[astralweeks]

ArticulateEric, on 08 April 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Billy was tired of obscurity and wanted that last vestige of relevance the name would lend him.

That's it. There's nothing more to it. Billy is as professional a bullshitter as he is a musician.

Why are you speaking in such absolutes? Do you think honestly think he's carrying on the Pumpkins name to be famous at this point?

[snail33]

astralweeks, on 02 April 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Whenever there's a band that has one person who functions as its lead singer, lyrcist, songwriter and guitarist, I don't have an issue with the contiuation of the name as long as that one individual is in the band..

the Pumpkins meant different things to different people. for me it was always about Billy Corgan's songs.

me too. the problem is that the further removed he has gotten from the billyjamesd'arcyjimmy band, the worse his songs have gotten, from a solid zwan record to a hit or miss solo album to an awful "reunion" and mostly middling material that followed. there has to be some reason why the music he made with those other people was overwhelmingly amazing, and the stuff without them has been largely mediocre, occasionally great, and frequently awful.

[Dontgetangryitsjustagame]

astralweeks, on 08 April 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

this is a valid point. here's the explanation Corgan provided in a recent interview....




"At 19 years-old I'd developed my ultimate band architecture. I wanted to be in a band that could be Black Sabbath one minute, The Beatles the next, The Cure the next. So when I was out of the Pumpkins doing this folksy rootsy rock or whatever the fuck we were doing, I kept thinking I'd just left my ultimate dream to be in a lesser dream, so why did I give up the dream? I gave up the dream because I thought it would be unfair to continue the band without James Iha because we had started the band. Well, James Iha doesn't send me Christmas cards and I haven't talked to him in five years. So I'm not in the Smashing Pumpkins because of some guy who doesn't care about me but I am loyal to him based on an idea formulated 17 years ago? Fuck him and fuck everybody! I want my band back! Fuck this! I want my dream back, basically. The Pumpkins is the dream. Jeff, Nicole and Mike believe in what the Pumpkins represent."

And then he goes on to say that we are the ones living in the past. He created the Smashing Pumpkins in the first place. Why could he not create another band that could be anything he ever wanted? He's tacking chapters on the end of a finished story, because somewhere in him he believes he can't possibly start writing a better one now.

[Deleted User Account]

astralweeks, on 08 April 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Why are you speaking in such absolutes? Do you think honestly think he's carrying on the Pumpkins name to be famous at this point?

Not to be famous per say-- BC wants exposure for his new music that his name alone will not provide.

That's why his justifications for taking on the name SP again are so nebulous and ever changing. He could never outright admit to wanting the press/sales/promo the name awards him right out of the gate. Billy Corgan, as far as the Joe the Plumber public goes, did not write any of the big songs... Smashing Pumpkins did.

[Drevpile]

Dusty, on 08 April 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

I haven't seen anyone say that Adore wasn't the Pumpkins because there was no Jimmy,

Cool - It wasn't my Pumpkins, no - because there was no Jimmy. That's exactly what I'm saying. I get the flavour of SP... but not the full force. I understand that I'm in the wider minority [now*] of the the fans perception; But I happen to agree with what Billy says; JC+BC = 97%SP. That's that.

*obviously at the time it was a bit different the wider public didn't get it, did they? No And it's not because it's a shit album obvious - but because, like Billy has said, people picked up the record and it didn't sound like what they would have expected from a Smashing Pumpkins record. And that to my mind is> something like the previous 3 albums crafted with JC.

[serotoninsage]

Drevpile, on 09 April 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

But I happen to agree with what Billy says; JC+BC = 97%SP. That's that.

What's the difference between Zwan and ZG-era SP for you then? I imagine a large part of that answer is production in terms of studio quality but there's always the stylistic element to consider... for example, Rose March vs. Of A Broken Heart are both BC ballads with Jimmy adding to the arrangement where necessary -- but I would say that one definitely sounds like SP and the other sounds like BC solo... I dunno, it's hard for me to pin down why I feel that way about those songs, I admit, but I can't deny that I feel that way about the songs.

