I wonder how they felt about that. I imagine Darcy must've been really pissed. I can see James just going along with it.

Can you imagine the converastion Billy had with them about recording Eye?

no

they didnt want nothing to do with batman, so why should they have had anything to do with eye?

Can you ever think of The Smashing Pumpkins and forget that James and Darcy were band members? They can never be erased to me

cock

Can you ever think of The Smashing Pumpkins and forget that James and Darcy were band members? They can never be erased to me

That's because you value band members based on their marketability as opposed to their actual musical contributions.

And because you're gay.

poppy

That's because you value band members based on their marketability as opposed to their actual musical contributions.

And because you're gay.

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

I wonder how they felt about being left out of Gish, Siamese Dream, Adore and Machina?

Imagine that conversation, musta been awkward

I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable,

didnt hear american gothic

didnt hear american gothic

hiiiiyooooooooo

It was a mislabeled BC solo song. I'm sure they didn't care they were "left out".

Was it really? Where did you hear this?

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.


you know a lot of bands change members and still carry on with the same name. even after losing members that are far more vital than james and d'arcy. i wish everyone would just give this topic a fucking rest already. it's so fucking tired.

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

I'd suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

We don't know anything about the relationships between the four original band members nor do we know much about what went down when the band was reformed.

And as much as I respect James and D'arcy's contributions in the past, this reunited band is far closer to the original band than any other reunited band I can think of off the top of my head.

Plainly put: The Smashing Pumpkins was always 95% Billy and Jimmy.

Machina is a great album, Machina II is a great album, Zeitgeist is a great album.

THE END

I agree that James and Darcy dont really define the Pumpkins. I dont think Jimmy really does either though. It hurts the image of the band when long time collaborators leave but it never stopped Billy from continuing to put out material and thats all that really matters in the end.

For a long time I wanted to believe that James and Darcy brought something special to the band but that isnt really the case. It's always really been about Billy.

didnt jimmy say all the drums on machina were *actual drums* that he played (obviously some were super-produced)? like when they pulled out the dig drums during the machina tour?

i think so.

yes.

confirmed.

Can you ever think of The Smashing Pumpkins and forget that James and Darcy were band members? They can never be erased to me

wait... Who?

DEADSY

you know a lot of bands change members and still carry on with the same name.


you didn't say whether or not any of them sucked.



even after losing members that are far more vital than james and d'arcy. i wish everyone would just give this topic a fucking rest already. it's so fucking tired.

it's impossible to measure or even to approximate with 100% certainty james and d'arcy's vitality to the band, so to treat the opinion that they were rather worthless as more valid than the contrary view is silly.

what is fairly apparent is that when james and d'arcy aren't around billy has a hard time plugging in to the 'muse' or whatever you want to call it. yeah quality of art isn't quantifiable so the whole damned argument is moot, but it's a pretty safe bet that most fans today and eventually whatever vein of music history gains the most consenus will all point to the fact that the band reached its height when the original four members were at their most collaborative, and that billy's attempt to reform the band in 2007 will yield something on par with your re-formed creedence clearwater revisiteds: a band that exists mostly for touring on a mixture of stuff from their glory days watered down by mediocre, artistically unnotable new material, eventually relegated to the state fair circuit.

Plainly put: The Smashing Pumpkins was always 95% Billy and Jimmy.

I agree that James and Darcy dont really define the Pumpkins. I dont think Jimmy really does either though. It hurts the image of the band when long time collaborators leave but it never stopped Billy from continuing to put out material and thats all that really matters in the end.

For a long time I wanted to believe that James and Darcy brought something special to the band but that isnt really the case. It's always really been about Billy.


some bands get away with a revolving lineup. when led by the right core of musicians (or even single musicians) who have their heads on straight when it comes to making music, people can relax and come and go as they please and rock together while they have a chance and move on when things get stale. totally possible and very true for plenty of musical acts.

it's quite clear, however, that the pumpkins were not that kind of band. some of them are talented musicians, some are talented songwriters, but none of them alone or in pairs seem to be able to even come close to making the kind of music that they produced when the four of them were 'in' the band. is musical contribution a part of this 'in'? sure. billy and jimmy's contributions are obvious. i think a lot of people are dangerously underestimating james' role, especially live. but musical contribution is not the big piece with these four people. the pumpkins were a strange, one-of-a-kind dysfunctional little family, and there's so much more to it than who was doing what in the studio. there was something about those four people pledging allegiance to that fucked up family unit that brought out the best in billy's songwriting and studio abilities and billy's, jimmy's, and james' musicianship.

when the four of them actually sweated it out in the studio together they produced a seemingly impossible quantity and quality of music that momentarily put a lot of the rock/pop community to shame. with only three of the four original members in the band (and sometimes one or two at a time being half-gone emotionally), the band stumbled and slowly tore itself apart. when just two of them eventually returned they managed the stalest, flattest, most passionless and by-the-numbers material of their career. sure, billy can still turn out a catchy tune and jimmy of course is a master of his craft, but listen to 'doomsday clock' and 'bodies' end-to-end and tell me one of 'em doesn't sound like they're dredging the past, and on top of that phoning in a passable but by no means inspiring performance. what do james and d'arcy have to do with any of that? i dunno, but when they were around the band never let a beige snoozer like that slip onto a studio album.

does correlation exist between original-four presence and the quality (and some may dare the "pumpkin-ness") of their work? sure. does that necessarily mean there's a causal link there? of course not, but no other possibility seems nearly as likely, unless someone out there's been sitting on a better theory. and simply saying 'lol james and d'arcy were worthless, quit advocating for their tired asses' doesn't count. that argument is far more worn-out and worn-through.





also, for posterity (ie greedo, let's come back in 10 years and say this with a straight face, shall we?)

Zeitgeist is a great album.

THE END

some bands get away with a revolving lineup. when led by the right core of musicians (or even single musicians) who have their heads on straight when it comes to making music, people can relax and come and go as they please and rock together while they have a chance and move on when things get stale. totally possible and very true for plenty of musical acts.

it's quite clear, however, that the pumpkins were not that kind of band. some of them are talented musicians, some are talented songwriters, but none of them alone or in pairs seem to be able to even come close to making the kind of music that they produced when the four of them were 'in' the band. is musical contribution a part of this 'in'? sure. billy and jimmy's contributions are obvious. i think a lot of people are dangerously underestimating james' role, especially live. but musical contribution is not the big piece with these four people. the pumpkins were a strange, one-of-a-kind dysfunctional little family, and there's so much more to it than who was doing what in the studio. there was something about those four people pledging allegiance to that fucked up family unit that brought out the best in billy's songwriting and studio abilities and billy's, jimmy's, and james' musicianship.

when the four of them actually sweated it out in the studio together they produced a seemingly impossible quantity and quality of music that momentarily put a lot of the rock/pop community to shame. with only three of the four original members in the band (and sometimes one or two at a time being half-gone emotionally), the band stumbled and slowly tore itself apart. when just two of them eventually returned they managed the stalest, flattest, most passionless and by-the-numbers material of their career. sure, billy can still turn out a catchy tune and jimmy of course is a master of his craft, but listen to 'doomsday clock' and 'bodies' end-to-end and tell me one of 'em doesn't sound like they're dredging the past, and on top of that phoning in a passable but by no means inspiring performance. what do james and d'arcy have to do with any of that? i dunno, but when they were around the band never let a beige snoozer like that slip onto a studio album.

does correlation exist between original-four presence and the quality (and some may dare the "pumpkin-ness") of their work? sure. does that necessarily mean there's a causal link there? of course not, but no other possibility seems nearly as likely, unless someone out there's been sitting on a better theory. and simply saying 'lol james and d'arcy were worthless, quit advocating for their tired asses' doesn't count. that argument is far more worn-out and worn-through.





