I think this deserves its own thread. I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this one. I think it addresses some of the concerns of people here, at least to some extent.



This week, the Smashing Pumpkins filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against their former label, Virgin Records, alleging the band's name was used without permission for a Pepsi promotion. Band leader Billy Corgan called up Rolling Stone from a bathroom in Australia to explain his side of the story and wound up dishing dirt on his career, explaining how the Pumpkins will release music in the future and offering an opinionated take on Amy Winehouse, Radiohead and the state of the record industry: "I don't think the Beatles would be making an album right now."
Tell us about your personal perspective on this lawsuit.
We've been treated very poorly by [Virgin] as a label for years now. Even when we were going to put the band back together, we went to them for the umpteenth time and said, look, it's a natural thing to want to put out a best of, and they keep telling us nobody cares. And then to turn around and use us like this against our will obviously shows you how full of shit they are, because obviously you have value or they wouldn't be trying to make money on you on the side. And in our case we actually have the right to say no to these types of things. They had to ask our permission to put our music on iTunes. So this is just them getting really sneaky trying to push stuff through, because the only place they're going to get money now is from corporate sponsors.

And look, it's no secret that the record labels are out of touch. They've lost money continuously for seven or eight years and they continue to hold on to the Titanic. This is just another indication of them thinking that they can get away with whatever because they're the big old record business. You know, Josh Homme from Queens [of the Stone Age] came out talking about Interscope, Trent Reznor ... It's a very difficult position because whether it's blogs or people posting on Web sites, fans can get very frustrated about what they perceive about how you do your business, not being aware of how we continually have a gun pointed at our head.

Did you approach the label with your concerns before filing the suit?
No, because it's like talking to a brick wall. These people, they treat your music like it's worthless and they treat you like you're even more worthless. And that goes for our current label, Warner Bros., too. There's no passion. There's no love. There's no respect. It's just, like you're just a number. You might as well be some cookies, or a rock. I really think it's total arrogance on their part. I think they just thought they could get away with [using our music for the Pepsi promotion] and we wouldn't do anything about it. And luckily enough we have the ability to do something about it.

Do you have thoughts about how to go forward with your music and how to release it?
The first thing we're talking about doing is in essence not doing an album that has any walls. So we'll release the album in different forms in different places. Not just one CD with twelve songs. Our next album might be forty songs. Now, to the mainstream person, that's too many songs. So maybe you only give them one or two songs at a time. And then I think what's cool is you can deal with different people. You can do a deal with a skater Web site or you can work with Pepsi if you choose.
The music business has sown the seeds for it's own destruction here. So we're not in any hurry to go back and help save them. Warner Bros. treats us like we're from another planet. We've had a good record and we've sold records. And I haven't spoken to the label president since 2005. Now we're free, we're out of our contracts. So I think that makes us really dangerous, because we really are the kind of band that's willing to take chances. We really will work with anybody if we feel it's a cool, fun thing. And it doesn't have to always be about money.

Trent Reznor and Radiohead and all kinds of people have been jumping out of the major label system and doing things their own way. Can the labels survive?
Well, as long as they have young dumb bands who are willing to sign their lives away, yeah, of course. The label's going to continue to sell them that they're star makers. They're not star makers. Stars are born. MTV and the labels and secret people you don't know about don't run the music business any more. MySpace runs the music business now. Lots of other people run the music business now.

So it's safe to say that now that you are free of your contracts you're not going to be rushing to sign a new deal?
Well, I think it's kind of interesting and it's a vulnerable thing to say: People aren't beating our doors down to sign us, either. It's not that we're not desirable. We're not dumb. They're not going to be able to sell us their soap they're going to sell a twenty-two-year-old. And that's why they don't want to do business with us.

They're still trying to sell you on the idea that they know something that you don't know. But if you look at the numbers, they don't, they know less than the consumer. The consumer's been telling them for ten years they don't want albums. So what do they do? They continue to try to sell them albums. The consumer says that they don't want to pay $15 for fifteen songs when they only want one song. What do they try to do? They try to shove albums down their throat.

A lot of artists love the album form or have some connection to it. Is it going to bother you to be more single-focused?
No, we're still going to do albums. I think we're going to do it in a different way. I can tell that our plans right now are to do an album over two or three years and put it out in pieces and then maybe eventually bring it all back together. The album doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to be ten songs. Some dumb white guy somewhere doesn't have to like it. Some old fart, out-of-touch has to decide, oh, these ten songs aren't as good as Sgt. Pepper's. Well, you know what? I don't think the Beatles would be making an album right now.
Artists are finding their own ways to get paid outside of the major-label system, like the Eagles with their Wal-Mart deal, Madonna signing up with Live Nation.
I think it's really difficult for the young artist, who doesn't have at least some sense of a pathway. For example, if you were a kid today and you're looking at the bands who are successful right now, you think, if you don't sort of sell out and let somebody make you a star, go on American Idol, then you can't be successful. Alternative culture is really critical towards introducing new ideas. We need those young bands to push old band like us, to push new boundaries. We need our butts kicked regularly. That's where all the energy comes from, from the bottom. And when the message on Amy Winehouse is drama is better than music, and for Radiohead publicity is better than music — no disrespect to them. But I think it's a bad message to young bands of how to make it happen. It's almost like the evil stepchild of the rap bling-bling thing, like, the only way to make it work is I've got to come up with a gimmick.

Selling out has lost its negative stereotype in a sense.
We can all talk forever about how cool it is and how things are different: The power's coming back to the artist. But sometimes it takes an oppositional force to make things work. The old music business wasn't great but at least it kind of gave you something to kind of work with or against. Now, who do you work for and who do you work against? The great example is American Idol. I mean, who gets bigger marketing, whose TV show is bigger? And then those artists don't sell. There's a complete disconnect between the drama of the show, the emotional connection with the singers, and then absolutely no care for their musical career. I mean, that's troubling.

Right, because, like you say, it's not really about the music at the end of the day.
Right. And as an alternative artist, we're still here because it is about the music. And anybody can point to any other 9,000 stupid things I've said or done. The music still trumped any of those things. So I can sit here at my rosy age and know that that's why we're here, because the music has held us in good stead with a lot of people around the world.
Speaking of the music, could you talk about new single "Superchrist"? Is that indicative of what you guys might be working on next?
I think that's the band, me, whomever, back in free territory. I think, if I was a fan of the Pumpkins, the great frustration is, where's that energy that used to be there? We made the video for $5,000. We spent our own money to record the song. We did it our own way. There was nobody standing there and there was no timetable. We just put it out when we wanted. It was great. I think that's where the band belongs.

Coming back, we didn't really know what to expect. It's a weird world. I mean, we never said we were bringing the original band back. And then people were saying, oh, it's not the original band. Well, we tried. I mean, what are we supposed to do? Stay home? You're dealing with ideas and opinions and disappointments that aren't yours. And there's not much you can do about them. We've rebelled for years. It's just that we've been quietly rebelling in a system that didn't give us a lot of options.

Is there a moment you can pinpoint that demonstrates your mistreatment at the hands of a label?
I'll give you my favorite line of the past three years. I was talking to the label president from Warner Bros., Tom Walley, and we were having a call. They were actually thinking about dropping us, which in retrospect probably would have been good. I was in Arizona, we were starting to write the album, and so I said things are going great. And he said, "What's the difference between Zwan and Smashing Pumpkins?" And I was like, what do you say? What do you say to a brick wall? What's the difference between your side band and the band that was your blood and your sweat and your heart for fourteen years? So we're out of Purgatory. And we're excited now.

yikes....the zwan vs sp2 thing...i didn't know that hurt him so much. :(

still, i can't help but wish he'd talked about things like this and said the things he said in this interview "from a bathroom in Australia" from the (re)start.

"from a bathroom in Australia"

imagine him pooping and the interview is 200 times better

very interesting

seriously, i've heard people check on job applications while making straining shits in public restrooms. corgan wont be the first.

goddamn I love Billy

if only Zeitgeist was actually good

Nice, very nice.
It was great to just hear some frank, straight forward talk. I think I am better able to see the proper context for all that has gone down...especially in terms of what many a person construed as odd, fan-alienating, "bitchy rants" at concerts. Not that these things have not occurred in my mind...but I think it sets the record a bit more straight.

P.S. In a bathroom? WTF Billy, why did you bother to tell them that?

its good to hear corgan mad, not sad or alienated or tired, but honestly raging. he needs to let his anger flow freely and let it influence these new songs he has planned.

cool i like the idea of releasing songs through multiple and diverse avenues. free-lance, baby.

Interviews like this remind me why I love Billy Corgan so much.

Great interview.
Can't wait to see how they handle their new music.

That was very enjoyable. It felt like the old billy before all the rainbows.

Virgin asked for this.

And quite frankly they deserve it. They have treated SP like shit for the longest time now.

Fucking killer! I love his emotion and the attitude he has for his future plans. He seems like what he is doing right now is what he's always wanted to do and I love that. I can't to see how his plans come out!

Interviews like this remind me why I love Billy Corgan so much.

yeah, this is a total throwback interview. I remember I used to devour everything he said because I thought he had a really honest, intelligent look at music and the music industry.

and good for him about having the balls to critique himself - "people miss the energy of the old band".

this is the best I've felt about a Pumpkins interview in years.:banging:

How can you all be so positive about this interview? Billy is basically saying that he's going to milk us for as much money as he can in the future, making us pay for two songs at a time and then inevitably releasing the whole thing as an album anyway. Everything he's saying about releasing stuff over a period of time, "forging a new path for the music industry" or whatever, just sounds like an excuse to rip people off, IMHO.

