Taking Sides: APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION VS. NOTHING'S SHOCKING.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Inspired by this thread...

TS: "Never Mind the Bollocks" vs. "Appetite for Destruction"

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000000OQF.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002LEE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

A more reaosonable match-up, I'd say. Both albums heralded a major sea-change in the perception of 'metal', simultaneously sounding the death knell of conventional spandex-laden hair metal (personally speaking, I think Jane's Addiction were robbed by Nirvana in the credit capactiy), although the argument could also be made that hair metal killed itself. That's a different thread.

As far as I'm concerned, for all the rapturous praise heaped upon Appetite.., I think it's a big conventional cliche went matched with Nothing's Shocking. In a nutshell, at this stage in their respective careers, JANE'S ADDICTION WERE EVERYTHING GUNS'N'ROSES WISHED THEY WERE. For all the strenuously earnest claims to G'n'R's convincing punk credibility, that came effortlessly to Jane's Addiction, and yet they still rocked A THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS OF CRUSHING HEAVIOSITY better than G'n'R, without adhering to hackneyed rock star schtick.

Also, simply better tunes.

But that's me talkin'. What says you?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Me type English stupidly.

JANE'S ADDICTION WERE EVERYTHING GUNS'N'ROSES WISHED THEY WERE

That probably should've read: JANE'S ADDICTION WERE EVERYTHING GUNS'N'ROSES WISHED THEY COULD BE.

Carry on.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, they're both great. But G'n'R sound like a club and Jane's sounds like a mountaintop above an ocean. And both work as needed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

gnr is way classier than janes addiction. janes addiction is boring and ambitious beyond their abilities 4/5 of the time. sorry, alex. i havent wanted to admit it.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

umm, and when i say gnr, i mean appetite. and when i say janes addiction, i mean their entire catalogue.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Appetite sucks more significantly and intentionally

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Since when did "class" have anything to do with good rock'n'roll?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean, it doesnt need to. but in this case, i feel like its an apt way to describe what it is about gnr that i like better than janes.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

When they were released, I would've said Appetite. A decade or two of cognitive dissonance later, Shocking seems an easy choice. But I gotta wonder why...

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

appetite by a mile. i think even at their most "epic" g'n'r never wished to be anything that jane's addiction were. gnr came ALOT closer to bettering the ny dolls (and i'm not sure they didn't) than janes addiction did to bettering zep (which they sure as fuck didn't approach doing ever).

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

According to an article in SPIN a year or two back, the two bands were actually semi-acrimonious rivals, that is until Axl approached Dave Navarro to fill in for then-departed Slash.

There isn't anything on Appetite for Destruction that rocks as fuckin' hard as "Ted, Just Admit It" on Nothing's Shocking.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

ehh, on further reflection, im sure "classier" was the wrong word to use.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex in NYC OTM yet again. Ritual's better than Appetite, too.

― steve hise, Friday, 22 October 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Manic Street Preachers vs Radiohead

― dave q, Friday, 22 October 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

L.A. Guns

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe cinniblount came closer to what i mean. aiming for zeppelin and failing is a treacherous thing. zeppelin was great - there is no question there. but where zeppelin was using quasi-mysticism and progressive elements and making them ROCK, janes addiction just comes off looking to me like huge nerds (and maybe not in a good way) with way more techincal skill than songwriting savvy.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Manic Street Preachers vs Radiohead

Hahah

huge nerds

90% of music if not all of it is NOTHING but huge nerds!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i know - its true, and 99% of the music i listen to, and 100% of the person i am is a nerd. but it feels like jane's doesnt pull it off.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm. Fair points, Peter, but as long as we're goin' down that road, I'd suggest that Jane's Addiction make for a better Zeppelin than G'n'R do a Stones/Aerosmith pastiche.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Sub-thread: which band (specifically in their incarnations of these albums' era) would you rather have move into the house next door to yours?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

i agree with you when gnr's entire career is considered, but appetite still feels good and actually dirty and actually a little dangerous (probably owing to my nostalgic feelings of gnr when i was 5 or 6). theyre no stones, its true, though.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

zep were alot funkier than janes addiction too, and the key, they were alot more rock n roll (as opposed to just rock) than janes addiction. janes addiction very very very rarely swings at all. ja are alot closer to that band in almost famous than zep in terms of movement. i throw appetite on in after toys in the attic or the first ny dolls and it hold its own. the best ja can't hold its own with presence (my least fave zep). don't get me wrong - i like ja, i was 15 when ritual came out so that was preordained but i can't think of anything i can do to gnr that i can do better to ja cept maybe smoke pot.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

(probably owing to my nostalgic feelings of gnr when i was 5 or 6).

i was 15 when ritual came out

Cripes, you're all so young!

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

a good 35% of my fave rock bands are stones knockoffs so take that into consideration

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

>i was 15 when ritual came out

Wow, you're younger than me? Your writing/opinions made me think you were 40.

