spiral). When I picked this album, both Ritual and Jane’s Addiction’s first album Nothing’s Shocking were relatively close on the Great List, hovering in the back half of the top 300. Not wanting to talk about two Jane’s Addiction albums and since they were both ranked about the same, I flipped a coin. Ritual de lo Habitual won. But since the last revision, both albums have taken a little tumble. Nothing’s Shocking currently resides at No. 391 while Ritual de lo Habitual fell to No. 420. Not a big deal, I thought. But now I’m starting to second guess myself. Would you have preferred to listen to Jane’s Addiction’s major label debut? Or the record that helped cement their status as figureheads of the Alternative Nation?

There we go. I was starting to feel like you couldn’t work up enough Gen-X wrath to truly go after this record properly, especially after your blasé reaction to Soundgarden’s Superunknown. I was afraid I’d lost you to the miasma. I guess the real kicker is how spot-on you are in your assessment of Farrell. The man is a walking, talking rock ‘n’ roll cliché — from the giant ego (that destroyed his band), to the raging drug habit (that destroyed his band) and the constant, inane chatter (that destroyed his band), to the whole getting clean and then releasing more music that isn’t anywhere as good because the combination of frantic youth, megalomania, and drugs is gone (because it destroyed his band). We’ve seen this before. We will see it again. And you aren’t wrong about the lyrical content. Farrell writes like a 16-year-old boy, his simplistic lyrical bent makes Jim Morrison look like John Keats.

But there are still two Jane’s Addiction records on the Great List. For all of Farrell’s failings as a frontman, he was still in one of the better bands of an era, helped open the door for alternative music, and ushered in the 1990s with enough critical appeal and commercial success to leave a lasting mark. I thought maybe you’d be a little more forgiving of Ritual de lo Habitual.

Jane’s Addiction brought a sort of sunny California disposition to the proceedings that was fairly quickly drowned out by the steady drizzle of Seattle’s gloom rockers. In comparison, what’s not to like?

Have you tried taking the crucifixes out of your ears? That might help. Jane’s Addiction was all about “Yes”, until bassist Eric Avery and drummer Stephen Perkins started saying “No”.

Then, true to the rock cliché that he is, Farrell got clean, found healthy living, and tried to recapture his glory days and nostalgia dollar with little success — far less, I might add, than his contemporaries Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden, who offered up a decidedly darker view of rock and its trappings of excess.

Like any social uprising — be it the Spanish Inquisition, or the Temperance Movement, or the Alternative Nation — it’s all smiles and back-patting until one day it isn’t (whether that has to do with too many executions, running out of booze, or the eventual disillusion of the music consuming public the outcome is always the same). It’s a pattern we will forever be repeating. Jane’s Addiction got caught in a wave that was meant to remake the music industry—they rode the crest, made some pretty good records, started Lollapalooza, helped the record industry cash in (willingness aside), and then wiped out ten feet from the shore. When the wave did make it to the beach, it was a tepid showing that washed up the mangled remains of the band at the feet of the few bystanders who hadn’t already left. But for those couple of years in the early 1990s, Jane’s Addiction managed to make high-powered rock that should be able to stand the test of time — that is, if you have the time.

Klinger: Honest to God, I could not care any less. I decided some time ago that Perry Farrell was just about the most irritating figure in the entire alt-rock pantheon (if you assume, of course, as I do that Courtney Love was a false flag Manchurian candidate created by the Clinton administration to distract Gen-Xers from Whitewater). So yeah, whatever.
If you or me or any normal person got stuck at a party with Perry Farrell, we couldn’t run far enough fast enough. But yeah, let’s listen to Ritual de lo Habitual. What the hell. Six of one.

But OK, Mendelsohn, I’ll throw in a couple things here to humor you.

It’s especially effective when I’m able to not picture Perry Farrell karma dancing or whatever I assume he’s doing throughout these proceedings.

Even so, I am very excited to be in a situation where I don’t have to listen to this album, let alone actually think about it. Is that wrong?