also, for posterity (ie greedo, let's come back in 10 years and say this with a straight face, shall we?)

a lot of good ideas in this post, and very well-expressed. a lot of truth. mellon collie was the most collaborative, and best, pumpkins record. i think.

unfortunatetely, all of my feelings are complicated by the fact that i think zeitgeist is one of the best things the band has ever done after expecting it to be merely a pumpkiny step above the sum of two guys who are capable of writing and playing great music. james and d'arcy will always be extremely important to me. they're a major part of the pumpkins. but, i saw the pumpkins seven times this year...before the break up, i saw them five times with james...three times with d'arcy...hell, once with all four original members onstage at the same time. but except for the final metro show, the best pumpkins show i've seen was in atlanta this year on a friday night when billy corgan and jimmy chamberlin, with the help of three people who are not yet more than touring members of the smashing pumpkins (which puts them in the same category as melissa), proceeded to rip me to shreds with one of the most intense performances i've ever seen.

the band is writing and playing some of its best music. is there anyone on this board who was argue with the fact that james doesn't want to be in the band? d'arcy doesn't either, i would assume. so...i don't know. it's tough for those who defend their contributions (which i do) to also defend the new lineup (which i do). but the smashing pumpkins have put out what i consider to be a masterpiece of an album and a brilliant EP within only a year after re-forming. i believe that both billy's and jimmy's hearts are in the right place, despite the occasional marketing misstep or whatever else people want to lunge upon. the two greatest musicians in the world want to make music together until they're dead. and i'm more in love with the band's work, from 1991 to now, than ever before.

there are plenty of things in this world to be plenty upset about. the pumpkins in 2008 ain't one of them.

and is eye not one of the best songs you've ever heard?

a lot of good ideas in this post, and very well-expressed. a lot of truth. mellon collie was the most collaborative, and best, pumpkins record. i think.

unfortunatetely, all of my feelings are complicated by the fact that i think zeitgeist is one of the best things the band has ever done after expecting it to be merely a pumpkiny step above the sum of two guys who are capable of writing and playing great music. james and d'arcy will always be extremely important to me. they're a major part of the pumpkins. but, i saw the pumpkins seven times this year...before the break up, i saw them five times with james...three times with d'arcy...hell, once with all four original members onstage at the same time. but except for the final metro show, the best pumpkins show i've seen was in atlanta this year on a friday night when billy corgan and jimmy chamberlin, with the help of three people who are not yet more than touring members of the smashing pumpkins (which puts them in the same category as melissa), proceeded to rip me to shreds with one of the most intense performances i've ever seen.

the band is writing and playing some of its best music. is there anyone on this board who was argue with the fact that james doesn't want to be in the band? d'arcy doesn't either, i would assume. so...i don't know. it's tough for those who defend their contributions (which i do) to also defend the new lineup (which i do). but the smashing pumpkins have put out what i consider to be a masterpiece of an album and a brilliant EP within only a year after re-forming. i believe that both billy's and jimmy's hearts are in the right place, despite the occasional marketing misstep or whatever else people want to lunge upon. the two greatest musicians in the world want to make music together until they're dead. and i'm more in love with the band's work, from 1991 to now, than ever before.

there are plenty of things in this world to be plenty upset about. the pumpkins in 2008 ain't one of them.

and is eye not one of the best songs you've ever heard?

thanks for avoiding all the usual pitfalls of wading into this argument and stating your opinion in such a clear and calm manner. i really appreciate it, keep it up. we'll have to agree to disagree on zeitgeist the album, but i've got a question:

i've watched tons of the band's performances from 2007 and just don't see or hear or feel the pumpkins in them. that's a bit of a semantic minefield, i suppose, but how did what you see live this last year compare with a performance like the one below? take a good look at the whole thing again if you haven't seen it in a while. man do they stick that outro. james wails and d'arcy is smiling...


<object width="375" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


is there anything from 2007 on youtube or elsewhere on the internet that you think stands up to something like this? i've tried looking but just haven't found it. all subjective/your opinion, i know. but i'd still like to try to keep an open mind every once in a while.

<object width="375" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


is there anything from 2007 on youtube or elsewhere on the internet that you think stands up to something like this? i've tried looking but just haven't found it. all subjective/your opinion, i know. but i'd still like to try to keep an open mind every once in a while.

there's nothing from 2007 that stands up to that. mellon collie pumpkins...the best music ever made. the band in 1995-1996 was something else entirely. but the music they made afterwards (even if you don't want to count zeitgeist) is so much better than any other's band output that their "peak" becomes irrelevant to me. the first time i saw the pumpkins was 2 months after they kicked jimmy out. i was 12. i'm 23. and i still come to this shithole message board on a daily basis. that's gotta tell you something.

but to answer your question...while the 2007 atlanta show that i was referring to in my initial post is available as a torrent...the video/audio quality simply doesn't do it justice (but i'm still eternally grateful to the taper). the best performance with decent audio/video quality that i've seen would have to be the myspace broadcast of the madrid show.

http://creative.myspace.com/design/_mh/thelist/archive/smashingpumpkins.html

i also think the Rock Am Ring performance was pretty incredible...especially "United States." i don't have a link offhand. it's a very different thing from the band in 1996, but at their best moments, this band is still capable of that intensity. at their worst moments, they're still 100 times better than any other bands out there.

i'm glad mariner came in here first. i always just get angry and call people names

<object width="375" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

is there anything from 2007 on youtube or elsewhere on the internet that you think stands up to something like this? i've tried looking but just haven't found it. all subjective/your opinion, i know. but i'd still like to try to keep an open mind every once in a while.

I definitely hear what you're saying. That 1996 Thru The Eyes Of Ruby performance pretty much sums up what true Smashing Pumpkins is. There's definitely an edge there that can't really be matched.

I'm actually dying to hear them play Ruby...hopefully they'll start playing that one. No way will it truly capture 1996, but I have a feeling they can get pretty close. It would be very interesting to hear the new SP do TTEOR.

After seeing the 2007 version of SP in Dallas and at Red Rocks, I was definitely impressed. They are a very skilled band; there were still moments where I got the chills from hearing certain parts of songs. It was a surreal feeling to hear, say, a song like Hummer--for it to sound so perfect, performed so well...and yet to know it wasn't really the old band. At the same time I felt the performance was very heartfelt, energetic, and kick-ass.

I agree about the Zeitgeist comments. The actual album just seems weird and bland. Comparing Doomsday Clock to Bodies, on the physical CD....yeah, no contest. But I have to say...standing in front of the band, watching them play Doomsday Clock, is very different. It sounds very alive, relentless, menacing--not at all like the album version.

i'll add though that i hate the way billy does his best to perpetuate the idea with people that james and d'arcy were irrelevant. i don't even think he believes it, 'cause when he wasn't a bitter old man about it there was no overstating their importance and it was all about the people in the band. he's just using this 'i'm not going to protect people anymore' bullshit to justify sp2, because he's too much of a pussy to accept that the band broke up and to move the fuck on instead of just running back where it's safe and pretending it's the smashing pumpkins again because everything didn't go his way when he was without it. and that's exactly why zeitgeist is such a boring, unambitious and undaring irrelevance of a record

i was 12. i'm 23. and i still come to this shithole message board on a daily basis. that's gotta tell you something.

yeah, about the same here



http://creative.myspace.com/design/_mh/thelist/archive/smashingpumpkins.html

i also think the Rock Am Ring performance was pretty incredible...especially "United States." i don't have a link offhand. it's a very different thing from the band in 1996, but at their best moments, this band is still capable of that intensity. at their worst moments, they're still 100 times better than any other bands out there.

thanks for the link. they're definitely an accomplished live act, especially on the technical side of things. i beg to differ on the '100 times better' thing, though. i know you're probably not being literal, and yes it's your opinion, but i hope you're getting out there and exploring other music too. there's plenty of amazing stuff going on right now and it'd be a shame to miss a bunch of bands at the top of their "round #1" form in deference to spending too much time and energy on sp's "round #2 (or 3,4,etc. depending on how you wanna look at it). hey, if nothing touches you quite like sp right now, more power to ya, as long as you're keeping an eye out.