Perhaps, for me, Zwan sounded like the other members, particularly David Pajo and Matt Sweeney, were actually able to add their particular taste to the sound of the band...for me, David's sound from Tortoise really crept into the live sets whereas the studio version of the songs were, by in large, very SP (although this is always debatable/subjective)... with Jeff, I don't hear anything other than compliance to Billy's desire of 'hard shredding' and someone else to take on the job of solos instead of James' method of adding melodic texture. I suppose we'll see with Oceania just how much Jeff was able to put into the songs. Nicole, apparently, wrote all the bass parts herself -- so that should stick out, if anything.

[Drevpile]

serotoninsage, on 09 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Perhaps, for me, Zwan sounded like the other members, particularly David Pajo and Matt Sweeney, were actually able to add their particular taste to the sound of the band...

Agree absolutely. I think looking at the contributions Dave and Matt brought to the BC/JC partnership, lack of anyone else on Zeitgeist, and Jeff's quite style-less parts [thus far], it's quite easy to actually hear quite how influential James was to SP's sound.

I understand what you're saying that that one thing sounds like SP and another 'BC solo'. 90% of Adore feels like that; Billy solo trying to be SP. [TFE and Adore are great companion pieces if you ask me]. Anyway, there's obviously a certain framework that Billy and Jimmy worked within when they write as 'SP'; There is an at times immutable ethereal stylistic twang at the real heart of an SP song that I don't Billy himself would actually be able to define. Stellar was the last song to really hit it I think, perhaps the Rose March a close second ...

[snail33]

Drevpile, on 09 April 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Agree absolutely. I think looking at the contributions Dave and Matt brought to the BC/JC partnership, lack of anyone else on Zeitgeist, and Jeff's quite style-less parts [thus far], it's quite easy to actually hear quite how influential James was to SP's sound.

I understand what you're saying that that one thing sounds like SP and another 'BC solo'. 90% of Adore feels like that; Billy solo trying to be SP. [TFE and Adore are great companion pieces if you ask me]. Anyway, there's obviously a certain framework that Billy and Jimmy worked within when they write as 'SP'; There is an at times immutable ethereal stylistic twang at the real heart of an SP song that I don't Billy himself would actually be able to define. Stellar was the last song to really hit it I think, perhaps the Rose March a close second ...

adore sounds like sp to me. nothing on zeitgeist does.

[Drevpile]

snail33, on 09 April 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

adore sounds like sp to me. nothing on zeitgeist does.

Care to explain why?

[AndyToe]

I want to care whos in the band, but in reality the only change that would make it not the smashing pumpkins would be the lack of billy corgan.

that, and i think my apathy levels are well below caring

[serotoninsage]

Right, on the same page with you there Drevpile, except I think both ZG and Adore are 'SP' -- while Adore is missing the 'rock' element of SP, even during the MCIS glory days, the 4 of them had agreed that the next album (after MCIS) would be totally different. Adore, to me, is still different than TFE in a lot of ways because Billy was still writing ~for~ SP at that point instead of 'getting away from the SP demon' during the TFE era. While the songs are both in the electronica category, and it is BC's writing on both cases, his approach was different because he was relying on Bjorn a lot to orchestrate and, quite simply, handle the job on a lot of the effects on TFE (re: Yelena break up period) whereas Adore was a personal catharsis/journey in a lot of ways for Billy at the time (ie: mother with cancer) so I think the songwriting was due to be softer over all anyway... but really, of course, who can say. On a personal note/bias, Adore is the best songwriting by Billy to date for me. Also something to [maybe] consider is the fact that Jimmy made his solo album the way it was, it is also a 'soft rock' approach to things -- and even when he played on the Arising! tour, it didn't sound forced or out of place for him to play those songs.... it would be interesting if Jimmy had actually been able to make commentary about that songwriting without it being a rehashing of the drug overdose and all guilt tripping stuff...

As for ZG, I just think that whole album is a collage of "heavy metal BC meets I'm too proud and comfortable with my voice" with no "D'arcy" present to say "what the eff, slow this shit down" -- but it's still SP in essence -- albeit, bad after bad take of SP songs. No Flood/Butch/Bjorn involved = too much artist indulgence.

As for the 'SP quality' -- Pale Horse is definitely the next follow up to Stellar....

This post has been edited by serotoninsage: 09 April 2012 - 11:44 AM

[Drevpile]

Bed time now, will get back to you. For now I leave you to ponder Shame by The Smashing Pumpkins

[Dusty]

@ Drevpile, I can completely understand your perspective then. I know you are a huge Jimmy fan, and so for you, SP might very well be that element of the Pumpkins that I usually just consider to be the "rock" Pumpkins. But theres the consistency, and I don't really take issue with that.

What bothers me is people bitching about line-up changes, and trying to pass off thier own opinions as fact, when in reality it is nothing more than an opinion. Of COURSE the band will change with different members. Like it or don't, stay casually interested, say that it sucks, play it when you're having a physical release to Oceania. Whatever. But understand that the name "Smashing Pumpkins" is being used the same way it always has. Billy takes the name seriously, and its his brand.

[astralweeks]

Dontgetangryitsjustagame, on 08 April 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

And then he goes on to say that we are the ones living in the past. He created the Smashing Pumpkins in the first place. Why could he not create another band that could be anything he ever wanted? He's tacking chapters on the end of a finished story, because somewhere in him he believes he can't possibly start writing a better one now.

Because I don't think he had a second, idealized vision for a band. The Pumpkins were it. I suppose he could have continued the concept under a different moniker, but I actually prefer that he calls it the Pumpkins if that's what he's striving for with his new music..

I completely appreicate where people are coming from who don't consider the new music as Pumpkins music. I consider myself a Pink Floyd fan, but I never bought the post-Waters albums. It's just not PF to me without Roger Waters in the group.

but by my personal conception of the Pumpkins, the band still exsits as long as Corgan's in it.

[Deleted User Account]

astralweeks, on 09 April 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Because I don't think he had a second, idealized vision for a band. The Pumpkins were it. I suppose he could have continued the concept under a different moniker, but I actually prefer that he calls it the Pumpkins if that's what he's striving for with his new music..

I completely appreicate where people are coming from who don't consider the new music as Pumpkins music. I consider myself a Pink Floyd fan, but I never bought the post-Waters albums. It's just not PF to me without Roger Waters in the group.

but by my personal conception of the Pumpkins, the band still exsits as long as Corgan's in it.

What's the difference between Adore and The Future Embrace?

[Dusty]

There isn't a huge one--that's my point. We generally agree Adore is a Pumpkins album. It is asthetically similar to TheFutureEmbrace, Billy's most "solo" effort. Why shouldn't he just call it the Pumpkins then? Unless, of course, you are like Drevpile, and more closely assosiate the Pumpkins sound with big guitars, big drums, which is at least consistent.
Incidentally, I do like Division Bell. Momentary Lapse is weird in a non-Floyd way, but I think Division Bell mines that Umagamanama/Meddle era space-rock sound that Rogers sort of got away from.

[dudehitscar]

astralweeks, on 08 April 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

this is a valid point. here's the explanation Corgan provided in a recent interview....




"At 19 years-old I'd developed my ultimate band architecture. I wanted to be in a band that could be Black Sabbath one minute, The Beatles the next, The Cure the next. So when I was out of the Pumpkins doing this folksy rootsy rock or whatever the fuck we were doing, I kept thinking I'd just left my ultimate dream to be in a lesser dream, so why did I give up the dream? I gave up the dream because I thought it would be unfair to continue the band without James Iha because we had started the band. Well, James Iha doesn't send me Christmas cards and I haven't talked to him in five years. So I'm not in the Smashing Pumpkins because of some guy who doesn't care about me but I am loyal to him based on an idea formulated 17 years ago? Fuck him and fuck everybody! I want my band back! Fuck this! I want my dream back, basically. The Pumpkins is the dream. Jeff, Nicole and Mike believe in what the Pumpkins represent."

I think Corgan's description of why he brought back the pumpkins is valid and well said. BUT there is no reason why he couldn't start a new band with a new name that could be all those things WITHOUT the baggage of casual pumpkin fans coming to shows wanting to hear 'rat in a cage'. I think Corgan could have the best of both worlds.. meaning freedom from expectations (something he hates and the SP name brings) and freedom to play what he dreamed of playing (something he doesn't need the SP name for).

The problem is that Corgan didn't like doing pumpkin-ish stuff outside of the pumpkin name but I think that is flawed thinking and he should have just gotten over that and kept doing his thing without the pumpkin name.


But like I said before I have no problem with him calling this The Smashing Pumpkins.. I'm just saying there was a better way IMO.

ArticulateEric, on 09 April 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

What's the difference between Adore and The Future Embrace?

scope, production, more organic drums, better singles, better songwriting, and one has the best vocals of corgan's career coupled with emotionally devastating material.

