View Full Version : I really wish Billy would stop blaming his demise on our "being stuck in the past"


Reyngel
08-24-2010, 10:23 PM
I am so sick of him pretending that the reason we don't support him now is because we want him to return to 1993 and play Siamese Dream at every show.

It's such a fucking weak, weak cop-out.

If he would make good music today, people would support it. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with anyone wanting Siamese Dream or James Iha.

And playing all the old shit radio singles at every show really doesn't add to his credibility, either. If anything, he's whoring out more than he ever has. If he really believed that his current song writing was good enough, he wouldn't have to insert Bullet with Butterfly Wings, Zero, and all the other shallow hits into his set lists. His songs and shows are shit, so he adds the filler songs that we once cared about 15 years ago thinking that it will distract us from his inadequacies. And all the while, he's completely being a hypocrite in doing so.

The fact is, HE knows he isn't writing as well as he used to, and HE knows that WE know that, too. So he's doing what he always does: blames someone else for his failures so that he doesn't have to face them himself.

What a pussy.

whorebucket
08-24-2010, 10:33 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/24wrhaq.jpg

T&T
08-24-2010, 11:59 PM
obvious thread is obvious

mickyshambles
08-25-2010, 12:29 AM
pussyass + boring = op

yawn

Corganist
08-25-2010, 02:49 AM
It really is amazing that people can still make these kind of posts and expect to be taken seriously. This kind of complaining was, if not warranted, at least understandable back at the end of 2008 when we were hit with the disappointing 20th Anniversary shows and then Jimmy's firing. That was a pretty low point. But doing it now, when the band is riding high on a well received tour? And the main complaint anyone can muster is "too many songs people like in the setlist" (after months of whining because they believed Billy's BS about not playing old songs anymore, no less)? It just comes off as bitching for bitching's sake. Billy might not be right on point with the "stuck in 1993" remarks, but it's easy to see where he could get the sense that a lot of so-called hardcore fans aren't giving him a fair shake. People can say they don't want 1993 all they want, but the fact remains that a lot don't really seem to know what it is they do want instead.

Regardless, a lot of people are supporting this band right now, like it or not. It doesn't mean that you or anyone else has to do so, but the bitter "I speak for every old SP fan and I hate everything Billy has done since 2000 (but don't you dare accuse me of hanging onto the past!)" routine is getting old. If you can't admit that Billy has done wonders for the band's reputation in these last few months (against all odds, really), then you're not being fair or just not paying attention.

Cool As Ice Cream
08-25-2010, 02:51 AM
I'm not paying attention.

Corganist
08-25-2010, 02:53 AM
That's fair.

whorebucket
08-25-2010, 04:20 AM
i'm sure us fans who continue to support the band would appreciate it if billy cut the ~my fans are stuck in 93~ crap because we clearly aren't.

Starla
08-25-2010, 04:44 AM
And playing all the old shit radio singles at every show really doesn't add to his credibility, either.


But isn't that what everyone was bitching about in the first place? Not getting to hear enough of the old songs?

Starla
08-25-2010, 04:45 AM
i'm sure us fans who continue to support the band would appreciate it if billy cut the ~my fans are stuck in 93~ crap because we clearly aren't.


but clearly your avatar is

whorebucket
08-25-2010, 05:22 AM
but clearly your avatar is

last time i checked this thread was about billy and not my avatar.

and the fans bitched about not hearing the classics (ruby, geek...). i couldn't care less if billy stopped playing bwbw or cherub rock at shows. i'll admit i am a fan of the new renditions of eye and perfect. but seriously, billy could make room for variety with which songs to play live. but then again, they're HIS shows. he'll just continue to do as he pleases. if that means playing shows that appeal to a younger audience, then that's what he'll stick to.

Astur
08-25-2010, 05:43 AM
i'm stuck in 97

lucid_interval
08-25-2010, 10:46 AM
speak for yourself OP

vbshlofbvgos
08-25-2010, 04:10 PM
hello out there... i sure hope that someone gets this message. guys you're not going to believe this but ol doc brown invented a time machine and now i'm stuck in the year 1993! but it sure has been great seeing all these pumpkins shows. i sure hope they never ever ever ever ever ever change. ever. i just want it to be 1993 ALL THE TIME. the funny thing is that all the fans back here can't wait for a new album. if only they knew that 17 years from now... oh well.

Astur
08-25-2010, 04:30 PM
i just want it to be 1993 ALL THE TIME. the funny thing is that all the fans back here can't wait for a new album. if only they knew that 17 years from now... oh well.

please mr. br0wleeh think about this

slunken
08-25-2010, 05:22 PM
I guess if I used to have a nice life, then was killed and thrown into hell I would be stuck in the past too.

Billy projects too much. The fact that he focuses on "fans being stuck in the past" so much is proof-positive that he is in fact the one who is dwelling too much on the past. Guy really needs to let go.

tweedyburd
08-25-2010, 08:49 PM
Regardless of how you feel, it's a pretty fair point to make that Billy is indeed making a straw-man argument when he talks about all the hardcore fans wishing it were '93. I'd say the percentage of disgruntled fans who just want to hear the old sound and nothing else is less than 10%. Like the OP stated, if he were simply making quality music currently, he wouldn't have to invent reasons why many fans are unhappy.

What you never see him address in these interviews are the legitimate points 90% of the old school fans make in regards to where his music is these days, i.e. ridiculous repetition in songs, lazy, one-dimensional songwriting, half-baked ideas, millions of broken promises, etc.

applepwnz
08-25-2010, 11:34 PM
I wish it was '93 for reasons completely unrelated to SP, musically, I'd like to hear anything like '93 to 2000.

soniclovenoize
08-26-2010, 08:17 AM
straw-man argument
That's a cool band name right there.

RenewRevive
08-26-2010, 10:31 AM
not sure Zero, even Bullet actually are "filler". i go to see the Pumpkins i want to hear stuff from throughout their career, trouble is Billy mostly picks the wrong material. for example, i would like to hear This Time, AoI, IotM from Machina, but Corgan gives us HMM and mutilated versions of Glass + the Ghost Children. Rocket rather then Today. Here is No Why and JellyBelly rather than Bullet or 1979. For Martha instead of Ava Adore. Soma instead of Disarm.

Slurpee
08-26-2010, 11:00 AM
Fan: Billy, your new music isn't very good.
Billy: You hate me because I don't play Ruby every concert.
Fan: ...No, I don't hate you, but your new music isn't very good.
Billy: I'll never submit to your negativity!
Fan: Sigh.

And the venues get smaller and smaller...

paranoid
08-26-2010, 11:50 AM
my interaction with billy after a 20th anniversary show went something like this:

Me: Billy! I loved the show! The band sounded great!
Billy: Oh, well hopefully you enjoyed Disarm.. that's probably all you wanted to hear.
Me: No.. I was here for Galapogos. thanks for that!

Astur
08-26-2010, 12:38 PM
my interaction with billy after a 20th anniversary show went something like this:

Me: Billy! I loved the show! The band sounded great!
Billy: Oh, well hopefully you enjoyed Disarm.. that's probably all you wanted to hear.
Me: No.. I was here for Galapogos. thanks for that!

really? what a dickhead

slunken
08-26-2010, 01:37 PM
DISARMBULLETCHERUBWITHBUTTERFLY1979ROCKWINGSAVATOD AY I ONLY WANT TO HEAR THOSE SONGS BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THE RADIO THEREFORE THEY HVE THE MOST MEANING TO ME BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY IN A SYSTEM THAT IS FAILING AND FLAWED I DO WHAT I WANT ABSOLUTELY GROUNDBREAKING

Corganist
08-26-2010, 02:02 PM
Sometimes I tend to think that the only reason Billy is off base on this "stuck in 1993" BS is that he picked the wrong year. Maybe he should start saying "stuck in 1996" instead.

paranoid
08-26-2010, 02:30 PM
Sometimes I tend to think that the only reason Billy is off base on this "stuck in 1993" BS is that he picked the wrong year. Maybe he should start saying "stuck in 1996" instead.

you know what my favorite part of the anniversary shows were? the new material. I sat there and watched them perform cherub rock, zero, disarm, soma, galapogos, and so on. and it felt like they were going through the motions.. or at lease the same kind of energy was not being put into those songs that was being put into them when i saw them played in the 90s. the kind of energy coming from a band excited to be playing fresh material, and trying to bring said material to it's highest point.

and what i saw at the 2008 show was just that, songs like owata, gossamer, sunkissed, 99 floors, song for a son, as rome burns, march hare, all sounded like nothing i had heard from the band before. and the live band was incredibly unique too, with the horns, violin, two keyboards, percussion ensemble for march hare, they were really trying out new territory and they seemed to enjoy doing that on stage. Then the free improv during set the controls, though most people hated it i thought it was fantastic. i was genuinely excited as a fan for new material.

flash forward to two years later and he's writing bland new songs for a bland new band, then filling out the rest of the set with those same songs he was going through the motions with on in the previous tour. I could give a fuck about 1993 or 1996 or 1998 today. I loved those years because he was making fresh, new and exciting music at that time. I have the records and if i'm in the mood i'll listen to them. but as a fan i want to see him progress, and he's not been doing that, at all imo. the music isn't exciting, fresh and new. it's bland, boring and uninspired.

I'll give him this though, owata does sound decent on this tour. i still prefer the 08 version.. but who is talking about it? go to you tube and you'll find more uploads of bullet with butterfly wings from this tour than you will of owata or astral planes.

as a fan, i want him to let go of the past. i don't want to hear him play geek usa because that energy is gone and dead forever. It's insulting to hear him play those old songs with a different band anyway. and honestly, i don't want him using the sp name anymore. I want to see an honest billy writing honest music from where he's at in life right now. i'm not getting it from this new pumpkins.. it's like he's phoning in tunes based off of a formula he thinks will keep him relevant. and it's silly. HE'S stuck in the past. Go solo and start a new band and REALLY push ahead.

Trotskilicious
08-26-2010, 08:44 PM
i'm totally stuck in the past, i'm wearing black nail polish, i have really long, greasy dirty blonde hair, a red flannel and doc martens and a chain wallet man. i'm like. way more *real* than y'all are at least. Music died in on january 1st 2000

aomb1979
08-26-2010, 10:02 PM
i'm totally stuck in the past, i'm wearing black nail polish, i have really long, greasy dirty blonde hair, a red flannel and doc martens and a chain wallet man. i'm like. way more *real* than y'all are at least. Music died in on january 1st 2000

Dont you mean Dec 2 2000

Duke
08-27-2010, 01:03 AM
as a fan, i want him to let go of the past. i don't want to hear him play geek usa because that energy is gone and dead forever. It's insulting to hear him play those old songs with a different band anyway. and honestly, i don't want him using the sp name anymore. I want to see an honest billy writing honest music from where he's at in life right now. i'm not getting it from this new pumpkins.. it's like he's phoning in tunes based off of a formula he thinks will keep him relevant. and it's silly. HE'S stuck in the past. Go solo and start a new band and REALLY push ahead.