Anyway, I have both of these in my iPod, and I listened to Nothing's Shocking on Wednesday night. It still crushes me like a tidal wave. I haven't listened to Appetite For Destruction in months, and the last time I did, the only song I really loved was "Rocket Queen," which Jane's Addiction probably could have covered with no significant changes.

Something on the Boston vs. KISS thread stuck out for me - Christgau's description (dismissive) of Boston as "formalists." I like formalist rock, which I think is why I like Jane's more than Guns. Guns are attempting anarchy in a traditionalist way, which is fun but wears thin after awhile. Jane's, on the other hand, seem to be shooting for genuine catharsis/transcendence in a very modernist/formalist way, and that's why I keep coming back to them. I like rock that thinks it's church music.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

blount is actually 73 he is just v.hip w.it

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I suppose Jane's Addiction were as good as King's X, if that matters.

They still kinda sucked, though.

Again, no contest.

(Actually, I MIGHT take Nothing's Shocking over Nevermind, come to think of it. It definitely had more glitter and glam and swish and humor in it. But putting it up against Appetite isn't even fair; they don't even play in the same league. Appetite vs. either of the first two Rose Tattoo albums might be a fairly intriguing matchup, though. Or Appetite vs. Rocks vs. Toys in the Attic vs. Get Your Wings maybe.)

― chuck, Friday, 22 October 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Stay focussed, Chuck.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Jane's Addiction probably not as good as Kingdom Come or Whitesnake either, when you get down to it (well, maybe Kingdom Come; I forget the stuff that wasn't their hit). DEFINITELY not as good as those first couple Billy Squier albums. Or Fastway, or Paris (1976 debut album feat. Bob Welch). Or even the first album Rick Rubin did with the Cult (though maybe on par with that band's earlier & later crap.)

― chuck, Friday, 22 October 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I have to agree with Chuck. This one's not even close. "Jane Says" is a decent VU pastiche, but otherwise there's not much to recommend the Jane's record. (Just like "Been Caught Stealing" is the only decent thing on Ritual.)

I think a more telling comparison would be Appetite vs. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap or Highway to Hell.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I think a more telling comparison would be Appetite vs. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap or Highway to Hell.

See, that doesn't work for me being that Appetite is so much the work of students of those two albums.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't even like G'n'R that much, but ANYTHING is better than Jane's Addiction.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

rocky beat apollo, man.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the first time in a taking sides involving Appetite that I've had to think. I distinctly remember hearing both of these for the very first time, interestingly (both purchased from the same defunct record store in Downers Grove, IL). Whenever I consider answering Appetite I think of "Ocean Size" and "Mountain Song" and I am stymied. Both songs are just monsters. Huge. I do know that Nothing's Shocking definitely made more of an impact on me at the time. And as much as I can't stand to even look at Perry Farrell these days (cuz, like, he's so fucking annoying) (which has *completely* made me stop listening to anything he ever did), I must concede that it was a fantastic album that is probably better than Appetite.

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i meant to say that teachers werent necessarily better than students, even if acdc>gnr. but then n/a posted inbetween my posts. and never mind.

― peter smith (plsmith), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Appetite is so much the work of students of those two albums

Yeah, but this started out as Appetite vs. Never mind the Bollocks, and probably GnR were students of that album as well. So the comparison is still viable. I guess I'm just curious where Chuck would come down on that one.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 22 October 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

(Though I suppose I could just read his book, and find out.)

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

TS: Appetite For Destruction vs. Straight Outta Compton!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I posted on that thread, onate, and said GNR over Pistols by a hair (thanks to the drummer, mainly.)

― chuck, Friday, 22 October 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

TS: Appetite For Destruction vs. Straight Outta Compton!

throw in Nothing's Shocking and Master of Puppets and you've pretty much defined a period of my life!

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's Jane's

(And since Chuck seems determined to rile me on this thread I'll fight back incoherently with: No fucking way was G'n'R as good as the Smashing Pumpkins. And in Slash's wettest dream, he couldn't hold a candle to Vernon Reid. Also, Radiohead are classier and dancier and Andrew WK more rocking. . . )

4xpost Was Ritual '94? I'm trying to figure out if blount is my age. I'd assumed he was a little older too.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I posted on that thread, onate, and said GNR over Pistols by a hair (thanks to the drummer, mainly.)

No, this was about GnR Vs. classic AC/DC.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Ritual was 90 or 91, I think.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh yeah that makes more sense. Then blount is about as old as I thought. I do like Ritual more than Shocking BTW.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Ritual was summer of 1990. I saw Jane's at the Hollywood Palladium that year, a few days before Christmas. Announced opening act was Primus, but shortly before the show the Pixies were added to the bill, too. A good show; some of it is excerpted on the Gift video.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

"...a fuckin' BIRKENSTOCK!"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

That's the show.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 22 October 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

janes gets points for bringing together metal heads and sensitive art types for five minutes a long time ago. or wuz it the drugz?