I dig how Billy has been so quiet for the last year, just to make sure it was music being talked about, to give SP a fresh start, unencumbered by perceptions of character...but when shit like this needs to be said, Billy needs to say it. I hope Billy has, in future times, as little PR-poetry-filter pretense as he has here.
I don't want every message from his mouth to be those greeting card blogs of late. Billy knows he's smart enough to communicate what he's feeling in a direct manner, without being afraid of what people may say.
I hope the next batch of songs are more personal, what with the apparent re-interest he has in expressing himself intimately.

How can you all be so positive about this interview? Billy is basically saying that he's going to milk us for as much money as he can in the future, making us pay for two songs at a time and then inevitably releasing the whole thing as an album anyway. Everything he's saying about releasing stuff over a period of time, "forging a new path for the music industry" or whatever, just sounds like an excuse to rip people off, IMHO.
If you think Billy is so fucking out of touch, he's gonna release 2-song CD's to stores, you might wanna re-read what he said.
He knows, you know, and I know that the CD-single is deader than the CD itself is. Ever heard of digital releases?
Don't criticize someone for something they haven't done, fortune teller.

I love the fact that he's talking about being completely free for the first time to do WHATEVER he wants in terms of music, and somehow this equates to ripping people off.

I think it's really cool that they could release a few songs at a time, tour them, then come back and possibly re-record them. As long as we get all versions.

If you think Billy is so fucking out of touch, he's gonna release 2-song CD's to stores, you might wanna re-read what he said.
He knows, you know, and I know that the CD-single is deader than the CD itself is. Ever heard of digital releases?
Don't criticize someone for something they haven't done, fortune teller.

Of course he's not going to release 2-song CDs. He's going to release 2-3 songs at a time via online retailers, make us pay for shitty mp3s, then collect everything on CD and make us pay again. Then he might rerelease it with a DVD. Or with a 76-page "booklet".

I can't help it if I feel cynical after the debacle that was Zeitgeist. I know Billy's always had his eye on the $$$ but all those alternate versions felt like a slap in the face. And from what he says in that interview, it sounds like he's still planning on doing different songs in different territories.

I should save this interview for when bill does exactly the opposite of everything he is "against'.

Nothing new here, more of his bullshit. Actions speak louder than words, and until i finally see something different from him, he's still the same dick who is trying to sell zwan off as sp.

Woah I never felt like I should watch the superchrist video before this, that was pretty trippy!

It surprised me to read billy say "we went to them for the umpteenth time and said, look, it's a natural thing to want to put out a best of, and they keep telling us nobody cares." That more humble than i ever expected.

Also, i don't think he has any business criticizing In Rainbows, which does deliver and was actually doing what billy is talking about. Further, saying that he needs new bands to kick his ass seriously contradicts what he said about not listening to any new music. He's being a bit of a politician.

With respect to younger bands, I thought he meant more about trying to release songs in different formats and trying to be "revolutionary" than the actual songs themselves.

I can't help it if I feel cynical after the debacle that was Zeitgeist.
Same with me, but without WB, we don't know what Billy will do for himself.

And nobody made you buy anything. Nor will anybody kill a hostaged kitten if you get a lossy release for free of this here internet thingy.

Why complain about the future. I didn't get pissed that Methusela was hissy as hell and only available from a cassette. I love the song. If Billy doesn't sell FLAC's on his website....then I'll complain much more than you are, oh yes...then make the best of it.

That is by far the most rational and coherent string of words to come out of Mr. Corgan in a long, long time.

goddamn I love Billy

if only Zeitgeist was actually good

maybe you shoudl drop all your predispositions about motives, production, lineup, etc. and give it another listen. it is good. the guitar and drum work is phenomenal, and most of the songs are underrated....so far.

Also, i don't think he has any business criticizing In Rainbows, which does deliver and was actually doing what billy is talking about. Further, saying that he needs new bands to kick his ass seriously contradicts what he said about not listening to any new music. He's being a bit of a politician.

hold the fuck on. he's absolutely right about In Rainbows. It garnered its "best of 2007" titles because of publicity, not music. In Rainbows is good, and I like Radiohead....but it definitely wasn't great. It was safe, short and didn't leave me with much. It was worse than the last 5 albums they released. And is pretty weak compared to the new Portishead.

If you honestly believe that a november release of an album in shitty mp3's can really win the hearts of all the "best of 2007" lists, then you need to wake up. The media clinged onto the gimmick, and then didn't even bother putting their foot in their respective mouths when the album actually came out physically in january of the next year.

What Corgan should have said, was that his band did that in 2000 with Machina2 and it wasn't just a promotion, it was an actual free release...and oh, guess what....not only did not get "best of 2000" but it wasn't even fucking reviewed by most magazines because of the unconventional release.

If you honestly believe that a november release of an album in shitty mp3's can really win the hearts of all the "best of 2007" lists, then you need to wake up. The media clinged onto the gimmick, and then didn't even bother putting their foot in their respective mouths when the album actually came out physically in january of the next year.
And the stupid thing is I actually paid for it. So Mr. Yorke got my cash. Compared to bØlly who go a big fat $0 from me for Machina II.

all talk

I should save this interview for when bill does exactly the opposite of everything he is "against'.

Nothing new here, more of his bullshit. Actions speak louder than words, and until i finally see something different from him, he's still the same dick who is trying to sell zwan off as sp.
i guess superchrist doesn't count as "action"
that CD sure was expensive.
yet i suspect guitarworld gave them a deadline for the myspace video.


Billy needs to realize that he's behind his time a bit
myspace is sooo 2005

"You might as well be some cookies, or a rock."

Corgan hath spoken.

I kind of look forward to him signing bands to Konstantinople and taking them under his wing. It's fine to talk about being free to do what you want and release music on the internet a song at a time and whatnot, but (and this is obvious) you can't really do that if you're not already a bajillionaire. If you're a new band just starting out, you can't pay for your own studio time, you have a hard time booking tours or publicizing yourself, you can't really make a living off the sale of a few songs online, etc., etc.

I know nothing about the way the studio system works now, but I have to imagine it's helpful and to some extent necessary just for the administrative side. I would love to see Billy move beyond talking about what's good for his own band, and start providing alternative solutions to other musicians.

hold the fuck on. he's absolutely right about In Rainbows. It garnered its "best of 2007" titles because of publicity, not music. In Rainbows is good, and I like Radiohead....but it definitely wasn't great. It was safe, short and didn't leave me with much. It was worse than the last 5 albums they released. And is pretty weak compared to the new Portishead.

If you honestly believe that a november release of an album in shitty mp3's can really win the hearts of all the "best of 2007" lists, then you need to wake up. The media clinged onto the gimmick, and then didn't even bother putting their foot in their respective mouths when the album actually came out physically in january of the next year.

What Corgan should have said, was that his band did that in 2000 with Machina2 and it wasn't just a promotion, it was an actual free release...and oh, guess what....not only did not get "best of 2000" but it wasn't even fucking reviewed by most magazines because of the unconventional release.

I agree that "in rainbows" isn't the best album of 2007... but you lose me from there.

Billy is the last person that should be criticizing anyone for a gimmicky release in 2007. How many friggin' Zeitgeist versions did we actually need?!?!?! I agree with Pitchfork... that was the greediest marketing ploy i've ever seen.

This is yet another instance where Billy just comes across as bitter that he's no longer a rock god. Get over it, dude. You're not on MTV anymore! Boo Hoo!!!

Yes, Billy is right on most accounts... but he always fails to look beyond top 40. There are plenty of great bands that have adapted and used the new "era" of the record industry to their advantage. They leak their albums on message boards, get word of mouth and build a name and fan base, then make money on touring. It's not a backlash against records, billy. It's a backlash against the record biz. The curtain has been lifted... we all know that these artists are getting roughly $2 bucks out of their $18.00 CD sale.... why would we care about stealing it? I know I could care less if the record labels get a cut. I don't want them to. Maybe they'll stop trying to force Daughtry and Ashley Simpson down our throats.

I agree that "in rainbows" isn't the best album of 2007... but you lose me from there.

Billy is the last person that should be criticizing anyone for a gimmicky release in 2007. How many friggin' Zeitgeist versions did we actually need?!?!?! I agree with Pitchfork... that was the greediest marketing ploy i've ever seen.

Hmm... did you read the interview?

There are plenty of great bands that have adapted and used the new "era" of the record industry to their advantage. They leak their albums on message boards, get word of mouth and build a name and fan base, then make money on touring.

Do any known bands do this?

I'm not taking a piss, I'm genuinely interested. I remember some label leaking an album on what.cd and it becoming quit succesful as a result.

nice interview, but davin youre crazy. yes, radiohead releasing their album at nameyourprice ended up making them a fortune, but it wasn't a gimmick on their part really, they just made that decision and it made sense and seemed effective. only a band as big as radiohead could have made that release format that succesful.

Of course he's not going to release 2-song CDs. He's going to release 2-3 songs at a time via online retailers, make us pay for shitty mp3s, then collect everything on CD and make us pay again. Then he might rerelease it with a DVD. Or with a 76-page "booklet".

he's not going to MAKE us do anything. He didn't even say they would SELL the songs. for all you know they'll give them away and then later put them in album form. And not everyone that's a fan feels the need to have everything they put out. No one is forced to do anything. Besides all of that, he hasn't even given specifics, so unless you have the power of foresight, why don't you wait and see what happens before you get pissed off?

oh and also he said this:
And it doesn't have to always be about money.

I know everyone here is rolling their eyes at that, but the fact of the matter is that none of us know what goes down behind the scenes. Just like he said with the "gun to our heads" comment. Yes, we all think we have it figured out, we think we know billy well enough to know what he would do, we think we know how much he has control over things, but we don't. Now that the band is free of their contract, we WILL find out. And dear god, I hope billy does the right thing so people will shut the fuck up about marketing already. Like t&t pointed out, they've already given away a free song this year... it's a start.

