...sorry i'd put it up but don't have the shit to do it...anyway it kind of made me sad and pissed off because billy looks kind of uncomfortable on the edge of the frame like he knows that all the limelight is on that wonky eyed midget while the honour is all billys and jools holland to be standing in the shadow of Greatness. Yorke has somehow acquired that internationally-recongnized genius status that cobain has been granted posthumously and billy always expected (fucking rightly so) but, lets be honest, never, received outside of netphoriaworld. it just pisses me of all manner of reasons - for example siamese dream shits on OKC as a mainstream rock album in terms of tunes, playing, textures, song structures,lyrics, EVERYTHING while Adore manages to be experimental with TUNES, you know what I mean - basically IT'S JUST NOT FAIR. and the thing is, I quite like radiohead, I just think they're as overrated as billy's work is underrated.

i absolutely agree. ok computer is unlistenable at points, while a newbie can go into just about any pumpkins album and dig it. dig it hard.

..... Imo Ok Computer is even at least with siamese dream... but overall billy has made more great music.


He derserves sooo much more regocnition.

Mojo, thank you for saying exactly what I wanted to.

just because billy is underrated doesn't mean that thom yorke is overrated. radiohead is a fantastic band and it's somewhat satisfying that a band that's willing to maintain their integrity and make great music for the sake of making great music can actually find some degree of commercial and critical success in this day and age. like billy himself said: when an album like "Kid A" goes #1, it changes the way the business works and opens up doors for other genuine artists.

that's certainly not to say that the Pumpkins got the shaft. "Adore" and "MACHINA" were both incredible achievements, and their critical and commercial failures were obviously frustrating to the band and the people who loved these albums. fortunately i think billy has enough self-confidence in his abilities at this point to go on his intuition and not rely on the approval of the general public. come to think of it, he's had that self-confidence all along (what many have deemed arrogance, but i think anyone who still posts on this board must recognize billy's gift to some extent).

i'm very curious to get a look at that picture of billy and thom, though. two of my favorite musical minds. i'm not sure if thom is a fan of billy's, but billy has made it pretty clear that he's a fan of Radiohead, or at least "OK Computer" and "Kid A."

fuck this overrated, underrated bullshit. the bands are equal. the only difference is that Adore came out before the widespread use of internet file sharing ala Napster so it didn't have the kind of massive momentum that Kid A did

Originally posted by pumpkinxyu
i'm not sure if thom is a fan of billy's, but billy has made it pretty clear that he's a fan of Radiohead, or at least "OK Computer" and "Kid A." the only time I've heard rhead mention the Smashing Pumpkins was when they were saying it was too risky for them to make Kid A / Amnesiac a double album, because most of them flunked except for a few like the White album and Mellon Collie

kid a is better than adore.

only because billy can't edit himself.

Originally posted by mellon_c0llie
kid a is better than adore.



Bullshit. Kid A is more self-indulgent and masturbatory than Billy has ever been on days when he's masturbating self-indulgently.

Something like Kid A may head in very experimental directions, but I think it can be said that Billy keeps his songs more...coherent, maybe?

If Billy was a "good" editor and feeling particularly self-indulgent and masturbatory, would we call things equal? :)

Let's not forget there was a time many, many years ago (1996, to be exact) when the Pumpkins were at the top of the world, and basically overshadowed everyone else in rock mainstream in every way possible.

I think the real problem became that the Pumpkins burned brightly in the mainstream for a while, more or less alienating any past or future "indie credibility", but also managed to alienate the mainstream itself with an alblum like Adore. They sort of became a passing phenomenon. Past Mellon Collie, the public's interest with them quickly dissipated although they were arguably given equal hype. Radiohead, on the other hand, has chugged along for a good few years now, building success, credibility and respect even though they never became the superstars that the Pumpkins were at one time.

http://makuro.mak-sima.com/teksty/amadeus/salieri.jpg

Do you recognize this one.... No?.. That's 1979... The album went platinum eight times... Oh, damn you, Yorke... I killed that man, you know...all those years ago

The Director's Cut sucked.

nice post mojo, i agree with you. anyone can scan the pic??

Maybe it's because Hail To The Thief in infinitely more superior to Mary Star of the Sea?

Who cares, it's just a fucking picture!

Originally posted by mojo
for example siamese dream shits on OKC as a mainstream rock album in terms of tunes, playing, textures, song structures,lyrics, EVERYTHING while Adore manages to be experimental with TUNES, you know what I mean - basically IT'S JUST NOT FAIR. and the thing is, I quite like radiohead, I just think they're as overrated as billy's work is underrated.

i don't think you can compare Siamese Dream with OK Computer.
And what is the merit in being a 'mainstream rock album' anyway?
that suggests nothing but banality to me.

They're totally different types of albums.

Siamese Dream, as Corgan has stated, shows how "aware [the pumpkins] are of the alternative scene". It has a lot of "tunes", but it is on the bridge of 'alternative-rock'.
More textures? The SD tone hardly shifts throughout the whole album.

