James and Darcy being left out of Eye

[Catherine Wheel]

I wonder how they felt about that. I imagine Darcy must've been really pissed. I can see James just going along with it.

Can you imagine the converastion Billy had with them about recording Eye?

[C33]

no

[tensionhead]

they didnt want nothing to do with batman, so why should they have had anything to do with eye?

[mayday]

Can you ever think of The Smashing Pumpkins and forget that James and Darcy were band members? They can never be erased to me

[Irridescent Fairysex]

cock

[hcueva]

Originally Posted by mayday

Can you ever think of The Smashing Pumpkins and forget that James and Darcy were band members? They can never be erased to me

That's because you value band members based on their marketability as opposed to their actual musical contributions.

And because you're gay.

[tensionhead]

poppy

[mayday]

Originally Posted by hcueva

That's because you value band members based on their marketability as opposed to their actual musical contributions.

And because you're gay.

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

[stripes]

I wonder how they felt about being left out of Gish, Siamese Dream, Adore and Machina?

Imagine that conversation, musta been awkward

[My Blue Heaven]

Originally Posted by mayday

I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable,

didnt hear american gothic

[stripes]

Originally Posted by My Blue Heaven

didnt hear american gothic

hiiiiyooooooooo

[Pizza Club]

It was a mislabeled BC solo song. I'm sure they didn't care they were "left out".

[Catherine Wheel]

Was it really? Where did you hear this?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by mayday

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

you know a lot of bands change members and still carry on with the same name. even after losing members that are far more vital than james and d'arcy. i wish everyone would just give this topic a fucking rest already. it's so fucking tired.

[greedo]

Originally Posted by mayday

no. it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band. it's complete bs and it shows a lack of character on their part for spreading such a rediculous idea.

so are Jeff, ginger, and lisa considered not part of the resureccted Smashing Pumpkins because they didn't actualy write anything.

it's just rediculousness and it's really petty. even if it were the case thatthey didn't write anything they contributed quite a lot to the band that can not be just wisked away into oblivion. to do so would be not true. and lying gets you no where.

i'm really fed up with the bs. the hollywood bs. it's so lame

"Founding bassist D'arcy Wretsky quit after the recording of this album, ostensibly to start an acting career, but clearly frustrated with Corgan's dictatorship of the band. Chamberlin, one of rock's best drummers (see: Gish and Siamese Dream), is back, but what does that mean to Corgan, who uses electronic drums on half of MACHINA's tracks? And though he lends certain atmospherics, guitarist James Iha's credits on this album are not as prominent as in the past. No, this is Corgan's project, and he unfortunately has no checks or balances anymore."

checks and balances were definately a James/Darcy contribution. BC either out grew them and didn't replace them or decided to "delete" them only to be left with himself. I still think he's great and I guess I always will until he does something unforgivable, but i so wish he would check and balance himself again whatever and however that can happen.

I'd suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

We don't know anything about the relationships between the four original band members nor do we know much about what went down when the band was reformed.

And as much as I respect James and D'arcy's contributions in the past, this reunited band is far closer to the original band than any other reunited band I can think of off the top of my head.

Plainly put: The Smashing Pumpkins was always 95% Billy and Jimmy.

Machina is a great album, Machina II is a great album, Zeitgeist is a great album.

THE END

[Catherine Wheel]

I agree that James and Darcy dont really define the Pumpkins. I dont think Jimmy really does either though. It hurts the image of the band when long time collaborators leave but it never stopped Billy from continuing to put out material and thats all that really matters in the end.

For a long time I wanted to believe that James and Darcy brought something special to the band but that isnt really the case. It's always really been about Billy.

[tensionhead]

didnt jimmy say all the drums on machina were *actual drums* that he played (obviously some were super-produced)? like when they pulled out the dig drums during the machina tour?

i think so.

yes.

confirmed.

[chrisothoulo]

Originally Posted by mayday

Can you ever think of The Smashing Pumpkins and forget that James and Darcy were band members? They can never be erased to me

wait... Who?

[D.]

DEADSY

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you know a lot of bands change members and still carry on with the same name.

you didn't say whether or not any of them sucked.

even after losing members that are far more vital than james and d'arcy. i wish everyone would just give this topic a fucking rest already. it's so fucking tired.

it's impossible to measure or even to approximate with 100% certainty james and d'arcy's vitality to the band, so to treat the opinion that they were rather worthless as more valid than the contrary view is silly.

what is fairly apparent is that when james and d'arcy aren't around billy has a hard time plugging in to the 'muse' or whatever you want to call it. yeah quality of art isn't quantifiable so the whole damned argument is moot, but it's a pretty safe bet that most fans today and eventually whatever vein of music history gains the most consenus will all point to the fact that the band reached its height when the original four members were at their most collaborative, and that billy's attempt to reform the band in 2007 will yield something on par with your re-formed creedence clearwater revisiteds: a band that exists mostly for touring on a mixture of stuff from their glory days watered down by mediocre, artistically unnotable new material, eventually relegated to the state fair circuit.

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by greedo

Plainly put: The Smashing Pumpkins was always 95% Billy and Jimmy.

Originally Posted by Catherine Wheel

I agree that James and Darcy dont really define the Pumpkins. I dont think Jimmy really does either though. It hurts the image of the band when long time collaborators leave but it never stopped Billy from continuing to put out material and thats all that really matters in the end.

For a long time I wanted to believe that James and Darcy brought something special to the band but that isnt really the case. It's always really been about Billy.

some bands get away with a revolving lineup. when led by the right core of musicians (or even single musicians) who have their heads on straight when it comes to making music, people can relax and come and go as they please and rock together while they have a chance and move on when things get stale. totally possible and very true for plenty of musical acts.

it's quite clear, however, that the pumpkins were not that kind of band. some of them are talented musicians, some are talented songwriters, but none of them alone or in pairs seem to be able to even come close to making the kind of music that they produced when the four of them were 'in' the band. is musical contribution a part of this 'in'? sure. billy and jimmy's contributions are obvious. i think a lot of people are dangerously underestimating james' role, especially live. but musical contribution is not the big piece with these four people. the pumpkins were a strange, one-of-a-kind dysfunctional little family, and there's so much more to it than who was doing what in the studio. there was something about those four people pledging allegiance to that fucked up family unit that brought out the best in billy's songwriting and studio abilities and billy's, jimmy's, and james' musicianship.

when the four of them actually sweated it out in the studio together they produced a seemingly impossible quantity and quality of music that momentarily put a lot of the rock/pop community to shame. with only three of the four original members in the band (and sometimes one or two at a time being half-gone emotionally), the band stumbled and slowly tore itself apart. when just two of them eventually returned they managed the stalest, flattest, most passionless and by-the-numbers material of their career. sure, billy can still turn out a catchy tune and jimmy of course is a master of his craft, but listen to 'doomsday clock' and 'bodies' end-to-end and tell me one of 'em doesn't sound like they're dredging the past, and on top of that phoning in a passable but by no means inspiring performance. what do james and d'arcy have to do with any of that? i dunno, but when they were around the band never let a beige snoozer like that slip onto a studio album.

does correlation exist between original-four presence and the quality (and some may dare the "pumpkin-ness") of their work? sure. does that necessarily mean there's a causal link there? of course not, but no other possibility seems nearly as likely, unless someone out there's been sitting on a better theory. and simply saying 'lol james and d'arcy were worthless, quit advocating for their tired asses' doesn't count. that argument is far more worn-out and worn-through.





also, for posterity (ie greedo, let's come back in 10 years and say this with a straight face, shall we?)

Originally Posted by greedo

Zeitgeist is a great album.

THE END

[pumpkinxyu]

Originally Posted by Mariner

some bands get away with a revolving lineup. when led by the right core of musicians (or even single musicians) who have their heads on straight when it comes to making music, people can relax and come and go as they please and rock together while they have a chance and move on when things get stale. totally possible and very true for plenty of musical acts.

it's quite clear, however, that the pumpkins were not that kind of band. some of them are talented musicians, some are talented songwriters, but none of them alone or in pairs seem to be able to even come close to making the kind of music that they produced when the four of them were 'in' the band. is musical contribution a part of this 'in'? sure. billy and jimmy's contributions are obvious. i think a lot of people are dangerously underestimating james' role, especially live. but musical contribution is not the big piece with these four people. the pumpkins were a strange, one-of-a-kind dysfunctional little family, and there's so much more to it than who was doing what in the studio. there was something about those four people pledging allegiance to that fucked up family unit that brought out the best in billy's songwriting and studio abilities and billy's, jimmy's, and james' musicianship.

when the four of them actually sweated it out in the studio together they produced a seemingly impossible quantity and quality of music that momentarily put a lot of the rock/pop community to shame. with only three of the four original members in the band (and sometimes one or two at a time being half-gone emotionally), the band stumbled and slowly tore itself apart. when just two of them eventually returned they managed the stalest, flattest, most passionless and by-the-numbers material of their career. sure, billy can still turn out a catchy tune and jimmy of course is a master of his craft, but listen to 'doomsday clock' and 'bodies' end-to-end and tell me one of 'em doesn't sound like they're dredging the past, and on top of that phoning in a passable but by no means inspiring performance. what do james and d'arcy have to do with any of that? i dunno, but when they were around the band never let a beige snoozer like that slip onto a studio album.

does correlation exist between original-four presence and the quality (and some may dare the "pumpkin-ness") of their work? sure. does that necessarily mean there's a causal link there? of course not, but no other possibility seems nearly as likely, unless someone out there's been sitting on a better theory. and simply saying 'lol james and d'arcy were worthless, quit advocating for their tired asses' doesn't count. that argument is far more worn-out and worn-through.





also, for posterity (ie greedo, let's come back in 10 years and say this with a straight face, shall we?)

a lot of good ideas in this post, and very well-expressed. a lot of truth. mellon collie was the most collaborative, and best, pumpkins record. i think.

unfortunatetely, all of my feelings are complicated by the fact that i think zeitgeist is one of the best things the band has ever done after expecting it to be merely a pumpkiny step above the sum of two guys who are capable of writing and playing great music. james and d'arcy will always be extremely important to me. they're a major part of the pumpkins. but, i saw the pumpkins seven times this year...before the break up, i saw them five times with james...three times with d'arcy...hell, once with all four original members onstage at the same time. but except for the final metro show, the best pumpkins show i've seen was in atlanta this year on a friday night when billy corgan and jimmy chamberlin, with the help of three people who are not yet more than touring members of the smashing pumpkins (which puts them in the same category as melissa), proceeded to rip me to shreds with one of the most intense performances i've ever seen.

the band is writing and playing some of its best music. is there anyone on this board who was argue with the fact that james doesn't want to be in the band? d'arcy doesn't either, i would assume. so...i don't know. it's tough for those who defend their contributions (which i do) to also defend the new lineup (which i do). but the smashing pumpkins have put out what i consider to be a masterpiece of an album and a brilliant EP within only a year after re-forming. i believe that both billy's and jimmy's hearts are in the right place, despite the occasional marketing misstep or whatever else people want to lunge upon. the two greatest musicians in the world want to make music together until they're dead. and i'm more in love with the band's work, from 1991 to now, than ever before.

there are plenty of things in this world to be plenty upset about. the pumpkins in 2008 ain't one of them.

and is eye not one of the best songs you've ever heard?

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by pumpkinxyu

a lot of good ideas in this post, and very well-expressed. a lot of truth. mellon collie was the most collaborative, and best, pumpkins record. i think.

unfortunatetely, all of my feelings are complicated by the fact that i think zeitgeist is one of the best things the band has ever done after expecting it to be merely a pumpkiny step above the sum of two guys who are capable of writing and playing great music. james and d'arcy will always be extremely important to me. they're a major part of the pumpkins. but, i saw the pumpkins seven times this year...before the break up, i saw them five times with james...three times with d'arcy...hell, once with all four original members onstage at the same time. but except for the final metro show, the best pumpkins show i've seen was in atlanta this year on a friday night when billy corgan and jimmy chamberlin, with the help of three people who are not yet more than touring members of the smashing pumpkins (which puts them in the same category as melissa), proceeded to rip me to shreds with one of the most intense performances i've ever seen.

the band is writing and playing some of its best music. is there anyone on this board who was argue with the fact that james doesn't want to be in the band? d'arcy doesn't either, i would assume. so...i don't know. it's tough for those who defend their contributions (which i do) to also defend the new lineup (which i do). but the smashing pumpkins have put out what i consider to be a masterpiece of an album and a brilliant EP within only a year after re-forming. i believe that both billy's and jimmy's hearts are in the right place, despite the occasional marketing misstep or whatever else people want to lunge upon. the two greatest musicians in the world want to make music together until they're dead. and i'm more in love with the band's work, from 1991 to now, than ever before.

there are plenty of things in this world to be plenty upset about. the pumpkins in 2008 ain't one of them.

