93XRT: Billy Corgan Tells Us His David Bowie Stories

[juliana]

Do you two write for the onion?

[Mals Marola]

no, i just don't base my opinions of supposed greatness on Rolling Stone's 500 Albums to Hear before You Die!

[houseofglass11]

She's apparently completely incapable of writing a coherent response to clarify what's so ignorant about not thinking Bowie is as great as she thinks he is.

Super-defensive Bowie Fangirl alert.

[Mals Marola]

bowie's great but the idea of archiving and objectifying artists as a measure of some kind of unbeatable "cultural importance" isn't

[houseofglass11]

I agree completely, I mean that's pretty much the original point I was making.

[juliana]

Quit playing you guys

[Mals Marola]

it's always difficult for someone to come to terms with their predetermined "best of" being challenged, i guess

ah well, why stop at the beatles? we all know they never topped elvis

[fuzzyroes]

Corgan was brilliant for a few years, but his music wasn't ever really "game-changing". He kinda came in on the wave of success from Pearl Jam and Nirvana and made a few great albums. Gish-MCIS was a brilliant stretch but after that all of Corgans output took a huge hit... He never really managed to make anything musically relevant or culturally important after MCIS. Yes Adores sort of a cult classic now, but it's really a pretty spotty effort.

I still liked a lot of his work that came after 95, but it was all pretty spotty. Great songs littered throughout here and there, but none of it was really "legendary".

[fuzzyroes]

with that said, I'm not much of a Bowie fan myself... But to put Pumpkins in the same conversation as the Beatles? I mean, lets get real here.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

the beatles' output was "pretty spotty" too. i don't find that a very good argument.

[fuzzyroes]

Beatles were a game changer though. Pumpkins weren't.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

so why bother bringing up the spottiness?

[fuzzyroes]

Cause it's obviously the main reason why Corgan isn't generating the type of attention that he feels he deserves.

[dreams of glass]

Soma and mayo are not the best SP songs. I'm sorry, they are not the songs that I got into the pumpkins for. B-but James wrote those songs...no he didn't, BC took a riff or two from James and made it into a song.

[dodoz]

Originally Posted by The exploding boy

eurgh....translating in real time really? I'm guessing the show was live. Record it beforehand and then write subtitles. This interviewing style fucking blows. Musique Plus here did that all the time in the 90's but at least to their credit they would pause and then translate in a block the whole answer as opposed to this guy just basically switching back and forth in the middle of a sentence, surely confusing the guests. Horrible host.

The show wasn't live. The horrible host (called Nagui) is still around and now uses subtitles in his show. It's taken him years to figure that out

I like how Billy said "It's not a concept album" - I think he heard "concept album" when this Nagui said "c'est pas plus cher QU'UN SIMPLE ALBUM" ("it doesn't cost more than a single album", he was not talking about a concept album at all ...).

[Mals Marola]

it seems like everyone hates every host interviewing musicians who wasn't a big name interviewer

usually has to do with the interviewee being relatively "uncomfortable" or some other such shit

every interview i've seen broadcast from france has had live translating, for what it's worth

[Funbags]

"AAALLL THE YOUNG DUuUuUuUDES!!"

Holy shit Billy's Bowie impression lol

[The exploding boy]

Originally Posted by Mals Marola

every interview i've seen broadcast from france has had live translating, for what it's worth

yeah and they're shit at it.


I also agree though that pretty much if you were a major artist before 1980 you're considered untouchable and can never be equaled (Bowie, beatles, zeppelin, Pink Floyd, he who, etc) and I think this mindset is kinda bullshit.


I can partly see why though because lot of those bands were pioneers. I mean i definitely feel that TODAY (as in 2014) it's pretty much impossible no matter how good you are to make a record that will be considered a "classic for the ages" because at this point in "rock" music pretty much everything has been done already. At best you're "recontextualizing" stuff already done before. I mean i cant remember the last time i heard music that made me go i've definitely never heard something like that before.