Ok computer on the other hand is a highly experimental album, it is not hook heavy like SD; it actually bears more similarity to later SP albums.
it's lyrical style is more gritty, whereas SDs is romantic.


The main reason why Yorke is rated higher than Corgan is because he has greater aspirations. A motivation to make a difference to music, regardless of how their music will be perceived. Corgan on the other hand is unwilling to do anything different and risk losing their rock fanbase. (which is what we saw post adore).
furthermore, i think corgan just isn't the visionary everyone thought he was. I don’t think he has ever written anything truly unique and by the looks of things, never will.

The main reason why Yorke is rated higher than Corgan is because he has greater aspirations. A motivation to make a difference to music, regardless of how their music will be perceived. Corgan on the other hand is unwilling to do anything different and risk losing their rock fanbase. (which is what we saw post adore).

unwilling to do anything different? i'd say Adore was a pretty drastically different album, and i don't think albums like Kid A and Amnesiac would have been plausible without an album like Adore to lead the way and break open that door. in the Pumpkins, it was always clear that billy wanted to push music forward. if he hadn't been willing to risk the loss of the rock fanbase, he wouldn't have done Adore. hell, he did lose most of his rock fanbase. as for post-Adore Pumpkins, i still struggle to see how people don't appreciate MACHINA as a unique, creative endeavor. yeah, it rocks like a motherfucker, but it does so in a way that no other Pumpkins album ever did. and in Zwan, billy's made it clear that his strategy is different. rather than consciously pursuing a goal of making "different" music, the band will abandon any agenda and allow their sound to evolve naturally. i was a little skeptical at first, but after seeing how far Zwan has come in less than two years, i think that the plan is working perfectly. yeah, the True Poets of Zwan is a rock band, but the Djali Zwan is hardly a project that shows any fear of losing the rock audience.

on top of that, johnny greenwood and thom yorke have both expressed that they aren't necessarily that ambitious in terms of creating music that is extremely different from other music. they just get bored quickly and need to move on.

Originally posted by wangcomputers

Corgan on the other hand is unwilling to do anything different and risk losing their rock fanbase. (which is what we saw post adore).

You have no idea what Billy Corgan was thinking at the time and why he's done what he's done. This is your opinion of the situation, not fact.


i think corgan just isn't the visionary everyone thought he was. I don’t think he has ever written anything truly unique and by the looks of things, never will.

Once again your opinion, I'm sure others think differently.

One thing I could say is, after kid A other than a couple songs radiohead has flat out stunk. The've had the same sound for the last three albums, and yorke has actually stopped using is wonderful voice.

I personally don't think that but it's also a valid opinion.
I could go even further as saying their pablo honey was nothing special therfore that leaves basically the bends and ok computer as their standout albums.

Anyways I'm blabbing

bye

Originally posted by wangcomputers

furthermore, i think corgan just isn't the visionary everyone thought he was. I don’t think he has ever written anything truly unique and by the looks of things, never will.

That's not a fair assement, I think Silverfuck, Eye and Spaced are an example of some very unique tunes.

For the record, I think post OK Computer Radiohead bores me to tears, but I am meaning to check out Hail to the Theif. I have the first track 2 + 2 = 5 and I likey alot.

Originally posted by Hyperbole
OMG I NO!!! Y CANNT EVRY1 JUS SEE HOW GRATE B0LLY IZ?/?? PPL JUS DUN UNDRSTAND1!11


The thread should have ended after this post.

Originally posted by wangcomputers

I don’t think he has ever written anything truly unique and by the looks of things, never will.

For the most part, I disagree with you. Just look at the scene the Pumpkins came up in. Grunge. Nirvana, PEarl Jam, Soundgarden, etc. The Pumpkins were unique to that scene which made them appealing or you could show hatred. They were the pretentious psychedelic-goth band in the midst of grunge.

For the most part, Corgan has a unique style all in how he does things. He seems to use all of his influences. You can hear the Joy Division and New Order a long with the heavy metal stuff when you listen to some of his music. Personally, that's why I like Corgan as a musician and song writer. He's a very multi-faceted in his use of styles. No two albums are alike.

What the hell was so unique about Nirvana? They ripped off the Pixies.

What the hell is so unique about Radiohead? To me, they've always sounded like a more evolved Cure.

As great some bands are, what is so revolutionary about new bands? They just rip off old bands and make it into their own thing.

Originally posted by Cherub Angel
they've always sounded like a more evolved Cure.


Cure meets U2.

In defence of B0lly here...I DO think he made an earnest attempt to do something new and different in most of his songs and alblums. Of course, his efforts sometimes worked better than others. I've noticed that Billy has a tendency, however, to get rather upset and flustered when he doesn't think that others are grasping his concepts or seeing his musical progressions in the same way that he sees them, or the way that he thinks people should recognise them. Sometimes they truly don't see it, while other times Billy himself is probably at fault for not realising the shortcomings of his artistic "vision". Whatever is the cause of his perceived creative "failures", Billy can get rather hypersensitive about the implied or perceived criticisms. If you gonna play with fire, you gotta expect yo ass to get burned sometimes...diggit? :mrpimp:

Originally posted by sarmatianus


Cure meets U2.

nah, cure meets joy division.