and is eye not one of the best songs you've ever heard?

thanks for avoiding all the usual pitfalls of wading into this argument and stating your opinion in such a clear and calm manner. i really appreciate it, keep it up. we'll have to agree to disagree on zeitgeist the album, but i've got a question:

i've watched tons of the band's performances from 2007 and just don't see or hear or feel the pumpkins in them. that's a bit of a semantic minefield, i suppose, but how did what you see live this last year compare with a performance like the one below? take a good look at the whole thing again if you haven't seen it in a while. man do they stick that outro. james wails and d'arcy is smiling...





is there anything from 2007 on youtube or elsewhere on the internet that you think stands up to something like this? i've tried looking but just haven't found it. all subjective/your opinion, i know. but i'd still like to try to keep an open mind every once in a while.

[pumpkinxyu]

Originally Posted by Mariner

is there anything from 2007 on youtube or elsewhere on the internet that you think stands up to something like this? i've tried looking but just haven't found it. all subjective/your opinion, i know. but i'd still like to try to keep an open mind every once in a while.

there's nothing from 2007 that stands up to that. mellon collie pumpkins...the best music ever made. the band in 1995-1996 was something else entirely. but the music they made afterwards (even if you don't want to count zeitgeist) is so much better than any other's band output that their "peak" becomes irrelevant to me. the first time i saw the pumpkins was 2 months after they kicked jimmy out. i was 12. i'm 23. and i still come to this shithole message board on a daily basis. that's gotta tell you something.

but to answer your question...while the 2007 atlanta show that i was referring to in my initial post is available as a torrent...the video/audio quality simply doesn't do it justice (but i'm still eternally grateful to the taper). the best performance with decent audio/video quality that i've seen would have to be the myspace broadcast of the madrid show.

http://creative.myspace.com/design/_...gpumpkins.html

i also think the Rock Am Ring performance was pretty incredible...especially "United States." i don't have a link offhand. it's a very different thing from the band in 1996, but at their best moments, this band is still capable of that intensity. at their worst moments, they're still 100 times better than any other bands out there.

[mistle]

i'm glad mariner came in here first. i always just get angry and call people names

[1100ww]

Originally Posted by Mariner

is there anything from 2007 on youtube or elsewhere on the internet that you think stands up to something like this? i've tried looking but just haven't found it. all subjective/your opinion, i know. but i'd still like to try to keep an open mind every once in a while.

I definitely hear what you're saying. That 1996 Thru The Eyes Of Ruby performance pretty much sums up what true Smashing Pumpkins is. There's definitely an edge there that can't really be matched.

I'm actually dying to hear them play Ruby...hopefully they'll start playing that one. No way will it truly capture 1996, but I have a feeling they can get pretty close. It would be very interesting to hear the new SP do TTEOR.

After seeing the 2007 version of SP in Dallas and at Red Rocks, I was definitely impressed. They are a very skilled band; there were still moments where I got the chills from hearing certain parts of songs. It was a surreal feeling to hear, say, a song like Hummer--for it to sound so perfect, performed so well...and yet to know it wasn't really the old band. At the same time I felt the performance was very heartfelt, energetic, and kick-ass.

I agree about the Zeitgeist comments. The actual album just seems weird and bland. Comparing Doomsday Clock to Bodies, on the physical CD....yeah, no contest. But I have to say...standing in front of the band, watching them play Doomsday Clock, is very different. It sounds very alive, relentless, menacing--not at all like the album version.

[mistle]

i'll add though that i hate the way billy does his best to perpetuate the idea with people that james and d'arcy were irrelevant. i don't even think he believes it, 'cause when he wasn't a bitter old man about it there was no overstating their importance and it was all about the people in the band. he's just using this 'i'm not going to protect people anymore' bullshit to justify sp2, because he's too much of a pussy to accept that the band broke up and to move the fuck on instead of just running back where it's safe and pretending it's the smashing pumpkins again because everything didn't go his way when he was without it. and that's exactly why zeitgeist is such a boring, unambitious and undaring irrelevance of a record

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by pumpkinxyu

i was 12. i'm 23. and i still come to this shithole message board on a daily basis. that's gotta tell you something.