I don't see how people compare them so much... because they both have electronic beats? MCIS and Gish both have distorted guitars and big rock drums.. yet no one would claim they are the same.


PS: I love TFE and think it's better than most SP2 stuff so far.

[awsmsc]

Dusty, on 09 April 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

We generally agree Adore is a Pumpkins album. It is asthetically similar to TheFutureEmbrace, Billy's most "solo" effort. Why shouldn't he just call it the Pumpkins then?

Because "Pumpkins sound" isn't "Adore sound". Also, TFE was very different than Adore, other SP, or Zwan--it was basically minimalist 80s style techno pop. "Pumpkins sound" could be thought of everything the SP albums have in common that they don't have in common with non-Pumpkins Billy music (Zwan and TFE). I guess that would be "Not minimalist 80s style techno pop or pop rock".

[Dontgetangryitsjustagame]

astralweeks, on 09 April 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Because I don't think he had a second, idealized vision for a band. The Pumpkins were it.

But that's exactly it. He created the Pumpkins once, too. It's not like he was born with the idea of their existence and solely their existence implanted in his head. At some point in his life, he said "I'm going to make this band." Why couldn't he do it again? At one point early in his life he didn't have a first idealized vision for a band. But then he formed one. Could he not do that again because he's old? Because he's not as inspired anymore? Please explain to me what about that is a once-in-a-lifetime thing?

[RottingApples]

dudehitscar, on 09 April 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

scope, production, more organic drums, better singles, better songwriting, and one has the best vocals of corgan's career coupled with emotionally devastating material.
I don't see how people compare them so much... because they both have electronic beats? MCIS and Gish both have distorted guitars and big rock drums.. yet no one would claim they are the same.

This. Thank you. Can anyone honestly claim For Martha and Pretty Pretty Star as being anywhere near the same level as one another?

[astralweeks]

Dontgetangryitsjustagame, on 09 April 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

But that's exactly it. He created the Pumpkins once, too. It's not like he was born with the idea of their existence and solely their existence implanted in his head. At some point in his life, he said "I'm going to make this band." Why couldn't he do it again? At one point early in his life he didn't have a first idealized vision for a band. But then he formed one. Could he not do that again because he's old? Because he's not as inspired anymore? Please explain to me what about that is a once-in-a-lifetime thing?

Because the Pumpkins were the sum of Corgan's lifelong rock and roll influences. Zep, Bowie, Sabbath, the Beatles, Rush, the Cure, New Order, etc.

so the Pumpkins sound (as I always understood it) was this diverse amalgam and a vehichle for Corgan's songwriting...

could he continue that concept under a different name? sure. I personally would perfer him to call it the Smashing Pumpkins

[FLSPNUT]

Waste of time to even discuss. If it were Billy, Jeff, Nicole, and Mike and the name of the band was the "Whiny Babies on Forum" and they were putting out music like Quasar, we all would buy music and show tickets. It is just a NAME. Just a name folks. Don't care what name they play under as long as it is good music. I know this makes too much sense for some of you to wrap your head around.

[dudehitscar]

FLSPNUT, on 10 April 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Waste of time to even discuss. If it were Billy, Jeff, Nicole, and Mike and the name of the band was the "Whiny Babies on Forum" and they were putting out music like Quasar, we all would buy music and show tickets. It is just a NAME. Just a name folks. Don't care what name they play under as long as it is good music. I know this makes too much sense for some of you to wrap your head around.

well if they did play under a different name then tickets would be cheaper so there is that.. :happy:/>

[breathesgelatin]

RottingApples, on 09 April 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

This. Thank you. Can anyone honestly claim For Martha and Pretty Pretty Star as being anywhere near the same level as one another?

Yes. Pretty Pretty Star > For Martha.

bwahaha

[ShamanO]

well Billy said he isn't changing the name. Do people think that by having a discussion about the name of the band one can get into Corgan's head and try and persuade him into thinking he should change it because some of you don't think it should be SP anymore?

[Arachnea]

Of course not. However, I see no harm in people having philosophical discussions and debates to gain a better understanding of how the fan base perceives the entity that is SP. It is interesting and it brings another dynamic to the forum.

[FLSPNUT]

In what world does discussing whether SP should be SP (all irrelevant) .....become a "philosophical discussion?"

[Arachnea]

It is largely a metaphysical discussion from what I have observed in here.

[ShamanO]

lol so SP is an entity and not an actual physical band?

[Arachnea]

ShamanO, on 10 April 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

lol so SP is an entity and not an actual physical band?

:scatch:/>

Entity

1 a : being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2 : something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
3 : an organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members

[ShamanO]

you are NO FUN...stop taking the fun out of a ghostly SP experience :rant:/>

[MEGA HOG]

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I maintain, it is easy for one person to do something like NIN. No offense to NIN fans, but I've always found the music rather simplistic and predictable, I don't get the appeal of it really...but for it to truly be SP, it needs to be a group effort, at the very least during the writing process.

i don't think so. i think billy could do an sp album by himself with a drum machine. it's all about the songs in the end, if ppl liked the current stuff as much as SD/MCIS ppl would care a lot less about the days of old lineup.

as far as the sp/not sp thing
to me sp is really 88-00. ZG felt more like zwan: the dark side than sp, and tbk is sth else entirely. remains to be seen how much this new album fits in to the 'sp' idea

ShamanO, on 10 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

you are NO FUN...stop taking the fun out of a ghostly SP experience :rant:/>

it's funny cause billy often reminds me of that scene in top gun where goose says sth like "it's like every time we go up there mav, you're flyin' with a GHOST"

[snail33]

breathesgelatin, on 10 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Yes. Pretty Pretty Star > For Martha.

bwahaha

no

Drevpile, on 09 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Care to explain why?

no. if you can't hear or feel it, i can't help you.

[stellar.]

breathesgelatin, on 10 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Yes. Pretty Pretty Star > For Martha.

bwahaha

It's not really fair to compare one of the worst songs on TFE with the best on Adore. Songs like Now And Then and DIA are just as good, if not better than several of songs on Adore

[snail33]

stellar., on 10 April 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

It's not really fair to compare one of the worst songs on TFE with the best on Adore. Songs like Now And Then and DIA are just as good, if not better than several of songs on Adore

maybe..but none of them are within shouting distance of for martha. or once upon a time. or shame. or to sheila. or behold! the nigiht mare. or tear. or pug. or...

:)/>

[aztec_litany_service]

ArticulateEric, on 08 April 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Billy was tired of obscurity and wanted that last vestige of relevance the name would lend him.

That's it. There's nothing more to it. Billy is as professional a bullshitter as he is a musician.

that's not it, really. though that might have influenced his decision, i think it has to do also with the pressure from the fans who wanted to see him play sp songs live, and if that demand is there, why not use the name to make it clear to prospective concertgoers that yes, you will hear sp at this show? makes sense, and while i don't necessarily think it's the best thing he could do, it's definitely understandable and not as shallow and greedy as some might think

[Deleted User Account]

aztec_litany_service, on 11 April 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

that's not it, really. though that might have influenced his decision, i think it has to do also with the pressure from the fans who wanted to see him play sp songs live, and if that demand is there, why not use the name to make it clear to prospective concertgoers that yes, you will hear sp at this show? makes sense, and while i don't necessarily think it's the best thing he could do, it's definitely understandable and not as shallow and greedy as some might think

He's so conflicted (up until recently, or rather, up until concert goers were walking out) about playing old songs, though. What you're saying essentially proves my point anyway. If Billy is bowing to fan feedback, he's vying for their attention/patronage. What better way to do that? Revive the SP name.

And anyway, why couldn't he have played Smashing Pumpkins songs at his solo shows? Noel Gallagher plays Oasis songs solo. People love him for it. If Billy Corgan IS the Smashing Pumpkins, it seems awfully ornery of him NOT to play SP songs at a solo show. Especially with people clamouring for them, albeit fewer people than would go to a SP concert. And there in lies the rub.

If Zwan or BC solo took off, BC would be saying SP are deader than dead.

[aztec_litany_service]

my point is that most ppl knew he didn't play sp songs on the zwan/tfe tours. that's just the way he played it, he wanted to try sth else to see if it could stand on its own, and then he gave that up. call it what you want, but i don't think most ppl really care about name games, and whether or not someone should play a song they wrote. he felt like trying it for a while, now he doesn't. life is full of hard choices and uncertainty. you just have to try sth and see if it pans out. the reason ppl get on billy so much is b/c of how he talks about these choices, the drama, the grandeur, etc. i just see all that as part of being a performer [at least for him]. it's no big deal. all that really matters in the end is, of course, is the music good? all the other nonsense is just that

[Dusty]

awsmsc, on 09 April 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Because "Pumpkins sound" isn't "Adore sound". Also, TFE was very different than Adore, other SP, or Zwan--it was basically minimalist 80s style techno pop. "Pumpkins sound" could be thought of everything the SP albums have in common that they don't have in common with non-Pumpkins Billy music (Zwan and TFE). I guess that would be "Not minimalist 80s style techno pop or pop rock".

I'm not saying they are the same. I'm saying that there is no reason to put TheFutureEmbrace in a wholly different catergory than Smashing Pumpkins. I'm sure you could arrange most of the songs so that they sounded "Pumpkinsy"--Billy said the songs were acoustic at thier root, and when he played them at that Australian acoustic show, they fit right in with the ChicagoSongs and Of A Broken Heart.
And that was only one example. Another good example would be Endless Summer from Zwan, a song we know to have been written for the Pumpkins in 1995. Billy has simply played music he wanted to play, that he wrote, throughout his career. Billy's whole conceptualization of the Pumpkins from the get-go was a band that could play anything he wanted. Are we going to argue that the Pumpkins aren't exactly that?
Here's another interesting perspective, for those who want to argue that sonic qualities define "Pumpkins" work; any song ever written by Billy (and even songs he covers) sounds more "Pumpkins-y" than "Take Me Down", "...Said Sadly", or "Go". But the James Iha songs are still Pumpkins songs.

[Drevpile]

snail33, on 10 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

no. if you can't hear or feel it, i can't help you.

Help me? Ha. I predict you're going to go far in life.

[lucciola]

FLSPNUT, on 10 April 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Waste of time to even discuss. If it were Billy, Jeff, Nicole, and Mike and the name of the band was the "Whiny Babies on Forum" and they were putting out music like Quasar, we all would buy music and show tickets. It is just a NAME. Just a name folks. Don't care what name they play under as long as it is good music. I know this makes too much sense for some of you to wrap your head around.

Waste of time to discuss? It's a Smashing Pumpkins message board. Nothing we say here is of any consequence, ever. In fact, you might say the enitre forum is a moot point. Lie back and enjoy.

ArticulateEric, on 11 April 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

He's so conflicted (up until recently, or rather, up until concert goers were walking out) about playing old songs, though. What you're saying essentially proves my point anyway. If Billy is bowing to fan feedback, he's vying for their attention/patronage. What better way to do that? Revive the SP name.

And anyway, why couldn't he have played Smashing Pumpkins songs at his solo shows? Noel Gallagher plays Oasis songs solo. People love him for it. If Billy Corgan IS the Smashing Pumpkins, it seems awfully ornery of him NOT to play SP songs at a solo show. Especially with people clamouring for them, albeit fewer people than would go to a SP concert. And there in lies the rub.

If Zwan or BC solo took off, BC would be saying SP are deader than dead.

I'm convinced you're my soulmate.

[serotoninsage]

Billy has played the odd SP song in his solo days (Today, in Australia gig, I remember hearing a bootleg...) and then he also played a Zwan song (Of a broken heart) in the same gig... or the like. He was giving himself room to breathe and write and perform new songs at the time... no one can definitely say whether or not there were 'business/politics' going on that prevented him from performing those songs -- unless you're his lawyer and you know the full ownership rights and stuff.

[Deleted User Account]

serotoninsage, on 14 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Billy has played the odd SP song in his solo days (Today, in Australia gig, I remember hearing a bootleg...) and then he also played a Zwan song (Of a broken heart) in the same gig... or the like. He was giving himself room to breathe and write and perform new songs at the time... no one can definitely say whether or not there were 'business/politics' going on that prevented him from performing those songs -- unless you're his lawyer and you know the full ownership rights and stuff.

He definitely didn't play Today. He played the opening lick as a tease. He was quite angry at people coming with the expectation of hearing Pumpkins songs.

[Drevpile]

Stupid people and their stupid wacky expectations. What could possibly have made them think he might play old son this... I'm sure Billy mentioned a little something about wanting his old songs back, or something just before he went on tour. STRANGE.