I definitely hear what you're saying. That 1996 Thru The Eyes Of Ruby performance pretty much sums up what true Smashing Pumpkins is. There's definitely an edge there that can't really be matched.

I'm actually dying to hear them play Ruby...hopefully they'll start playing that one. No way will it truly capture 1996, but I have a feeling they can get pretty close. It would be very interesting to hear the new SP do TTEOR.

After seeing the 2007 version of SP in Dallas and at Red Rocks, I was definitely impressed. They are a very skilled band; there were still moments where I got the chills from hearing certain parts of songs. It was a surreal feeling to hear, say, a song like Hummer--for it to sound so perfect, performed so well...and yet to know it wasn't really the old band. At the same time I felt the performance was very heartfelt, energetic, and kick-ass.

I agree about the Zeitgeist comments. The actual album just seems weird and bland. Comparing Doomsday Clock to Bodies, on the physical CD....yeah, no contest. But I have to say...standing in front of the band, watching them play Doomsday Clock, is very different. It sounds very alive, relentless, menacing--not at all like the album version.


i pretty much agree about the current band's skill and how well-put together they seemed live. in terms of spirit, passion, that extra whatever which makes it "pumpkins", though ... what i've seen of their live stuff (inc</>luding the myspace madrid broadcast) seemed sterilized and glossed-over; it gives off a hint of that same vibe you get from the very worst of commercial christian rock music. especially notable examples of this in the madrid show: today and to sheila. yeah billy's live vocals are really improved over the old days, the backing vocals are technically spot-on, instruments sound grand, but i'm just not sold that they're sufficiently connected to the songs themself (the meaning/spirit/what have you). i believe billy (and the rest of them) when i watch that brixton academy clip. i only believe him/them about 25% of the time on the madrid clip. it seems like in some spots jeff and ginger are so preoccupied with staying exactly on top of the music sheets in their heads that they're forgetting to really play the song.

anyway yes they're billy's songs and he can play them with whoever he wants whenever he wants. right now they're even doing a decent job of it. however: most of those people on stage with him today are not why he has those songs. they have yet to overcome that incongruity.

so even though the band right now (sp2/3/4/smashing pumpkins/stepford pumpkins/whatever) aren't technically doing a bad job, for me it's a question of whether it's best in the long-term for billy and jimmy to do what they're doing. i think they've made a huge mistake. offensive/half-unfair analogy ahead: at this point in history does it make you smile to see george w. bush & co. handle the war in iraq as best they can, or is the whole thing soured for you because you can't ignore the thought that they should not have put themselves into this situation in the first place?

i'll add though that i hate the way billy does his best to perpetuate the idea with people that james and d'arcy were irrelevant. i don't even think he believes it, 'cause when he wasn't a bitter old man about it there was no overstating their importance and it was all about the people in the band. he's just using this 'i'm not going to protect people anymore' bullshit to justify sp2, because he's too much of a pussy to accept that the band broke up and to move the fuck on instead of just running back where it's safe and pretending it's the smashing pumpkins again because everything didn't go his way when he was without it. and that's exactly why zeitgeist is such a boring, unambitious and undaring irrelevance of a record

exactly. if he still had d'arcy around to keep his head on straight she would've likely been able to talk him out of the whole endeavor in the first place!

it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band.
did they really do that? i mean, i haven't heard corgan ignoring that james and d'arcy used to be part of the band. have you?

what should they do differently so that you would see it as carrying on without pretending they were never part of the band? dedicate a song to james or d'arcy every show? use huge cutouts of james and d'arcy whenever giving an interview?

did they really do that? i mean, i haven't heard corgan ignoring that james and d'arcy used to be part of the band. have you?

what should they do differently so that you would see it as carrying on without pretending they were never part of the band? dedicate a song to james or d'arcy every show? use huge cutouts of james and d'arcy whenever giving an interview?


not carry on as the smashing pumpkins.


jimmy and billy want to play together still? fine. with jeff, ginger, and lisa? great. make new music with them? awesome. dig up an old sp song once or twice a concert? sure. but quit dragging the carcass of the smashing pumpkins along behind. let it go. move on. at this point it's our best bet for getting the maximum quality of music out of a billy-jimmy combo. i don't think carrying on as sp will be good/healthy for them in the long run.

Catherine Wheel successfully trolls up another thread. Way to fall for it, guys.

not carry on as the smashing pumpkins.


jimmy and billy want to play together still? fine. with jeff, ginger, and lisa? great. make new music with them? awesome. dig up an old sp song once or twice a concert? sure. but quit dragging the carcass of the smashing pumpkins along behind. let it go. move on. at this point it's our best bet for getting the maximum quality of music out of a billy-jimmy combo. i don't think carrying on as sp will be good/healthy for them in the long run.


I read both pages of this and have to chime in now. While I agree to disagree with mostly all of what you've had to say I could see where you coming from until this post. SP carried on without Jimmy who is more important than James and Darcy put together. Carried on without Darcy after she left/got fired whatever you want to call it, but now it's a problem because Darcy still isn't back and James is gone? No way. To say Billy and Jimmy shouldn't contiune as the pumpkins is nothing short of blasphemy. They created the music and should be able to play it with whomever they like, under whatever name they like.

Life is too short not to do what you want to do because other people don't want to get on board. I won't downplay James and Darcy's roles in the band, but I'm also not going to sit here and overhype them and say that this band can't prosper without them. They can. Zeitgeist is a good record and the shows last year for the most part were very good. The Asheville residency, rock am ring stick out for me. Just my two cents....:smoke:

you're right, i don't know what their contributions were. but by all accounts they were pretty negligible for Siamese Dream, and I'd say that objectively, that is the band's greatest work. no?

the downward trend in quality could be due to them being gone, but it could also be due to the fact that bill was in a different place entirely for seven years and didn't quite grasp what he needed to do to become the smashing pumpkins once again. also, he's just getting older. there are tons of explanations as to why zeitgeist is what it is. and all i'm really trying to say is that having this debate is like beating a dead horse. we all know what the differing opinions are, and i think it's about time we shut the fuck up about it. they're gone, and they're not coming back. oh well. let's move on.

Also, very, very few musicians could pull off three albums as high-quality as SD, MCIS, and Adore. to expect Bill to keep pumping out shit that good is, to me, unreasonable. I like Machina and Zeitgeist. and some songs off those are on par with the older stuff, if you ask me. obviously they don't stand up as whole albums, but should we expect them to?

Was it really? Where did you hear this?

I heard it by every other radio DJ that played it back when it came out in '97. It's probably the same source as that this spfc page is talking about.

http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/discog.html?discog_id=82

I read both pages of this and have to chime in now. While I agree to disagree with mostly all of what you've had to say I could see where you coming from until this post. SP carried on without Jimmy who is more important than James and Darcy put together. Carried on without Darcy after she left/got fired whatever you want to call it,


...and doing so tore the band apart.


but now it's a problem because Darcy still isn't back and James is gone? No way.

hindsight's made it quite clear that it was a problem then, too. have you seen the moment in the full circle documentary (it's on youtube if you haven't) where billy sort of lets down his guard for a second and flat out says that what killed the band, the biggest mistake they made, was deciding to go on back on tour immediately after firing jimmy/ to continue without him in the long run? if you haven't seen full circle ever or within the last few months, watch it. the whole thing. pretty enlightening.

To say Billy and Jimmy shouldn't contiune as the pumpkins is nothing short of blasphemy. They created the music and should be able to play it with whomever they like, under whatever name they like.

blasphemy, eh?! heresy! umbrage!

you're definitely underestimating james' role in the creative process, and the influence that being in a band with james and d'arcy had on billy's songwriting/etc., but let's put that aside for a moment. yes, billy and jimmy together have a large stake in the pumpkins' legacy. they were clearly doing a majority of the heavy lifting when it came to studio recording especially on siamese dream (and for billy, especially adore). so yeah they can do whatever they want with the music. that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever choice they make is the right one, and i sincerely believe that what they're doing now is just as bad as what billy, james, and d'arcy did in 1996.


Life is too short not to do what you want to do because other people don't want to get on board.

life is too short to use a part of your life that is dead and should be left to rest as a springboard for your current achievements. billy should have the balls to move forward musically without leaning so heavily on the pumpkins' legacy. and in this case, i really don't think that billy can successfully revive the band without all the original members on board. it was clearly a band that suffered a net loss from the revolving-door concept, despite a few little gains here and there, like how matt walker fit musically and melissa auf der maur fit personality-wise into the band.

I won't downplay James and Darcy's roles in the band, but I'm also not going to sit here and overhype them and say that this band can't prosper without them. They can. Zeitgeist is a good record and the shows last year for the most part were very good. The Asheville residency, rock am ring stick out for me. Just my two cents....:smoke:

agree to disagree with most of what you said there. it's of course possible that the band could prosper, and they're certainly doing well in some ways right now, but it's coming at a cost so great that i don't think they'll ever overcome it.




you're right, i don't know what their contributions were. but by all accounts they were pretty negligible for Siamese Dream, and I'd say that objectively, that is the band's greatest work. no?

well it's between that and MCIS. most great artists have that moment early in their career where they sort of exorcises all the demons that have accumulated over their lifetime. it's sort of a one-shot thing, and i think SD was billy's version of that phenomena. and boy was it spectacular, but he couldn't do it again.


Also, very, very few musicians could pull off three albums as high-quality as SD, MCIS, and Adore. to expect Bill to keep pumping out shit that good is, to me, unreasonable. I like Machina and Zeitgeist. and some songs off those are on par with the older stuff, if you ask me. obviously they don't stand up as whole albums, but should we expect them to?

of course we shouldn't. billy's largely responsible for SD, and for bringing the bandmembers fully into the process on MCIS. after that there's no way billy alone could keep topping that. there was one small chance for the band to continue its greatness: to try to stay with that special something that comes from those four people's connection with each other, the band 'magic', whatever. they had to continue the integration in the studio they started with MCIS, but that wasn't to be:

Gish was the band finding its identity and voice, SD was billy learning to really speak with that voice and using it that newfound skill to come to terms with his life up to that point. (a few of the most important years of which had already involved james and d'arcy, so despite their absence in the studio they almost certainly had some influence on billy's songwriting, not to mention james' obvious contributions in writing some of the best passages on the record.)

MCIS was the band learning to take the magic that emanated from those four people playing music together and to radiate it through a studio recording. once they got to that place there was really no going back. they just weren't going to be able to rely solely on billy or billy/jimmy in the studio to put out albums on par with what they'd just achieved. and then they had to do just that; jimmy's gigantic mistake forced the band to kick him out to save his life. then the vultures surrounding the three remaining members convinced them they had to move on immediately to capitalize on the peak of fame they just achieved. it turns out doing so tore the band apart, and when it came time to record adore d'arcy had by and large already checked out and that took a serious chunk out of james' involvment in the band too. it was all downhill from there. what happened over the next two years makes it very clear how important it was that the four members continue on together, no matter what had happened in the past, but it was too late. anyone who was at the arising! shows will tell you how instantaneously the band came back when they were reunited, and how quickly it began to fade again when d'arcy finally got out. they could barely hold the band together for its last year.


the downward trend in quality could be due to them being gone, but it could also be due to the fact that bill was in a different place entirely for seven years and didn't quite grasp what he needed to do to become the smashing pumpkins once again. also, he's just getting older. there are tons of explanations as to why zeitgeist is what it is.

of course, you're completely right. the inevitable decline in energy that comes with aging, if that is a factor, makes it all the more important that the band stay tight and focus on what makes them special. in their case it's the fact that they're this kind of crazy dysfunctional family who really have to work to get along but who produce some amazing art when they manage to do it. without his family intact it's going to be nearly impossible for billy to approach that artistic level again, and his unwillingness to let go is probably going to end up looking sadly desperate in hindsight.

and all i'm really trying to say is that having this debate is like beating a dead horse. we all know what the differing opinions are, and i think it's about time we shut the fuck up about it. they're gone, and they're not coming back. oh well. let's move on.

i'm fine with agreeing to disagree with people like you, pumpkinxyu, and 1100ww, who've all got reasonable arguments and viewpoints. but the when people casually toss off the whole 'lol james and d'arcy didn't matter at all billy iz god wut lol' argument it's a dishonest and disrespectful (to the whole band, not just james and d'arcy) bit of poison that needs to be countered.

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

i can't believe you just said something negative about billy.

i'm fine with agreeing to disagree with people like you, pumpkinxyu, and 1100ww, who've all got reasonable arguments and viewpoints. but the when people casually toss off the whole 'lol james and d'arcy didn't matter at all billy iz god wut lol' argument it's a dishonest and disrespectful (to the whole band, not just james and d'arcy) bit of poison that needs to be countered.


oh, ok.

just to elaborate a little.....from 1992 to 1995 there was just a perfect storm. the dysfunction undoubtedly fueled the fire that created those albums, but at the same time, the dysfunction made it pretty clear that the band could never, ever, ever have continued on much longer in that format. we'd be looking at multiple suicides or something. you know? you can say that the band's only chance at continuing that success would have been to carry on as a unit, but in my opinion, that just could not have happened.

didnt billy even say that he invited the members back in some interview, but only if they were in it for the music? they werent interested in that, so he looked elsewhere

i think the new SP members need some time for me to tell if they can reignite the spark that SP once had (as evidenced in that youtube clip Mariner posted). At The moment, it seems they are indeed too preoccupied with playing it right than just playing it with spirit and being into the song.

D'arcy and James did matter.

i hate to admit, given the recent bile he's spewed in my direction, that Mariner makes many excellent and persuasive points in this thread, and I've found it a very interesting read.

I have to be honest; thinking about the whole thing just makes me sad. Time moves on, things change, people make decisions that we wish they hadn't made. But it is what it is, and we have to choose for ourselves whether we want to continue to make that journey with them, because obviously billy isn't going to stop doing what he's doing. It's clear that many here have made the choice to wash their hands of sp2, and I can understand and respect that. I myself have tried to enjoy Z, only to realize that it truly is the bland and lifeless thing that many of the so-called "haters" have dubbed it. And AG, I can't even stomach it. But I want so badly to believe that there will be something in the future that brings back my faith in billy corgan. As I said, the whole subject just makes me sad.

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

I really tire of this argument. I've never seen anything other than a couple offhand comments in interviews that supports it. I've never seen any reference to any specific event where James or D'arcy's influence somehow balanced out or checked some bad decision by Billy. For all anyone knows, the effect of Jame's and D'arcy's "checks and balances" on Billy could have caused just as much harm as good. Maybe they told Flood not to put STRTJ on MCIS. Maybe they were the reason that Cash Car Star and LMGTWTY weren't on Adore. Maybe they're the reason Virex turned into The Imploding Voice. Who knows? Granted, I'm sure the band benefited from time to time by having someone fight for a song they really liked to be on an album and things of that nature. But I don't see how we can just assume that whatever input D'arcy and James may have ever added was worthy.

And besides, the focus on James and D'arcy's "check" on Billy seems to minimize the fact that Jimmy had (and has) just as much, if not more, power to check Billy as they did. I know people like to pretend Jimmy is just Billy's lackey and yes-man, but that's a bit dismissive. The guy has shown he can make a hell of a record when left to his own devices (better than James has done), so why assume that he always simply defers to Billy at all times? You guys think that when Jimmy has a problem with something that Billy won't listen and take it under advisement? Come on. James and D'arcy aren't the only people in the world capable of saving Billy from himself.

Carrying on with the idea that Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlain were the sole source of who the Pumpkins were is false.

Despite who wrote everything (which may very well have been Billy Corgan) they spent their lives together, the four people, for a decade, doing music together. To me its kind of like a marriage. So if the housewife was "just" a housewfe and she didn't make any money while she was married to say a brilliant writer who made brilliant books and millions off of his books all while they were together. But she spendt time with his pr and this and that and etc. But oh woah is the marriage- something happens. The two need to go their own ways and they get a divorce. was she never his wife? never part of his life? never emotionally supported him and his dreams? oh no, she was just there for a while but she was nothing to account for. that's complete bullwinkie.

i'm not saying that the band cannot continue but dont lie to yourself saying those people didn't contribute anyting to a band they were apart of for 10 plus years. what kind of non-logic is that?

breakups are hard. very hard. but i dont see why James and Darcy deserved the disrespect that they've been given by someone they caared for and worked with for so long. It's terrible how baddly this break up went. All Billy had to say was that people are going their seperate ways for whatever reasons. And what was was good, and hopeful to a future with the band just as good.

Nothing good will come out of pubically bashing the people who supported you to the top. Actually quite the opposite.

The truth sets us free. Until he can be completely honest with what happened, the bad feelings will remain until they are cleared. And all that they have to do is say I"m sorry to each other. It's that simple.

then billy can go on with what he wants to do and everyone else too. and they can all be friends about it. that's all.

not carry on as the smashing pumpkins.


jimmy and billy want to play together still? fine. with jeff, ginger, and lisa? great. make new music with them? awesome. dig up an old sp song once or twice a concert? sure. but quit dragging the carcass of the smashing pumpkins along behind. let it go. move on. at this point it's our best bet for getting the maximum quality of music out of a billy-jimmy combo. i don't think carrying on as sp will be good/healthy for them in the long run.

I agreed with just about everything you said until this. Why can't they continue on as SP? Its not fair to Billy and Jimmy just because the other two people didn't want to have a part in it. Does it take something away from the band? Yes. I agree with you that they were at their best when those specific four people were collaborating and creatively influecing each other. Something just clicked. But do you really think that Zeitgeist would have been alot better if it was the original four that recorded it? Its not 1995 anymore and Billy has changed into a different person and songwriter. It is sad because it seems like Billy is milking the cash cow by using the SP moniker. But that band was everything to him, it made him who he was and defined him as a musician. I certainly don't support everything he says and does but I don't think he did the wrong thing here. It doesn't dishonor the band that was and it doesn't dishonor James and D'arcy because they didn't want to come back. I just wish the music was better.

I really tire of this argument. I've never seen anything other than a couple offhand comments in interviews that supports it. I've never seen any reference to any specific event where James or D'arcy's influence somehow balanced out or checked some bad decision by Billy. For all anyone knows, the effect of Jame's and D'arcy's "checks and balances" on Billy could have caused just as much harm as good. Maybe they told Flood not to put STRTJ on MCIS. Maybe they were the reason that Cash Car Star and LMGTWTY weren't on Adore. Maybe they're the reason Virex turned into The Imploding Voice. Who knows? Granted, I'm sure the band benefited from time to time by having someone fight for a song they really liked to be on an album and things of that nature. But I don't see how we can just assume that whatever input D'arcy and James may have ever added was worthy.

And besides, the focus on James and D'arcy's "check" on Billy seems to minimize the fact that Jimmy had (and has) just as much, if not more, power to check Billy as they did. I know people like to pretend Jimmy is just Billy's lackey and yes-man, but that's a bit dismissive. The guy has shown he can make a hell of a record when left to his own devices (better than James has done), so why assume that he always simply defers to Billy at all times? You guys think that when Jimmy has a problem with something that Billy won't listen and take it under advisement? Come on. James and D'arcy aren't the only people in the world capable of saving Billy from himself.

I'm not going to comment on the JC aspect because that's my choice for now. but i will say that he is a very smart man and he's always known what's good for him. which for some other people is not their strongest skill.

I know I'm a page late, and maybe this has already been pointed out, but..

We don't know anything about the relationships between the four original band members...


Plainly put: The Smashing Pumpkins was always 95% Billy and Jimmy.


:erm: Make up your mind. I'm not trying to point out this inconcistency and disregard the rest of your post, but I think a lot of people say things like "We don't know what happened" and then express their opinions as fact. And that's just silly.

the smashing pumpkins are now 95% billy and jimmy, 5% good

I've never seen any reference to any specific event where James or D'arcy's influence somehow balanced out or checked some bad decision by Billy. For all anyone knows, the effect of Jame's and D'arcy's "checks and balances" on Billy could have caused just as much harm as good. Maybe they told Flood not to put STRTJ on MCIS. Maybe they were the reason that Cash Car Star and LMGTWTY weren't on Adore. Maybe they're the reason Virex turned into The Imploding Voice. Who knows? Granted, I'm sure the band benefited from time to time by having someone fight for a song they really liked to be on an album and things of that nature. But I don't see how we can just assume that whatever input D'arcy and James may have ever added was worthy.

From the horse's mouth, Billy Corgan's "Confessions" from the Adore sessions:

I tell D'arcy that I really would like her to come and spend the days with me working, that at the worst she can help guide the direction the album is taking (a request I have not made before)...I tell her I need her guidance (she always had a good sense of what is "good"), and even though the space is tight, would really appreciate her support...she gets angry and spits at me, "why would I want to sit in there all day with you? It's so fucking boring!!"

And Adore still turned out great without her guidance, so there ya go.

(this is obviously just my opinion)

"why would i want to sit in there all day with you, it's so fing boring"

wow. that's not nice at all. i cannot support meaness either, so..

oh well. who knows what really happened. i guess they just had it with each other. it doesn't matter now. water under the bridge. and life goes on.

oh, ok.

just to elaborate a little.....from 1992 to 1995 there was just a perfect storm. the dysfunction undoubtedly fueled the fire that created those albums, but at the same time, the dysfunction made it pretty clear that the band could never, ever, ever have continued on much longer in that format. we'd be looking at multiple suicides or something. you know? you can say that the band's only chance at continuing that success would have been to carry on as a unit, but in my opinion, that just could not have happened.

it's a distinct possiblity. i guess where we disagree is where we think billy should go after that. i say a solo career or a new band or a long string of collaborations with other really cool artists are all much better choices than trying to bring sp back from the dead.


I agreed with just about everything you said until this. Why can't they continue on as SP? Its not fair to Billy and Jimmy just because the other two people didn't want to have a part in it.

of course it's not fair. i wish james and d'arcy wanted to come back. if they were really asked and really said no, that sucks, but it doesn't make it a good decision to go on without them under the pumpkins banner.

Does it take something away from the band? Yes. I agree with you that they were at their best when those specific four people were collaborating and creatively influecing each other. Something just clicked. But do you really think that Zeitgeist would have been alot better if it was the original four that recorded it?

absolutely. there's something special about those four people and it's a colossal shame that they couldn't get over their childish shit and stick it out together.


Its not 1995 anymore and Billy has changed into a different person and songwriter. It is sad because it seems like Billy is milking the cash cow by using the SP moniker. But that band was everything to him, it made him who he was and defined him as a musician.

exactly. and if it's that important to him, he should have the balls to let it rest peacefully like it should and move on. and if he isn't doing this, it's perfectly ok to be a fan of the guy but be openly critical of this move. it will hurt him less in the long run than if the fanbase just quietly goes along for the ride and tries to be supportive of something that niether they nor billy seem to have their hearts in 100%.

I certainly don't support everything he says and does but I don't think he did the wrong thing here. It doesn't dishonor the band that was and it doesn't dishonor James and D'arcy because they didn't want to come back. I just wish the music was better.

it does dishonor the band when not particularly pumpkin-worthy music is piled on to its legacy.

<object width="375" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgVGUXXVnag&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


i fucking love the smashing pumpkins

From the horse's mouth, Billy Corgan's "Confessions" from the Adore sessions:

I know Billy has occasionally dropped generalities and offhand comments about D'arcy's ability to tell him what's good or bad. But we've never really seen specifically how that manifested itself. What songs made albums because D'arcy liked them? Which songs were scrapped because she didn't? What songs were changed to fit her idea of "good"? And did those changes actually improve songs? We really don't have any answers to questions like that, but that doesn't stop some people from assuming that whatever was good about pre-2000 SP must have been because of D'arcy's input. That seems like a leap based on what little we know.

i fucking love the smashing pumpkins

it's amazing how great they sound when d'arcy's in a good mood and actually makes an effort to sing decent backups, when billy's doing the same with his lead vocals, and when james' guitar isn't buried way way down in the mix. jimmy, of course, always kicks ass.

it's amazing how great they sound when d'arcy's in a good mood and actually makes an effort to sing decent backups, when billy's doing the same with his lead vocals, and when james' guitar isn't buried way way down in the mix. jimmy, of course, always kicks ass.

That's why I think SP2 is a better live band because the back up vocals are always good, the band always sound balanced, less wrong notes on bass, and Jimmy still kicks ass. Billy needs to enunciate his consonants a little better and I'll be completely sold.

the band always sound balanced

RockAMRing: Shame: Billy & Jeff trading solos (can hardly hear Jeff's guitar) (EDIT: this could have had something to do with the internet stream sound, not necessarily the sound one heard live)

Though everything else you said is more or less completely true in my opinion. Though I think SP1 had more chemistry (based on youtube vids alone--too young to have seen them live the first go-around... and if I see more chemistry in a youtube vid than real life, I can only imagine how seeing SP1 in real life must have been on a good night). Just depends on what you think of as a better show: musical quality or band interaction.

I think people completely ignore the fact that it is obvious James and D'arcy wanted nothing to do with being a part of Smashing Pumpkins again.

I remember back on 2000, when Billy announced that the band was calling it quits, he said something along the lines of, "I think James outgrew the band a long time ago." In the Rolling Stone article about the last concert, James admitted he really did not even care if the band had a final show, he would have just ended it.

Even look at recent events. James had the opportunity to set the record straight about the revival when Rolling Stone interviewed him. Instead he briefly mentioned that he was not in the new lineup, and went on to plug his record label and his new solo album. Even in interviews, James completely ignores any comment or question regarding Smashing Pumpkins. The dude has obviously moved on.

D'arcy quit the band in the first go-round, and from what we have heard, probably wanted to quit after Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. The woman is happy to do what she is doing, and I think that is great.

yes, long tedious piecemeal posts="persuasive" and "excellent"

wasnt MCIS essentially recorded as a full four-piece album?

I think its safe to say that other than that, Billy isnt exaggerating much when he says that "97% of any Smashing Pumpkins album is just Billy and Jimmy."

The best performance with decent audio/video quality that i've seen would have to be the myspace broadcast of the madrid show.

http://creative.myspace.com/design/_mh/thelist/archive/smashingpumpkins.html

http://samosbornedop.co.uk/video/smashing_pumpkins_1.mov

I know people like to pretend Jimmy is just Billy's lackey and yes-man, but that's a bit dismissive. The guy has shown he can make a hell of a record when left to his own devices (better than James has done), so why assume that he always simply defers to Billy at all times?

Sure Jim has a lot of influence and isn't just a 'yes man,' I'll agree with you there but, people should be left to make their own decision on who makes the 'best' solo album. Jimmy is great on the solo route, but I, personally, am more interested by far in James' solo work than that of Bill.

The backup guitarists (see George Harrison, Keith Richards) typically have a *lot* of ideas that aren't taken advantage of or don't fit the band they play in. A sampling of their musical interests will typically match that of their band mates, while the rest of their favorites may be way out in left field.

Here's an example:
A) George Harrison's first solo album sold more than John and Paul's
B) Keith Richards solo albums constantly outsold Mick's

Just two examples from Britain... and no, I can't come up with an American equivalent. But I would like to add that solo Robert Plant is gay.

The sound of the band will change every time you listen to it, no only because of the members involved, but also because of their musical influences at writing, then recording time. We all know the difference between demos and final cuts, and that's not only the band, but what the producers are into at the time too. It's all got a bearing on what we end up with as a final product. Things will never be the same without James and D'arcy. Not to say that they won't be good, or that they would be good *if* James and D'arcy were still involved, but we'd all get a warm fuzzy if they came back... and we'd still have the thread of hope to hold onto.

That's my piece on James and D'arcy. If you don't like it, I'll just go back to derailing threads.

But we've never really seen specifically how that manifested itself. What songs made albums because D'arcy liked them?

Appels + Oranjes

i think mariner's overlapping claim really is the answer to everything that has been said in this thread: with the members that people claimed had no influence whatsoever on the band, the smashing pumpkins were an undeniably awesome fucking band.
without them, but with b0lly+JCz - seemingly the most dominant talents in the band that made the pumpkin records all by themselves - everything fell apart.

im not going to be righteous about this - billy and jimmy's importance to the pumpkins, even in the good old days, was way bigger than that of james and darcy's.
with that said, though, whatever dynamic that the relationship between those two 'groups' has created, that is exactly what made the pumpkins the band they were.
that just shows you how little you know when you think you know...
i expected the SP2 record to suck, but i had absolutely no idea that it was going to be this bad. i thought it would be mediocre at best, while in reality - or at least my opinion about it - it really is a horrendous record that is completely uninspired, lacks any kind of passion, has bad songwriting and infuriatingly horrible production.

my personal theory of this goes like this:
95% of the pumpkins' material have been written by billy.
but the process of putting together a song is so riddled with choice - its like going down a winded road that goes on and on, left and right, until the song is done.
there are so many possibilities - and those small choices end up making the songs what they are. to me it seems like billy still has it in him - but the dynamic that led him to make the right choices, or the members that made the right choices for\with him - gone.
even for the zeitgeist interviews, billy and jimmy admitted that most of the songs on the record were written in a great hurry because everything seemed to "work" for them.
to me it seems, and i truly am trying to be objective here, that they simply are so excited about having the band name back and working together again, just like in the old days - that they become blind to the fact that the actual material they are writing couldnt be any more far away from the quality of real pumpkins material.
there are so many elements of zeitgeist that show that the songs are so unpolished, many of them serving as excercises for musical chops;
for example, the intro to 'starz' has billy doing those 'oh's' with changing pitch.
anyone who sings and\or went through vocal training knows that many singers have difficulty being precise about the notes they are singing if they're sharp, quick syllables;
its hard to hit a note right on the head straight off for beginning or untrained singers.
anyway, for me its completely obvious that billy is simply excited about his vocal training and he simply wanted to show it off, so he did those oh's on 'starz'.
this is exactly the kind of decision that makes zeitgeist the awful record it is - its comprised of all the wrong choices. old pumpkins record are so goddamn good because they would grind on each and every decision, each and every small nuance - wether a particular lyric should be sung this way or that way, if that guitar part should be this way or that way, if the song should be structured this way or that way.
every choice was acknowledged by the band and they stood behind it, and thats why the songs were so good. true, the ideas came from billy - but the process of making all the right decisions was almost without a doubt a collaborative effort. and thats what makes the difference.
i can point out a million more small things like that on zeitgeist that prove my point - but i guess there's no point of doing so, because those who insist that SP2 are great and Zeitgeist is a masterpiece will probably stay with that opinion.