[Araneae]

It's really quite pointless explaining it when some of you are already convinced otherwise (especially on a smashing pumpkins messageboard). From what I've seen from some you on these forums, very few of you listen to music pre-1960 or don't even like much of the music pre-1980 (much less a wide range of genres). Some of you don't understand how music (and even studio productions, stage performances, etc) evolved because you're ignorant to it, which hampers your ability to be objective on the matter. All I've seen from these posts in this thread is how important the SP albums have been to you, individually, and how much some of you think Bowie and The Beatles are overrated, and that starting point is not a conversation that can progress.

So I'll just pass this one to Billy, click on the link and have Billy explain to you why David Bowie is important and a great artist.

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by juliana

I just threw up in my mouth after reading that post. I can't even begin to explain the ignorance.

Let them circlejerk themselves off, just ignore it.

[houseofglass11]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Beatles were a game changer though. Pumpkins weren't.

We were talking strictly from a musical context. Nobody is saying that the Pumpkins were as culturally important and influential as the Beatles or whoever. But from a musical standpoint SP in their prime was as good as any of the greats.

[houseofglass11]

Originally Posted by ninsp

Let them circlejerk themselves off, just ignore it.

Yeah, stay strong Juliana. Keep the faith. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

julianabigglassespicture.jpg

[juliana]

Originally Posted by Araneae

It's really quite pointless explaining it when some of you are already convinced otherwise (especially on a smashing pumpkins messageboard). From what I've seen from some you on these forums, very few of you listen to music pre-1960 or don't even like much of the music pre-1980 (much less a wide range of genres). Some of you don't understand how music (and even studio productions, stage performances, etc) evolved because you're ignorant to it, which hampers your ability to be objective on the matter. All I've seen from these posts in this thread is how important the SP albums have been to you, individually, and how much some of you think Bowie and The Beatles are overrated, and that starting point is not a conversation that can progress.

So I'll just pass this one to Billy, click on the link and have Billy explain to you why David Bowie is important and a great artist.

And Billy continues to explain why bowie is such an amazing artist even today on stern and how much he influenced him and he keeps playing tribute to his awesome songs because of how much he loves him.

Originally Posted by ninsp

Let them circlejerk themselves off, just ignore it.

ya, it is totally a walk away moment, indeed.

Originally Posted by Funbags

"AAALLL THE YOUNG DUuUuUuUDES!!"

Holy shit Billy's Bowie impression lol

that was awesome, it was shocking.

[houseofglass11]

Originally Posted by Araneae

It's really quite pointless explaining it when some of you are already convinced otherwise (especially on a smashing pumpkins messageboard). From what I've seen from some you on these forums, very few of you listen to music pre-1960 or don't even like much of the music pre-1980 (much less a wide range of genres). Some of you don't understand how music (and even studio productions, stage performances, etc) evolved because you're ignorant to it, which hampers your ability to be objective on the matter. All I've seen from these posts in this thread is how important the SP albums have been to you, individually, and how much some of you think Bowie and The Beatles are overrated, and that starting point is not a conversation that can progress.

If you're such a Bowie fan then what are doing here? Go to the Bowie forum. You have no idea what anyone here listens to either. You're making some really grand assumptions there that you're the only person who knows anything about the history and evolution of music. Quite pompous. Everyone likes Bowie and the Beatles, some of us just think that SP is as good musically. The only response to that was essentially "No SP is not as good because BOWIE AND BEATLES OMG!!!"

Again, Bowie, much more of a singles artist. His albums are uneven aside from Ziggy Stardust. Also, that Bowie is some sort of fashion icon means very little to me because I'm not a girl.

[magikarp99]

http://nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0/...dP/16W0P_3.MP3

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by houseofglass11

Also, that Bowie is some sort of fashion icon means very little to me because I'm not a girl.

U wot m8

[Elphenor]

Fashion is for girls and gays, amiright

[houseofglass11]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Fashion is for girls and gays, amiright

You're the only one talking about gays. You must have some sort of hangup about that. But hey that's none of my business.

[Elphenor]

So you're not going to defend your stupid adherence to gender roles then?

ONLY GIRLS CARE ABOUT FASHION BRO

[houseofglass11]

No. You got trolled dawg.