Billy Corgan & Wings
 

It's interesting to see the parallels between Billy Corgan and Paul McCartney. Both were in very successful bands, went through periods where they could commercially do no wrong, and both had a significant decline in quality following the break up of their respective bands.

It's fascinating at just how god awful Paul McCartney's post-Beatles music career has been. This was a guy who could effectively do no wrong between 1963 and about 1970 or so... and then after "Maybe I'm Amazed" from his McCartney album it's pretty much just pure crap from thereon out.

It's been pretty much the same for Billy... many would consider his early-to-mid 90s material to be his zenith but his post SP material (which I refer to here as solo material) has largely been atrocious. His Zwan and TFE albums were pretty crappy and though initially well liked Zeitgeist gets a ton of hate from fans now.

His further solo output hasn't exactly captivated audiences with crap like the failed Teargarden material, followed by his failed attempt at creating a 'new' Smashing Pumpkins with Oceania and what have arguably been his worst albums of his career with Monuments to an Elegy and Ogilala.

It's sad to see on principle, and rather pathetic that Billy doesn't even see it.

What about Sithradarathradartha? Any taughts on that?

nah

I don't think the general public has much of an opinion about a single thing he's put out after MCIS. Quite honestly if anything following that made any kind of impression it was Oceania, and it was a passing positive one that made not much in the way of ripples.

The notion that absolutely everything he's done in recent years is utter shit is pretty much exclusive to this place and the ten or so people who need to convince themselves that absolutely everything he does HAS to be worse than what came before.

The reality is polite ambivalence and lukewarm reception.

I prefer George and John to Paul, but Ram is a solid record

Ram?

27?

sine?

The fact that both Monuments and Ogilala have charted so poorly (#33 and #182) indicates that his recent work is failing to find an audience... so it go beyond the 10 people in this place.

Honestly, 33 is about what I'd expect from TSP these days. If anything, I'd be more surprised if it were above 20.

He can't find an audience because of a variety of factors, and I don't buy the music sucking as being solely responsible for that. If there were any kind of direct correlation between musical quality and chart placement, Manson's last shitpile wouldn't have had the mind-bogglingly good debut it did. It's part of it but not the sole reason.

No, for my money, Bill faded into obscurity primarily due to his bizarre behavior and off-putting personality. He became alternative rock's weirdo uncle nobody wants at the BBQ. Basically everyone else from that era cultivated good relations, communicated with their fanbase, kept their name recognizeable and likeable. Bill spent 15 years coming off like an asshole, shitting on ex-bandmates, shitting on his fans and sabotaging himself. That's the main reason he is where he is today.

You can have bands put out lackluster album after lackluster album and keep an audience. See: Foo Fighters. They stay alive because they don't scare everyone off like Bill did.

I'd expect 33 for a Billy Corgan solo album. Anything released under the SP name I'd expect at least top 20, with top ten being more likely (see Zeitgeist and Oceania).

Monuments did poorly due to the music not connecting with an audience. Ogilala barely even charted on the Billboard 200 and that was with a huge publicity push with Billy appearing on all sorts of shows doing promotional appearances for the album (as he had done for Monuments).

Joe Public doesn't care about Billy's bizarre behavior and off-putting personality, doesn't even know or care who's in the band. Joe Public just cares about what connects with him, and it's clear that Billy's not connecting with the public.

If you think everything McCartney has put out since 1970 is crap you haven't been listening. If you think everything Corgan has put out post SP1 is shit you have missed out on many of his best songs.

^
Nailed it

I'd expect 33 for a Corgan solo album if it was 2004 and it was called TheFutureEmbrace. You're really, really grossly overestimating Bill's current relevance and recognizeability. He's not a face people remember or care to remember anymore; and it's not because of the last five years. He has been bleeding fans and followers since 1998. Ogilala wouldn't have even hit the number it did without all of those appearances. He said he doesn't care how well it charted; hope that that's true. If I were him I'd be happy it hit the number it did.

And yes, the words "Reunion tour" or "Original band" do carry weight; people absolutely give a shit about who's in a band. Look at GnR and how well their tour did, or what's calling itself Queen these days or INXS. When a band sheds most of its known roster, whoever's left basically has one big chance to prove they're still worth the name; BC blew that with Zeitgeist - a decade ago - just like GnR did with Chinese Democracy (and that's an especially painful case with a shit ton of hype behind it).

To Joe Public, SP is always gonna be the creepy bald guy, the Japanese dude, the hot chick bassist, and the guy that got fired for being a junkie. Bill had chances to prove otherwise and he blew it over and over again, partly for putting out uninspired work, partly for insisting HE IS THE SMASHING PUMPKINS, and for generally being a fucking weirdo. Nobody's listening now because nobody cares.

Dude, Joe Public does not care who's a the band... you care and I care, but Joe Public has pretty much no idea who's performing in a given band or who the original/main members were in any given rock/pop outfit.

Your GnR example above actually proves my point as neither Izzy Stradlin nor Steven Adler performed in that reunion.

Another example is Foreigner who lately has been touring without even Mick Jones performing. Without any original (or second generation) member performing, the version of Foreigner that's currently active is literally just an official cover band.

We agree that marketing something as a 'reunion' does carry weight. When Billy started using the SP name again Zeitgeist did exponentially better than TFE did and got a ton of more exposure when it was essentially just a Billy Corgan solo album. No Iha, No D'arcy, just Jimmy who had also worked with Corgan on TFE and Zwan. That's why I really just consider all of Corgan's work post Machina II to be solo material and not SP material, because that's exactly what it is, solo material.

He's sold himself as 'The Smashing Pumpkins' in recent years because there's more marketability and public interest in 'The Smashing Pumpkins' name than there is in the 'Billy Corgan' name.