ironically, i think that people like mariner, myself, and everyone in netphoria who is being so negative about this incarnation of SP - are actually more enlightened than the people who claim to have an open mind, i.e open enough to accept the new band.
for example, i have no problem admitting that the current lineup plays much tighter and they tend to sound more badass than what the actual pumpkins used to sound like on many nights.
but as mariner said - what they're doing now feels like it has no soul.
i hear billy sing his stupid lyrics and i truly dont believe him nowadays.
but when i listen to each and every song on any pumpkins record, wether i like the song or not so much - i believe him.
this also adds up to why the new pumpkins just dont work - i dont even know if it would work with james and darcy. it just seems like billy has completely ran out of gas.
just rehashing old material, singing the same old lyrics that by now mean nothing to him, doing another record and another tour...
it seems that as an aging artist its very easy to fall into the trap of just keeping up the routine of a prolific young artist - write, rehearse, arrange, record, tour, reprise.
even if billy still enjoys it, its become somewhat distant from him, perhaps, at some point.
right now, i know that the only music that he makes that moves me, is acoustic and soft - just him speaking through music, by himself, no band and no nothing. chicago songs, djali zwan (true, they were a band - but the songs were arranged for a band later. theyre basically acoustic bc)...
right now that kind of material is the closest thing he has to music from the heart.
the chicago songs, for example, really seem to mean a great deal to him.
if he were to accept the change that has landed upon him, i think he would be making great music. but what is actually happening, is that he's doing his best to create music that somehow fits the pumpkins mold - noise, quiet, noise, quiet, guitar rock, guitar solo, jimmy drum fills, morbid\poetic lyrics, etc.. and thats just not where he really is at anymore.


i probably made some typos or grammar errors, i cant be fucked to read back on my post and edit, so take it for what it is. hope i was coherent enough to make a valid point

Appels + Oranjes

thanks darcy!

wretsky ftw.

good post teh bolly. i can see where you're coming from on every point you made, and reluctantly agree with you.
(reluctantly because it makes me sad to admit that it's true)

i probably made some typos or grammar errors,
it saddens me when we have to defend ourselves/apologize for your grammar/typos on a internet messageboard. some people will find any flaw you have an exploit it to make them feel better.

bolly your post was long, but i read it. you made some good arguements. like skipgo, i have to say i agree with you on most of it. i guess i'm okay with saying i agree because you didn't use a dick-like tone (that's a complement, in case it didn't come off as one!) oh that and you're jelous because ATR is coming to my city.

edit: i had to edit this post because in this line "...like skipgo, i have to say i agree..." i accidently wrote "<b>I</b> like skipgo, i have to say i agree ..." i must just love her!

i think the one point I most agree with is that billy has clearly run out of gas. And I also agree that he's not true to himself when it comes to writing/recording songs. And for the love of God, he needs a new producer. I don't know if that will help, but i can't imagine it would hurt.

I can understand what you guys mean about what darcy & james contributed that can't be measured in terms of who played or wrote what part. I have a feeling it still wouldn't be the same now, because their hearts just aren't in the right places (just as they weren't during the machina era).

The only thing I've ever disagreed about is their "right" to use the name "smashing pumpkins". I think it doesn't really matter either way if they use that name or any other. The only way I might believe otherwise is if billy and jimmy are making music that doesn't mean a lot to them in order to "sound like smashing pumpkins". In that case, the name is probably a hinderance. But I don't know if any of that would change if the name changed. A lot of people didn't like zwan or tfe, and we can't blame the name for that. And we can't expect billy to just retire from making music so that we don't have to be subjected to music we don't like.

Basically I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your points, teh bolly and mariner, but I think that we can't really expect them to change just because we don't like it. I'm just going to try and accept that things have changed and move on. (not that i'll stop loving the band who created the music that's meant so much to me). I'll still hope that billy will put out something beautiful, because I know he has the ability to do so, but I won't count on it (especially after hearing american gothic), and I won't continue to bash him for what he does put out, because who am i to tell him what he should or shouldn't do with his art?

Appels + Oranjes

If D'arcy's most notable known contribution in her 10-11 years of being in the band was getting Appels and Oranjes on Adore, then I think people are really reaching when they go on and on about how much good her influence was.

If D'arcy's most notable known contribution in her 10-11 years of being in the band was getting Appels and Oranjes on Adore, then I think people are really reaching when they go on and on about how much good her influence was.

I completely agree with you.

i normally would agree with you too corganist, but after reading what mariner and teh bolly have to say, it makes me think a bit more about the topic. Do we really need specific examples of what darcy contributed to know that she did indeed contribute? I mentioned in another thread the other day that we'd never know what they did or didn't contribute, and i stand by that. We don't know. But certainly her presence in the band had some effect on the direction the band took, no matter how significant or insignificant that effect may have been. Just because we don't have a lot of examples of specific songs she influenced is no reason to write off her contribution to the band, just as it's no reason to assume she was the only one keeping everything in check.

i normally would agree with you too corganist, but after reading what mariner and teh bolly have to say, it makes me think a bit more about the topic. Do we really need specific examples of what darcy contributed to know that she did indeed contribute? I mentioned in another thread the other day that we'd never know what they did or didn't contribute, and i stand by that. We don't know. But certainly her presence in the band had some effect on the direction the band took, no matter how significant or insignificant that effect may have been. Just because we don't have a lot of examples of specific songs she influenced is no reason to write off her contribution to the band, just as it's no reason to assume she was the only one keeping everything in check.

Oh, I don't deny she had influence and affected things in the band. And you're right that we'll never really know exactly how that manifested myself. I'm just saying that even despite all that's unknown about the band's inner dynamics, a lot of people still seem to want to say that her influence was this powerful, huge thing that made the band what it was, and that Billy is now lost without it. I just don't see how people can toss that line of thought around so boldly when the only real example anyone can use to support it is "She got Appels and Oranjes on Adore."

i see the point your making corganist. I think the reason there's a huge argument here is that everyone wants to see the whole issue in black and white, when clearly it's not. We can make a lot of speculations and even educated guesses that might not be far from the truth at all (and i think a few people in this discussion have hit upon many of these factors), but at the end of the day it really is all still speculation on a lot of levels.

the post that brought me around to thinking about this differently than I had been was:

musical contribution is not the big piece with these four people. the pumpkins were a strange, one-of-a-kind dysfunctional little family, and there's so much more to it than who was doing what in the studio. there was something about those four people pledging allegiance to that fucked up family unit that brought out the best in billy's songwriting and studio abilities and billy's, jimmy's, and james' musicianship.

