View Full Version : Who was responsible for the multiple Zeitgeists? Label or band?


Awkward Pause
03-25-2008, 11:30 AM
I know this is old as shit, but I just saw someone beat this horse again while commenting about the Virgin lawsuit. The context was that the band lost artistic integrity when they put out the different versions of Zeitgeist with the bonus tracks. I personally was never bothered by it, but since people can't seem to let it go, I wanted to know once and for all.

Who was responsible for it? Warner Bros? The band? A mix of both? I may be naive, but I always assumed it was Warner's idea in an attempt to make a little extra money in the era of slumping CD sales. I can't put a finger on Billy's business mind, given the whole Machina II giveaway. Would the band have to sign off on it for Warner to do it that way?

T&T
03-25-2008, 11:36 AM
we'll never know.
but i'm pegging on the label.


we'll know with the upcoming released (since the band is label free) how corporate the band really want/can be.

Spaceboy88
03-25-2008, 11:57 AM
It's a mixture of both. Billy could've put his foot down and said no, but if he wanted Warner to put the marketing money behind the album, they had to get guaranteed advances from Target and Best Buy in order to see any type of profit from the record. My educated guess is that Billy signed off on this because he was so pissed that Warner did little to no promotion (in his eyes) for TFE.

Kahlo
03-25-2008, 12:01 PM
interesting fact - Warner in the UK printed 40,000+ leaflets to promote Zeitgeist around the country

they spelled it 'ZIETGIEST' on the flyer I believe, and thats why it never sold so well as no one could find the album when they read the leaflet.

As for who decided, that was a mixture of both if I remember correctly - but I'm sure Billy would be aware that fans would buy one version THEN DOWNLOAD THE OTHER TRACKS UNLESS THEY WHERE AN INSANE COLLECTER OF BITS OF PLASTIC

avsfan7733
03-25-2008, 01:44 PM
really though, it was a smart business decision. Nobody makes money off of CDs anymore, so if you have an audience that will spend money on multiple versions with a varying track list (which the pumpkins do), why not use that to your advantage? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

skipgo
03-25-2008, 01:56 PM
i'm guessing it was the label, too.

RenewRevive
03-25-2008, 02:10 PM
speaking of bonus tracks anybody care to share stellar, zeitgeist and ma belle in flac? my pc fell victim to the hal.dll windows update fubar (all drives wiped) and i lost all downloaded music (not backed up!). i can up death from above from the tarantula single if anybody needs it. thanks in advance and a big fuck you to the jackasses!

skipgo
03-25-2008, 02:11 PM
because i'm a lawyer? :think:

haha, no. I've always maintained that I believe the label was responsible for this decision.

skipgo
03-25-2008, 02:49 PM
messin' is good.

Rider
03-25-2008, 03:01 PM
haha, no. I've always maintained that I believe the label was responsible for this decision.

Yeah they had a gun to his head when they forced them into the studio to record "b-sides".

skipgo
03-25-2008, 03:40 PM
Yeah they had a gun to his head when they forced them into the studio to record "b-sides".

they did, it was terrible. billy shit his pants. very embarrassing.

Awkward Pause
03-25-2008, 03:48 PM
Okay, so the general consensus here is that it was the label's move to do the multiple versions. It just baffles me how so many internet commenters and even sites like Pitchfork or Stereogum have used this as lame snarky ammunition in response to the lawsuit story. Nobody gives fucking anybody the benefit of the doubt these days, especially Billy Corgan. I know - who cares what they say? - it's just really frustrating.

skipgo
03-25-2008, 03:53 PM
not even his fans give him the benefit of the doubt (often i forget to do so myself).
But in many ways he's sort of dug his own hole. And besides that, it's always be fashionable for music journalists to treat billy like this. But as much as it's lazy journalism, they didn't create this image of billy; he handed it to them on a silver platter.

Patuquitos
03-25-2008, 07:02 PM
Poll!

emotionalfriend
03-25-2008, 07:09 PM
based on an interview I read with Trent Reznor awhile ago, it seems very likely that it was the label

null123
03-25-2008, 07:14 PM
I don't get why the release of Machina II was considered such a selfless thing to do. it's great and all but the record company didn't want to put that album out. it was either give it away for free or put it in a box with all the other unreleased material and forget about it.

