My TGEA review (of sorts)

[Tyler Durden]

A friend of mine who I haven't talked to in ages wrote on my Facebook wall today and asked me "What do you think of the new Jane's album?". I didn't think too much about this; just kind of a stream of consciousness thing. Here's my response (for anyone who cares):

Like the last one, I don't really consider it a Jane's album. With them, if it's not all four original members, it's not Jane's Addiction. It's sad that a so-called legendary band has to resort to outside help (Dave Sitek) for songwriting and record with session players (Chris Chaney). Seriously, could you imagine if a band like Pearl Jam recruited someone from Kings of Leon because they needed help writing songs?! The whole thing just seems weird. I think Dave and Stephen need Jane's as their meal ticket these days. Perry on the other hand, makes tons of money off Lollapalooza...but I think his fragile ego in recent years has been bruised so much that he has something to prove (IE: that he doesn't need Eric Avery).

Anyway, all of that being said...if you don't compare the new album to their original era of work, it's okay. I really like songs like "Underground", "Curiosity Kills", and "Twisted Tales". And I like some of the "synth" textures on the album; there's a dark aesthetic to the album was sorely missing on Strays. Ironically, this album sounds more "80s" than anything they actually released in the 80s; some of it sounds like Duran Duran or Depeche Mode. There are some pretty embarrassing moments..."Irresistible Force" sounds like Linkin Park or Evanescence to me. As catchy as "I'll Hit You Back" is, it may as well be a Katy Perry song (or something). Perry's lyrics on this album range from inconsequential to bad. When Dave is used right on this album, he is awesome...but a lot of his presence seems held back and like window dressing for a Perry Farrell solo album. Stephen's presence is almost non-existent, barring "End To The Lies". It would be like making an album with Jimmy Chamberlain and not letting him go off the rails. It may as well be the guy who plays drums for Maroon 5 playing on this album; would any of us notice the difference?

Some bands from generation X have aged really well (Pearl Jam, NIN)...but Jane's is not one of them. At one time, they set the bar and were the measuring stick when it came to street cred and musical integrity; now they are washed up and phoning it in. I enjoy listening to the album (burnt CD) in the car...but I am afraid that it will probably become a dust collector, just like Strays did :(

[Pandemonium]

A friend of mine who I haven't talked to in ages wrote on my Facebook wall today and asked me "What do you think of the new Jane's album?". I didn't think too much about this; just kind of a stream of consciousness thing. Here's my response (for anyone who cares):

Like the last one, I don't really consider it a Jane's album. With them, if it's not all four original members, it's not Jane's Addiction. It's sad that a so-called legendary band has to resort to outside help (Dave Sitek) for songwriting and record with session players (Chris Chaney). Seriously, could you imagine if a band like Pearl Jam recruited someone from Kings of Leon because they needed help writing songs?! The whole thing just seems weird. I think Dave and Stephen need Jane's as their meal ticket these days. Perry on the other hand, makes tons of money off Lollapalooza...but I think his fragile ego in recent years has been bruised so much that he has something to prove (IE: that he doesn't need Eric Avery).

Anyway, all of that being said...if you don't compare the new album to their original era of work, it's okay. I really like songs like "Underground", "Curiosity Kills", and "Twisted Tales". And I like some of the "synth" textures on the album; there's a dark aesthetic to the album was sorely missing on Strays. Ironically, this album sounds more "80s" than anything they actually released in the 80s; some of it sounds like Duran Duran or Depeche Mode. There are some pretty embarrassing moments..."Irresistible Force" sounds like Linkin Park or Evanescence to me. As catchy as "I'll Hit You Back" is, it may as well be a Katy Perry song (or something). Perry's lyrics on this album range from inconsequential to bad. When Dave is used right on this album, he is awesome...but a lot of his presence seems held back and like window dressing for a Perry Farrell solo album. Stephen's presence is almost non-existent, barring "End To The Lies". It would be like making an album with Jimmy Chamberlain and not letting him go off the rails. It may as well be the guy who plays drums for Maroon 5 playing on this album; would any of us notice the difference?