Corgan on the other hand is unwilling to do anything different and risk losing their rock fanbase


wtf are you talking about. his music has evolved and changed so much over the years. zwan is so much different from sp and they still are good. i saw them live and they kicked ass. they could rock hard and then play slow smooth songs and still pull it off. Adore and Kid A are tied but without adore i dont think Kid A would have as much success as it did.

Originally posted by siamese_soma


without OK Computer's huge fucking popularity i dont think Kid A would have as much success as it did.

I mostly agree with the sentiment that Adore and Kid A are very similar records in terms that they were both significant and somewhat risky departures from their respective band's accepted sound. I don't, however, really think that the release of Adore did anything to affect how Kid A was received by the public. Like it or not, Adore probably is considered by most non-SP fans to be just a blip on the radar - significant only for marking the beginning of the end for the Pumpkins. If Adore's reception truly had given Radiohead any indication of how Kid A would be accepted, then they probably would not have gone through with making it sound as it did.

What the main difference is between the two records is merely a matter of perception. Kid A was seen as a bold, risky, artistic, statement because people believed that Radiohead *wanted* it to be. They had pushed the limits on OK Computer and it was naturally time to move on. On the other hand, there was always the perception that Adore's sound was the result not of a conscious desire for the Pumpkins to similarly move onto new frontiers after Mellon Collie, but instead because the absence of Jimmy (among other things) *forced* them to change. Thus, instead of the change being seen as bold or artistic, people saw it as a band struggling to find itself again after a period of turmoil. Kid A proved that people are willing to follow a band into a different sound, so long as they're sure enough of themselves to do it right. Right or wrong, people just didn't have the confidence that the Pumpkins were as up to the task with Adore as Radiohead was with Kid A.

what i think was the end of the band was when d'arcy quit. Billy and D'arcy had always has a love hate relationship and i think that finally after adore and in the middle of machina she just couldnt take it nemore and quit. id she would have stayed i think the pumpkins would still be around. and kicking ass.

let me put it to you like this:

appreciating adore was like pulling teeth.

kid a blew my mind away from the very first listen.

Originally posted by mellon_c0llie
let me put it to you like this:

appreciating adore was like pulling teeth.

kid a blew my mind away from the very first listen.

actually the opposite for me

adore blew me away when i listened to it
and i hated Kid A

I just never really got into the post OK Computer radiohead

i really like both albums but i have to like adore more because billy tried something totally new and risked more than radiohead. radiohead had laready made some songs that were experimental that were popular.

IMO,

Adore is way, way, way better than kid a. After OKC, I lost complete interest in Radiohead, to be honest, I think their new evolved "sound" or whatever is complete garbage. I'd much rather hear billy sing than hear Thom drone on, repeating a few words in a mumbling fashion. I'm surprised at their huge popularity in recent years, because I think they hardly deserve it. But then again, we're living in a world where Creed can sell 10 million albums, so go figure.

Again, adore > anything radiohead ever did after OKC.

Joe

Umm...just to be fair, Adore wasn't exactly free of what some people might call "droning"...

(Remember the various complaints about "sha-sha-sha-sha-shaaaaame", Billy's "anemic" voice in Annie-Dog, the tediousness of The Tale of Dusty and Pistol Pete and Daphne Descends, etc.? Incidentally the lyrical content of these songs seems to be more in the direction of story-telling than Billy's normal lyrical fare.)

Originally posted by Graveflower
by the way, morons, billy is treated like an also ran because he's released three consecutive flop albums and Radiohead is still relevant to modern music. Enjoy the truth.

so fucking what, if selling more records means better music that means creed and Avril kick major ass! but they don't.

Thats why those albums are considered flops because of record sales? !
:rolleyes:

Look, I love the Pumpkins/Zwan, but Radiohead's new progressive sound breaks so much more ground than Corgan ever did (and will do). Don't get me wrong, Adore is a fantastic album (and will remain underappreciated), but what Radiohead puts out is much more conceptually appealing (I'm not dissing anything before MCIS, that's a whole different topic). Machina as a concept was crap...and Billy will certainly never go political. He'd much rather sing about Chicago, or about his newfound religion (which he "grabs for like ketchup"). Let's face it: HTTT stomps MSOTS like a angry little kid on a dead jellyfish. It's the reality of what each band is capable of.

I know this is off-topic, but if Billy didn't want Zwan to be like the Pumpkins, why did he plan a tour so similar to the Machina tour (in terms of venues)? Wasn't the point of the band to do things differently? I'm almost glad they canceled those European dates...

You can't help but think that if Billy was with the Pumpkins on the show it would be a completely different story.

Originally posted by DeadOpera


so fucking what, if selling more records means better music that means creed and Avril kick major ass! but they don't.
wait...they don't? :erm