― kephm (kephm), Friday, 22 October 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

listening to Nothing's Shocking now, i have to readjust my opinion here. Perry was just as annoying then as now on *a lot* more of this than nostalgia remembered. "Summertime Rolls" and "Standing in the Shower..." are both silly, for instance. But still, when this album peaks (aforementioned "mtn song" and "ocean size"), it peaks higher than appetite.

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 22 October 2004 20:21 (twenty-one years ago)

"Summertime Rolls" and "Standing in the Shower..." are no sillier than fuckin' "Rocket Queen" and/or "My Michelle" and/or "You're Crazy".

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

that's the defense? they're no sillier?

they also aren't nearly as interesting musically. plus perry's vocals are so grating. did he have a clothespin on his nose when he recorded this?

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 22 October 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

it wasn't a defense, it was just an assertion. no defense is necessary, as far as i'm concerned. In comparison to Nothing's Shocking, G'n'R were just more of the samel ol' same ol'.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

"Thank You, Boys"

― Loose Translation: Sexy Dancer (sexyDancer), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

from someone who was 9 when Nothing's Shocking came out: there's really no comparison. As someone said before, Jane's is transcendent, G'N'R' is simple fun/Sunset Strip Sleaze

― Space Is the Place (Space Is the Place), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Sex Pistols>>GNR>>>>JA

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Axl's vocal style is completely silly. It sounds so clumsily affected. Hearing it on these recent VH1 retrospectives I'm struck by how anyone ever took GnR seriously, it's so cartoonish sounding. Whereas Perry sounds like he really just can't sing any other way, that's his voice and this is what he's gonna do with it. Plus Jane's reference points are more interesting (Zep, "Count Basie crossed with Bad Brains", etc.), the songs are stranger, bigger in scope, grander.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 22 October 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"everybody has their own opinion, everybody has their own opinion"

i liked appetite okay but it never compared to how much i loved nothing's shocking. i haven't listened to either album in a very long time. jane's were one of my favorite bands in high school and mountain song, ocean size, and especially ted just admit it were the biggest reasons why.

appetite was just something fun to play in the car when you were with a bunch of friends.

― metfigga (metfigga), Saturday, 23 October 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Appetite is good sleazy drunken fun. But it never was my thing for more than 10 mins. Janes gets it simply for 'Up The Beach' which was always a killer live opener (other great tracks already mentioned). There's a bit of filler admittedly on "Nothing's Shocking" but the album still flows pretty damn well as a whole.

― Piers (piers), Saturday, 23 October 2004 02:23 (twenty-one years ago)

"Count Basie crossed with Bad Brains"

this description makes me want to puke.

― peter smith (plsmith), Saturday, 23 October 2004 04:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Axl vs. Perry = 5 inches vs. 9 inches

― maria b (maria b), Saturday, 23 October 2004 05:27 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - i like how the prosecutions case against appetite is it's "fun", if that ain't a sign of the times of ilm i don't know what is

― cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, 23 October 2004 07:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, for me at least, Appetite is pop metal without the fun.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 23 October 2004 07:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Whereas "Standing In the Shower Thinking" is fun.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 23 October 2004 07:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Jane's Addiction win hands down. Nothing's Shocking was kind of like a surprise mixed with a guilty pleasure for me at the time. It just wasn't the kind of style I normally would have liked, but somehow they had something other bands didn't. Boy was Ritual De Lo Habitual a disappointment. But I don't want to get into a big Jane's Addiction discussion/food fight here.

Frankly I couldn't give a rat's ass about Guns and Roses. Fourth rate Led Zeppelin to these ears. Still I guess they were better than most hair metal and that's why they sounded so good to the hair metal crowd. Those poor Bon Jovian souls never knew there was better music in life to listen to - that they needn't settle for GnR. It's sad.

― Bimble (bimble), Saturday, 23 October 2004 08:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Guns and Rose [are] [f]ourth rate Led Zeppelin to these ears.

Get those ears checked out!

Axl's vocal style is completely silly. It sounds so clumsily affected.

Yes. Having a vocal range and using it is completely silly, whilst Perry's nasal whine is a graceful swan of authenticity.

― frankE (frankE), Saturday, 23 October 2004 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Guns and Rose [are] [f]ourth rate Led Zeppelin to these ears.

Get those ears checked out!

Seriously! That's way generous!

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 23 October 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

(To G'n'R, not to Bimble.)

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 23 October 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

here's a bit of filler admittedly on "Nothing's Shocking"

no there isn't.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 23 October 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I always thought "Idiots Rule" and "Pigs In Zen" were dispensable Alex, but you know, don't lose it on me man. I'm hungover.

― Piers (piers), Sunday, 24 October 2004 02:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, let's just say that you're gargling from a giant basin of WRONG!

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Sunday, 24 October 2004 02:26 (twenty-one years ago)

There ain't no wrong now, ain't no right!

Actually, different album, but these lyrics always made me laugh: "I am skin and bones, I am pointy nose, but it mutherfuckin makes me try!"

Ritual tour remains one of my fave ever live gigs - I thought they were Gods when I was 18.

― Piers (piers), Sunday, 24 October 2004 02:58 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.