Basically I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your points, teh bolly and mariner, but I think that we can't really expect them to change just because we don't like it. I'm just going to try and accept that things have changed and move on. (not that i'll stop loving the band who created the music that's meant so much to me). I'll still hope that billy will put out something beautiful, because I know he has the ability to do so, but I won't count on it (especially after hearing american gothic), and I won't continue to bash him for what he does put out, because who am i to tell him what he should or shouldn't do with his art?

thanks for jumping into this tired old debate and being thoughtful about it. i guess i don't see speaking out against what billy's doing on this issue as bashing him, although i'm sure i'm pretty sloppy and negative about it sometimes.

if you see a really good friend making what you think is a really bad decision, do you stay silent and hope for the best or do you speak your mind honestly and perhaps bluntly, depending on the situation?

although i'm by no means billy's friend and have no delusions that he'll ever see any of this, i still think it's worth it to say something. he's an artist i care about and admire, and i honestly believe he still has it in him, although time may be running out for that. what really gets to me about the whole affair is that i suspect that what billy has done during the last year might have closed the door for good on our chances to hear something truly great for him again. if i didn't think he was still capable of something like that, i wouldn't be speaking up.

thanks for jumping into this tired old debate and being thoughtful about it. i guess i don't see speaking out against what billy's doing on this issue as bashing him, although i'm sure i'm pretty sloppy and negative about it sometimes.

if you see a really good friend making what you think is a really bad decision, do you stay silent and hope for the best or do you speak your mind honestly and perhaps bluntly, depending on the situation?

although i'm by no means billy's friend and have no delusions that he'll ever see any of this, i still think it's worth it to say something. he's an artist i care about and admire, and i honestly believe he still has it in him, although time may be running out for that. what really gets to me about the whole affair is that i suspect that what billy has done during the last year might have closed the door for good on our chances to hear something truly great for him again. if i didn't think he was still capable of something like that, i wouldn't be speaking up.

I'll tell you what, the whole conversation really takes me on a rollercoaster ride of feelings. On the one hand I want to go along for the ride and see what's in store, on the other hand i want to throw in the towel, and on the third hand (can there be a "third" hand?), I see your point of view clearly as well.

What I really REALLY wish is that he would pay attention to us; that maybe he would consider the collective voice of his most devoted fans to be worth listening to. There've been so many obvious missteps made in the hopes of pleasing the masses of mainstream listeners. And where has it all gotten him? Sure, some people like the new material. I don't hate it (well, that's mostly true), but I certainly agree that it's lacking in every possible way. Some songs stand out as being enjoyable, but even those don't feel like "pumpkins" to me. (i'm not talking about a sound, so much as a feeling).

There have been glimmers of hope. the residency songs, many of those were wonderful, and had such great potential. I can't tell you how disappointed I was when i heard the studio version of the Rose March. And maybe it's right there that the presence of darcy and james might have made a difference.

The question that this brings is, where could he go next that might work? Even if he threw out the name and went on working with jimmy in the context of some other band; let's say they have the two of them and whatever studio musicians they want to work with. They wouldn't have to worry about the weird, uncomfortable dynamic that came up with members of zwan (which may be the reason they haven't officially made jeff, ginger, and lisa members of sp). But they still wouldn't have james and darcy. What would be different? How could they take that and make it something real and thoughtful again? I know I for one would love to see them do it.

Good post teh bolly!!1. I respectfully disagree with the vast majority of it, but I'll just wanted to respond to a few points that I disagreed with most.


old pumpkins record are so goddamn good because they would grind on each and every decision, each and every small nuance - wether a particular lyric should be sung this way or that way, if that guitar part should be this way or that way, if the song should be structured this way or that way.
every choice was acknowledged by the band and they stood behind it, and thats why the songs were so good. true, the ideas came from billy - but the process of making all the right decisions was almost without a doubt a collaborative effort. and thats what makes the difference.

The thing that made old Pumpkins records good is that Billy would grind on each and every decision and nuance (of course, maybe that's also the reason some people think the new ones are not-so-good....but I digress) This idea that the whole band was heavily involved in the minutia of recording the songs just doesn't jive with everything we know. I don't think Billy was asking for James and D'arcy's advice on how he should re-record their parts on Siamese Dream, or whether he needed to have 30 overdubbed guitars on Soma or 40. And we know that Billy even went so far as to ask D'arcy to sit in and help him with the minutia on Adore, and she refused because it was "boring." If we're to believe the stories (which, admittedly came from Billy, so there may be a problem of objectivity), James and D'arcy really weren't into being around in the studio to approve every decision and nuance. I think it's a bit of revisionist history to suggest they were deeply (or even marginally) involved in every nuance you hear on a record.

But I guess if you want to call James and D'arcy saying "Yeah, that sounds good" and giving a thumbs up after Billy almost singlehandedly writes, plays, and produces a song "collaboration," then I guess that's your right.

ironically, i think that people like mariner, myself, and everyone in netphoria who is being so negative about this incarnation of SP - are actually more enlightened than the people who claim to have an open mind, i.e open enough to accept the new band.

I don't know if you meant it that way, but this comes off as really smug. And I always halfway wonder if comments like this don't really reveal that this "SP1 vs. SP2" stuff is really about people trying to pull the "true fan" card. There's always an undercurrent to these conversations where it seems that the people who don't like the new lineup are trying to take some high ground as the "true" defenders of the band's legacy, and that anyone who accepts the new lineup as SP is just enabling Billy in tarnishing things....as though Billy and the people who still like what he does somehow don't know what's good for us. I resent that implication quite a bit. I love Zeitgeist. I like the new lineup. I like the residency songs and American Gothic. But none of that affects how deep my love for the older stuff is one bit.

I love the Billy, James, Jimmy, D'arcy version of the band at least as much as anyone else here. Just because I haven't created some arbitrary rule in my own mind that those four people are the only ones who can ever use the Smashing Pumpkins name doesn't make me any less enlightened than anyone else. The Smashing Pumpkins have gone through several lineups, like it or not. And those lineups are all a part of the band's legacy. You can like some lineups and/or albums more than others...but that's a matter of taste and opinion, not enlightenment.

this also adds up to why the new pumpkins just dont work - i dont even know if it would work with james and darcy. it just seems like billy has completely ran out of gas.
just rehashing old material, singing the same old lyrics that by now mean nothing to him, doing another record and another tour...
it seems that as an aging artist its very easy to fall into the trap of just keeping up the routine of a prolific young artist - write, rehearse, arrange, record, tour, reprise.
even if billy still enjoys it, its become somewhat distant from him, perhaps, at some point.

I really disagree here. If you had said this between the time Zwan broke up and the end of the TFE tour, then you might be right. During those years, Billy was just kinda floating along. Sure, he did the Chicago songs...but what did he do with them? Played them at one show and then shelved them. TFE was a decent effort (to me, anyway), but we all know his heart was out of it the day it got released. And unfortunately, that clearly showed on the tour.

But now? The guy has released a ton of music this year (the last six months actually), written a bunch more, played dozens upon dozens of different songs live, and is preparing to go back out on tour with even more songs. Hell, there's rumors he's recorded another album in the past two months! (though that's wishful thinking, I'm sure). He's writing music at a rate we haven't seen since the early Zwan era, and on top of it he's actually releasing music at a rate we haven't seen since the MCIS era. I think it's ridiculous to say the man has run out of gas or that he's going through the motions when he's throwing himself into things more than he has in many years.

Does that mean that everyone has to universally like everything the guy has done recently? Of course not. But justifying negativity with baseless assumptions like "the lyrics mean nothing to him" or that he's become "distant" from the songwriting process or whatever isn't fair. The fact that Billy isn't writing stuff that appeals to you is not something that you should have to cast blame around for.

If D'arcy's most notable known contribution in her 10-11 years of being in the band was getting Appels and Oranjes on Adore, then I think people are really reaching when they go on and on about how much good her influence was.
:banging: