[Corganite]

I do miss those days when Mtv was good. I always got really excited about watching new Pumpkins videos, they added so much to the overall feel of the song (not including any of the godawful vids he has made since the band reformed, superchrist prob being the worst offender!) Billy recognised how important the music video was in relation to the success of the song so I am kinda optimistic about the possible visual aspect to Oceania. I am hoping that whatever he has in mind adds to the experience in an artistic way and isnt just there for the sake of holding your attention.

[Arachnea]

It is exciting. I hope that Billy hires the right people to make this visual experience work. Billy struck gold with Dayton and Farris and Yelena in the 90s.

[ShamanO]

here's to hope :cheers:/>

[lucciola]

JSapp, on 16 March 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

There was also TONS of shitty music being played on MTV and commercial radio during that time. Even in the best times for music you had to sift through shit to get to the good stuff.

Of course there was. Truly terrible music. :D/> I was there. I'm not nostaglic for the 90s. In fact, I'd be the first to argue that the 90s are overrated. Billy is out of his mind suggesting his generation changed the world. He mentioned classic bands like The Who, Floyd, Zeppelin, Hendrix et al, but even during their prime those great bands competed with superficial throwaway music most of us have conveniently chosen to forget. Albums like Zeppelin IV and Dark Side of the Moon will always have an audience. How about The Osmonds? Classic album? My point was, for whatever reason, there have been moments when better quality music was more easily accessible through mainstream means.

ShamanO, on 16 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

I guess I was listening to all of that based on where I was and who I was hanging out with..

Sure. In my experience, the best music was almost always discovered either through friends, or what I saw or heard about at local clubs. Digging through bins at small independent record stores was also highly profitable. :)/>

[RottingApples]

lucciola, on 16 March 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

In fact, I'd be the first to argue that the 90s are overrated. Billy is out of his mind suggesting his generation changed the world.

I do find it funny that for the last 10-15 years, Corgan's done nothing but lament how his generation dropped the ball on "changing the world". All those interviews he did saying by the end of 1994 he knew the whole "alternative" 90s thing was a sham.

But, I guess revisionism isn't a new thing here...

[Arachnea]

RottingApples, on 16 March 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I do find it funny that for the last 10-15 years, Corgan's done nothing but lament how his generation dropped the ball on "changing the world". All those interviews he did saying by the end of 1994 he knew the whole "alternative" 90s thing was a sham.

But, I guess revisionism isn't a new thing here...

:lol:/>

I forgot about that, that he used to say that.

[RottingApples]

Arachnea, on 16 March 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

:lol:/>

I forgot about that, that he used to say that.

I think that's what threw me for a loop most of all from that interview. That and the "it's dumb to go the only singles route". :rolleyes:/>

[Fernando]

lucciola, on 16 March 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Of course there was. Truly terrible music. :D/> I was there. I'm not nostaglic for the 90s. In fact, I'd be the first to argue that the 90s are overrated. Billy is out of his mind suggesting his generation changed the world. He mentioned classic bands like The Who, Floyd, Zeppelin, Hendrix et al, but even during their prime those great bands competed with superficial throwaway music most of us have conveniently chosen to forget. Albums like Zeppelin IV and Dark Side of the Moon will always have an audience. How about The Osmonds? Classic album? My point was, for whatever reason, there have been moments when better quality music was more easily accessible through mainstream means.

They changed the world, it was the last teenage scream... it was not only about music, it was about culture, about young behavior... of course Billy knows there was a lot of shitty music in the 90's, but those bands were there to be the other side... and they were huge! Who do we have now as the other side of shitty rap/pop music? Nobody.

That's the sad thing.

[Hyrrow]

1) Teens nowadays often prefer other music, like crap rock. They like some of the SP songs, but they prefer the crap music their generation has put out. They like that sound.

2) They don't know what a tape is, many of them never heard of LP's either, and they don't care about cd's. They download stuff unto their pc and mp3-player. They want it instantly and please let it be easy too.

3) They don't care about a whole album, they want the song they like. Not those mediocre songs that fill up the rest of the album. Why should someone else decide what I listen to? You're weird!

4) They don't want to pay for it. PAY ?? I can download it for free!!! Why would I pay for something that's free?? You're insane!!

[odracir]

New from Kerry B.

people who complain about the music biz & don't offer solutions R like people who complain about the government & don't vote. crack me up

[ShamanO]

is that supposed to be a jab at Billy?

[odracir]

ShamanO, on 16 March 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

is that supposed to be a jab at Billy?

From previous KB comments, I have a feeling it is.

[Gr3g3]

Not like it matters. Kerry Brown is irrelevant. Billy was the only thing keeping him from going unforgotten forever.

[Bountiful_Wasteland]

Billy Corgan is part of the problem, not the solution. If he wants to overthrow the fakery that's taken hold of rock n' roll than he need to drop the "I'm a victim" act and come up with a real solution that works. "Oh Radiohead did In Rainbows but I released Machina II in 2000 for free!" False, Machina II wasn't a solution to anything. In Rainbows was a solution to a real problem facing our culture, it wasn't released for free. It was a response to the conundrum: "How do we get people to pay us fairly for our music instead of torrenting it?" Rock n' roll at it's highest level is about the sacred marriage between great music and confronting problems aggressively. He's right, there are a lot of artists out there making music for the sake of raking in $$. Why has Teargarden flopped? It has less to do with quality (although that's part of it) and more about BC trying to jump on the bandwagon. Was it a solution? Yes, but not a particularly smart solution and not one that seemed to be truly informed about the problem. "How do I get people to listen to my music? I know let's make it free they won't have any excuse not to listen then!" Wrong, he was just vaguely chasing the bandwagon and missing the real issue, instead of tackling the real issue head on. He won't truly restore his relevance or save rock n' roll with the attitude he has now. The artistic skill is there in spades, every fucking person on this board knows it. It's not just about confronting the bastardization of rock n' roll by pointing the finger Billy. You can make the music, there is still relevance in rock n' roll, music, and culture for you, but you need to become part of the fucking solution. The rest will follow. http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/board_new/public/style_emoticons/default/closedeyes.gif

This post has been edited by Bountiful_Wasteland: 17 March 2012 - 03:17 AM

[BitterRootOfSelf]

I'm telling you, the solution is a video that goes along with the entire album. This will make you want to listen to the whole album. Think kinda like pink Floyd with the wall or dark side and the wizard of oz. also this video is free on the Internet along with all the songs. You can also buy it if you want in a package just like they have been doing with the rereleases and solstice bare. Also that video can be in 3D

[Martine Castonguay]

You can't deny that Machina was released in 2000. It was a lot before Radiohead. I believe he is right saying SP was amongst the first to use internet in music. If I remember well, they were also in the beginning of MySpace. They released Machina in "reaction" to the music company to bring back their power of decision on their own music. It was the beginning of actions on the net in resistance. Even we don't like and don't agree with everything Bily is saying, we cannot deprive him of his strenghts.

You can't compare the move of Radiohead because it was many years later and with much more of experiences in the field. The changes in music business were a lot more important. Both, Smashing Pumpkins and Radiohead brought stones to the new form still in movement.

Carrie said somewhere the brand of SP was SP's heart. I thought then a brand isn't only a logo. Rock'n roll is resistance. SP is rock'n roll. SP is heart. Resistance is heart. Maybe changes in music is for SP to express their resistance with more heart?

[Arachnea]

That is not what Bountiful_Wasteland meant about Radiohead. He was making a point that the reasons for the release and how it was released were very different from each other. Billy released Machina II solely on the basis of a grudge. The record label did not want to release it, partly due to the failure of Machina, so he gave it out to people so they could leak it. He was not thinking in terms of revolutionizing anything. Radiohead asked people to pay what they thought the music was worth. If they wanted it for free, then got it for free. If they wanted to pay for it (and some people payed a lot), then they payed for it. It was more of a social experiment and more thoughtful in its approach than what Billy did with Machina II. That is why the reactions to the two situations differed so much.