I couldn't have said it better myself. The argument that Billy is pushing the SP brand forward is just not true. As someone posted earlier in the thread Billy is playing in smaller and smaller venues. The idea is to expand isn't it? Fans are not excited about the new music. The band is getting good reviews on tour so far because they're playing the hits and Billy's not acting like a jerk like he did in 2008.

With that said I'll argue all day that the 2008 tour was far superior to this ongoing tour. As Rome Burns, March Hare and Sound of Silence were brutal live.

whorebucket
08-27-2010, 01:43 AM
when i got home after the viper room show, i went straight to my ~blog~ and bitched about how upsetting the show was. they played well. i was just pissed at the fact that NO NEW SONGS were played that night.

after jimmy's departure, billy recognized the fans were right with their bitching all along. at the show back in april, i watched him play tristessa, stumbleine, soot and stars... why are you bringing those songs back now, billy? to make up for jimmy leaving the band? why are you bringing back your singles hits as you release new music? to lure in new fans?

all i ask of billy is to write good music, whether it's under the pumpkins' name or not. preferably not under sp, but that's his choice.

Ihaguitar
08-27-2010, 02:09 AM
obvious thread is obvious

Try learning to talk properly.

mickyshambles
08-27-2010, 08:03 AM
No.. I was here for Galapogos.

Idiot.

Slurpee
08-27-2010, 10:06 AM
I could give a fuck about 1993 or 1996 or 1998 today. I loved those years because he was making fresh, new and exciting music at that time.

:banging:

Slurpee
08-27-2010, 10:09 AM
With that said I'll argue all day that the 2008 tour was far superior to this ongoing tour. As Rome Burns, March Hare and Sound of Silence were brutal live.

It cracks me up that the Anniversary tour had a lot of what the older fans had been looking for: a new, engaging, invigorating set of songs and arrangements. However, since it was NOT what the casual fans who like the hits were looking for, they got mad, Billy got mad, and everyone got turned off to a very good thing. Now the older / hardcore fans get blamed for this when we were the only ones supporting it...

Corganist
08-27-2010, 10:43 AM
as a fan, i want him to let go of the past. i don't want to hear him play geek usa because that energy is gone and dead forever. It's insulting to hear him play those old songs with a different band anyway. and honestly, i don't want him using the sp name anymore. I want to see an honest billy writing honest music from where he's at in life right now. i'm not getting it from this new pumpkins.. it's like he's phoning in tunes based off of a formula he thinks will keep him relevant. and it's silly. HE'S stuck in the past. Go solo and start a new band and REALLY push ahead.

I think everything you said was fine up until this point. You can't say you're not somehow holding onto the past while you're chiding Billy for using the SP name and "insulting" you by playing old songs. If you're not digging what Billy is putting out right now because it just doesn't do it for you, that's one thing. But when you're attaching so much importance to what he calls his band (as though somehow going under the name "The Billy Corgan Band" will change anything), it just comes off as nostalgia for the old band getting in your way of enjoying the present. If you really just want Billy to make better music, then it should not matter under what moniker he decides to do it.

Corganist
08-27-2010, 10:57 AM
It cracks me up that the Anniversary tour had a lot of what the older fans had been looking for: a new, engaging, invigorating set of songs and arrangements. However, since it was NOT what the casual fans who like the hits were looking for, they got mad, Billy got mad, and everyone got turned off to a very good thing. Now the older / hardcore fans get blamed for this when we were the only ones supporting it...

I don't remember the backlash being limited to casual fans. Plenty of "hardcore" fans were disappointed that they didn't get the career retrospective type show they were expecting. Plenty of hardcore fans were disappointed that the sets were mostly made up of stuff that had been played all throughout 2008. Plenty of hardcore fans didn't like the ridiculous costumes, the kazoo solos, the 3 hour cover songs, having to sit through live versions of American Gothic songs, etc. Really, this revisionist history lately where people are trying to turn that tour into some kind of misunderstood gem is a little strange to me.

Not that any of that makes Billy's needling of longtime fans any less wrong though.

New Art Rioter
08-27-2010, 11:05 AM
To be fair, most of the music played on that tour was great. It was more the endless bitching and the silly costumes that turned most people off. And Set The Controls, but I quite liked that personally. I think in terms of the actual music being played, it was far superior to this tour at the moment

Duke
08-27-2010, 11:07 AM
I think everything you said was fine up until this point. You can't say you're not somehow holding onto the past while you're chiding Billy for using the SP name and "insulting" you by playing old songs. If you're not digging what Billy is putting out right now because it just doesn't do it for you, that's one thing. But when you're attaching so much importance to what he calls his band (as though somehow going under the name "The Billy Corgan Band" will change anything), it just comes off as nostalgia for the old band getting in your way of enjoying the present. If you really just want Billy to make better music, then it should not matter under what moniker he decides to do it.


The fans shouldn't care what moniker Billy works under when it's obvious that Billy cares a great deal about what moniker he works under. Just trying to get this straight. If it made no difference Billy would be working under his own name, but as we found out on the future embrace tour that doesn't sell well. If things continue down the path they're going it soon won't matter what Billy uses. SP and Billy Corgan will both only be able to play very small clubs.

Corganist
08-27-2010, 11:31 AM
The fans shouldn't care what moniker Billy works under when it's obvious that Billy cares a great deal about what moniker he works under. Just trying to get this straight. If it made no difference Billy would be working under his own name, but as we found out on the future embrace tour that doesn't sell well. If things continue down the path they're going it soon won't matter what Billy uses. SP and Billy Corgan will both only be able to play very small clubs.

It's got nothing to do with sales. If it's about the music, the size of the venues he plays shouldn't matter.

The main reason Billy plays as SP these days isn't because of some cynical cash in. It's because it allows him the greatest flexibility in his songwriting. He spent more than a decade putting out nearly everything he wrote under the SP name, then when SP ended he had to basically try to "not sound like SP" with Zwan and his solo stuff (basically leaving him trying to not sound like himself). It's completely arbitrary, but in his mind "Billy Corgan" can't be like "Smashing Pumpkins." But the thing is that classic SP's style is just Billy's unfiltered songwriting. So going as SP now allows him to go back to just writing and putting out music without worrying what box it's going to fit into (for better or worse).

Duke
08-27-2010, 11:58 AM
It's got nothing to do with sales. If it's about the music, the size of the venues he plays shouldn't matter.

The main reason Billy plays as SP these days isn't because of some cynical cash in. It's because it allows him the greatest flexibility in his songwriting. He spent more than a decade putting out nearly everything he wrote under the SP name, then when SP ended he had to basically try to "not sound like SP" with Zwan and his solo stuff (basically leaving him trying to not sound like himself). It's completely arbitrary, but in his mind "Billy Corgan" can't be like "Smashing Pumpkins." But the thing is that classic SP's style is just Billy's unfiltered songwriting. So going as SP now allows him to go back to just writing and putting out music without worrying what box it's going to fit into (for better or worse).


It's not just about the music for Billy Corgan. If that were the case he wouldn't have berated fans on the 2008 tour. He wouldn't bash ex-bandmembers in interviews and claim SP was essentially all him if it weren't about something more. The SP brand allows Billy to get more attention and praise than he would get if he were working under Billy Corgan.

I think you make valid points as well and I'm sure on some level that his songwriting has to do with him continuing as SP. I just do not and will not believe that is the whole story. That's just the line he's selling us these days until something changes.

paranoid
08-27-2010, 12:25 PM
I think everything you said was fine up until this point.

Get off of your high horse.

The main reason Billy plays as SP these days isn't because of some cynical cash in. It's because it allows him the greatest flexibility in his songwriting.

You're an idiot if you truly believe this. I agree it may not be cynical, but there is a level here where it is about making some money.

You can't say you're not somehow holding onto the past while you're chiding Billy for using the SP name and "insulting" you by playing old songs.

Which is my point, by holding onto the name he's holding onto the past and he should damn well expect that his fans are going to have something invested in the past as well. He should expect that there are a variety of expectations with the name 'Smashing Pumpkins' and he should stop getting upset about it. If he wants the fans to move on he needs to move on as well. The SP glory days, and his ability to write under the SP moniker effectively, are OVER. I'd be more excited to see him move on from that name and come up with a project unlike anything he's done before.

whorebucket
08-27-2010, 02:48 PM
The main reason Billy plays as SP these days isn't because of some cynical cash in. It's because it allows him the greatest flexibility in his songwriting.

it's definitely for the cash. he's stated in interviews that he feels more comfortable writing songs under a different band name because then he doesn't feel as much pressure. he might as well release good music under a different band name than continue as the pumpkins and make mediocre music.

stumpycat
08-28-2010, 12:03 AM
To put it this way: I don't think that Billy would necessarily bother to play any Pumpkins songs at all in sets (except perhaps pulling out an acoustic musical reworking of a couple very old and "obscure" ones) if he were not working under the Pumpkins name. If the music alone was truly all that mattered, I believe he that would probably be playing only new material and covers of songs by other artists that he liked in his formative years. He most likely continues to play them because he feels obliged to do so.

selection7
08-28-2010, 04:53 AM
You're an idiot if you truly believe this. I agree it may not be cynical, but there is a level here where it is about making some money.

"There is a level here"? But that's not saying much, and seems to backpedal from the accusation you originally implied.
Bill has turned down more money for artistic reasons than you'll make in your life. Just using logic.

Corganist rightly noted that Billy has more emotional investment in the baggage he carries than the money he makes. It's not money he needs. He's not a bling, bling, sort of check out my seven ritzy vehicles on Cribs sort of guy anyway.

I'd say though the bigger part of it is ego and wanting to move on from the constraints he used to feel necessary to honor the other bands members, only to get burned in the end. It was his vision and his written songs, why should he have to change the name? Well, there's pros and cons, but that's what he's asking himself these days, and he's just not up to playing the old mental games (at least as far as that stuff is concerned).

The most important reason he feels compelled to play older hits is because he ultimately appreciates the fans, even the casual ones, even if he has plenty of whines about them at the same time. Someone pays $50 for a ticket, they want to hear at least a couple of the songs they care about, and Billy has always understood this...even going back to the Adore tour even when they were doing BWBW, 1979, & tonight along with all those esoteric Adore songs. I believe I actually heard him say this directly in an interview once. He wants those fans to walk away feeling pleased too.

selection7
08-28-2010, 05:11 AM
I don't remember the backlash being limited to casual fans. Plenty of "hardcore" fans were disappointed that they didn't get the career retrospective type show they were expecting. Plenty of hardcore fans were disappointed that the sets were mostly made up of stuff that had been played all throughout 2008. Plenty of hardcore fans didn't like the ridiculous costumes, the kazoo solos, the 3 hour cover songs, having to sit through live versions of American Gothic songs, etc. Really, this revisionist history lately where people are trying to turn that tour into some kind of misunderstood gem is a little strange to me..
What you're missing is that the 2008 Anniversary tour was never considered a dissapointment in the first place. Sure there were some little bitches who got there feelings hurt that Billy would purposefully agitate the crowd (or parts of it), but for someone like me who doesn't care how many beatings he got on his childhood birthdays or whether he has a positive outlook towards the fans, I heard every show live and it was excellent stuff. Not gonna replace 1996 for me, heh, but still, 3 hour shows with songs like GLOW, Owata, As Rome Burns, and newish stuff like Gossamer, US, The Rose March, etc., we got alot of reason to be interested in the new (too bad almost none of that was on the 2007 album).

Anyway my point is that you've fallen victim to the internet culture if you think because you read a bunch of flames on messageboards that those shows weren't great.

Monet LSD
08-28-2010, 08:20 AM
little bitches who got there feelings hurt

their

paranoid
08-28-2010, 12:46 PM
"There is a level here"? But that's not saying much, and seems to backpedal from the accusation you originally implied.
Bill has turned down more money for artistic reasons than you'll make in your life. Just using logic.

Corganist rightly noted that Billy has more emotional investment in the baggage he carries than the money he makes. It's not money he needs. He's not a bling, bling, sort of check out my seven ritzy vehicles on Cribs sort of guy anyway.



Like I said, you're an idiot if you truly believe this. He's also made more money off of deals he had said he'd never sell out on, more than you'll ever make in your entire life (visa commercial, hyundai super bowl, etc etc etc).

look, it's his career. and if you know anything about the history of SP, he's always been a careerist as well as an artist. We know of him because he's a sell out. Difference now is he used to not be ashamed of it and hide behind some bull shit excuses... like 'oh i'm reviving the name for artistic reasons.' if he was really moving ahead for artistic reasons he would have let go of that SP name long, long ago.

selection7
08-28-2010, 03:23 PM
Like I said, you're an idiot if you truly believe this. He's also made more money off of deals he had said he'd never sell out on, more than you'll ever make in your entire life (visa commercial, hyundai super bowl, etc etc etc).

look, it's his career. and if you know anything about the history of SP, he's always been a careerist as well as an artist. We know of him because he's a sell out. Difference now is he used to not be ashamed of it and hide behind some bull shit excuses... like 'oh i'm reviving the name for artistic reasons.' if he was really moving ahead for artistic reasons he would have let go of that SP name long, long ago.
To be critical, it's not really "like I said" at all, and is actually a more fair evaluation than your hyperbole. A person who has both sold out and not sold out at times is capable of both, I'll give you that, and good point. But a to the point rebuttal is that a true sellout isn't going to give up any significant money for art. What's the point after you've denigrated what you do so much already? But a person who truly cares about artistic integrity will often do both, usually only selling out very selectively.

But to take it further, it's the quality of how he's done both in the past that matters. I'll agree he's not as hardcore as he used to be (speaking relatively here, for a commercial musician). He's lost some of the innocence of his ideals, probably rightly, IMO. But his sacrifices for his art have been extreme, crippling at times IMO, while his giving in for more popularity or money have with very few exceptions been mild and not truly compromised him (MSOTS is probably the gravest exception...though I still enjoy it). Among commercially successful musicians, Billy is almost the poster child for artistic integrity. The list is so long of things he's done that a sellout wouldn't dream of. Simply pointing out that on rare occassion he's mildly sold out nonetheless isn't nearly good enough to support your original argument. And that's especially important because your original argument was judgemental to the point of arrogance.

selection7
08-28-2010, 03:30 PM
their

To be fair, after calling people little bitches, misspelling "their" is probably appropriate. But thanks anyway for the grammar citation with no fine...that misspelling is actually a pet peeve of mine, believe it or not. It won't happen again officer.

paranoid
08-28-2010, 05:34 PM
To be critical, it's not really "like I said" at all, and is actually a more fair evaluation than your hyperbole. A person who has both sold out and not sold out at times is capable of both, I'll give you that, and good point. But a to the point rebuttal is that a true sellout isn't going to give up any significant money for art. What's the point after you've denigrated what you do so much already? But a person who truly cares about artistic integrity will often do both, usually only selling out very selectively.

But to take it further, it's the quality of how he's done both in the past that matters. I'll agree he's not as hardcore as he used to be (speaking relatively here, for a commercial musician). He's lost some of the innocence of his ideals, probably rightly, IMO. But his sacrifices for his art have been extreme, crippling at times IMO, while his giving in for more popularity or money have with very few exceptions been mild and not truly compromised him (MSOTS is probably the gravest exception...though I still enjoy it). Among commercially successful musicians, Billy is almost the poster child for artistic integrity. The list is so long of things he's done that a sellout wouldn't dream of. Simply pointing out that on rare occassion he's mildly sold out nonetheless isn't nearly good enough to support your original argument. And that's especially important because your original argument was judgemental to the point of arrogance.

and yours isn't?

btw, could you give me examples of money/offer he's turned down? I could give you a long list of offers he HASN'T turned down.

