Quote:
Originally Posted by Rairun
But I think they made music that was very good at speaking to people with a certain type of upbringing - basically kids who went through some form of abuse and were trying to figure out how to navigate their lives in the aftermath. Maybe it's just my age showing, but I feel that bands like My Chemical Romance tap into some sort of generic feeling of out-of-placeness, some teenage desire to be different. Again, maybe I'm biased, but I don't think the Pumpkins are like that at all.
|
I think a large part of their audience is/was searching for meaning, seeking strength, and using the scale of the music as escapism. There is obviously an overlap there with abuse victims, but I think that's a bit narrow. The rest of the audience includes the mentally ill, addicts, and regular ol' smart but weird! I definitely agree that this contrasts with the alternative music that came a decade after it, which was much more connected thanks to the internet, and fashion-focused. The emo-type bands secured an audience of partiers, self-proclaimed rebels, and arty kids. Just a different vibe, and generally people of that scene seemed to have a better social life than a typical Pumpkinhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDogGlynis
The problem is whether enough people are there to listen in order for it to get traction and recognition, and unfortunately the answer seems to be no. On any best of lists for albums or songs, they are always ranked far too low and below material nowhere near as good. In 90s retrospectives they are barely mentioned if at all. No HBO or Netflix documentaries, no Rock n Roll HOF.
|
This kind of speaks to my point, the Pumpkins and their fans aren't popular enough to rank high on any pop culture lists, because both the band members and the audience tend to go unnoticed. A band won't get acclaim like that without a fight from their fans, and we just haven't been heard/no one cares because there's more easily digestible bands with flashier fans.