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:

And when the message on Amy Winehouse is drama is better than music, and for Radiohead publicity is better than music — no disrespect to them. But I think it's a bad message to young bands of how to make it happen. It's almost like the evil stepchild of the rap bling-bling thing, like, the only way to make it work is I've got to come up with a gimmick.

isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:



isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"

this is an excellent point t&t, and i think that's exactly what he meant. I know that I, for one, heard MUCH more about how they released the songs than I heard about the songs themselves. Just another case of everyone wanting to jump on billy for everything he says or does. Nothing new.

It's a very difficult position because whether it's blogs or people posting on Web sites, fans can get very frustrated about what they perceive about how you do your business, not being aware of how we continually have a gun pointed at our head.

Reading between the lines, I think he's talking about the 10 million Zeitgeist versions and Ford commerical here....

Great interview all in all.

this is an excellent point t&t, and i think that's exactly what he meant. I know that I, for one, heard MUCH more about how they released the songs that I heard about the songs themselves. Just another case of everyone wanting to jump on billy for everything he says or does. Nothing new.

thanks, i was beginning to think i've been 'muted'

billy sues virgin because cd's given away to fans for free are "promotion" and bands don't get paid for "promotion" items...
virgin pockets all the $$ from pepsi, billy gets ziltch.

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:



isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"

Yeah I thought that was pretty obvious. But davin is a petty little ponce who treats bands like they're sports teams that you have to root for or against. His jealousy of radiohead is kinda inexplicable, but In Rainbows is a marvelous album and a top 10 album for 2007.

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:



isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"

Great point. I think that's exactly what he's talking about. Another reason why I loved that Billy/JC didn't do many interviews at first. They let the music speak first.

Great interview. :D

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:



isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"


good call.

oh hey i'm not reading the whole thread, but that was an excellent, excellent interview.

good job, billy.

I think the guy at warner asked a good question. What is the difference between SP and Zwan.

One might expect that Billy would put his full heart into his new band... That Mr Corgan has a strong work ethic of always pouring his own blood into his work of art.

As for how they sell the music, i hope we get physical formats as well as digital.
or in other words
I hope they would give me the collector cup and not just the soda.

Billy telling it like it is (or will) be is nice to see for a change. I'm glad he kept it straight and left the riddles and the ambiguous hinting alone. I think it's also a good thing that he feels like the band still has something to prove.


billy sues virgin because cd's given away to fans for free are "promotion" and bands don't get paid for "promotion" items...
virgin pockets all the $$ from pepsi, billy gets ziltch.

Although the financial aspect of the lawsuit may play some role on why it was filed, the bigger issue was the slippery slope Virgin was on. They didn't have the rights to do what they were doing. If SP did nothing, then who else is going to be doing their talking for them? If they are going to sell out, they should sell out on their terms. *coughfordfocuscough*

It's fine to talk about being free to do what you want and release music on the internet a song at a time and whatnot, but (and this is obvious) you can't really do that if you're not already a bajillionaire. If you're a new band just starting out, you can't pay for your own studio time, you have a hard time booking tours or publicizing yourself, you can't really make a living off the sale of a few songs online, etc., etc.

When an inventor creates some new gadget and wants to spread it throughout the world, he/she can't pay for prototypes, marketing, manufacturing, parts, etc. and live easily off of the few finished products he/she sells to friends and family.

When a painter makes a painting, he/she couldn't pay for the easel, the canvas, the paint, the models who posed for them, the marketing of their work, and the rooms they display it publicly in.

Yet they do.



Typically the great inventions or great paintings become very popular and do really well, while amateurs or those inventions and paintings that aren't received as well get only a mild audience.

I think the music industry as it stands/stood is more like a shit machine. No matter how crappy your band is, you feel that you deserve to be noticed, marketed, have studio time, release a record. The record labels out there put music out that doesn't always do so well, they help foster terrible musicians and don't help them improve. Just like with worthless inventions like Magnetic Therapy blood-flow increasing devices that somehow get over a million results on google.

If you can create good music that people like, and enough people like it, you should have no problems and no worries investing in your trade just like a painter or an inventor does, because the payoff will be good enough for you.

Getting rid of labels will HELP separate the wheat from the chaff, allowing people who are honestly good musicians and are well respected from their audience to spread their art and do well, while keeping worthless bands from getting a CD out for no good reason other than "Virgin thought we were cool."


Since it's easier for big name bands who are running out of their contracts to naturally want to create more music yet stay label-free, it's only natural for the big guys to dump the companies before the small fries can do so in a fresh new market.







e: f,b - Basically what I just said:
i think this is going to far. if you're serious enough about being a well-known band, and making a decent living making music, you will do what it takes...saving up money for studio time, playing small shows, having band practice, posting flyers for shows, ALL THE WHILE HAVING A FULL TIME JOB. it's about hard work, if you want to make a living with genuine music. on the other hand, if you're a hot chick with no talent, you can still make it big. it's different with sincere rock bands.

yeah, this is a total throwback interview. I remember I used to devour everything he said because I thought he had a really honest, intelligent look at music and the music industry.

and good for him about having the balls to critique himself - "people miss the energy of the old band".

this is the best I've felt about a Pumpkins interview in years.:banging:

So right.

I think that's rather idealistic and features the common assumption, which I have never really bought, that people only listen to [insert pop star of the moment] because record companies tell them to. This lies in direct contradiction to your assertion that people will find truly good music if it's out there. Until a band rises to international stardom via internet distribution, grassroots movements, whatever, I am going to remain unconvinced that the cream will just naturally rise to the top.

And most great artists and inventors find financial backers/investors when they need to come up with cash. That's what I'm proposing Billy be—a kinder, gentler sort of record company that just mentors artists with potential.

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:



isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"


I was just about to write something along these lines when I saw this. Good to read Billy being so forthcoming. It's been too long since he's been direct like that. Onto other matters....In Rainbows is a very good record. It's not on par with Kid A, but it's cohesive and as a whole works well.

nice interview, but davin youre crazy. yes, radiohead releasing their album at nameyourprice ended up making them a fortune, but it wasn't a gimmick on their part really, they just made that decision and it made sense and seemed effective. only a band as big as radiohead could have made that release format that succesful.

how can you say that when it all turned out to be a promotional gimmick? they turned around and released a physical CD in January! everyone should have known that was gonna happen from the start because they only gave us 128kbps mp3's. it was just an "advance promo".

but as far as your other point, abotu them being successful...thats very true. Only a band with an existing following like NIN or Radiohead can release shit for free online and have it actually work out. Same goes for pumpkins releasing M2 as well as their new "non-album" format stuff. None of this stuff should be perceived as "revolutionizing the record business" because it only works for established bands with established audiences. there's no fuckign way a new young bad can start off this way. despite all their faults, the good thing about mtv, mass radio, record labels, etc. is that it was a method of "delivery" as well as release. without this stuff to "trim the fat" every band under the sun can do a self-release and it will be hard to differentiate.

don't get me wrong, i don't like being spoonfed...all i'm saying is that if there was any benefit to "the old way" it was in at least filtering out some of the noise. if every band does a self reelase, that will be harder to accomplish.

I think that's rather idealistic and features the common assumption, which I have never really bought, that people only listen to [insert pop star of the moment] because record companies tell them to. This lies in direct contradiction to your assertion that people will find truly good music if it's out there.

No it doesn't. Without someone there to tell people what to listen to, they will go out to find stuff on their own if they haven't done that already. 'Truly good music' is defined by the individual listening to it.

Until a band rises to international stardom via internet distribution, grassroots movements, whatever, I am going to remain unconvinced that the cream will just naturally rise to the top.

Why do they have to be international stars to be considered good? In my post I simply mentioned "their audience will be happy", not "everyone will be happy".

That's the problem. You can't force everyone in the world to like one band. Everyone has different interests, and when they go out to find those interests themselves without taking the first shitty band thrown at them, they will ultimately find what they like. Whether that's through the internet, live shows, or whatever.

And most great artists and inventors find financial backers/investors when they need to come up with cash. That's what I'm proposing Billy be—a kinder, gentler sort of record company that just mentors artists with potential.

What do you mean by "mentor"? Just out of curiosity, as the only way I can picture it is "providing cheap recording studio time". I think most people who are serious about their music are willing to spend a few thousand dollars on a home recording studio. If you've heard some of the quality music that comes out of a nicely equipped home studio, you'll know that an investment like that is well worth it, and really not THAT expensive for what you get. So what could Billy do to help them besides be yet another record company?

concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:



isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"

exactly, thats why i'm agreeing with him.

In Rainbows was praised cuz of the release mechanism, not the music. same way Zeitgeist was dissed because of the lineup, the multiple versions, etc...and not the music.

same way Zeitgeist was dissed because of the lineup, the multiple versions, etc...and not the music.

i like zeitgeist, but i don't think this is entirely true

how can you say that when it all turned out to be a promotional gimmick? they turned around and released a physical CD in January! everyone should have known that was gonna happen from the start because they only gave us 128kbps mp3's. it was just an "advance promo".




i guess youre right, although when it came out the way it did i made the assumption theyd release a cd format later. maybe most people didn't make that assumption. made perfect sense the way they did it if you ask me. if anything i tipped my cap to them, knowing their fanbase, knowing their popularity, they made a really smart business choice without sacrificing anything.

Only a band with an existing following like NIN or Radiohead can release shit for free online and have it actually work out. Same goes for pumpkins releasing M2 as well as their new "non-album" format stuff. None of this stuff should be perceived as "revolutionizing the record business" because it only works for established bands with established audiences. there's no fuckign way a new young bad can start off this way.