Once the business figures out how to monetize something, it ends up creating a schism between the people who are more than willing to swim after the dollar on the fishhook and the people who aren’t — and who then end up sounding like dogmatic churls in the process. I know which side of the fence I generally find myself on, and I don’t like my voice when it gets all churlish, but there’s not a lot I can do about it. The Alternative Nation sounded to me at the time like a synergistic merger between Viacom, AOL-Time-Warner, and Starbucks, with a crapton of musicians being used as pawns, chewed up, and spit out. Is that Jane’s Addiction’s fault? No. But maybe if they had been allowed to grow more organically they might have been able to keep their egos and excesses in check long enough to age gracefully and mature musically. That may be giving Perry Farrell too much credit, but I’m feeling a lot calmer after venting so much spleen.
:lol: :lol: Brilliant,thanks. :thumb:

Certain NME 'journalists' were masters of this when I used to read it in the early to mid 90's. Probably why I stopped reading it.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#19 Post by nausearockpig » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:22 am

Six7Six7 wrote:I think Jane's Addiction's legacy would have been seen far more favorably if Perry hadn't spent the last 20 years going out of his way to shit on his own credibility. Look at anyone who has written one of the top 500 greatest rock albums of all time, and tell me how many of them went on to be a 24th rate DJ.

These guys are basically saying "You were cool for 3 years, then did 20 years worth of shit, and now the good 3 years sounds totally dated and doesn't hold up. No soup for you. :tiphat: "

Don't be so hard on them. They are right.

I'd be annoyed if I knew 10000 better, and more deserving, records worth talking about and had to review Perry's Farrell's fake art project.
They may be right about Perry etc but the point of this "review" is to review the record, not talk utter rubbish. C'mon, they are hipster twats trying to be all cool and funky by prattling on and on about anything but the record.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6708
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: a look back at rdlh

#20 Post by JOEinPHX » Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:58 pm

nausearockpig wrote:
Six7Six7 wrote:I think Jane's Addiction's legacy would have been seen far more favorably if Perry hadn't spent the last 20 years going out of his way to shit on his own credibility. Look at anyone who has written one of the top 500 greatest rock albums of all time, and tell me how many of them went on to be a 24th rate DJ.

These guys are basically saying "You were cool for 3 years, then did 20 years worth of shit, and now the good 3 years sounds totally dated and doesn't hold up. No soup for you. :tiphat: "

Don't be so hard on them. They are right.

I'd be annoyed if I knew 10000 better, and more deserving, records worth talking about and had to review Perry's Farrell's fake art project.
They may be right about Perry etc but the point of this "review" is to review the record, not talk utter rubbish. C'mon, they are hipster twats trying to be all cool and funky by prattling on and on about anything but the record.
Milli Vanilli seemed like a big deal to people till everyone realized they were faking it.

Now everyone just talks about the lip syncing.

Kind of like Perry's recent performances.

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

Re: a look back at rdlh

#21 Post by Jasper » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:01 pm

crater wrote:
tvrec wrote:I honestly didn't know (or at the very least don't remember) the Ian Dury plagiarism.

I thought this was common knowledge? And I don't feel that Perry stole this and tried passing it off as his own. I feel it's more along the lines of Krist Novoselic singing Get Together before the start of Territorial Pissings.
I thought it was common knowledge as well. That song was on the radio enough when I was a little kid that I'd go around singing it because I thought it was funny and catchy, though like many things I heard on the radio at the time, I did not know the name of the artist. When I first heard Ritual I recognized the reference right away. I don't think Perry's plagiarizing here in any way. It's just a funny off-the-cuff reference, allegedly as a message to Warner Bros.

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

Re: a look back at rdlh

#22 Post by Hype » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:57 pm

When I first discovered Jane's, I remember reading this review, and being really annoyed, because, like, this guy just doesn't get it... but reading it again for the first time in probably a decade, ... I think he was probably more accurate than not: http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=janes_addiction
While widely admired and frequently imitated, Jane's Addiction (now in a 21st century second go-'round, following an interval of Porno for Pyros and a short solo career) is/was pretentious, tasteless and blatantly self-indulgent. The obnoxious Los Angeles glam-punk poseurs recorded most of their debut album (pressed on clear vinyl) onstage at the Roxy in Hollywood. New York-born Perry Farrell sings in an aggressive womanly warble as his three bandmates pound out competent but unoriginal post-'70s rock. "My Time" and the dramatic "Jane Says," both played with acoustic guitar, show the group capable of moderate musical achievement, but most of the record — especially "Sympathy" (for the Devil) and Lou Reed's "Rock 'n' Roll" — sounds like the work of an incompetent Aerosmith cover band. And Farrell's effete habit of interjecting the word "motherfucker" merely frosts the album's maggotry.

As guitarist David Navarro and the lumbering rhythm section work themselves into a dull sub-Led Zeppelin metallic stupor on the rambling Nothing's Shocking, Farrell screeches smugly self-obsessed lyrics — repeating favorite lines over and over — as if his idiotic free-form musings were somehow significant. A new version of the two-chord "Jane Says" contains an even more mannered vocal performance; the rest of the amorphously tuneless material runs either hot ("Had a Dad") or cool ("Summertime Rolls"), with a laughably crude funk-rhythm detour ("Idiots Rule"). Farrell's skillful front-cover sculpture of two nude women — joined at the shoulder and hip — with pierced nipples and their heads ablaze is the album's only convincing evidence of creativity at work.

Pulling himself further into a private world of self-congratulatory decadence (the inclusion of a methadone bottle on the back cover's botanica shelf is bad news, whatever the intention), Farrell fills the absurd Ritual de lo Habitual with ravings that, when they manage to coagulate into coherence, describe the joys of shoplifting ("Been Caught Stealing," the pathetic bleat of a spoiled rich asshole that inexplicably begins with barking dogs), masochism ("Ain't No Right"), supposed solidarity with black people ("No One's Leaving") and a nebulous eleven-minute opus about a ménage à trois ("Three Days"). The band's swirling demi- metal — still limited by Navarro's slow progress toward the true guitar heroism he would ultimately achieve — is loudly functional, but Farrell's expanding ego and detachment make the album unbearable. (Because of the front cover sculpture's graphic sexuality, Ritual was also released in an alternate sleeve that simply offers the text of the First Amendment.)

After Jane's headlined the first traveling Lollapalooza festival, which he conceived and mounted, Farrell dissolved the band and formed Porno for Pyros. Jane's reformed in the 21st century.

The 1993 reissue of the pre-Jane's Addiction Psi-Com EP makes widely available the amusing sound of a young Perry Farrell attempting to channel the voice of Siouxsie Sioux in a transparent effort to catch the British new (goth) wave. Although no one is identified by name, it's impossible to miss Farrell amid the swirling, atmospheric rock, a proficiently transparent imitation of the Banshees and Cure. After undergoing some lineup shifts, the group finally splintered when the guitarist and drummer became Hare Krishnas. Post-EP bassist Dino Paredes subsequently formed Red Temple Spirits.

[Ira Robbins]

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5518
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#23 Post by Hokahey » Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:08 am

This thread inspired me to listen to Ritual from start to finish yesterday in one sitting. I havent done that is many, many years. And after also spending the day listening to full albums by Fugazi and Kyuss, it fit seamlessly in to my day's musical journey. I was able to forget all the crap that followed and allowed myself to just listen to it as a stand alone work of art, part of the same time period as the rest of the music I was listening to. And it's still mind boggingly brilliant in that context. Whether you consider him a phoney or not, Perry had more in common with the rap artists from L.A. at the time (ala NWA) than his fellow rock musicians. He was a street poet. And the band, as we all know, was controlled chaos yet skilled artistry. And I will always contend that Three Days is one of the great rock songs of our generation. If not of any.

Some people just didn't "get" Jane's. And now they use the failings of the band's later incarnations to justify their earlier opinions. And yet, Jane's 1.0 had tapped in to something very few bands can or will. With drugs as a conduit, they unleashed the sound of pure hedonism and anarchy. And nothing will ever change that for me. But I sure as shit will not be watching them perform that album track for track (if they do) with their fill in bass player and Perry's stupid new face...just in case.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: a look back at rdlh

#24 Post by nausearockpig » Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:41 pm

hokahey wrote:This thread inspired me to listen to Ritual from start to finish yesterday in one sitting........ But I sure as shit will not be watching them perform that album track for track (if they do) with their fill in bass player and Perry's stupid new face...just in case.
Ha hahah they will for $ure...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/kats-r ... -addictio/

Some strange comments in there "Dave Navarro is a full grown-man now."

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8796
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: a look back at rdlh

#25 Post by kv » Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:52 pm

hokahey wrote: Some people just didn't "get" Jane's. And now they use the failings of the band's later incarnations to justify their earlier opinions. And yet, Jane's 1.0 had tapped in to something very few bands can or will. With drugs as a conduit, they unleashed the sound of pure hedonism and anarchy. And nothing will ever change that for me.
amen...there were always tons of people who didn't like/get jane's and for all the wrong reasons...now they have the right reasons and it pisses me off

Post Reply