yeah, about the same here

http://creative.myspace.com/design/_...gpumpkins.html

i also think the Rock Am Ring performance was pretty incredible...especially "United States." i don't have a link offhand. it's a very different thing from the band in 1996, but at their best moments, this band is still capable of that intensity. at their worst moments, they're still 100 times better than any other bands out there.

thanks for the link. they're definitely an accomplished live act, especially on the technical side of things. i beg to differ on the '100 times better' thing, though. i know you're probably not being literal, and yes it's your opinion, but i hope you're getting out there and exploring other music too. there's plenty of amazing stuff going on right now and it'd be a shame to miss a bunch of bands at the top of their "round #1" form in deference to spending too much time and energy on sp's "round #2 (or 3,4,etc. depending on how you wanna look at it). hey, if nothing touches you quite like sp right now, more power to ya, as long as you're keeping an eye out.

Originally Posted by 1100ww

I definitely hear what you're saying. That 1996 Thru The Eyes Of Ruby performance pretty much sums up what true Smashing Pumpkins is. There's definitely an edge there that can't really be matched.

I'm actually dying to hear them play Ruby...hopefully they'll start playing that one. No way will it truly capture 1996, but I have a feeling they can get pretty close. It would be very interesting to hear the new SP do TTEOR.

After seeing the 2007 version of SP in Dallas and at Red Rocks, I was definitely impressed. They are a very skilled band; there were still moments where I got the chills from hearing certain parts of songs. It was a surreal feeling to hear, say, a song like Hummer--for it to sound so perfect, performed so well...and yet to know it wasn't really the old band. At the same time I felt the performance was very heartfelt, energetic, and kick-ass.

I agree about the Zeitgeist comments. The actual album just seems weird and bland. Comparing Doomsday Clock to Bodies, on the physical CD....yeah, no contest. But I have to say...standing in front of the band, watching them play Doomsday Clock, is very different. It sounds very alive, relentless, menacing--not at all like the album version.

i pretty much agree about the current band's skill and how well-put together they seemed live. in terms of spirit, passion, that extra whatever which makes it "pumpkins", though ... what i've seen of their live stuff (including the myspace madrid broadcast) seemed sterilized and glossed-over; it gives off a hint of that same vibe you get from the very worst of commercial christian rock music. especially notable examples of this in the madrid show: today and to sheila. yeah billy's live vocals are really improved over the old days, the backing vocals are technically spot-on, instruments sound grand, but i'm just not sold that they're sufficiently connected to the songs themself (the meaning/spirit/what have you). i believe billy (and the rest of them) when i watch that brixton academy clip. i only believe him/them about 25% of the time on the madrid clip. it seems like in some spots jeff and ginger are so preoccupied with staying exactly on top of the music sheets in their heads that they're forgetting to really play the song.

anyway yes they're billy's songs and he can play them with whoever he wants whenever he wants. right now they're even doing a decent job of it. however: most of those people on stage with him today are not why he has those songs. they have yet to overcome that incongruity.

so even though the band right now (sp2/3/4/smashing pumpkins/stepford pumpkins/whatever) aren't technically doing a bad job, for me it's a question of whether it's best in the long-term for billy and jimmy to do what they're doing. i think they've made a huge mistake. offensive/half-unfair analogy ahead: at this point in history does it make you smile to see george w. bush & co. handle the war in iraq as best they can, or is the whole thing soured for you because you can't ignore the thought that they should not have put themselves into this situation in the first place?

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by mistle

i'll add though that i hate the way billy does his best to perpetuate the idea with people that james and d'arcy were irrelevant. i don't even think he believes it, 'cause when he wasn't a bitter old man about it there was no overstating their importance and it was all about the people in the band. he's just using this 'i'm not going to protect people anymore' bullshit to justify sp2, because he's too much of a pussy to accept that the band broke up and to move the fuck on instead of just running back where it's safe and pretending it's the smashing pumpkins again because everything didn't go his way when he was without it. and that's exactly why zeitgeist is such a boring, unambitious and undaring irrelevance of a record

exactly. if he still had d'arcy around to keep his head on straight she would've likely been able to talk him out of the whole endeavor in the first place!

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by mayday

it was wrong of BC and JC to carry on like they were never part of the band.

did they really do that? i mean, i haven't heard corgan ignoring that james and d'arcy used to be part of the band. have you?

what should they do differently so that you would see it as carrying on without pretending they were never part of the band? dedicate a song to james or d'arcy every show? use huge cutouts of james and d'arcy whenever giving an interview?