Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:15 pm
I'm not even referring to the subject matter. I was so excited that a book was finally coming out on Jane's. I thought it would explore the sociopolitical climate of the mid to late eighties and the EXPLOSION of outsider art that came out of very fertile conservative global/political landscape. Thatcher, JP2, Reagan, and Bush 1 were not the backdrop that Jane's Addiction would be born from, yet they were. Beyond that, they re-invented punk in a very antisocial and punk manner...and paved the way for a whole new genre of music. Comments on the playing itself, its odd integration, and the like were also never adddressed. I could go on, but the book bored me like an oldtimer "Al Bundy" reflecting on the lean years just before the fourth quater touchdown pass.Nothing's Shocking wrote:I'm kinda surprised by some of the negative thoughts on the book.
I've read it about 10 times and enjoyed it every time.
It's got some great reference material in it.
My only complaints like I said are the few inaccuracies I've noticed.
That and the fact that it could have been better if there had been more involvement with the main players Perry, Eric, Dave and Perk.
:edit: I also missed any theme that represented the true iconoclastic nature of the band and it's members with the exception of their distaste for GNR and homophobic tendencies. I think their worldview was was a significant contributing factor to their brilliance....largely naive, and thus completely uncorrupted by the market they were in or the potential wealth. In fact, when this element of the band could no longer be ignored, they began to deconstruct by bad business decisions and greed. No book on Jane's should be sanitized....there is some REAL ugliness there that is of interest too.