I can't believe a board full of a bunch of shitty diaper babies whining about every single "bad" review that comes out isn't balls-out ecstatic over this very nice article.

Although i pretty much agree with your post, and I agree with this quoted statement to some degree, you have to admit it's not that unusual to hear SP being lumped in with those bands. They were all three huge at the same time, they had a big hand in defining the sound of the early to mid 90's. They were nothing alike, different in so many ways, and yet it does make sense to group them together, simply because they all share the distinction of being the bands that brought "alternative music" to the masses.

That seems to be the norm about most netphorians. Let's dwell on the negative and not give a shit about the positives. There are a lot of Debbie Downers on this board. :noway:

good article, although the last few words are slightly unbelievable...the thought of Corgan becoming once again the biggest rock star in the world is almost laughable.

I thought it was a pretty good article and well-written. And I agree about lumping them in with Pearl Jam and Nirvana, they are not really grouping then together because they are similar but because they were all iconic bands of the 1990s. Even if you did not like them, you knew who they were.

:p

and Ever is correct, it is a decent essay. He rated the Pumpkins 3rd behind PJ and Nirvana when the Pumpkins established themselves apart from them as well as Alice In Chains and Soundgarden.

one could wordsmith their way to a conclusion about the Pumpkins apart from those Seattle bands, but johnny Boston Globe here doesn't have that scope on his lens. He regurgitates some tired cliche's, but Im sure his Journo Prof would be proud.

the Smashing Pumpkins have always been the most not-understood band of the world. Even in their successful years.

We CAN read. That's why when those among us who are literate read, "perhaps a function of the absence of original bassist, and confirmed softie, James Iha," we thought "Wow. A parenthetical comma clause. This douche thinks James played bass."

YOU learn to read, fuck face.

good article

Nirvana's comeback? ummm

PJ never really stopped.

AIC is rocking again. Dave Grohl has done rather well with Foo Fighters the last decade.

and didn't the Pixies mail in a whole tour recently?

I suppose this 'sure too-soon' grunge revival officially begins when Candlebox cranks it up again?

If it said "original bassist and confirmed softie, James Iha" , yes they would call him the bassist. It was simply a poorly worded sentence that failed to mention darcy explicitly.

edit: yes i do see your point of it being a parenthetical clause, which also makes sense, so I guess we are both arguing the same point from different views (me assuming that the writer knows darcy was the bassist)

I think it's funny that no one has even bothered to mention the thought that maybe it was just a typo.

I think he just left out a "the" before original bassist but it was such a nice article I really did not care all that much.