[Dusty]

I think that saying Billy released MACHINA II as a way of sticking it to the label, or as a "grudge" move, might be a little short sighted. I think Billy released MACHINA II for the same reason he releases any of his music--because he is an artist, and he creates. Billy had an album's worth of songs, many of which I believe he was waiting for a better opportunity to place on future albums (particularly Let Me Give the World to You and Cash Car Star, both of which were very wel recieved during the Adore sessions/Arising tour), and now with the band breaking up, he wouldn't have the opportunity. And to say Billy wasn't looking to revolutionize the system is probably true, but only inasmuch as the fact that, in his eyes, the internet had already revolutionized the system. Billy has been saying for years that the internet can provide a medium for direct to fan interaction, and has wondered why other bands haven't been utilizing it to it's fullest extent. Also; see "MACHINA Mystery", an online webisode/interactive story/fan created music video venture created in a pre-Google internet. I think that Billy is right to view himself as an innovator in these models.
Now I think Radiohead had the benefit of nearly a decade of being able to recognize which methods of distribution would make an impact, and the potential problems with internet distribution. So in the end, yes, In Rainbows was more interesting and successful than MACHINA II (though not incrediblly groundbreaking--it was only free for a fairly limited amount of time), but Billy was much more ahead of it's time.
To make a direct comparison--NIN created an online album remniscent of the MACHINA Mystery--in 2007. Then NIN did the exact same thing as MACHINA II--in 2008.
I'll motion for +2 to Billy.

[Bountiful_Wasteland]

Arachnea, on 17 March 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

That is not what Bountiful_Wasteland meant about Radiohead. He was making a point that the reasons for the release and how it was released were very different from each other. Billy released Machina II solely on the basis of a grudge. The record label did not want to release it, partly due to the failure of Machina, so he gave it out to people so they could leak it. He was not thinking in terms of revolutionizing anything. Radiohead asked people to pay what they thought the music was worth. If they wanted it for free, then got it for free. If they wanted to pay for it (and some people payed a lot), then they payed for it. It was more of a social experiment and more thoughtful in its approach than what Billy did with Machina II. That is why the reactions to the two situations differed so much.

Exactly, it was revolutionary at the time, but it was much more of a passive aggressive gesture on his part. What Radiohead did with In Rainbows took balls, they stood to lose a lot if the music industry suits were correct about people stealing music. They really stuck there necks out and you can see where it brought them plenty of relevance. Now compare and contrast this approach with King if Limbs. The newspaper format and buy + immediate download pushed boundaries creatively, but you can tell that they weren't attacking any important issues. This is why (and I'm not trying to make a statement about the quality of their music here, I'm not qualified) I believe the overall cultural and industry reception was kind of "Oh, another Radiohead album, that's good". No one ever rose to fame in Rock n' roll by playing the victim. Billy has kinda of been nervously skirting the edge of danger. He just doesn't want to take that kind of chance, and he should. He just has to be very open-minded and smart about it. Instead he's kinda been hanging in the background providing fodder for the content farms, mistaking other BS with achieving relevance. That's not to say I want am trying to necessarily take away a visionary accomplishment, but it didn't have any teeth. Why did Gish succeed (to a degree)? Because it was everything popular music wasn't at the time. Why did Siamese Dream succeed? Because it was an over the top yet sentimental album where this big rock star comes clean with his demons in a direct way. Why did Mellon Collie succeed? Because it was an hour+ double album full of music that pushed the boundaries of alternative rock. Adore + Machina both pushed the boundaries and failed, but that's rock n' roll, and that's what happens sometimes when you taken chances.

Dusty, on 17 March 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

I think that saying Billy released MACHINA II as a way of sticking it to the label, or as a "grudge" move, might be a little short sighted. I think Billy released MACHINA II for the same reason he releases any of his music--because he is an artist, and he creates. Billy had an album's worth of songs, many of which I believe he was waiting for a better opportunity to place on future albums (particularly Let Me Give the World to You and Cash Car Star, both of which were very wel recieved during the Adore sessions/Arising tour), and now with the band breaking up, he wouldn't have the opportunity. And to say Billy wasn't looking to revolutionize the system is probably true, but only inasmuch as the fact that, in his eyes, the internet had already revolutionized the system. Billy has been saying for years that the internet can provide a medium for direct to fan interaction, and has wondered why other bands haven't been utilizing it to it's fullest extent. Also; see "MACHINA Mystery", an online webisode/interactive story/fan created music video venture created in a pre-Google internet. I think that Billy is right to view himself as an innovator in these models.
Now I think Radiohead had the benefit of nearly a decade of being able to recognize which methods of distribution would make an impact, and the potential problems with internet distribution. So in the end, yes, In Rainbows was more interesting and successful than MACHINA II (though not incrediblly groundbreaking--it was only free for a fairly limited amount of time), but Billy was much more ahead of it's time.
To make a direct comparison--NIN created an online album remniscent of the MACHINA Mystery--in 2007. Then NIN did the exact same thing as MACHINA II--in 2008.
I'll motion for +2 to Billy.

Being free has nothing to do with it. The price by itself was not the point, and I believe this where Billy is getting hung up too. It's about taking a huge chance and giving all the power to the consumer. As far as fan-band interaction, yes he's made strides and is an innovator but he's not pushing the envelope nearly enough. If anything he's starting to fall way behind, especially with his assbackwards philosophy of "I never owed you, and you never owed me".

This post has been edited by Bountiful_Wasteland: 17 March 2012 - 04:59 AM

[Arachnea]

Dusty, on 17 March 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

I think that saying Billy released MACHINA II as a way of sticking it to the label, or as a "grudge" move, might be a little short sighted. I think Billy released MACHINA II for the same reason he releases any of his music--because he is an artist, and he creates.

Billy said it himself in a couple interviews during that period. He was very upset that the label was not giving them the proper support and that they refused to release Machina II. He said it was "fuck you" to them.

Furthermore, neither Billy nor Radiohead nor Trent Reznor were the first to release an album or songs for free. However, most importantly, regardless of the different reasons behind the distribution, it really does not come down to who does what first but who does it best. That goes for almost any field innovation.

[Martine Castonguay]

Robert Gravel was known to let others shine and even if he was a pro of improvisation, he let, as often he could, the stage to others.  The most important for him was the experience they shared and not the glory. Since it's Billy's birthday, I desire give tribute for this aspect less known of his personality. I tend to believe he easily put a mask of exaggeration, a mask of clown, to let the place for us to find answers.  I believe he has an acute sense of community. 

[Fernando]

Bountiful_Wasteland, on 17 March 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

Billy Corgan is part of the problem, not the solution. If he wants to overthrow the fakery that's taken hold of rock n' roll than he need to drop the "I'm a victim" act and come up with a real solution that works. "Oh Radiohead did In Rainbows but I released Machina II in 2000 for free!" False, Machina II wasn't a solution to anything. In Rainbows was a solution to a real problem facing our culture, it wasn't released for free. It was a response to the conundrum: "How do we get people to pay us fairly for our music instead of torrenting it?" Rock n' roll at it's highest level is about the sacred marriage between great music and confronting problems aggressively. He's right, there are a lot of artists out there making music for the sake of raking in $$. Why has Teargarden flopped? It has less to do with quality (although that's part of it) and more about BC trying to jump on the bandwagon. Was it a solution? Yes, but not a particularly smart solution and not one that seemed to be truly informed about the problem. "How do I get people to listen to my music? I know let's make it free they won't have any excuse not to listen then!" Wrong, he was just vaguely chasing the bandwagon and missing the real issue, instead of tackling the real issue head on. He won't truly restore his relevance or save rock n' roll with the attitude he has now. The artistic skill is there in spades, every fucking person on this board knows it. It's not just about confronting the bastardization of rock n' roll by pointing the finger Billy. You can make the music, there is still relevance in rock n' roll, music, and culture for you, but you need to become part of the fucking solution. The rest will follow. http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/board_new/public/style_emoticons/default/closedeyes.gif

Is In Rainbows a solution? No way! I really prefer the background story of Machina II releasing. Radiohead was just trying to make money from something that people would obviouly get for free anyway. It was a smart trick, but not a solution.. they could fo it because they are Radaiohed and have a big audience... but how could a new band, for example, get that money and attention without that supportive fanbase?

What everybody is trying to find now is a new kind of plataform that can connect the artist to the fans. Billy seems to think now that every artist need to creat he's own world... will this save the music world? will this help Billy? He is trying a lot of different things, maybe one they are not the right step, but we can't say he's not trying or he's part of the problem because he is not.

[andrewface]

i wonder when we will get the first single?!

[Bountiful_Wasteland]

Fernando, on 17 March 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Is In Rainbows a solution? No way! I really prefer the background story of Machina II releasing. Radiohead was just trying to make money from something that people would obviouly get for free anyway. It was a smart trick, but not a solution.. they could fo it because they are Radaiohed and have a big audience... but how could a new band, for example, get that money and attention without that supportive fanbase?

What everybody is trying to find now is a new kind of plataform that can connect the artist to the fans. Billy seems to think now that every artist need to creat he's own world... will this save the music world? will this help Billy? He is trying a lot of different things, maybe one they are not the right step, but we can't say he's not trying or he's part of the problem because he is not.

If In Rainbows wasn't a solution, then why does it seem like Billy is going to adopt a very similar model with SPRC?? The reason why I say he is part of the problem is because he still hasn't adopted the right line of thinking. I think trying to change consumer's listening habits without some sort of new physical device is foolish. It's a problem, and he is addressing this problem, but I don't think it's a relevant problem yet. There are still many people who want to download the album and listen the traditional way, and listen how they want. Letting people experience what you make how they want is a good thing. Do I think changing listening habits will be a relevant problem in the future? Definitely, but I think there are other more important issues he should be challenging with his output than leading a horse to water and making it drink.

Creating your own world with your fans at the center of it is fine, but where in the last 4 years has Billy shown he's really willing to listen to the fans and accept what they are saying?

With an attitude like that I really doubt it, and before you mention gatekeepers, realize that as far as community goes it's probably an even worse idea. Why? Because if you don't implement it intelligently you run the risk of creating negative feelings in your community, because some may think you are unfairly playing favorites. I have already seen this particular thorn blossoming.

This post has been edited by Bountiful_Wasteland: 17 March 2012 - 09:34 AM

[GracefulSwan]

I must be in a minority of youngsters, I prefer physical media. Reading through the booklet, checking for secret messages etc. are all part of the album experience for me, I 100% buy physical rather than download when it is provided.

EDIT: Just saw the vid above :nope:/>

[ShamanO]

at least Billy is being honest? :shrug:/>

This post has been edited by ShamanO: 17 March 2012 - 09:39 AM

[pastup]

That's not true when a band is up and coming and they start to have a loyal following that benefits them and they start to see the same people at their shows and the support of the fans means alot and the band feels a loyalty to their fans for that support. Once you blow up like the Pumpkins did I guess you don't see that more intimate relationship with the fans but it does exists with small, touring, hard working up and coming bands/artists.

[themadcaplaughs]

Considering the stage the Internet was in in mid-2000, I'd wager to say Billy releasing Machina II on the Internet was just as relevant and groundbreaking as Radiohead's In Rainbows model.

When Machina II was released (September 2000), CDs were still selling at an all time high, and the average person had never even contemplated releasing original music on the web for free. Had it happened before? Of course it had, but Billy's move was a big gesture. Showing that a major label band could circumvent the record label and release a behemoth amount of material for free and have it circulate the fan base within days. Yes, I'm sure Billy did it partially to spite the record label's indifferent attitude, but Billy has also been pretty consistent in also saying he knew the band was breaking up, and wanted these songs to be known to the fans that were going to hear them for the last time.

Radiohead tackled the issue of what an album was worth in an era where CDs were finally starting to reveal themselves as moving towards obsolete, and the average music listener knew how to download entire albums for free illegally.

[Martine Castonguay]

Past up, don't believe that. The relationship between a band and his fans is the same than the one you'll have with the leaders in your working environment or with the place you'll buy your food or yet the government.

If you believe that, it's as if you abandon the idea to find respect and recognition of your person as individual in the world. If he thinks that really he would be the first one to have pity for. Everywhere you are, you deserve to be listened. It doesn't mean the one being listening obey to all your desires but if your desires aren't in contradiction with their interests and own desires, why not? There is a difference between to owe and to agree with something.

This post has been edited by Martine Castonguay: 17 March 2012 - 01:19 PM

[pastup]

well then what does it mean to be a "Loyal" fan? Sounds like Billy is saying you can pretend to be a loyal fan but the minute he does something you don't like you abandon him and never come back. I feel like I see a lot of fans around here who have stuck by this band through so much and if they weren't quote unquote loyal... they would have jumped ship a long time ago.

[RottingApples]

pastup, on 17 March 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

well then what does it mean to be a "Loyal" fan? Sounds like Billy is saying you can pretend to be a loyal fan but the minute he does something you don't like you abandon him and never come back. I feel like I see a lot of fans around here who have stuck by this band through so much and if they weren't quote unquote loyal... they would have jumped ship a long time ago.

Haha. Oh yes, indeed.

[Bountiful_Wasteland]

themadcaplaughs, on 17 March 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Considering the stage the Internet was in in mid-2000, I'd wager to say Billy releasing Machina II on the Internet was just as relevant and groundbreaking as Radiohead's In Rainbows model.

When Machina II was released (September 2000), CDs were still selling at an all time high, and the average person had never even contemplated releasing original music on the web for free. Had it happened before? Of course it had, but Billy's move was a big gesture. Showing that a major label band could circumvent the record label and release a behemoth amount of material for free and have it circulate the fan base within days. Yes, I'm sure Billy did it partially to spite the record label's indifferent attitude, but Billy has also been pretty consistent in also saying he knew the band was breaking up, and wanted these songs to be known to the fans that were going to hear them for the last time.

Radiohead tackled the issue of what an album was worth in an era where CDs were finally starting to reveal themselves as moving towards obsolete, and the average music listener knew how to download entire albums for free illegally.

I agree, but the crux of my point is that a certain amount of timing was involved pertaining to the greater cultural conversation. That wasn't a bigger issue that was in the spot light yet. I recall discussions about online distribution still being in it's infancy, before the music industry moved to take out Napster.

[Martine Castonguay]

pastup, on 17 March 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

well then what does it mean to be a "Loyal" fan? Sounds like Billy is saying you can pretend to be a loyal fan but the minute he does something you don't like you abandon him and never come back. I feel like I see a lot of fans around here who have stuck by this band through so much and if they weren't quote unquote loyal... they would have jumped ship a long time ago.

Oh yeah :rolleyes:/>


:rofl:/>

[RottingApples]

Martine Castonguay, on 17 March 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Oh yeah :rolleyes:/>
:rofl:/>

You can't deny the truth! :rant:/>

[BlueSkiesBringTears]

Arachnea, on 16 March 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

It is exciting. I hope that Billy hires the right people to make this visual experience work. Billy struck gold with Dayton and Farris and Yelena in the 90s.

And even then, as good as the videos they made were, it was still MTV that decided to air them a lot and make them the Big Thing of the Moment. Adore and Machina's videos, I believe, were also directed by Dayton and Farris, but for the most part, MTV snubbed them.

themadcaplaughs, on 17 March 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Considering the stage the Internet was in in mid-2000, I'd wager to say Billy releasing Machina II on the Internet was just as relevant and groundbreaking as Radiohead's In Rainbows model.

When Machina II was released (September 2000), CDs were still selling at an all time high, and the average person had never even contemplated releasing original music on the web for free. Had it happened before? Of course it had, but Billy's move was a big gesture. Showing that a major label band could circumvent the record label and release a behemoth amount of material for free and have it circulate the fan base within days. Yes, I'm sure Billy did it partially to spite the record label's indifferent attitude, but Billy has also been pretty consistent in also saying he knew the band was breaking up, and wanted these songs to be known to the fans that were going to hear them for the last time.

Radiohead tackled the issue of what an album was worth in an era where CDs were finally starting to reveal themselves as moving towards obsolete, and the average music listener knew how to download entire albums for free illegally.

Salient points. But sadly, I don't think, to date, Billy's earned the mainstream or (so-called) indie cred for Machina II that Radiohead virtually instantly did for In Rainbows.

Really, though, I wish all factions could move past this discussion. Music is music, whether you download it or it's on a disc or cassette or whatever.

[Parksey]

cleric, on 16 March 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

where/when did billy say that no one listens to albums? he is QUITE OBVIOUSLY talking about people listening to albums LESS OFTEN than in the past. you need to get your facts straight because your post seems silly.

i was QUITE OBVIOUSLY not using the words "no one" in their most literal sense, and i'm sure billy doesn't either. but i actually think a lot more people listen to full albums than old billster thinks.

and seriously, when quizzed on what bands are still making good albums, all he could come up with was muse and radiohead ffs.

[lucciola]

Billy said, "No one I know listens to albums. No one."

He needs to find new friends.

[RottingApples]

ShamanO, on 17 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

at least Billy is being honest? :shrug:/>

:lol:/> Can't admit that maybe he was being an asshole in that video, huh?

[lucciola]

Fernando, on 16 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

They changed the world, it was the last teenage scream... it was not only about music, it was about culture, about young behavior... of course Billy knows there was a lot of shitty music in the 90's, but those bands were there to be the other side... and they were huge! Who do we have now as the other side of shitty rap/pop music? Nobody.

That's the sad thing.

Fernando, very respectfully, it most certainly did not change the world. The 90s grunge movement (and it was a movement of sorts, I'll grant you that) trailed far behind the late 60s counterculture movement, and even the 70s punk culture in terms of influence and direction. It lacked cohesion and vitality, and any initial sincerity was co-opted by the corporate machine mere moments after birth.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the other side", but I'll say that SP were hardly a truly alternative band. Possibly with Gish, but in no way with SD or MCIS. They were a mainstream pop/rock band. They were just a much better than usual mainstream pop/rock band. "Alternative" is catch phrase we all understand and use, but to be truly alternative you must exist apart from the mainstream construct. And that's usually (but not always) where you'll find the good stuff.

So please don't say "nobody." I'm crying for all these kids who won't put a little effort into finding interesting, better quality music and art. If mainstream pop makes you happy, great. No argument from me. If not, stop bitching and dig deeper.

Bountiful Wasteland :thumbsup:/>

[ShamanO]

RottingApples, on 18 March 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

:lol:/> Can't admit that maybe he was being an asshole in that video, huh?

nah he was just doing what an artist does.

[standing]

I cant believe all this debating going on. The real thing Im suprised no one is arguing about: where the hell was bilys explanation of how oceania would work? Wasnt that supposed to be a major discussion at sxsw?

[RottingApples]

ShamanO, on 18 March 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

nah he was just doing what an artist does.

:rolleyes:/> The artistic thing to do is shit on your fans...

[lucciola]

standing, on 18 March 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

I cant believe all this debating going on. The real thing Im suprised no one is arguing about: where the hell was bilys explanation of how oceania would work? Wasnt that supposed to be a major discussion at sxsw?

Yeah, it's pointless. That there would be no clearcut info from Billy ... well, that's expected, no? What's to discuss?

RottingApples, on 18 March 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

:rolleyes:/> The artistic thing to do is shit on your fans...

it's performance art! can't you see that, you unsophisticated oaf?!?

[ShamanO]

RottingApples, on 18 March 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

:rolleyes:/> The artistic thing to do is shit on your fans...

Billy talks...we all talk...you shit on him just as he shits on you...it's a shitty relationship...enjoy it :happy:/>