Why do new young bands HAVE to release records as soon as possible? What happened to playing live shows to build an audience and make money? The free music online is a way to promote your shows and get people interested in your music. It costs money to make a record, but it doesn't cost much to play on small stages. How do you get on stage? You make a demo. What's a demo? Free music.

don't get me wrong, i don't like being spoonfed...all i'm saying is that if there was any benefit to "the old way" it was in at least filtering out some of the noise. if every band does a self reelase, that will be harder to accomplish.
I think I can decide what music I like and what music I don't like for myself. It isn't very hard to just not listen to music I don't like.

oh and radiohead didn't just pull a promotional gimmick. some people would want a physical CD, while others would just download the poor-quality mp3s and stick with those. everyone wins.

exactly, thats why i'm agreeing with him.

In Rainbows was praised cuz of the release mechanism, not the music. same way Zeitgeist was dissed because of the lineup, the multiple versions, etc...and not the music.


i do agree that there was too much focus on the lineup and the cd formats, but i also don't think zeitgeist would have flourished if james and darcy were playing live and the cd had come out in one version. i think it sold the amount i expected it to sell, with the music in mind. i desperately wanted them to release something really huge, really epic, really special, but i knew that they had to start things out slow and it wasn't going to propel them back into superstardom. i think they have a lot of places to go from here on out.

i guess youre right, although when it came out the way it did i made the assumption theyd release a cd format later. maybe most people didn't make that assumption. made perfect sense the way they did it if you ask me. if anything i tipped my cap to them, knowing their fanbase, knowing their popularity, they made a really smart business choice without sacrificing anything.

its interesting, because its obvious the mass media DID NOT make that assumption about the physical release. Afterall, why didn't they wait and review In Rainbows for the music, on the 2008 "best of" list, if they did expect a physical CD to come out?

no, instead they jumped on the gimmicky bandwagon and reviewed it above and beyond a bunch of other good music in 07...after barely taking it in. I mean, what...the mp3's were out like 1 month before the best of 07 lists started coming? fucking ridiculous.

Why do new young bands HAVE to release records as soon as possible? What happened to playing live shows to build an audience and make money? The free music online is a way to promote your shows and get people interested in your music. It costs money to make a record, but it doesn't cost much to play on small stages. How do you get on stage? You make a demo. What's a demo? Free music.


I think I can decide what music I like and what music I don't like for myself. It isn't very hard to just not listen to music I don't like.

they don't have to...i'm just saying these types of online and free releases work much better for bands with an established "name" and fanbase. don't you agree it would be harder for SP to break out with Gish if it hadn't been picked up by an indie label and promoted to college radio?

and yea, of course we can decide for ourselves. i'm just being objective and saying that if there was anything good abotu the old system, some filtering of shit would be it.

As far as Radiohead goes, I don't see the In Rainbows digital release as a gimmick so much as a way to make money off of a controlled leak.

If they wouldn't have done it that way, the songs would have gotten out some way, somehow, right around that time, on all sorts of torrents. Then everyone would have their music and no one would pay a thing.

By leaking it themselves and asking for donations for their leak, they made some money from it and proceeded with releasing the physical CD as planned.

i do agree that there was too much focus on the lineup and the cd formats, but i also don't think zeitgeist would have flourished if james and darcy were playing live and the cd had come out in one version. i think it sold the amount i expected it to sell, with the music in mind. i desperately wanted them to release something really huge, really epic, really special, but i knew that they had to start things out slow and it wasn't going to propel them back into superstardom. i think they have a lot of places to go from here on out.

agreed. BC is the rock start the media loves to hate. people were going into Zeitgeist just DROOLING and WAITING to hate it. They were just dying to tear it apart. Expectations are a bitch. Kinda like when Episode I came out. :p

anyway, the real question is, if it was released online only, do you think it would have been reveiwed better? I do. The articles would have mentioned M2 in 2000....and Z would have been given more credit, once again...without any regad for the actual music itself. granted, it still wouldn't have been as much hype as Radiohead...since they're the band people love to love, vs. love to hate.

As far as Radiohead goes, I don't see the In Rainbows digital release as a gimmick so much as a way to make money off of a controlled leak.

If they wouldn't have done it that way, the songs would have gotten out some way, somehow, right around that time, on all sorts of torrents. Then everyone would have their music and no one would pay a thing.

By leaking it themselves and asking for donations for their leak, they made some money from it and proceeded with releasing the physical CD as planned.

and thats different from a promotional gimmick, how? i mean shit, even illegal leaks acts as promotional tools. there's was just, as you said, controlled.

oh and radiohead didn't just pull a promotional gimmick. some people would want a physical CD, while others would just download the poor-quality mp3s and stick with those. everyone wins.

yea, but the phsyical cd was not announced until afte rthe mp3's were out and people were already sucking on RH"s teet. the only physical release annoucned at the time of the mp3 release was the discbox.

they don't have to...i'm just saying these types of online and free releases work much better for bands with an established "name" and fanbase. don't you agree it would be harder for SP to break out with Gish if it hadn't been picked up by an indie label and promoted to college radio?

and yea, of course we can decide for ourselves. i'm just being objective and saying that if there was anything good abotu the old system, some filtering of shit would be it.

I do agree that it would have been more difficult for SP to get to where they were without the label that pushed them there. But in spite of that, I don't think SP would have given up had a label never picked them up, if only because they are a dedicated band who were willing to sacrifice themselves for their music.

But Gish was released in different times. Back before you could have a website about your band, back before it was super cheap to record high-quality versions of your music and distribute it to people half-way across the globe, back before people could go to an online store and just get the songs they wanted for a very low price, and before every human being in the USA could carry around days worth of only the music they liked with them and listen to it around the clock.

The audience is a bit different now and the need for labels is changing with it.

But I do see what you're saying.

yea, i see what you're saying too. i have multiple friends in multiple bands trying to get off the ground, and they;'re having a hard time differentiating themselves from the pack. especially with all the other people doing online releases. i think there will still haev to be some type of delivery mechanism, even if its a site where fans can review and rate music, otherwise the market will be saturated.

No it doesn't. Without someone there to tell people what to listen to, they will go out to find stuff on their own if they haven't done that already.

You seem awfully sure of this, and I just don't see it. You've got someone who cares about music so little, or is so weak-willed, that they will listen to whatever's on the radio. You take the radio away and suddenly they're a discerning music fan? I guess I have a more cynical view of people, that they will find crappy artists who sound familiar and comfortable. Meaning the minority of people who, now, are discerning, will continue to be discerning in the face of a record company-less industry, but they will be fighting with the majority of people who are non-discerning. Meaning the meritocracy fails to materialize and shitty music continues to thrive.

Why do they have to be international stars to be considered good?

Ah, I don't mean to argue quality. I'm arguing what you said about becoming really popular and doing really well. International superstardom is just my loose interpretation. I want a band to not only cover their costs or eke out a meager living; I want them to be able to have a certain amount of real success and comfort.

What do you mean by "mentor"? . . . So what could Billy do to help them besides be yet another record company?

Honestly, I don't know. I was thinking of painters having patrons. I guess, specific to Billy, I envision something like providing cheap Web hosting, offering advice about getting promoted, networking opportunities, helping pay for professional producers, that sort of thing. There'd be no contract; it'd just be Billy using his success and experience to help the next generation.

and thats different from a promotional gimmick, how? i mean shit, even illegal leaks acts as promotional tools. there's was just, as you said, controlled.

Promotional tool, yes.

Gimmick, no, because it actually had a really good use for fans. People who downloaded the album for free got it for free. They didn't just get a 5 second demo or some useless artwork. They got the complete album. So I wouldn't consider it a useless gimmick.

You seem awfully sure of this, and I just don't see it. You've got someone who cares about music so little, or is so weak-willed, that they will listen to whatever's on the radio. You take the radio away and suddenly they're a discerning music fan? I guess I have a more cynical view of people, that they will find crappy artists who sound familiar and comfortable. Meaning the minority of people who, now, are discerning, will continue to be discerning in the face of a record company-less industry, but they will be fighting with the majority of people who are non-discerning. Meaning the meritocracy fails to materialize and shitty music continues to thrive.
Hmm.. I see your point. But a lot of times people who aren't discerning will listen to what their friends listen to, rather than radio, tv, etc. So if they honestly listen to whatever is available, they'll find something they like even if it isn't being pushed at them.


Honestly, I don't know. I was thinking of painters having patrons. I guess, specific to Billy, I envision something like providing cheap Web hosting, offering advice about getting promoted, networking opportunities, helping pay for professional producers, that sort of thing. There'd be no contract; it'd just be Billy using his success and experience to help the next generation.

This would, in fact, be pretty neat. And I see what you're saying, using their success for the good of the art. Sounds more like something he would do when he retires though, right?

i think there will still haev to be some type of delivery mechanism, even if its a site where fans can review and rate music, otherwise the market will be saturated.

I think this would happen naturally, and there would probably be multiple versions of those sites, probably by genre or something similar, as having it all on one site would harbor the "I like it because everyone else likes it" mentality too much and some people will want to break from that, of course.

imagine him pooping and the interview is 200 times better





At first I rolled my eyes to this... but then I actually imagined it, and now I can't stop laughing.


"Look... the reeeeeehhhhhhhhuhhhhhcorrrd iiiiinnndustr--uhhhermm--eee, it's not what it euhhhhhhused.... to be. *plop"

no, instead they jumped on the gimmicky bandwagon and reviewed it above and beyond a bunch of other good music in 07...after barely taking it in. I mean, what...the mp3's were out like 1 month before the best of 07 lists started coming? fucking ridiculous.

Davin,

In Rainbows is an incredible record, and got the recognition it deserved based on the music. Yes, lots of hype about the release but there was just AS MUCH HYPE at how great the actual music on the record is.

And on top of that, In Rainbows is about a gazillion times better than zeitgeist, if we're going to compare the two.

Davin,

In Rainbows is an incredible record, and got the recognition it deserved based on the music. Yes, lots of hype about the release but there was just AS MUCH HYPE at how great the actual music on the record is.

And on top of that, In Rainbows is about a gazillion times better than zeitgeist, if we're going to compare the two.

no, they're both watered-down versions of the bands' previous glory.

It's funny that I only hear people talking about In Rainbows now regarding the free release and not the music. Oh wait, that's exactly what Billy was talking about. Oh wait, that's because In Rainbows and Amy Winehouse aren't that great.

"the mp3 debate"

Davin,

In Rainbows is an incredible record, and got the recognition it deserved based on the music. Yes, lots of hype about the release but there was just AS MUCH HYPE at how great the actual music on the record is.
.

really? all I ever hear about it is how fucking boring it is (I tend to disagree, and I don't even like Radiohead much)

it was a good interview and I liked that he said 'if he was a fan he would be wondering where the energy is'... unfortunantly he probably doesn't realize that the thing that needs to change the most is the way his singing doesn't match the energy of the songs/lyrics. If he does realize this then hell yeah! but Superchrist was a further step in the wrong direction as far as singing goes while a step in the right direction as far as music goes.

really? all I ever hear about it is how fucking boring it is (I tend to disagree, and I don't even like Radiohead much)

i like it a lot.

btw In Rainbows is fucking amazing. Corgan is right about the gimmick being more popular then the music and that is lame but the music is great.

In Rainbows > Zeitgeist, and a lot of other SP records for that matter.

in rainbows isn't a watered down version of the bands previous glory, if anything it's another milestone in the progression of RH's glory. they get better with age imho. SP, not so much. Jimmy gets better with age, but bill is getting tired.

also kudos to what dude hits car said.

Also I feel WB had every damn right to ask billy what the diference between zwan and sp were.. because after all they had to sell it to the public, and without james and darcy they knew damn well they'd be facing a huge publicity challenge that not even billy could defend with his own delusions of what SP REALLY are. face it folks, most fans DID not buy the whole "they're my songs and my dreams" bit.. at least not the casual ones. yeah, i understand where he's coming from as i know a good deal about SP's history.. but the four original names and faces are a huge part of what made that band so big bak in the 90's. Warner knew that, and they also had the sales slumps of zwan (billy and jimmy) to back up this question. In their mind, the difference between Zwan and SP was the name, and the name isn't enough to move units.

If not from the very beggining, at least soon thereafter Radiohead confirmed that they'd be releasing a physical format. No assumptions necessary.

I think Trent Reznor went too far to call Radiohead's effort "disingenuous". How does he know what their intent was? Billy was more fair, saying the promotional aspect got more attention than the music, which can't be debated as it's basically fact, but by saying "no disrespect to Radiohead" he suggests that the whole media storm surrounding In Rainbows may not have been some calculated plan by Radiohead but instead just the media's fault.

Is is possible that Billy feels a little sting about not getting an ounce of recognition over FAEOMM while Radiohead gets lionized over Rainbows? No doubt, hehe. But save for a short period from about '96-'98, Billy's been dealing with disrespect his whole career. Being put up on a pedestal didn't help Kurt Cobain out any. Maybe he's better off this way. I might even suggest that short period where he was on top of the world ruined him in some ways...but that's just speculation.

How can you all be so positive about this interview? Billy is basically saying that he's going to milk us for as much money as he can in the future, making us pay for two songs at a time and then inevitably releasing the whole thing as an album anyway. Everything he's saying about releasing stuff over a period of time, "forging a new path for the music industry" or whatever, just sounds like an excuse to rip people off, IMHO.

Possibly another reason for the band (him) releasing only two songs at a time and then maybe an album could be that they (he) is sort of "testing" the songs. For example many people did not like zeitgeist as a whole but did like a couple songs. Maybe this is their (his) way of trying to re-dip their (his) feet in the water. So whichever songs people like the best may ultimately turn into the physical album in the end.

"I think the way [Radiohead] parlayed it into a marketing gimmick has certainly been shrewd," Reznor said. "But if you look at what they did, it was very much a bait and switch, to get you to pay for a MySpace quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale."

"I don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kind of getting credit for," Reznor told the Australia Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. "There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kind of getting credit for...to me that feels insincere. It relies upon the fact that it was quote-unquote 'first,' and it takes the headlines with it."

- Trent Reznor
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9894376-7.html

This inteview does harken back to a past SP energy and is a refreshing thing to see. The worlds a crazy place these days as you all know. Billy would do well to tap into what's so crazy about these days and parallel what he's going through with the big labels to the avg. working joe or student who are facing similar "we're just a number" issues in their lives.

oh my god what is it with the fucking radiohead-sp-nin triangle? it makes my head hurt. can't they all just co-exist and be wonderful in their own right? bleh. Why does it have to be a big competition? It's not as if people have to choose between them when it comes to buying albums, merch, and concert tickets. People can like all three if they choose. this whole competitive band thing is so tired.

oh gosh "what's the difference between Zwan and Sp?" ... that dude if he knew anything about Billy Corgan and had any ounce of diplomacy would not have gone there. eek!

it's like we're "cookies or rocks" ... lol!

Good for Billy for standing up for himself and his band and for doing what he needs to do for himself. =)

People can like all three if they choose.

now that's just crazy talk ;)

yea, i see what you're saying too. i have multiple friends in multiple bands trying to get off the ground, and they;'re having a hard time differentiating themselves from the pack. especially with all the other people doing online releases. i think there will still haev to be some type of delivery mechanism, even if its a site where fans can review and rate music, otherwise the market will be saturated.

no offense davin but if those bands had really amazing songs then they would rise above the pack. I don't think online releases are keeping any band of real worth down.

no offense davin but if those bands had really amazing songs then they would rise above the pack. I don't think online releases are keeping any band of real worth down.

not sure I agree; there's always an element of "right place at right time".

part of the fascinating thing about art is that the next great artist, musician, or writer could literally be next door - but they may never be discovered.

"I think the way [Radiohead] parlayed it into a marketing gimmick has certainly been shrewd," Reznor said. "But if you look at what they did, it was very much a bait and switch, to get you to pay for a MySpace quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale."

"I don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kind of getting credit for," Reznor told the Australia Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. "There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kind of getting credit for...to me that feels insincere. It relies upon the fact that it was quote-unquote 'first,' and it takes the headlines with it."

- Trent Reznor
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9894376-7.html

So how exactly was the Year Zero ARG any different??? People had to buy the shirts that said "I am trying to believe" did they not? And what did that ultimately lead to? A MySpace stream release when the album finally leaked. So people paid for a shirt that led to a MySpace quality stream as a way to promote a record sale. Oh and since it was an ARG it relied on the fact that it was the quote-unquote 'first,' and took headlines with it.

Don't get me wrong, I love the new directions artists are going with their music releasing strategies. But I agree with Skipgo, let's not fight about it... about "who's marketing gimmick is more gimmicky" lol.

now that's just crazy talk ;)

i've been known to take a risk or two in my life.

I'm sorry... I really am juvenile about all of this. Especially since I already commented about it earlier...



But how LOL is it that Billy did this interview with Rolling Stone while actually TAKING A SHIT?

I'm sorry... I really am juvenile about all of this. Especially since I already commented about it earlier...



But how LOL is it that Billy did this interview with Rolling Stone while actually TAKING A SHIT?

IN AUSTRALIA :banging:

anyone else reading this article like "yeah we fucked up this whole comeback thing, but now we are on the right track as to what the smashing pumpkins should be."

sounds like he's trying to save face with all the dissapointed fans.

And he said, "What's the difference between Zwan and Smashing Pumpkins?"


Holy shit. Burn.

and for Radiohead publicity is better than music


Uh. NO. Billy could actually take some lessons from this band. Radiohead is not one of my favs but I respect them 100 x more right now.

and for Radiohead publicity is better than music


Uh. NO. Billy could actually take some lessons from this band. Radiohead is not one of my favs but I respect them 100 x more right now.
ahem:
concerning "in rainbows", seems like you guys didn't even read:
And when the message on Amy Winehouse is drama is better than music, and for Radiohead publicity is better than music — no disrespect to them. But I think it's a bad message to young bands of how to make it happen. It's almost like the evil stepchild of the rap bling-bling thing, like, the only way to make it work is I've got to come up with a gimmick.
isn't what billy saying "everyone paid attention to the 'gimmick' and no one actually paid attention to the 'music',"
he's not blaming the band. HE"S pointing the finger at rolling stone & everyone that jumped on the 'gimmick' bandwagon
he's saying "DOESn"T ANYONE FUCKING LISTEN TO MUSIC??????"
all of which was much clearer before Rolling Stone cut this part of their interview out:
RS’s Evan Serpick: It seems like the last decade or so, we haven’t seen many superstars emerge. Do you think it’s because of the focus on singles or the fickle market?

Billy Corgan: Number one, I think there’s just too much. I mean, how can you ask an eighteen-year-old to sort through everything that they’re presented with? Realistically, just being hot and talented and having a good single isn’t enough anymore. You really need like the extra story, like Amy Winehouse had, or a Britney freak-out. Like, Radiohead putting out a great album is not enough of a story. Radiohead putting out a free album, and blah, blah, that’s the story. So it becomes more media-driven, event-driven, than music-driven.
source (http://hipstersunited.com/blog/archives/2008/03/rolling-stone-edits-corgan-interview-stereogum-bash-ensues.html)

Thanks for this article.