What you're saying above is partially true about Corgan coming off as a weirdo and such... but a lot of pop stars have come off as weirdos and have continued to have commercial success because their music resonated with audiences... Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, R-Kelly, Chris Brown... each continued to have success in his career despite either coming off as completely weird or an asshole and that's because people connected with the music they were putting out. Billy's failed to do that since at least Zeitgeist, and many would say since way before that (but keep in mind that both "Tarantula" and "That's the Way" were minor hits).

Billy had been able to mask his declining songwriting under the SP name since he resurrected it, but when Monuments barely cracked top 40 under even the SP name I think that proved to be a wake up call for him.

I don't think it's any coincidence that he released this current album under his own name. The only reason he claims he doesn't care how well this album charts is because it was known that this album was gonna be a commercial flop.

Idk exactly what the reasoning behind this is, but I think it's to give him time to sort shit out with James and D'arcy and to try to arrange a 'proper' reunion as he's been hinting about that in this promotional tour.

Really dude? You're gonna try and defend Paul McCartney's post-Beatles work?

I mean "Mumbo", "Bip Bop", "Temporary Secretary", "Wonderful Christmastime" and "Coming Up" are probably some of the worst songs ever put to tape. And those are just the tip of the iceberg.

Even Macca's songs that are generally considered to be 'better' are absolute crap. "Rock Show", "Jet" and "Silly Love Songs" are all super weak songs. "Band on the Run" is just as terrible as any of the aforementioned songs but people seem to defend it despite it being completely neutered mom-rock that I'd totally expect to hear while walking the aisles at Hobby Lobby or Michael's crafts.

For the record I actually think Billy's released some good music since 2007 or so. I like most of Zeitgeist and think songs like "A Stitch in Time", "Dorian" and "Pale Horse" are just as good as anything he did in the 90s. I also think that "My Love is Winter" had a ton of potential when originally played live but he sadly fucked that one up in the studio despite fans telling him not to. :(

Wings is a decent album but their older work is better (BTS)

It is happy to see your posting. Yes really informative points. I will tell this information again to my friend thank you?

he had to release an album as a solo album so he can have a 'come back reunion' album....

Billy had to fulfill his contract with BMG for two records.

The WINGS were just ten years in PAUL McCARTNEY's musical career. :banging:
MULL OF KINTYRE was the best selling single in Britain until 1997. :rolleyes:

Some Wingspam:

So were the Beatles, what's your point?

his POINT is that PAUL has had a LARGE and LUCRATIVE career from which simple DECADES should not be PONDERED upon as such.

:banging:

Man, you guys are just fucking assholes around here.

YOUR WELCOME IMBECILE SWINE

While we agree that the word 'Reunion' alone holds bank, I'd say as far as Joe's concerned, the 'big names' in the band, such as they're perceived to be, are important notwithstanding how much they actually know about who contributed what. You know and I know Izzy was a way bigger part of the band than commonly credited for but most folks don't. People saw Axl and Slash and Duff and hey, that was enough. If Bill wanted to, he could label a full a reunion tour with it being just James and Jimmy. James or D'arcy's inclusion - moreso James - I think would make or break the notion to the general public of it being 'legitimate'.

When James joined Billy onstage for those shows and it trended on FB and Twitter and whatnot, that kind of made me think 'fuck, maybe people really do want to care about this band, and there's hope that nobody's buying Bill's bullshit', he hasn't entirely run the name into the ground.

There's kind of a notion that 'three quarters is good enough, I guess' when it comes to these things. Lack of James and D'Arcy as we know results in the perception of half the original band being present regardless of how much or little they contributed, and I think that's also why a lot of people jumped off after ZG; either the sound turned people off - lord knows there was a lot of complaints along those lines, or it was looked on as a narcissistic glorified solo attempt using the SP name, like you've described it as. I remember hearing a lot of "fuck this, this is only half the band'. And I think that was really where people started to look at Bill and see something unpleasant. To me, ZG was the nail in the coffin, where the real damage was done, and everything else just fallout. No question in my mind that MTAE's chart position was a wakeup call to him, because it should have been - His name SHOULD carry more weight than that, but it doesn't and hasn't for years.

Personally, I find it hard to look at post-MII works as strictly being 'non-pumpkins' as stuff like Stumbeliene, where it's just Bill, ranks among my favorite SP works. I look at it as "Bill's capable of writing songs worthy of the SP name, but usually doesn't." And there's stuff in the live Zwan catalogue I don't think anyone would object to calling 'Pumpkins' were it put out under that name , so there are enough exceptions to the rule.

Some people can make a career out of being assholes and get labelled as controversial and edgy, and they can successfully market themselves as such, that's true. That was never Bill's strength though, every time he opened his mouth nothing brave or bold came out - just criticism of his fans, the press, etc. And we're living in this ultra-PC climate where doing shit like showing up Alex Jones and running your mouth at 'SJW's' is a surefire way to earn no credit with younger generations - this at the same time he tried advertising MTAE as an easily digestible pop record for the kids. And nobody cared.

I think that's what makes me look on Ogilala favorably. To me it doesn't sound like the brainchild of some marketing scheme, whatever one thinks about it. I can believe him when he says he doesn't care how well it charts because he finally got that it won't no matter how good it is. There's just no market for him as a solo artist, he never built up enough of a reputation for his solo name that invited anything but derision.

i'll fuck yer asshole, buddy!

I'm not "fucking assholes"... Do you? :O
:banging: :banging: :banging: :p :banging: :banging: :banging:


:dammit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_M...ey_discography:rant:

I guess I don't understand people. Has anyone listened to Ogilala? It's fucking great. But it seems like no one cares. Not just on this board but in general. I guess once your time has come and gone there is no coming back no matter what you do. I just don't get it.

:eek: