while i don't think there's a total lack of validity in the original poster's theory, i think the argument could be reversed to point fingers at a lot of the fans. while you can say that billy can't relate to what it's like to be just a "regular" person anymore, you could also say that the man has traveled the world, been completely embraced by an entire international culture, been greatly rejected by much of said culture, played with his heroes from when he was just a regular guy, fallen in love [yelena], lost his musical soulmate to drugs, reconnected with his musical soulmate, lost two of his closest friends as they differed in their reaction to these experiences, and on and on and on...
in short, i'd say he's lived a pretty fantastic life. he's done great things with his limited amount of time on earth, made possible by his bold decisions, his dedication, and his work ethic. so rather than saying his music isn't as good now because he's too detached from reality and lacks depth, maybe the people who don't like his last several albums are lacking in depth because they can't think outside of their own smaller day-to-day experiences at mundane jobs in a largely status quo environment. the assumption is that billy's vast wealth of experience detracts from his ability to write while those of us sitting on the internet are constantly broadening our horizons. i know suburbia has been the breeding ground for a lot of "depth" in rock music, but i'd say that music doesn't necessarily suffer from these larger-than-life experiences. and there are plenty of examples of artists who have made their best work almost as a response to this detachment from the average-joe lifestyle: the Beatles, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Radiohead, U2, R.E.M., etc.
that's not to say that a lot of these bands didn't eventually end up making crappy music (the Beatles, Radiohead, and U2 being the exceptions for me). i feel like most artists do go south beyond a certain age, as billy said in that XM Live interview. but not necessarily for the reasons stated in this thread. it has a lot to do with mentality. once you see yourself as a novelty act, and you go out on stage to put on your pony show, it's over. unless there's some element of progression and danger in what you set out to do, then it's done and you can still sell t-shirts, but the heart of the band is gone.
billy is trying to re-establish the heart of the band with this album while still seeking new ground. it's a bit of a new balancing act for him, but i think he's doing it for the right reasons. he's perceptive enough to stay far enough away from novelty status to avoid its perils. anyone who's seen the band live this year knows that this does not feel like a reunion tour. these are intense concerts with a lot of new music. this isn't a couple of fat people wheezing through their back catalogue (sorry, pixies, but come on). i think Zeitgeist is a great record, and a very important record, although i can't say i've talked to many other people who feel very strongly about it. it stands up to the rest of the band's catalogue, i think. that's not to say anyone is supposed to like it, or even that anyone should go out of their way to relate to it, but i feel like billy's still going above and beyond in his role as a heartfelt writer and performer, and as long as he's doing that, the pumpkins will remain the best band in the world.
|