Yes. Billy is quickly winning me back over.

I mean, I like Zeitgeist but there WAS something missing and it seemed like someone had just pulled the wool over Billy's eyes.


But now that I've read all this, with all the honesty coming out, he is just as aware as ever and back into his old self again, the person who I loved reading about and hearing about back in the 90's. The person who had an attitude and intelligently made way for change, even with people on his back.

ahem:

all of which was much clearer before Rolling Stone cut this part of their interview out:

source (http://hipstersunited.com/blog/archives/2008/03/rolling-stone-edits-corgan-interview-stereogum-bash-ensues.html)

thank you

I wanted to address Davin's post about radio weeding out shitty bands. Sadly, friends, it doesn't.

I work at an AC radio station. We get the cold congealed leftover tracks from regular radio. Hot AC, Rock, Country, Top 40. The stuff already shoved down peoples throats that made it through round one.

We also get demos almost daily from people who suck balls. I've seen CD's come in here that look like their high school friend who took one photo class and dropped out of Photoshop after one week is the one who put the album "art" together. I've heard some of the most horrendous covers imagineable. I've heard some of the cheapest instruments imagineable. In fact, right now there's a single on the charts in which I can *hear* the tinny sounds of Peavey gear. It's awful. What I'm saying is...

Even radio isn't separating the wheat from the chaff any more. If you want good music, you'd better go find it on the internet or at your favorite record store.

If you name the Peavey gear song, will you be fired from your radio gig

oh my god what is it with the fucking radiohead-sp-nin triangle? it makes my head hurt. can't they all just co-exist and be wonderful in their own right? bleh. Why does it have to be a big competition? It's not as if people have to choose between them when it comes to buying albums, merch, and concert tickets. People can like all three if they choose. this whole competitive band thing is so tired.

i love all three

Davin,

In Rainbows is an incredible record, and got the recognition it deserved based on the music. Yes, lots of hype about the release but there was just AS MUCH HYPE at how great the actual music on the record is.

And on top of that, In Rainbows is about a gazillion times better than zeitgeist, if we're going to compare the two.

In Rainbows > Zeitgeist, and a lot of other SP records for that matter.

in rainbows isn't a watered down version of the bands previous glory, if anything it's another milestone in the progression of RH's glory. they get better with age imho. SP, not so much. Jimmy gets better with age, but bill is getting tired.

its alright, but overall i find it to be a very "safe" release by a band who's previous 5 records all blew me away...and added something "new" and exciting to the band's catalog. IN Rainbows did not accomplish this. Especially after all the talk surrounding The Eraser, the band's future, their musical direction....not to mention what the In Rainbows material sounded like live when they were playing it live in 2005....it just wasn't daring enough, imo. I mean...what exactly did you hear on In Rainbows that you really haven't heard before...that you consider it a progression?

So if you want to compare with Zeitgeist, which is a very daring/in-your-face record, lets look at that relative to the band's catalog as well. Unlike In Rainbows, Zeitgeist was actually better than previous Pumpkins records. Though many would disagree its better than Adore as well as machina/machina2 (which is simply my opinion)....most people seem to magnanimously prefer it to the machinas.

Bottom-line, I expect a lot from 2 bands as good as SP and RH. Thats why just "churning out more of the same stuff" doesn't seem good enough to me, re: In Rainbows. I count on these bands to continue evolving and becoming more diverse. And in that regards, despite knowing expectations can be a killer, I still expect a lot from these bands. And thats why I find In Rainbows to fall short and Zeitgeist to satisfy.

btw In Rainbows is fucking amazing. Corgan is right about the gimmick being more popular then the music and that is lame but the music is great.


agreed, its by no means "horrible" or anything. just overrated. and its not RH's fault that the mass media reacted like they did.

oh my god what is it with the fucking radiohead-sp-nin triangle? it makes my head hurt. can't they all just co-exist and be wonderful in their own right? bleh. Why does it have to be a big competition? It's not as if people have to choose between them when it comes to buying albums, merch, and concert tickets. People can like all three if they choose. this whole competitive band thing is so tired.

yea, it would be awesome if they joined forces somehow and parlayed their efforts.

at least billy is still saying decent things about Trent, and respects what he does, unlike Trent's douche comments about Reading. He claimed SP was never relevant and never interested him, yet somehow they found what they were doing to be important enough to ******* a reference to bily in the starfuckers video. can trent say "contradiction"?

no offense davin but if those bands had really amazing songs then they would rise above the pack. I don't think online releases are keeping any band of real worth down.

what i'm trying to say is that its a lot harder for the amazing songs to rise up out of the crowd, when the market is so saturated. sure, a no-questions-asked phenom of a band will prevail regardless....eventually.......but a lot of bands come into their own AFTER getting label support. i mean you have to admit, a lot of bands who get deals are just tight, or put on a good show or whatever qualifies them to be marketable (vs. the presence of amazing songs from day 1).

So how exactly was the Year Zero ARG any different??? People had to buy the shirts that said "I am trying to believe" did they not? And what did that ultimately lead to? A MySpace stream release when the album finally leaked. So people paid for a shirt that led to a MySpace quality stream as a way to promote a record sale. Oh and since it was an ARG it relied on the fact that it was the quote-unquote 'first,' and took headlines with it.

Don't get me wrong, I love the new directions artists are going with their music releasing strategies. But I agree with Skipgo, let's not fight about it... about "who's marketing gimmick is more gimmicky" lol.

its quite different. The ARG was always a promotional tool, and yes, maybe gimmicky. But that was the original intention.

The issue here is that RH was given credit for a supposed "revolution" in the industry...vs. being seen for the gimmicky promotion that the online In Rainbows release actually was.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we got the music 10 days after the announcement. Once again, i'm just criticizing the merits of how it was portrayed in the mass media and used as fodder for the subsequent shining album reviews. there's no way RH could have controlled this, nor did they plan it that way. It just fucking happened. Just like Billy, its not Radiohead the band that i'm criticizing in this regard.

anyone else reading this article like "yeah we fucked up this whole comeback thing, but now we are on the right track as to what the smashing pumpkins should be."

sounds like he's trying to save face with all the dissapointed fans.

:noway:

yea, it would be awesome if they joined forces somehow and parlayed their efforts.

at least billy is still saying decent things about Trent, and respects what he does, unlike Trent's douche comments about Reading. He claimed SP was never relevant and never interested him, yet somehow they found what they were doing to be important enough to ******* a reference to bily in the starfuckers video. can trent say "contradiction"?

what comments did reznor make about reading

I wanted to address Davin's post about radio weeding out shitty bands. Sadly, friends, it doesn't.

I work at an AC radio station. We get the cold congealed leftover tracks from regular radio. Hot AC, Rock, Country, Top 40. The stuff already shoved down peoples throats that made it through round one.

We also get demos almost daily from people who suck balls. I've seen CD's come in here that look like their high school friend who took one photo class and dropped out of Photoshop after one week is the one who put the album "art" together. I've heard some of the most horrendous covers imagineable. I've heard some of the cheapest instruments imagineable. In fact, right now there's a single on the charts in which I can *hear* the tinny sounds of Peavey gear. It's awful. What I'm saying is...

Even radio isn't separating the wheat from the chaff any more. If you want good music, you'd better go find it on the internet or at your favorite record store.

thanks for the insights. and yea, i was generalizing, there will always be shit out there. i was just trying to say that with radio/mtv/record labels you at least get some type of "filter" (for better or for worse) vs. getting thousands of things thrown at you with no way to differentiate. i don't like getting spoonfed either...but if there was some mechanism to trim the fat and remove the absolute garbage, that would help me save some time and give bands with no previous following or fanbase a chance to "shine".

despite the systems flaws, the way the old system can "propel" a band to success provides some assistance to those that may have to work a LOT harder in the future, to do the same.

what comments did reznor make about reading

http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?p=2923748#post2923748

Reznor told NME.COM:

"I was never a big Smashing Pumpkins fan back when they were the Pumpkins, not to shit on Billy (Corgan) or anything but I don't hear anything that would make me want to care.

"I think trying to resurrect the name Smashing Pumpkins .........its all a bit corporate for me."


http://www.nme.com/news/nine-inch-nails/30619

http://forums.netphoria.org/showpost.php?p=2923748

Okay, so he said he wasn't a fan of their music -- Corgan was portrayed in his music video as a typical "rock success," because, by God, they were huge back then. I don't think Reznor was making the statement that the Pumpkins were always irrelevant.

thats the context i infer from his "i don't hear anything that would make me want to care" statement.

Probably my favorite Billy quote from this article:

And as an alternative artist, we're still here because it is about the music. And anybody can point to any other 9,000 stupid things I've said or done. The music still trumped any of those things. So I can sit here at my rosy age and know that that's why we're here, because the music has held us in good stead with a lot of people around the world.

It brings me right back to the Fillmore 7/16/07.

"Billy reflection time #2"
FLAC 34MB (http://www.archive.org/download/tsp2007-07-16.dpa4061.mt.flac16/TSP2007-07-16d2t11.flac) or MP3 14MB (http://www.archive.org/download/tsp2007-07-16.dpa4061.mt.flac16/TSP2007-07-16d2t01_vbr.mp3)
Youtube video #1 (thanks Monte) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iegARPL165s)
Youtube video #2 (thanks 'ezekie1') (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKwLCgzXSAM)

Why would you spend 17 months of your life doing anything? 'I dunno, just for fucking kicks, ya know?'

Then I yelled "For the MUSIC!"

Then Billy:

Yeah for the music! My friend, I wish it was -- listen, if it was all about the music then we'd have a different conversation, but it's obviously not all about the music because look around you it's not all about the music so why is it my fucking problem that it's all about music? It's not like we're living in a free world with bartering, OK? This shit, these weird clothes cost money man! (laughs). This shit ain't free! Look at Ginger over here -- she looks like a million bucks! Well it costs a million bucks!

[then 3 more minutes of talking about music, "the hate", Billy & Jimmy's solo albums, the industry (Bon Jovi, Sting, Kanye West jokes), Billy having his first "meltdown" in front of Jeff]

Then Today, That's the Way, Heavy Metal Machine. Then the follow-up Billy speech: FLAC 7MB (http://www.archive.org/download/tsp2007-07-16.dpa4061.mt.flac16/TSP2007-07-16d3t03.flac) or MP3 3MB (http://www.archive.org/download/tsp2007-07-16.dpa4061.mt.flac16/TSP2007-07-16d3t03_vbr.mp3)

Before we finish I'd just like to say a few things. Thank you very much for coming tonight. For those of you without a sense of humor, I was joking before. Those were jokes. Jokes. We do uh, we appreciate you very much, and we know uh, it takes a lot of time and sacrifice to get you here and we appreciate that. We love you very much, and uh... (applause). All kidding aside, I mean, it really does end up being the music at the end of the day cause that's the only good thing out of this whole fucking bunch of bullshit. Even the bad songs are better than the... whatever, you know what I'm saying? So uh, I hope you all understand the context of that. It's happened to me that people have taken me a little too seriously. No, really, I know, it's hard to explain. All right I'll shut up, but uh, thank you.

Amen!!!

its alright, but overall i find it to be a very "safe" release by a band who's previous 5 records all blew me away...and added something "new" and exciting to the band's catalog. IN Rainbows did not accomplish this. Especially after all the talk surrounding The Eraser, the band's future, their musical direction....not to mention what the In Rainbows material sounded like live when they were playing it live in 2005....it just wasn't daring enough, imo. I mean...what exactly did you hear on In Rainbows that you really haven't heard before...that you consider it a progression?

Well, for one the string arrangements are stellar. sure, you got some great string arrangements on previous records, but here they show that jonny greenwood has really educated himself over the past few years with his BBC residency experience, resulting in arrangments that are matured, concise and creative. The "in a small room" sound also show cases that radiohead can lay back on the typical grandiose sound they are well known for.. and this vibe is concise through the entire record. The harmonic progressions (check out the unique guitar arrangements on arpeggi, or the lydian scale "white noise" clusters in the strings during the end of all i need, etc etc etc) as well as melodic content also show a maturation of the band.. it sounds like they are learning more and more with each record they make, rather than regurgitating the same materials they are used to in order to write and arrange new music (which is what SP showcased on Zeitgeist).

So if you want to compare with Zeitgeist, which is a very daring/in-your-face record, lets look at that relative to the band's catalog as well. Unlike In Rainbows, Zeitgeist was actually better than previous Pumpkins records. Though many would disagree its better than Adore as well as machina/machina2 (which is simply my opinion)....most people seem to magnanimously prefer it to the machinas.

Bottom-line, I expect a lot from 2 bands as good as SP and RH. Thats why just "churning out more of the same stuff" doesn't seem good enough to me, re: In Rainbows. I count on these bands to continue evolving and becoming more diverse. And in that regards, despite knowing expectations can be a killer, I still expect a lot from these bands. And thats why I find In Rainbows to fall short and Zeitgeist to satisfy.

opinion. adore, machina II > zeitgeist. it'd beat machina I if machina I didn't destroy some potentially incredible songs... however i feel the songwriting on machina outshines zeitgeist.

zeitgeist showcases that billy has hit a creative wall.. he only knows so much as far as music is concerned (the man literally writes every damn song in 1 of the 5 of the same keys).. it's at a point where it's too predictable.. and instead of bothering to move outside of his small musical box, he decides that trying different production techniques will change the band sound, ignoring the fact that a lot of the harmonic progressions and melodic content are the same thing he's been doing for years. his musicality/creativity is getting boring and it shows on this record. there were no suprises on zeitgeist for me. i heard what i expected to hear. Sure, i liked zeitgeist upon first listen, but that was a result of all the hype that was built up over the past few years. when i heard in rainbows for the first time, i was blown away at what the band had acheived.. they had matured, brought themselves up yet another step and also made another great record that could stand on it's own in comparison to their past works. to this day i still listen to that record constantly and still discover new things within it that make me appreciate the creativity and dedication that went into making it.

the only thing on zeitgeist that shows any type of musical progression is jimmy's playing.. he just gets better with age... however he seems limited to billy's writing and playing on this record.. almost as though jimmy has made leaps and bounds miles ahead of corgan, and corgan has some serious catching up to do.

i will say this though.. i think they show some great promise with a song like bring the light.. best song on that record, as well as stellar.

Well, for one the string arrangements are stellar. sure, you got some great string arrangements on previous records, but here they show that jonny greenwood has really educated himself over the past few years with his BBC residency experience, resulting in arrangments that are matured, concise and creative. The "in a small room" sound also show cases that radiohead can lay back on the typical grandiose sound they are well known for.. and this vibe is concise through the entire record. The harmonic progressions (check out the unique guitar arrangements on arpeggi, or the lydian scale "white noise" clusters in the strings during the end of all i need, etc etc etc) as well as melodic content also show a maturation of the band.. it sounds like they are learning more and more with each record they make, rather than regurgitating the same materials they are used to in order to write and arrange new music (which is what SP showcased on Zeitgeist).

fair enough. however to be fair to billy, he and jimmy said that Zeitgeist was just supposed to be a "reintroduction" to SP..which is perhaps why things seemed so "familiar" to you.

opinion. adore, machina II > zeitgeist. it'd beat machina I if machina I didn't destroy some potentially incredible songs... however i feel the songwriting on machina outshines zeitgeist.

zeitgeist showcases that billy has hit a creative wall.. he only knows so much as far as music is concerned (the man literally writes every damn song in 1 of the 5 of the same keys).. it's at a point where it's too predictable.. and instead of bothering to move outside of his small musical box, he decides that trying different production techniques will change the band sound, ignoring the fact that a lot of the harmonic progressions and melodic content are the same thing he's been doing for years. his musicality/creativity is getting boring and it shows on this record. there were no suprises on zeitgeist for me. i heard what i expected to hear. Sure, i liked zeitgeist upon first listen, but that was a result of all the hype that was built up over the past few years. when i heard in rainbows for the first time, i was blown away at what the band had acheived.. they had matured, brought themselves up yet another step and also made another great record that could stand on it's own in comparison to their past works. to this day i still listen to that record constantly and still discover new things within it that make me appreciate the creativity and dedication that went into making it.

the only thing on zeitgeist that shows any type of musical progression is jimmy's playing.. he just gets better with age... however he seems limited to billy's writing and playing on this record.. almost as though jimmy has made leaps and bounds miles ahead of corgan, and corgan has some serious catching up to do.

i will say this though.. i think they show some great promise with a song like bring the light.. best song on that record, as well as stellar.

you can't deny billy's guitar playing/soloing on this record either. you also have to realize that in order to progress, SP has to settle back into where they were, and moving forward hopefully involve the new members more, etc. this is just the beginning. but that being said, songs like Neverlost and even the dreaded vocal overlay techniques that people hate still qualify as "new ground" for the band.

i can't really argue the objective comments you made about the musical performances on In Rainbows, however i don't really see a lot of shining "stand out" examples when you compare to Kid A/Amnesiac or other albums...other than maybe what you said about greenwood, however after seeing them live in 2006 when the "previewed" some of the new material, i have to say what was captured in the studio was a disappointment. maybe that just speaks EVEN MORE to his abilities live on stage, but it is what it is.

yea, but the phsyical cd was not announced until afte rthe mp3's were out and people were already sucking on RH"s teet. the only physical release annoucned at the time of the mp3 release was the discbox.

I hate to say you are wrong, but you're wrong. Radiohead said from DAY 1 that there was going to be physical release. The specifics were not unveiled until later, but it was always said we would see an early 2008 release on CD.

As for criticizing In Rainbows, I know that a lot of the attention has been given to the release, but the same attention has been given to how damn great the album is. After Hail to the Thief, one of the most boring and bland records ever made, In Rainbows was a nice surprise.

I hate to say you are wrong, but you're wrong. Radiohead said from DAY 1 that there was going to be physical release. The specifics were not unveiled until later, but it was always said we would see an early 2008 release on CD.

As for criticizing In Rainbows, I know that a lot of the attention has been given to the release, but the same attention has been given to how damn great the album is. After Hail to the Thief, one of the most boring and bland records ever made, In Rainbows was a nice surprise.

you were doing so well until that last idiot sentence.

If you name the Peavey gear song, will you be fired from your radio gig

I'm pretty sure it fell off the chart already. Pointless, just like 3/4 of all the other singles on AC radio. I don't even bother remembering new artists.

Do any known bands do this?

I'm not taking a piss, I'm genuinely interested. I remember some label leaking an album on what.cd and it becoming quit succesful as a result.

Wilco is a great example... but there are many others

You seem awfully sure of this, and I just don't see it. You've got someone who cares about music so little, or is so weak-willed, that they will listen to whatever's on the radio. You take the radio away and suddenly they're a discerning music fan? I guess I have a more cynical view of people, that they will find crappy artists who sound familiar and comfortable. Meaning the minority of people who, now, are discerning, will continue to be discerning in the face of a record company-less industry, but they will be fighting with the majority of people who are non-discerning. Meaning the meritocracy fails to materialize and shitty music continues to thrive.

this applies equally to film, tv, books. the market for unchallenging material is bottomless.

it was a good interview and I liked that he said 'if he was a fan he would be wondering where the energy is'... unfortunantly he probably doesn't realize that the thing that needs to change the most is the way his singing doesn't match the energy of the songs/lyrics. If he does realize this then hell yeah! but Superchrist was a further step in the wrong direction as far as singing goes while a step in the right direction as far as music goes.

sometimes it seems as if he is singing this way deliberately in contrast with the music. whatever, it isn't working.

sometimes it seems as if he is singing this way deliberately in contrast with the music. whatever, it isn't working.

the market for unchallenging material is bottomless :rolleyes:

heh heh.

btw paranoid...i really appreciate your astute observations about In Rainbows, musically. :2thumbsup I even went back and listened to it last night. as i said from the beginning, i definitely enjoy it, as i would any work by RH (one of my fav bands). however i still think it is only fair when held up to the rest of their catalog, and somewhat of a disapointment/safe effort. combining both discs and dropping some snoozers and the interludes would probably work great as a single 15track album, and strengthen it as much as a change to arrangement could strengthen any album.

if only the mass media had as good a sense as you. remember, before this discussion got slightly derailed, the point was that more people were focusing on the gimmick vs. the music. fortunately you are not one of these types, and although you agree with the "best of 2007" assessment, you have to admit that not many other people walked the same path as you did to reach that decision.

I hate to say you are wrong, but you're wrong. Radiohead said from DAY 1 that there was going to be physical release. The specifics were not unveiled until later, but it was always said we would see an early 2008 release on CD.

i disagree. the earliest website posting was just in regards to a new online release to be forthcoming in 10 days. later the physical cd talk started popping up, but by then the media had already clung to the gimmick of the release.

:rofl:

:rofl:

P.S. Elvis the Fat Years laughs at people who enjoy life, in bitterness over his joyless life. And bitterness over his small penis. Its basically a self-image/self-confidence issue. Lets all congratulate him on his progress.

.

elvis the fat years laughs at people who have large penises. but really, a large penis, like big floppy clownsfeet, is an amusing sight to all, envy or not.

Come to think of it, Elvis The Fat Years DOES come across like a man who's probably not very well hung..




(Thread derailed?)

btw paranoid...i really appreciate your astute observations about In Rainbows, musically. :2thumbsup I even went back and listened to it last night. as i said from the beginning, i definitely enjoy it, as i would any work by RH (one of my fav bands). however i still think it is only fair when held up to the rest of their catalog, and somewhat of a disapointment/safe effort. combining both discs and dropping some snoozers and the interludes would probably work great as a single 15track album, and strengthen it as much as a change to arrangement could strengthen any album.

if only the mass media had as good a sense as you. remember, before this discussion got slightly derailed, the point was that more people were focusing on the gimmick vs. the music. fortunately you are not one of these types, and although you agree with the "best of 2007" assessment, you have to admit that not many other people walked the same path as you did to reach that decision.

well thanks davin!

I'm as big a fan of radiohead as I am of the smashing pumpkins, and honestly the way they decided to release in rainbows was of no suprise to me, seeing as they were out of contract and thom continually said they needed to find some sort of way to release the record. I wasn;t suprised when they made the initial announcement (about the release).. i was just psyched that I was finally going to hear a new radiohead record after four years, especially sooner than i had anticipated.

When I finally heard the record, I was even more suprised. I thought that songs like arpeggi, all i need, nude from the 2006 shows were some of the best material i had heard in a long while, and was INCREDIBLY happy with how the they turned out on the record. Also, I was amazed at how well they flowed together.. Nude-Reckoner has to be one of the best 5 song run i've heard on a single record in a long, long time. I couldn't wait to hear/read interviews with the band speaking about the record, what went into it creatively, how the composed the tunes and how they settled on the final arrangements.. but the media decided to make a big curcis out of the release method.. and if you read the interviews or listen to them via mp3, you'll notice that the band is suprised and finds it a bit strange that everyone is making too big a deal of it. But, unfortunately, observations about the actual music itself doesn't sell magazines and doesn't bring hits to the websites, at least not in the rock world (read any jazz magazine and you'll find reviewers ho ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THE FUCKIN MUSIC, as the majority of that genres listerners know's what they are talking about).

Again, I feel the music is fantastic, and could make an even longer list about how much they have grown as a band, how they've continued to refine their craft record after record, and why they are at a level now that a lot of other bands would need to start doing some SERIOUS work in order to catch up to (pumpkins included). but it's an SP board.

again, i don't feel the pumpkins have grown up that well, and that may be due to the inner band turmoil (that had nothing to do with the actual music) and the 7 year lag. ANd honestly, I feel that if they are to get back to where they used to be when they left off (say april '99?).. then they've got a few more years ahead of them in order to catch up. unfortunately, the fans, the media, and i may even argue billy, are not that patient.

goddamn I love Billy

if only Zeitgeist was actually good


If only you knew how to appreciate new, innovative music from your favorite band...you would then see Zeitgeist as good. If only you didn't bash every album Billy does because it isn't Siamese Dream 2.

Wake up, Zeitgeist is a good album! Not Billy's best, but to say it's not good is just not true.

corgan rules!! where have you been, my brother? you've been neglecting your duty around here.

maybe you shoudl drop all your predispositions about motives, production, lineup, etc. and give it another listen. it is good. the guitar and drum work is phenomenal, and most of the songs are underrated....so far.

I agree with you 100% on this topic! To say this album sucks is just plain stupid.... It's not Billy's best album ever, but it's still a very good album.

corgan rules!! where have you been, my brother? you've been neglecting your duty around here.


Get's old talking about the same stuff to some losers on here......

Get's old talking about the same stuff to some losers on here......

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

awesome way to put it dude!

corgan rules really showed us!

So if you want to compare with Zeitgeist, which is a very daring/in-your-face record, lets look at that relative to the band's catalog as well. Unlike In Rainbows, Zeitgeist was actually better than previous Pumpkins records. Though many would disagree its better than Adore as well as machina/machina2 (which is simply my opinion)....most people seem to magnanimously prefer it to the machinas.



very daring/in-your-face?

magnanimously?

magnificently unanimously.

unanimously preferred by 3 out of 10 dentists.

I like Billy.

I like Billy.

i adore i_adore_adore.

elvis the fat years laughs at people who have large penises.

no argument here. :D

very daring/in-your-face?

magnanimously?

daring in the sense that its obnoxiously in your face. the screaming solos through-out the record...the choice of tarantula as a comeback radio single....among other things, scream confidence and an absolute lack of subtelty or "trying to play it it safe", imo.

and yea, magnanimously...as in liking it better than machina without necessarily dissing machina, with due respect to machina, in the same context as machina........i assume since there are similarities in the themes but still improvements in song-writing, production and "feel".


magnificently unanimously.

i would never dare to use the word "unanimously" around these parts... :beatup:

well thanks davin!

I'm as big a fan of radiohead as I am of the smashing pumpkins, and honestly the way they decided to release in rainbows was of no suprise to me, seeing as they were out of contract and thom continually said they needed to find some sort of way to release the record. I wasn;t suprised when they made the initial announcement (about the release).. i was just psyched that I was finally going to hear a new radiohead record after four years, especially sooner than i had anticipated.

When I finally heard the record, I was even more suprised. I thought that songs like arpeggi, all i need, nude from the 2006 shows were some of the best material i had heard in a long while, and was INCREDIBLY happy with how the they turned out on the record. Also, I was amazed at how well they flowed together.. Nude-Reckoner has to be one of the best 5 song run i've heard on a single record in a long, long time. I couldn't wait to hear/read interviews with the band speaking about the record, what went into it creatively, how the composed the tunes and how they settled on the final arrangements.. but the media decided to make a big curcis out of the release method.. and if you read the interviews or listen to them via mp3, you'll notice that the band is suprised and finds it a bit strange that everyone is making too big a deal of it. But, unfortunately, observations about the actual music itself doesn't sell magazines and doesn't bring hits to the websites, at least not in the rock world (read any jazz magazine and you'll find reviewers ho ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THE FUCKIN MUSIC, as the majority of that genres listerners know's what they are talking about).

Again, I feel the music is fantastic, and could make an even longer list about how much they have grown as a band, how they've continued to refine their craft record after record, and why they are at a level now that a lot of other bands would need to start doing some SERIOUS work in order to catch up to (pumpkins included). but it's an SP board.

again, i don't feel the pumpkins have grown up that well, and that may be due to the inner band turmoil (that had nothing to do with the actual music) and the 7 year lag. ANd honestly, I feel that if they are to get back to where they used to be when they left off (say april '99?).. then they've got a few more years ahead of them in order to catch up. unfortunately, the fans, the media, and i may even argue billy, are not that patient.

see, my take on In Rainbows was a little different because of the 2006 show I saw. It was a similar effect as seeing the Arising tour show, and then hearing Machina. I went to this show (http://www.concertlivewire.com/radiohead2.htm) and was really in love with the new material after i heard it. I mean, checkout the set and all the In Rainbows material they previewed. It was awesome!

Overall the show was very old-school, in the sense that they abandoned many of the "electronic" effects and such in favor of a more traditional rock band feel, like they were doing after OK Computer came out....vs. the type of shows they were doing in 2003 after Hail to the Theif (and all the things those shows entailed, musically/electronically/visually). I mean, Thom played mostly with a guitar and barely at all with a keyboard, if that tells you anything.

So, the issue for me was that certain songs like videotape and arpeggi sounded so much more badass and raw at that show. More rockin and old-school-ish, so I was totally going into the new album thinking it was going to be more of a return to the older ok computer ways. Expectations can be a killer.