Also, I agree that in the past he made some artistically daring moves, (releasing double album, Adore.. even though i feel no matter what they released at that point the interest would have still been lowered due to MTV over exposure.. machina 2 for free, even though he really had no choice but to at that point, adore charity concert, etc etc etc)., but not as of the past few years since reforming, which is what we're talking about here. Releasing teargarden for free? I dunno.. releasing 4 song eps for $30 a pop isn't exactly free in my book, my point being that he's still finding ways to make money off of the new music, as any other artist who sells records would do.

look, as billy himself said, bands do things to sell records. all bands do it. And many bands have made daring artistic choices that benefitted them financially. there is nothing unique about corgan in that he's on some higher artistic plane because he's writing under the SP moniker. having that name on the marquee sells more tickets and records. it's ridiculous for any fan to believe he's still using the name solely for artistic purposes. He could be an artist under any other moniker.. this idea that his song writing only works at its best if it's got 'smashing pumpkins' attached to it is complete and utter nonsense.

Corganist
08-28-2010, 07:32 PM
You're an idiot if you truly believe this. I agree it may not be cynical, but there is a level here where it is about making some money.
I didn't say there wasn't. Certainly using the SP name carries benefits beyond allowing Billy to not restrict his songwriting. Money is certainly a big reason that Billy continues using the name. I just think that all things being equal, it was more of an artistic decision than a financial one. I think the ability to go back to playing his old songs without guilt or baggage and the ability to just record and play whatever he writes without worrying too much about what box it fits into were much bigger considerations for him than the money (which couldn't have been a guaranteed thing back in 2005 when he came up with the whole idea).

Which is my point, by holding onto the name he's holding onto the past and he should damn well expect that his fans are going to have something invested in the past as well. He should expect that there are a variety of expectations with the name 'Smashing Pumpkins' and he should stop getting upset about it. If he wants the fans to move on he needs to move on as well. The SP glory days, and his ability to write under the SP moniker effectively, are OVER. I'd be more excited to see him move on from that name and come up with a project unlike anything he's done before.

But shouldn't you be just as excited if he comes up a project unlike anything he's done before regardless of the name he puts it out under? Maybe it would be easier for something new and amazing to happen if Billy and his fans could let go of the SP baggage and focus on moving forward, but it's not like it can't happen at all without that. The hangups on what name Billy plays under are just that, hangups. And it doesn't make any more sense for a fan to have a hangup about it than it does for Billy to.

Dogfighter28
08-28-2010, 07:59 PM
Corganist will you come to Netphoria*Con

stumpycat
08-29-2010, 01:21 AM
I think there are really two related, but ultimately separate sets of dynamics going on within Billy:

1) The decisions he makes for monetary gain. For the record I honestly do not think that Billy has ever significantly altered the artistic output itself for monetary gain. Not being the stupid and financially irresponsible sort, however, he's assured his financial security for years to come (a smart thing to do as an artist with a potentially limited commercial shelf life) through signing lengthy record contracts, making release deals (eg. the Zeitgeist rainbow), playing certain festivals, and licensing select properties away for commercial use. All this is, again, fairly smart since it does not have to threaten the artistic integrity of the music itself but still assures financial security.

2) The decisions he makes for achieving a sense of validation, approval, and significance/recognition from others. This appears to be a major driving force in Billy's life. Even the act of making money itself is important to Billy at least in part because it is seen by him as a concrete gauge of success and recognition. This desire for popularity does seem to pose a significant threat to the complete independence and artistic integrity of musical output moreso than any of the financial aspects. A great example is Billy Corgan's solo project: it was exactly what Billy wanted do artistically, and yet because he perceived that people weren't sufficiently interested in acknowledging its existence or merits, he almost immediately decides that he wants to again release music under the banner that he knows will give him more exposure and attention.

redbull
08-29-2010, 03:03 PM
selling Today to Vi$a doesn't "threaten" it's artistic integrity?

soniclovenoize
08-29-2010, 03:06 PM
No, because it doesn't change the fact that the song is about suicide.

DiscoJon
08-29-2010, 11:19 PM
Trent Reznor = Nine Inch Nails

Billy Corgan ≠ The Smashing Pumpkins

stumpycat
08-29-2010, 11:33 PM
selling Today to Vi$a doesn't "threaten" it's artistic integrity?
No, because the song and the original intent of its creation came over a decade before the sell. Maybe it threatens Billy's current integrity as an artist, but not the integrity of the song itself.

Ihaguitar
08-30-2010, 02:21 AM
Trent Reznor = Nine Inch Nails

Billy Corgan ≠ The Smashing Pumpkins

Difference being not many people could name the other members of NIN without looking them up. LOL one of the keyboardists did the soundtracks for 3 of the Saw movies...

Trotskilicious
08-30-2010, 03:31 AM
how come people like to say that shit about Billy Corgan IS the smashing pumpkins when it's verifiable fact that all the albums with the original quartet are better than anything after them?

is it just a delusion or what. I mean, yeah he did all the shit or whatever but there was something going on there. I mean Gish is still better than anything post MCIS.

Trotskilicious
08-30-2010, 03:32 AM
btw if you disagree you are WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RenewRevive
08-30-2010, 09:35 AM
wow, this thread has turned kind of highbrow. i should get outta here quick.

:erm:

Slurpee
08-30-2010, 10:37 AM
how come people like to say that shit about Billy Corgan IS the smashing pumpkins when it's verifiable fact that all the albums with the original quartet are better than anything after them?

is it just a delusion or what. I mean, yeah he did all the shit or whatever but there was something going on there. I mean Gish is still better than anything post MCIS.

To be fair, I think it is valid argument to say every single pumpkins album has been Billy and a drummer, the others contributed nothing, so each album's success is based on Billy's writing and playing alone. The superiority of Gish/SD/MCIS could be in no way related to who else was in the room besides Billy and Jimmy, but only to Billy's extremely high level of songwriting and production during those times.

However, just because that's logical, doesn't mean it's correct, and at this point I think it's a combination of both (original four + Billy was just better back then).

Ihaguitar
08-30-2010, 03:25 PM
To be fair, I think it is valid argument to say every single pumpkins album has been Billy and a drummer, the others contributed nothing, so each album's success is based on Billy's writing and playing alone. The superiority of Gish/SD/MCIS could be in no way related to who else was in the room besides Billy and Jimmy, but only to Billy's extremely high level of songwriting and production during those times.

However, just because that's logical, doesn't mean it's correct, and at this point I think it's a combination of both (original four + Billy was just better back then).

Makes me smile when people say this. Firstly, you dont know that, you werent there, secondly Iha clearly has his name to a few tracks (we wouldnt have I Am One or Mayonaise without Iha, James definitely came up with the I Am One riff). Thirdly I remember Jimmy saying once that Darcy's strong point was her timing - he said he definitely noticed when she wasnt there because the tempo wasnt as stable. Also remember that live version of Disarm on that UK program The Word? (Vieuphoria). James plays an awesome solo on that.

Bottom line the original line-up worked well together, two of them may have been lazy but I dont write them off completely because of that.

The Omega Concern
08-30-2010, 06:28 PM
Billy recently stated the band during the 90's was him alone in a recording studio doing all the grunt work. Probably true to the large degree and the kind of work ethic I can respect and rarely come across these days.

Perhaps he was alone alot because he didn't want them around. Perhaps not. Point is, Billy had a complete understanding of the voice of the band back then and that alot of that voice was the image of the band and alot of the image was James and Darcy. When you thought Smashing Pumpkins, you thought of a unit that meshed perfectly and that balance showed on stage.

I just think it's short sighted of Billy to diminish their contributions when he was at a comfortable enough place as a songwriter to understand the voice the band as a whole generated. He flourished in that atmosphere and alot of the artsy soft music (stumbeline, 33) benefited greatly from the image of the band as a whole.

The audience was willing to accept the artful grace with the metal and not let one style have dominion of the band over the other. Billy rode this line with precision for many years and quite frankly, no matter how fucked up the behind the scenes mess got, that aspect of the band was solid for a long enough time for him to match the output he wanted. He should always be thankful for that and by extenstion James and Darcy for being there as long as they were.

Caine Walker
08-30-2010, 07:05 PM
wow... i agree with that.

soniclovenoize
08-30-2010, 08:23 PM
Funny thing: you can clearly hear Billy's precise Fender-playing in the left channel of Gish, and James' sloppy Les Paul in the right. Weird he'd go through the trouble to fake that...

Cityto
08-30-2010, 10:40 PM
:erm: B-b-but... I like those shallow hits...

Slurpee
08-31-2010, 12:12 PM
Funny thing: you can clearly hear Billy's precise Fender-playing in the left channel of Gish, and James' sloppy Les Paul in the right. Weird he'd go through the trouble to fake that...

What song do you think is the best example of this?

icefish
08-31-2010, 03:17 PM
being a inventive person myself comparing the situation to myself !

I state years of inventing things/music drains u.
fighting against yourself drains you.
having a depresing atitude drains you.

non stop touring drains you !
CHANGING BEHAVIOUR IN FANS IS DEMOTIVATING gen x , his top public is no more.
people in the ever changing world , are tending to hip-hop.

SOciety's pack mentality is prevailing and the youth FOLOWS EVERY STREAM IT CREATES/DICTATES.
his music faded to : MARGINAL...

what it is not.

he is not to blaim , his quality is the same , his lyrics IMPOSIBLE FOR A PERSON HIS AGE TO RECREATE A FAKE SENSE OF BEING YOUNG AND WRITING ABOUT THE THINGS HE WROTE BEFORE ! a fake making music is UNREALISTIC MUSIC.

a star klinging to his original idea's and mental motions is prone to mental violence.

in the end the fans changed more than the band !

soniclovenoize
08-31-2010, 06:11 PM
What song do you think is the best example of this?

I am one, Siva, Bury Me, etc... The rockers.

There was also a Guitar World interview from '91 where Corgan literally stated this: one guitarist to each channel and the solos split in the center. And as I had said, an astute listener can hear the difference in the tonal qualities of their respective instruments and their precision of playing. Compare it to the live versions with good stereophonic seperation, and you could hear it too...

As for the more layered acoustic songs, you have to kind of pick out who was playing what... Crush, for instance, the rythm guitars were probably Billy, the leads probably Billy, but the arpeggios probably James; it seems James was often relegated to playing either: A) rythm guitar B) arpeggios or C) in the case of Adore & Machina-era songs, an eboy part or that Fernandez guitar with the build-in ebow/sustain. Everything else Billy? I wouldn't argue against it!

Of course, now Corgan says everything he said back then in intervews was a lie to make the band seem more like a real band, rather than The Billy Corgan Experience. I can believe that for Siamese, Adore and Machina, but my ears tell me not so on Gish and MCIS...

Ihaguitar
09-01-2010, 03:06 AM
I am one, Siva, Bury Me, etc... The rockers.

There was also a Guitar World interview from '91 where Corgan literally stated this: one guitarist to each channel and the solos split in the center. And as I had said, an astute listener can hear the difference in the tonal qualities of their respective instruments and their precision of playing. Compare it to the live versions with good stereophonic seperation, and you could hear it too...

As for the more layered acoustic songs, you have to kind of pick out who was playing what... Crush, for instance, the rythm guitars were probably Billy, the leads probably Billy, but the arpeggios probably James; it seems James was often relegated to playing either: A) rythm guitar B) arpeggios or C) in the case of Adore & Machina-era songs, an eboy part or that Fernandez guitar with the build-in ebow/sustain. Everything else Billy? I wouldn't argue against it!

Of course, now Corgan says everything he said back then in intervews was a lie to make the band seem more like a real band, rather than The Billy Corgan Experience. I can believe that for Siamese, Adore and Machina, but my ears tell me not so on Gish and MCIS...

I agree about Gish, it's interesting though that he went back and rerecorded I Am One and Tristessa for the remaster in 1994, the rerecorded versions sound tighter.

soniclovenoize
09-01-2010, 08:22 AM
I agree about Gish, it's interesting though that he went back and rerecorded I Am One and Tristessa for the remaster in 1994, the rerecorded versions sound tighter.

Source pleeze.

Slurpee
09-01-2010, 10:16 AM
Couldn't Billy think of a better hacker nickname?

stumpycat
09-01-2010, 10:46 PM
I agree about Gish, it's interesting though that he went back and rerecorded I Am One and Tristessa for the remaster in 1994, the rerecorded versions sound tighter.

I thought they basically only remastered and didn't do a whole lot more than boost the bass so that it stood out more.

slunken
09-01-2010, 10:52 PM
That's the definition of remaster AFAIK

pale_princess
09-02-2010, 10:40 AM
To be fair, I think it is valid argument to say every single pumpkins album has been Billy and a drummer, the others contributed nothing, so each album's success is based on Billy's writing and playing alone. The superiority of Gish/SD/MCIS could be in no way related to who else was in the room besides Billy and Jimmy, but only to Billy's extremely high level of songwriting and production during those times.

However, just because that's logical, doesn't mean it's correct, and at this point I think it's a combination of both (original four + Billy was just better back then).

yeah, co-writing mayo and soma, probably the two best songs of sp's career and hallmarks of the classic sp sound, is sure contributing "nothing."

Cool As Ice Cream
09-02-2010, 10:46 AM
I agree about Gish, it's interesting though that he went back and rerecorded I Am One and Tristessa for the remaster in 1994, the rerecorded versions sound tighter.

they didn't rerecord those two songs for the '94 rerelease.
they rerecorded them for the original '91 release of gish.
maybe you're mixing this up?

they had recorded them before they started recording gish, and released them as singles in '90, on limited potential and sub pop.

Astur
09-02-2010, 10:49 AM
being a inventive person myself comparing the situation to myself !

I state years of inventing things/music drains u.
fighting against yourself drains you.
having a depresing atitude drains you.

non stop touring drains you !
CHANGING BEHAVIOUR IN FANS IS DEMOTIVATING gen x , his top public is no more.
people in the ever changing world , are tending to hip-hop.

SOciety's pack mentality is prevailing and the youth FOLOWS EVERY STREAM IT CREATES/DICTATES.
his music faded to : MARGINAL...

what it is not.

he is not to blaim , his quality is the same , his lyrics IMPOSIBLE FOR A PERSON HIS AGE TO RECREATE A FAKE SENSE OF BEING YOUNG AND WRITING ABOUT THE THINGS HE WROTE BEFORE ! a fake making music is UNREALISTIC MUSIC.

a star klinging to his original idea's and mental motions is prone to mental violence.

in the end the fans changed more than the band !

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/184/9/1/MAH_BOOOY_by_draegerelektronik.gif

soniclovenoize
09-02-2010, 06:28 PM
they didn't rerecord those two songs for the '94 rerelease.
they rerecorded them for the original '91 release of gish.
maybe you're mixing this up?

they had recorded them before they started recording gish, and released them as singles in '90, on limited potential and sub pop.

Oh, that's what he's talking about? Pfff. Yeah... :p I Am One was recorded with Mark Ignoffo in '89 for the Limited Potential 7" and Tristessa was recorded with Vig in '90 for the Sub-Pop 7". The songs were then re-recorded for Gish. The remaster in 1994 alledgedly upped the bass a bit, that's all.

redbull
09-02-2010, 06:32 PM
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/184/9/1/MAH_BOOOY_by_draegerelektronik.gif

http://hypnotoad.raiderware.net/hypnotoad.jpg

stumpycat
09-02-2010, 08:19 PM
Oh, that's what he's talking about? Pfff. Yeah... :p I Am One was recorded with Mark Ignoffo in '89 for the Limited Potential 7" and Tristessa was recorded with Vig in '90 for the Sub-Pop 7". The songs were then re-recorded for Gish. The remaster in 1994 alledgedly upped the bass a bit, that's all.
I liked how the original I Am One and Tristessa had the squealy guitar thing going on right before Corgan busts into the solos. I also think the lead/solo portions of the 1990 I Am One have a cooler melody. The only downside is the drum sound, which is kind of poppy and shallow.

soniclovenoize
09-02-2010, 08:32 PM
I liked how the original I Am One and Tristessa had the squealy guitar thing going on right before Corgan busts into the solos. I also think the lead/solo portions of the 1990 I Am One have a cooler melody. The only downside is the drum sound, which is kind of poppy and shallow.

Yes indeed. Vig did a great job of recording Jimmy. Not to put this thread back on track or anything, but maybe Corgan should blame his demise on someone else recording the drums...

Slurpee
09-03-2010, 09:55 AM
It never occurred to me that the 7" Tristessa was a different recording.