KeyserSoze Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Heres your daily bit of click bait, or click hate should i say. Almost out of no-where, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal while talking about the songs of Janes Addiction's sophomore debut "Ritual De Lo Habitual" Perry Farrell basically calls GNR a bunch of sell outs. Perry Farrell explains that JA is a band that loves to tell stories on stage and through the music. Comparing the band to the likes of The Stooges, Velvet Underground and Grateful Dead, Farrell explains that they are like these bands because of their prominent chemistry around the time of Rituals release. Farrell then goes on to explain that they were never a radio band, and that he gave up on the idea of being a radio band long ago. Perry then ends this portion of the interview with this quote: "My life is surrounded with great music, great people, who are in it for the right reasons. I have been able to sustain, regardless. We might not have sold as many records as Guns N’ Roses, but I’d say we’re every bit as great as Guns N’ Roses. Some might argue we’re even greater." (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/07/12/perry-farrell-janes-addiction-interview/) What... It was very out of the blue. almost like he needed someone to put down in that moment. Does he even know "Oh My God" exists? (for those of you who don't know, Dave Navarro, Jane's Addiction lead guitarist plays a guitar solo in the song). Did he really try to infer that GNR are a bunch of sell outs and only wrote songs for the radio? Has Perry forgotten that he has sold his soul to the Lollapalooza brand and Dave Navarro is Spike TVs tattoo poster boy? Am i totally looking into this too much and this is just a friendly jab? Ive personally seen this band before and i have to say.... its fucking weird. I don't get it, nor understand what image they are trying to portray. Perry literally started making out with multiple girls during the ordeal, while other girls hung from hooks. weird shit. Although Dave is a good player, i think his talents are being totally and utterly wasted on this band. What do you guys think? Friendly jab, or pure jealousy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Nintari Posted July 14, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2016 It's just sign that GNR are legit again imo lol. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 This is especially lame because Duff always says nice things about JA and Perry Farrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post EvH Posted July 14, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2016 Some may argue that Ashba is better than the old one, too. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 23 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said: "My life is surrounded with great music, great people, who are in it for the right reasons. I have been able to sustain, regardless. We might not have sold as many records as Guns N’ Roses, but I’d say we’re every bit as great as Guns N’ Roses. Some might argue we’re even greater." Some might argue they are not greater. Some might argue they are on even ground. Some might argue both suck. Some might argue they both are great. Who cares, Perry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverburst80 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) I would have thought "i think we're every bit as great" means he thinks GNR is great, i don't see any real malice in anything he said. Yes i think you might be looking a little too much into it. Edited July 14, 2016 by Silverburst80 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Yes, but GNR appeal to everyday people. Beer drinking, big tits. To really roll with Jane's addiction you need to be a arty junkie vegan. Trucker's don't get Jane Says. Who quits burgers, chili cheese fries and extra large cokes for breakfast. Axl is more relatable than Perry the transgender eurotrash junkie. Duff the King of Beers. Slash is a walking bar. Then look at the songs syrupy power rock ballads versus alternative lifestyle punk songs with spacey odes to smackheadom. I see no element where Jane's should be more mainstream than GNR. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 "I've always been a fan of Dave Navarro, to the point that when we got signed, I had a Jane's Addiction demo tape [laughs] and was actually trying to convince the record company, "No, no, no, no, I suck. We suck. These guys rock!" And I was trying to get Tom Zutaut, at the time [at Geffen], to sign Jane's Addiction, and he was actually in negotiations to sign them at one point. I was just into Jane's Addiction." - Kurt Loder interview, 1999 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfAGun Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I always liked "Been Caught Stealing" and the first one they did when they reformed for a bit - in the video they had silver clothes on - but that is all really. I had one of their albums on one of playlists and deleted it because it never got played. It didn't have either of those tracks on. I am sure some think that they are a great band, maybe even the greatest in the world. Good for him having conviction and confidence in the music he makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spliff Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) he said some stupid shit on Jay Mohr's podcast a couple of years ago.. something like if GNR gets back together they should square off against Jane's Addiction at the Dodgers Stadium for braggings rights of who the best LA band is. I like a couple of songs off Ritual de lo habitual though Edited July 14, 2016 by spliff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussTCB Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, KeyserSoze said: What do you guys think? Friendly jab, or pure jealousy? I didn't take it as either those, more as a point of reference? Kind of like wondering why GN'R was/is a stadium act and Jane's never was maybe? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze Posted July 14, 2016 Author Share Posted July 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, RussTCB said: I didn't take it as either those, more as a point of reference? Kind of like wondering why GN'R was/is a stadium act and Jane's never was maybe? you may be right, but wouldn't the latter include a hint of jealousy? And after what some people in this in this thread have stated, it seems like every other time JA's fame is questioned, Perry brings up Guns or Axl... Heres one i found from 2011: "I honestly wish I was much more popular," Farrell says, "but that's just the way things fell, and I'm accepting of my situation and my place." He also compares his career with that of Axl Rose, and recalls a friend saying, "Axl might have made the money, but you're da man" (http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/1160867/perry-farrell-talks-art-commerce-lollapalooza-compares-himself) Farrell really paints himself as the type who has a lot but needs more more more to keep him satisfied... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsOfSpiders Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I like Janes Addiction, but they don't have an album as good as AFD so they can't compete. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussTCB Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said: you may be right, but wouldn't the latter include a hint of jealousy? And after what some people in this in this thread have stated, it seems like every other time JA's fame is questioned, Perry brings up Guns or Axl... Heres one i found from 2011: "I honestly wish I was much more popular," Farrell says, "but that's just the way things fell, and I'm accepting of my situation and my place." He also compares his career with that of Axl Rose, and recalls a friend saying, "Axl might have made the money, but you're da man" (http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/1160867/perry-farrell-talks-art-commerce-lollapalooza-compares-himself) Farrell really paints himself as the type who has a lot but needs more more more to keep him satisfied... Yeah, that's actually what I was thinking. Maybe he or someone around him just uses Guns or Axl as the high water mark. Like when GN'R were achieving all their success, Perry & Jane's were probably on the sidelines so to speak thinking "HEY, we're as good as they are! Why isn't that us?!" I ain't mad at him over it though. I know of tons of bands that I like that I think should be or should have been much bigger. Whether any of their members have ever said it publicly or not, I'm sure they've felt the same way no and again. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoop Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Jane's Addiction were one of the best live bands ever in their prime. Seriously, 88-91 they were untouchable. And all three original lineup records are great. So he's just telling it like it is, not talking shit at all. As far as the GNR comparison it's probably just because they were coming up at the same time in the same place. And maybe he is a little jealous, who knows. Doesn't seem like a big deal either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 2 hours ago, wasted said: Yes, but GNR appeal to everyday people. Beer drinking, big tits. To really roll with Jane's addiction you need to be a arty junkie vegan. Trucker's don't get Jane Says. Who quits burgers, chili cheese fries and extra large cokes for breakfast. Axl is more relatable than Perry the transgender eurotrash junkie. Duff the King of Beers. Slash is a walking bar. Then look at the songs syrupy power rock ballads versus alternative lifestyle punk songs with spacey odes to smackheadom. I see no element where Jane's should be more mainstream than GNR. Literally your first post that's actually made sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsinindy Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 24 minutes ago, bigpoop said: Jane's Addiction were one of the best live bands ever in their prime. Seriously, 88-91 they were untouchable. And all three original lineup records are great. So he's just telling it like it is, not talking shit at all. As far as the GNR comparison it's probably just because they were coming up at the same time in the same place. And maybe he is a little jealous, who knows. Doesn't seem like a big deal either way. There is more to being a great band than being great live. They were great live, seen them several times, but they weren't "untouchable", no one is "untouchable" and in the timeframe you specifically reference there were several other bands that were arguably better than Janes Addiction live, GnR being right at the top of the list. This is opinion of course but to say Perry Farrell isn't talking shit is like saying a bear doesn't shit in the woods bc that's exactly what he is doing and is known to do...talk shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBucky Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Nothing's Shocking is a masterpiece! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheldonR311 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Sour grapes because every time Jane's Addiction "reunites" nobody cares. When GNR do it, they sell out stadiums. JA definitely has some songs that I dig, but they're nowhere near as solid overall as GNR, I can listen to GNR albums and not skip a single track (save for the alt. version of Don't Cry and My World) but I could never do that with Jane's Addiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 JA was okay, a bit overrated in my opinion. Mostly because of Farrell being a pretentious fuck. He's just mad because they were critics darlings back then, but no one mentions them these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Axl, Slash and Duff were big fans of Jane's Addiction. 3 hours ago, dalsh327 said: "I've always been a fan of Dave Navarro, to the point that when we got signed, I had a Jane's Addiction demo tape [laughs] and was actually trying to convince the record company, "No, no, no, no, I suck. We suck. These guys rock!" And I was trying to get Tom Zutaut, at the time [at Geffen], to sign Jane's Addiction, and he was actually in negotiations to sign them at one point. I was just into Jane's Addiction." - Kurt Loder interview, 1999 From the same Axl interview: Rose: That's (MTV airtime) really what finally got the public to find some interest in Guns N' Roses, and there was a lot less [interest] for Jane's Addiction. Where now, I think, we would consider Jane's Addiction one of the great rock and roll bands in the last however many years. They were a great band, they were a bit ahead of their time. I was a very big fan of them, and Dave. Whatever anyone can say about Axl's ego, he has always been humble regarding other musician/bands he considered worthy, while Perry Farrell unfortunately comes out here as jealous. [They have acknowledged you, Perry, you could just reference that]. I liked Jane's Addiction a lot. I consider them and Guns great bands in a different way. What they had in common was, as Duff said, that they both didn't fit in the L.A. music scene of the mid-late 80s, i.e. they were neither hairmetal nor part of the remains of the early 80s punk scene (although Guns were visually closer to the former); they were also both signed by big record companies for their debut albums, so they were theoretically at the same state in terms of promotion and they had equal chances to make it. Musicwise they were different. AFD wasn't groundbreaking musically, it was a brilliant blend of classic rock 'n' roll influences performed with punk rawness and authenticity, and it was this combination that made it appealing to large audiences. JA was more advanced and innovative, hence more difficult for the mainstream rock audience at the time; they also had a more underground mentality, even though they were a big company act, while Guns were closer to the conventional perception of what rock 'n roll is about (drugs, debauchery, "bad boy" attitude, etc). Edited July 14, 2016 by Blackstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnny Drama said: Literally your first post that's actually made sense to me. You said that last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian girl Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 2 hours ago, MillionsOfSpiders said: I like Janes Addiction, but they don't have an album as good as AFD so they can't compete. the same for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Słash Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I haven't heard any of their songs nor I know much about them, Axl did want Dave Navarro in place of Izzy during the illusions tour, but he declined which is weird, like GNR is such a big band compared to them and Carmen Electrca is a BIG GNR fan and she dates or used to date Dave Navarro. Other than this I don't know anything about them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanity_lost Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I didn't really read it as he was putting Guns down, but that he was elevating himself and his band up. Then again, if you don't like a band/artist then obviously you will rank them lower and someone saying they think they may be better than Guns will be seen as putting down Guns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts