Taking Sides: Smiths vs. Jane's Addiction

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Transatlantic equiv? Indie kid nation vs. Lollapalloozer nation? (Also featuring slapstick solo careers of guitarists heroically trying to prove themselves dispensable [not to mention worthless]in acts of auto-revisionism of strictly the dullest and least interesting varieties)

― dave q, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

(Oasis vs. Marilyn Manson too? Achieving great domestic popularity by building career on local paradox that excites great passionate arguments, violence etc. among locals and apathy, snickering and knowing yawns among others - the lie of the free market in a class- bound society for the former, the lie of individual freedom in a de facto theocracy for MM)

― dave q, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

how do the smiths qualify as indie? please, please, please somebody tell me.

― fields of salmon, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is Jane's Addiction the band that should be used for this parallel, or is it Smashing Pumpkins? I am deeply intrigued by this question.

(BTW, Dave: Yer demo rocks.)

― Dan Perry, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah, I haven't responded back to Dave yet about said demo -- I gave it a listen and was duly bemused and impressed at once. It's its own creature, it is.

I also now know what the Q in Dave Q stands for. SHALL I REVEAL THE TRUTH?

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

how do the smiths qualify as indie?

More like how *wouldn't* they qualify as indie? At least in the UK.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We all know Ned

They are on Rough Trade = they are Indie, fields of salmon

― mark s, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We all know Ned

I should hope you *do* know me after all this time.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

They qualify as indie. Smiths fans wear cordorouys, the Smiths get discussed on B&S forums, and "Panic (Hang The DJ)" still gets played at indie clubs nationwide.

― Judd Nelson, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Continuing in the fine new tradition of incongruous comparisons like Ac/Dc/Joy Division and Suzie Quatro/Lene Lovich, I must *YET AGAIN* utilize the hackneyed, age-old cliche.....wait for it....Apples & Oranges. I don't see these two bands relating two each other in any sort of symbiotic way at all/

HOWEVER -- I've always maintained that *HENRY ROLLINS* is America's Morrissey (a comparison that would doubtlessly seem offensive to both parties concerned). Think about it: Both men are consumed with depression and self-loathing. Both seek solace in poetry and music. Both have -- on numerous occaissions -- expressed an inability to maintain proper relationships. They're both drug-free teetotallers (I think). Both still harbour acrimony for their former guitarists/ sparring partners (Marr of the Smiths/Greg Ginn of Black Flag). Both forsook the bands that won them their initial fame. The main difference (apart from sonic output and physique) is that where Morrissey sees fit to swan about in bedsits, bemoaning his fate, Rollins -- in typical American styleee -- excercises his demons via weight-lifting and black coffee.

― Alex in NYC, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Alex sees only difference = he is an differentialist.

Dave Q sees similarity = he is a similaron!

― Sterling Clover, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

A Silmarillion?

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

apples and oranges proved by science to be comparable alex

― mark s, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The question remains as to who from any country would take Jane's Addiction over the Smiths....

― Keiko, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

they are both fruits.

(apples and oranges that is. ho ho, i kill me.)

― jess, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Actually, Michael Jackson is America's Morrissey: the most interesting trait they share is body-loathing, which manifests itself in things like plastic surgery, horror movies, a fascination with thugs who could beat them both into a juicy pulp, vegetarianism, and -- most importantly -- some seriously twisted stances towards sex in general and homosexuality specifically. Maybe their weird, highly mannered singing styles also count, too.

― Michael Daddino, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

All three of them have personas that read pretty gay, too.

As for the two bands in question, I can't stand either.

― Sean, Friday, 19 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

five years pass...

awful idea for a thread...

― swinburningforyou, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 03:11 (eighteen years ago)

I'll take reading comprehension for 500 alex

― J0hn D., Tuesday, 20 November 2007 03:25 (eighteen years ago)

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