Some bands from generation X have aged really well (Pearl Jam, NIN)...but Jane's is not one of them. At one time, they set the bar and were the measuring stick when it came to street cred and musical integrity; now they are washed up and phoning it in. I enjoy listening to the album (burnt CD) in the car...but I am afraid that it will probably become a dust collector, just like Strays did :(

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here. Matches my thoughts and assessment of the album although aside from "Underground" which is unquestionably the best song on the album, I'd chose a couple other songs as being among the better tracks.

[Tyler Durden]

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here. Matches my thoughts and assessment of the album although aside from "Underground" which is unquestionably the best song on the album, I'd chose a couple other songs as being among the better tracks.

Yeah. I'm confident you'd agree then that "Jane's Addiction" has essentially become The Cult. A once relevant band that reunites every few years to make an album that no one outside of the devoted fan base cares about, in order to make money off touring. Then they break up for a number of years. Repeat.

[sonny]

A friend of mine who I haven't talked to in ages wrote on my Facebook wall today and asked me "What do you think of the new Jane's album?". I didn't think too much about this; just kind of a stream of consciousness thing. Here's my response (for anyone who cares):

Like the last one, I don't really consider it a Jane's album. With them, if it's not all four original members, it's not Jane's Addiction. It's sad that a so-called legendary band has to resort to outside help (Dave Sitek) for songwriting and record with session players (Chris Chaney). Seriously, could you imagine if a band like Pearl Jam recruited someone from Kings of Leon because they needed help writing songs?! The whole thing just seems weird. I think Dave and Stephen need Jane's as their meal ticket these days. Perry on the other hand, makes tons of money off Lollapalooza...but I think his fragile ego in recent years has been bruised so much that he has something to prove (IE: that he doesn't need Eric Avery).

Anyway, all of that being said...if you don't compare the new album to their original era of work, it's okay. I really like songs like "Underground", "Curiosity Kills", and "Twisted Tales". And I like some of the "synth" textures on the album; there's a dark aesthetic to the album was sorely missing on Strays. Ironically, this album sounds more "80s" than anything they actually released in the 80s; some of it sounds like Duran Duran or Depeche Mode. There are some pretty embarrassing moments..."Irresistible Force" sounds like Linkin Park or Evanescence to me. As catchy as "I'll Hit You Back" is, it may as well be a Katy Perry song (or something). Perry's lyrics on this album range from inconsequential to bad. When Dave is used right on this album, he is awesome...but a lot of his presence seems held back and like window dressing for a Perry Farrell solo album. Stephen's presence is almost non-existent, barring "End To The Lies". It would be like making an album with Jimmy Chamberlain and not letting him go off the rails. It may as well be the guy who plays drums for Maroon 5 playing on this album; would any of us notice the difference?

Some bands from generation X have aged really well (Pearl Jam, NIN)...but Jane's is not one of them. At one time, they set the bar and were the measuring stick when it came to street cred and musical integrity; now they are washed up and phoning it in. I enjoy listening to the album (burnt CD) in the car...but I am afraid that it will probably become a dust collector, just like Strays did :(

it's funny how we can say the same thing about this album. so i agree with the bold stuff

[Tyler Durden]

A friend of mine who I haven't talked to in ages wrote on my Facebook wall today and asked me "What do you think of the new Jane's album?". I didn't think too much about this; just kind of a stream of consciousness thing. Here's my response (for anyone who cares):

Like the last one, I don't really consider it a Jane's album. With them, if it's not all four original members, it's not Jane's Addiction. It's sad that a so-called legendary band has to resort to outside help (Dave Sitek) for songwriting and record with session players (Chris Chaney). Seriously, could you imagine if a band like Pearl Jam recruited someone from Kings of Leon because they needed help writing songs?! The whole thing just seems weird. I think Dave and Stephen need Jane's as their meal ticket these days. Perry on the other hand, makes tons of money off Lollapalooza...but I think his fragile ego in recent years has been bruised so much that he has something to prove (IE: that he doesn't need Eric Avery).

Anyway, all of that being said...if you don't compare the new album to their original era of work, it's okay. I really like songs like "Underground", "Curiosity Kills", and "Twisted Tales". And I like some of the "synth" textures on the album; there's a dark aesthetic to the album was sorely missing on Strays. Ironically, this album sounds more "80s" than anything they actually released in the 80s; some of it sounds like Duran Duran or Depeche Mode. There are some pretty embarrassing moments..."Irresistible Force" sounds like Linkin Park or Evanescence to me. As catchy as "I'll Hit You Back" is, it may as well be a Katy Perry song (or something). Perry's lyrics on this album range from inconsequential to bad. When Dave is used right on this album, he is awesome...but a lot of his presence seems held back and like window dressing for a Perry Farrell solo album. Stephen's presence is almost non-existent, barring "End To The Lies". It would be like making an album with Jimmy Chamberlain and not letting him go off the rails. It may as well be the guy who plays drums for Maroon 5 playing on this album; would any of us notice the difference?

Some bands from generation X have aged really well (Pearl Jam, NIN)...but Jane's is not one of them. At one time, they set the bar and were the measuring stick when it came to street cred and musical integrity; now they are washed up and phoning it in. I enjoy listening to the album (burnt CD) in the car...but I am afraid that it will probably become a dust collector, just like Strays did :(

it's funny how we can say the same thing about this album. so i agree with the bold stuff

[guysmiley]

A friend of mine who I haven't talked to in ages wrote on my Facebook wall today and asked me "What do you think of the new Jane's album?". I didn't think too much about this; just kind of a stream of consciousness thing. Here's my response (for anyone who cares):

Like the last one, I don't really consider it a Jane's album. With them, if it's not all four original members, it's not Jane's Addiction. It's sad that a so-called legendary band has to resort to outside help (Dave Sitek) for songwriting and record with session players (Chris Chaney). Seriously, could you imagine if a band like Pearl Jam recruited someone from Kings of Leon because they needed help writing songs?! The whole thing just seems weird. I think Dave and Stephen need Jane's as their meal ticket these days. Perry on the other hand, makes tons of money off Lollapalooza...but I think his fragile ego in recent years has been bruised so much that he has something to prove (IE: that he doesn't need Eric Avery).

Anyway, all of that being said...if you don't compare the new album to their original era of work, it's okay. I really like songs like "Underground", "Curiosity Kills", and "Twisted Tales". And I like some of the "synth" textures on the album; there's a dark aesthetic to the album was sorely missing on Strays. Ironically, this album sounds more "80s" than anything they actually released in the 80s; some of it sounds like Duran Duran or Depeche Mode. There are some pretty embarrassing moments..."Irresistible Force" sounds like Linkin Park or Evanescence to me. As catchy as "I'll Hit You Back" is, it may as well be a Katy Perry song (or something). Perry's lyrics on this album range from inconsequential to bad. When Dave is used right on this album, he is awesome...but a lot of his presence seems held back and like window dressing for a Perry Farrell solo album. Stephen's presence is almost non-existent, barring "End To The Lies". It would be like making an album with Jimmy Chamberlain and not letting him go off the rails. It may as well be the guy who plays drums for Maroon 5 playing on this album; would any of us notice the difference?

Some bands from generation X have aged really well (Pearl Jam, NIN)...but Jane's is not one of them. At one time, they set the bar and were the measuring stick when it came to street cred and musical integrity; now they are washed up and phoning it in. I enjoy listening to the album (burnt CD) in the car...but I am afraid that it will probably become a dust collector, just like Strays did :(

Sums it up for me too. Just too much of a bad taste over the years from this band. I don't even like telling people I loved this band once. It's embarrassing at times. Over the years I've learned in my own bands and others, this is NOT the way to behave, to treat other band mates, or to look up to for decision making.