Rider
03-25-2008, 09:13 PM
based on an interview I read with Trent Reznor awhile ago, it seems very likely that it was the label

This is what convinces me it was Billy didn't give a shit. When he wants to Billy never has a problem keeping his mouth shut about being unhappy. If he didn't want the record company to do it we would have heard something from him.

deadaswarhol
03-25-2008, 09:28 PM
or put it in a box with all the other unreleased material and forget about it.

since that's the corgan standard you gotta appreciate it when you get it

exactlythesame
03-25-2008, 09:37 PM
haha, no. I've always maintained that I believe the label was responsible for this decision.

however, if i can weigh on in this, it would seem to me that since virgin never went along with 'deluxe' or 'special' editions of older albums, on zeitgeist they finally threw up their hands and agreed to release as many versions of that album as the masses would allow out of spite (and monetary gain)

and boy, did they ever

skipgo
03-25-2008, 09:43 PM
This is what convinces me it was Billy didn't give a shit. When he wants to Billy never has a problem keeping his mouth shut about being unhappy. If he didn't want the record company to do it we would have heard something from him.

this is probably the first convincing argument I've heard against my personal stance on the matter.

emotionalfriend
03-25-2008, 10:06 PM
This is what convinces me it was Billy didn't give a shit. When he wants to Billy never has a problem keeping his mouth shut about being unhappy. If he didn't want the record company to do it we would have heard something from him.

excellent point. never really thought of it that way.

Rider
03-25-2008, 11:16 PM
this is probably the first convincing argument I've heard against my personal stance on the matter.

I've been making that point for months now so you must not be paying attention. It's pretty clear the band is paying attention and reacts tot he fan community. The total silence on the multiple album versions is pretty telling.

trev
03-26-2008, 09:14 AM
it doesn't matter who is responsible, or who came up with the idea. it matters if the band (ok, or just billy) allows it to happen.

he had a choice, and he chose the rainbow of zeitgeists. it may not have been his first preference, but he didn't stop it, and i believe he could have, if he wanted to. and at the very least (as has been mentioned) even if he couldn't have stopped it, he could have voiced his view publicly. many others in the same boat have (trent reznor - year zero, daniel johns - rarities/best of).

Andrew_Pakula
03-26-2008, 09:45 AM
it doesn't matter who is responsible, or who came up with the idea. it matters if the band (ok, or just billy) allows it to happen.


Exactly, it was most likely the label's idea but ultimately Billy ok'd it.

RenewRevive
03-26-2008, 12:18 PM
as far as anybody can tell the band got on with making the album and signed-off on whatever approach warner decided to go with. ultimately it was the label who has all the expertise in this arena, not the artists. as has been said billy is vocal when he's unhappy with things; in truth he probably thought the multiple-versions thing was no big deal and didn't realize it would get jumped on by pitchfork et al. if months later he suddenly makes a big stand against the label's decisions he would come off as a hypocrite, or gutless for taking so long.

T&T
03-26-2008, 01:51 PM
I'm certain billy is interested in selling albums
and less important is the fans that buy the album, it's the shelf space stores make for the CD
and the walmart/BB/target/ect.. office that calls warner and says "we'll take 50,000 copies up-front if it comes with an exclusive track... sucky but that's the shitty 2008 music industry we live in today...

some companies Undersell their CD's simply for chart status in hopes that they will recoup with the additional sales gained once the ball is rolling....
everyone knows soundscan is a scam

trev
03-26-2008, 01:57 PM
notwow, i'd never thought of it that way before.

dickhead.

skipgo
03-26-2008, 02:29 PM
i think it was jimmy's fault.

T&T
03-26-2008, 02:58 PM
i think it was jimmy's fault.
i think that fad's already gone out of style...

skipgo
03-26-2008, 03:00 PM
well you started it!

T&T
03-26-2008, 03:22 PM
not exactly... in the other thread you mentioned all the jimmy hate... i was just trying to contain it..