[serotoninsage]

I have a logic-based query about this whole "it's no longer SP" debate. Here's an analogy, but first think of the word "family" synonymous with "band" and "extended family" as "supporters of the band throughout its history" :

Your family name is "Jones".

Let's say you have next to no contact with your extended family. Now, everyone in your immediate family died but you in a car crash. You're alone. Do you lose your family identity? That is to say, do you no longer possess the ability to self-identify as a Jones? If so, why and how? What if you married, your spouse took your last name, you had kids, etc?

I would argue that identity is self-based and if you can identify with it along with possessing a history of it, whether or not it has been eradicated from the physical world, it still exists. A name is a identity and it is up to each person to make the choice to familiarize oneself with that name or not. Everything in this world changes, including people and their circumstances and situations (this includes family, bands, and any other group you can think of).

So, in saying that, "the new group of people isn't Smashing Pumpkins" is like saying "the person that lost his immediate family and started over isn't really a 'Jones' but some other 'name') -- which of course doesn't make sense -- that person was always a Jones since birth. Also, keep in mind that Billy Corgan is the founder of the very idea of "Smashing Pumpkins"...

~~~

In the end, I don't really care who thinks and feels what about the band but I do think it's interesting from a logical POV to claim that SP is "not really SP anymore" -- to me, it's simply a case of a person expressing that they can no longer identify with the band as its pure/original form. But like my analogy about the family and the fact that going through life changes everything about everything, it seems rather immature. Rather, people should express that they "no longer enjoy SP as it once was" and that's in their rights -- but claiming a fact when its not logical seems...well...yeah.

Thoughts?

This post has been edited by serotoninsage: 27 March 2012 - 02:35 PM

[beep beep]

By your logic, the founding members of SP are Jones'. or whatever. They all have a claim to use the name. So as to saying, yes Billy can use the name Smashing Pumpkins. But James, D'Arcy, and Jimmy could carry on the name as well.


I get where you're trying to go, but the analogy is flawed.

[Simon Belmont]

My take on it at this point:

Billy, James, D'arcy, Jimmy = SP
Billy, James, Melissa, Jimmy = SP
Billy, Jeff, Ginger, Jimmy = SP
Billy, Jeff, Nicole, Mike = SP
Billy recording everything but drums himself, little to no input from other members = NOT FUCKING SP

This post has been edited by Simon Belmont: 27 March 2012 - 02:59 PM

[beep beep]

Good outlook, Simon. :cheers:/>

I'll hold off final judgment on whether SP is 'back' until Oceania hits. I know some of the TBK songs had Jeff, Mike, and Nicoles input -- but too small a sample to judge. All indications from the live boots are that SP is back though.

[Gr3g3]

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

My take on it at this point:

Billy, James, D'arcy, Jimmy = SP
Billy, James, Melissa, Jimmy = SP
Billy, Jeff, Ginger, Jimmy = SP
Billy, Jeff, Nicole, Mike = SP
Billy recording everything but drums himself, little to no input from other members = NOT FUCKING SP

Win

[Simon Belmont]

beep beep, on 27 March 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Good outlook, Simon. :cheers:/>

I'll hold off final judgment on whether SP is 'back' until Oceania hits. I know some of the TBK songs had Jeff, Mike, and Nicoles input -- but too small a sample to judge. All indications from the live boots are that SP is back though.

I agree, the songs did sound good live, but we've seen plenty of good live songs get butchered in the studio already, so I'm not ready to expect the best yet. I just really hope Billy lets them write/record their own parts, because he's failed twice now in trying to do everything himself, this is his last chance with me, and probably a lot of people. If this album isn't a solid band effort, and is once again ruined in the studio, I give up.

[JSapp]

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Billy recording everything but drums himself, little to no input from other members = NOT FUCKING SP

So Siamese Dream isn't SP?

[MonteLDS]

serotoninsage, on 27 March 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

In the end, I don't really care who thinks and feels what about the band

sorry TLDR all of it.. but I am surprised that you made a post about something you don't care what other people think..

[dudehitscar]

JSapp, on 27 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

So Siamese Dream isn't SP?

In Simons defense lots of siamese dream songs were written with the band in the room and their input... Recording is where he threw them out.

This post has been edited by dudehitscar: 27 March 2012 - 04:25 PM

[JSapp]

dudehitscar, on 27 March 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

In Simons defense lots of sp songs were written with the band in the room and their input... Recording is where he threw them out.

Fair enough. It was just a wise ass comment anyway. I actually agree with him for the mostpart anyway. I consider all the lineups to be SP

This post has been edited by JSapp: 27 March 2012 - 04:25 PM

[Simon Belmont]

JSapp, on 27 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

So Siamese Dream isn't SP?

I'm beginning to question everything he's ever said, honestly. Let's look at it objectively.
Gish-Machina = full, dreamy, atmospheric sound, sounds like a cohesive band.
Zeitgeist-TBK = hollow, disjointed, lifeless sound, just sounds like one guy recording everything and throwing it all together.

Draw your own conclusions there, but I'm thinking there was a lot more input from James than Billy will ever sacrifice the ego to admit.

That being said, Jeff is a fantastic guitarist, and I'm sure he could contribute just as much, or even more, the same goes for Nicole, but the problem is, will they be allowed? Jeff has been in the band 5 years now, and he hasn't been allowed to record on a single song as far as we can tell. Maybe a little on the last 2 TBK songs, but it's hard to tell under all the ridiculous synth.

[dudehitscar]

Whose in nine inch nails? Bc is the pumpkins IMO.

[Simon Belmont]

dudehitscar, on 27 March 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

In Simons defense lots of siamese dream songs were written with the band in the room and their input... Recording is where he threw them out.

Yeah, this was really more my point. Those songs were at least written as a band, whether they were recorded that way or not is a different story. The TBK and ZG songs were all written alone though, and it shows in the recordings.

[dudehitscar]

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

I'm beginning to question everything he's ever said, honestly. Let's look at it objectively.
Gish-Machina = full, dreamy, atmospheric sound, sounds like a cohesive band.
Zeitgeist-TBK = hollow, disjointed, lifeless sound, just sounds like one guy recording everything and throwing it all together.

Draw your own conclusions there, but I'm thinking there was a lot more input from James than Billy will ever sacrifice the ego to admit.

That being said, Jeff is a fantastic guitarist, and I'm sure he could contribute just as much, or even more, the same goes for Nicole, but the problem is, will they be allowed? Jeff has been in the band 5 years now, and he hasn't been allowed to record on a single song as far as we can tell. Maybe a little on the last 2 TBK songs, but it's hard to tell under all the ridiculous synth.

Gish through machina all had A list producers... I think that has been the most glaring problem since the breakup.

[Simon Belmont]

dudehitscar, on 27 March 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Gish through machina all had A list producers... I think that has been the most glaring problem since the breakup.

RTB is an A-list producer...he wasn't exactly the right person for the job, but he isn't just some schmuck off the street, he's got a hell of a resume behind him. He did fuck up those mixes pretty hard though. As for TBK, it's easy to blame Kerry for that, but we don't actually know what happened in the studio, or why they seemingly hate each other now, maybe Billy wanted it to sound that way, and Kerry was resisting too much? I know, there is very little chance of that being the case there, but regardless, Billy would have had the final say on the ZG and TBK mixes, if he wasn't happy with them, they wouldn't have been released that way.

dudehitscar, on 27 March 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Whose in nine inch nails? Bc is the pumpkins IMO.

Apples and oranges. NIN has basically always been just Trent, and the entire band revolves around synth and drum loops. Hardly the same style or writing process involved there.

[dudehitscar]

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

RTB is an A-list producer...he wasn't exactly the right person for the job, but he isn't just some schmuck off the street, he's got a hell of a resume behind him. He did fuck up those mixes pretty hard though. As for TBK, it's easy to blame Kerry for that, but we don't actually know what happened in the studio, or why they seemingly hate each other now, maybe Billy wanted it to sound that way, and Kerry was resisting too much? I know, there is very little chance of that being the case there, but regardless, Billy would have had the final say on the ZG and TBK mixes, if he wasn't happy with them, they wouldn't have been released that way.

If anything zeitgeist was worse off because of his input... I truly believe there is no way flood would have allowed the album to sound so poor..

I also remember that jimmy said they started working on z with a big name rock producer and he bailed cause 'he couldn't handle it'... I think that the guy saw what was going down and didn't want his name associated with it.

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Apples and oranges. NIN has basically always been just Trent, and the entire band revolves around synth and drum loops. Hardly the same style or writing process involved there.

I disagree with your characterization of NIN. But I do agree that sp benefited a lot more from non bc members then NIN has benefited from non-Trent members..

[themadcaplaughs]

Being a Guns N' Roses fan (which takes the analogy here to an even more ridiculous level) I've just learned to accept that this is not Smashing Pumpkins, but I'm excited to see where it goes. Just as the current lineup of GN'R is not Guns N' Roses, but I still support the music that lineup makes.

[Simon Belmont]

dudehitscar, on 27 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

I disagree with your characterization of NIN.

Guess who doesn't. ;)/>

 ninwiki.jpg (283.45K)
Number of downloads: 2

[dudehitscar]

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Guess who doesn't. ;)/>

ninwiki.jpg

That's not what I meant... I meant your characterization of the music.

[Simon Belmont]

dudehitscar, on 27 March 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

That's not what I meant... I meant your characterization of the music.

Damn! 3 minutes of cropping and highlighting, wasted! :lol:/>

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.

[mayday27]

one could argue the "if a tree fell in the woods and no one was there did it make a sound?" route. meaning that- meaning is created in brain of the beholder :p/>

SP 4 Eva

V

[Dusty]

I would say Zietgiest had the most "A-list producer"--it doesn't get much more a-list than Roy Thomas Baker. And Billy was teh producer for Adore, which apparently is lush, but he is no longer a-list for Teargarden or Zeitgiest, which he either produced or co-produced. Also, I think the entire band had admitted that Siamese Dream was just Billy and Jimmy, even at the time of its release. Gish, Adore and MACHINA/The Machines of God have had more variant accounts; generally, it seems that Gish was almost all Billy, Adore was pretty much just Billy, and James played sometimes during MACHINA (the band was breaking up anyways, why the hell not?). No hate towards James or D'Arcy, since they DID play on Mellon Collie, which rocks.

But even back then, many of those songs were written by Billy, alone. Take Daydream. What is the version with Billy's vocals on Trippin' Through the Stars called? Apartment Demo. I think it's fair to say that Daydream was something Billy cooked up, and shared with the band later. It seems in pretty much full for on that demo. And that was the very first album. I think having other band members present during the writting process certainly adds an interesting flavor, but it does not determine which tracks suck. Let us also remember that Billy wrote Song For a Son, Owata, and Freak with a "full band" more or less, and yet it appears those songs "suck" (or at least are "NOT FUCKING SP").

Actually, I think it would be hard to think of a Billy Corgan song that recieved absolutely no input from others. Even his solo album had input from Courtny Love and Jimmy at points.

In any case, this band is, and always has been SP. What does Zwan sound like? "The Smashing Pumpkins on Prozak". What does TheFutureEmbrace sound like? Smashing Pumpkins. What does Tarantula, or Oceania sound like? Smashing Pumpkins. Ride On \m/

[snail33]

serotoninsage, on 27 March 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

I have a logic-based query about this whole "it's no longer SP" debate. Here's an analogy, but first think of the word "family" synonymous with "band" and "extended family" as "supporters of the band throughout its history" :

Your family name is "Jones".

Let's say you have next to no contact with your extended family. Now, everyone in your immediate family died but you in a car crash. You're alone. Do you lose your family identity? That is to say, do you no longer possess the ability to self-identify as a Jones? If so, why and how? What if you married, your spouse took your last name, you had kids, etc?

I would argue that identity is self-based and if you can identify with it along with possessing a history of it, whether or not it has been eradicated from the physical world, it still exists. A name is a identity and it is up to each person to make the choice to familiarize oneself with that name or not. Everything in this world changes, including people and their circumstances and situations (this includes family, bands, and any other group you can think of).

So, in saying that, "the new group of people isn't Smashing Pumpkins" is like saying "the person that lost his immediate family and started over isn't really a 'Jones' but some other 'name') -- which of course doesn't make sense -- that person was always a Jones since birth. Also, keep in mind that Billy Corgan is the founder of the very idea of "Smashing Pumpkins"...

~~~

In the end, I don't really care who thinks and feels what about the band but I do think it's interesting from a logical POV to claim that SP is "not really SP anymore" -- to me, it's simply a case of a person expressing that they can no longer identify with the band as its pure/original form. But like my analogy about the family and the fact that going through life changes everything about everything, it seems rather immature. Rather, people should express that they "no longer enjoy SP as it once was" and that's in their rights -- but claiming a fact when its not logical seems...well...yeah.

Thoughts?

but human beings are emotional after all, and if you recognize that and recognize that when people say "it's not really SP anymore" that they really mean "they no longer enjoy it as it once was" or whatever, then there's really no point in picking the comments up from a "logical" standpoint. the words aren't meant literally; we detractors all know that whatever bc says "the smashing pumpkins" is will be what it is. but for US, that very special feeling we got from the band with that name is, for all intents and purposes, dead and gone, forever. i, for one, have NO expectation of it ever returning or ever feeling that way about NEW material from "the smashing pumpkins" again.

Simon Belmont, on 27 March 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

My take on it at this point:

Billy, James, D'arcy, Jimmy = SP
Billy, James, Melissa, Jimmy = SP
Billy, Jeff, Ginger, Jimmy = SP
Billy, Jeff, Nicole, Mike = SP
Billy recording everything but drums himself, little to no input from other members = NOT FUCKING SP

but some of the best music ever put out by the smashing pumpkins--or anyone else--is stuff that falls into that last category.

[Deleted User Account]

I think it's a bit of a goof to call this incarnation of the band Smashing Pumpkins. I personally can't escape the feeling that Corgan resurrected the name for publicity/visibility, and has bent the narrative so as to shroud that. Putting myself in his shoes, I can't blame the guy, but as an OG 90's fan, I think he's mucking up the Pumpkins legacy a tad and doing his work a disservice. Like those grotesque 80's Sabbath albums (Born Again, Mob Rules?)... they'll never kill the Ozzy (and I guess, Dio) years, but fuck it if they're not just a stinking abscess on a beautiful thing. And that's speaking as someone who appreciates half of Zeit and TGBK. I'm being purposefully dramatic. I do think TGBK2 got shafted because of the Pumpkins name and stigma that surronds that now. Had it been a Billy solo affair, its reception would have been much warmer, though just as obscure I'm afraid. Tis the price of being an aging rock icon.

I do think resurrecting the name has led to Corgan trying to reach old peaks through disingenuous writing (though that's a problematic assessment- who's to say pieces of garbage like Come On and Bring The Light are disingenuous when they're exactly what he wanted them to be). I guess I just hope the majority of Oceania drops the pretence of being a modern rock star for "honest" (and I'm willing to happily give a thumbs up to work I dislike if I feel it's honest) writing. I know I don't have to say it, but something like Quasar is such a bummer- some half assed attempt at appealing to a 90's sound, while only giving 50% of what he used to. Whereas Oceania, a song I have my problems with, sounds like exactly where he is. Just a gut feeling, of course.

What was the thread about again?

[LostSoul]

Something about the moniker makes Billy try way too hard.

I mean, Chicago Kid Songs & TFE were every bit as wholesome as his Pumpkins material, yet he was solo. Then, Zeitgeist came out and it was, in my opinion, a soul-less train wreck of a record. Why?

It has a lot to do with the SP mindset, I think. The expectations the fans have, the bar he has set for himself. He over does things a lot, be it the production or some bells & whistles in songs. With Zeitgeist & Teargarden, he was so committed to showing this other side of himself while still pleasing the fans, that he lost his way. You can argue every which way that Adore & Machina were commercial flops, but he still poured his heart into them. Because he had people surrounding him in the studio to help with songs, encourage him & reassure him, maybe even shoot him down at times. "This song is bad, Billy." "I can't believe you don't like this song, Billy; you should release it." "Go for that sound, Billy. Fuck the naysayers."

With Zeitgeist & TbK, he was high on expectations of his own legacy & ability. As a result, he became insecure, as well as irate and overly confident in his work. He seemed to once again be embracing the band element with the 20th Anniversary Tour & respective songs. Then, Jimmy left. Crash & burn, "I can do this by myself."

He fell straight on his ass and had a realization. I'm not saying Oceania will be great no matter what, because it could go either way. What I am saying, is that he seems to have a healthier, more engaged musical & intellectual mindset now that he has 'let the band in' once more.

We will see in the next few months, but in my eyes, the answer is simple. Billy got pretty high on himself after their heyday. He had this unsurpassed & ill-placed confidence in his ability to create. Rather than FOCUS on his music, he has brought the focus to the IDEA of his music.

[GracefulSwan]

snail33, on 27 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

but human beings are emotional after all, and if you recognize that and recognize that when people say "it's not really SP anymore" that they really mean "they no longer enjoy it as it once was" or whatever, then there's really no point in picking the comments up from a "logical" standpoint. the words aren't meant literally; we detractors all know that whatever bc says "the smashing pumpkins" is will be what it is. but for US, that very special feeling we got from the band with that name is, for all intents and purposes, dead and gone, forever. i, for one, have NO expectation of it ever returning or ever feeling that way about NEW material from "the smashing pumpkins" again.

Sadly, I agree. I'd have greater respect for Billy if he hadn't brought back the SP name, I feel like his releases will never be taken seriously when they have to be compared with older SP songs. I enjoyed the songs played by The Backwards Clock Society more than I did when they were played by the new SP because it was like a clean slate, nothing to live up to.

[V_____]

Like it or not, whatever is called SP is SP.

[monkeysnot]

V_____, on 28 March 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

Like it or not, whatever is called SP is SP.

This. If the band calls themselves SP, that's just the fact of what they're called. On paper, on records, documentation, etc. That's just it. The question isn't, "is this the Smashing Pumpkins?" The question SHOULD ONLY be, "is it reasonable for the band to call themselves SP?" Then you can decide and have this debate. SP isn't unique in this debate, either:

The Cure
The Shins

I'm sure there are many more. One could EASILY argue Robert Smith is The Cure, but the band has had many changes. So why keep the name?

Who cares? I hope Oceania destroys my ears and kicks my ass in the best way possible.

BC defenders should stop defending and think what they want. If my friends ever ask me, "but is it really the pumpkins?", I answer, yes, but I can understand where the question comes from. And if someone declares, "this isn't the pumpkins," then I just say, "yeah, I know why you say that."

What's in a name? If someone was super nice to me and called me Bob, I'd be happy and they can call me Bob all they want (even if it's not my name). I'm just glad they're nice to me, that's what matters. If the music is good, it doesn't matter what the band is called.

Personally, to me, the Smashing Pumpkins has a certain aura that [should] be present in this band. It hasn't always been there since Billy started using it again, but over the years as we grow, we should stop caring about the name. We should hope for the best, and if it doesn't meet our expectations, we can still function and get over it and continue to live our lives and still love the music we love. I think we're just super bored to be having the discussion, myself included. Or we've invested too much into something that in the end is not that important. A band name? Really? Shame on us. Here's to some potentially totally awesome psychedelic masterpiece.

Unfortunately, some of you have already made up your minds.

[serotoninsage]

MonteLDS, on 27 March 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

sorry TLDR all of it.. but I am surprised that you made a post about something you don't care what other people think..

Well, obviously I think/care about what people have to say, as you said.. otherwise why make a post. Re-worded, I meant to say, "I want to stay neutral to all opinions whether they agree or disagree."

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

Damn! 3 minutes of cropping and highlighting, wasted! :lol:/>

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.

Just to say: I don't not like TFE, it had its moments with me, but nothing in that catalog of Billy's music comes close to NIN's caliber of electronica/industrial music.

beep beep, on 27 March 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

By your logic, the founding members of SP are Jones'. or whatever. They all have a claim to use the name. So as to saying, yes Billy can use the name Smashing Pumpkins. But James, D'Arcy, and Jimmy could carry on the name as well.


I get where you're trying to go, but the analogy is flawed.

Well, I ~did~ say that the family died in my analogy! :p/> (which they did by choosing to stay out of the band when it reformed)

But yea, the argument is a little skewed but I just wanted to get my point across (which you understood) so it's all good.

[awsmsc]

Here's how I look at it:

(1) The 'default' position (as it applies to all bands under a similar context)

SP didn't exist until it was a complete band (4 people), because the whole idea was to have SP be a complete band (4 people). It was not until all 4 were there that they started referring to their group as SP (as far as I'm aware). Even if this wasn't the case, and SP started with BC or BC+James or BC+James+D'arcy, there was a general understanding that all 4 had equal right to the name "SP" once they had all assembled. Therefore, "SP", in its original incarnation was BC, James, D'arcy, and Jimmy. Therefore, each have equal say in what "SP" is indefinitely. Therefore, as long as there is not a member of original SP that says they are in an SP that isn't the SP that another member says they are in, then the only original SP member that says "This is SP" is the only original member that is in SP. As it stands, the other 3 original members aren't saying "I'm in a different SP". If that were the case, then there would be no SP, because there can't be two SPs, and this would therefore force current SP to change its name. The reason the other 3 aren't saying "I'm in a different SP" is because BC came up with the name and was the driving force of the band the whole time from 1988 to 2000.

(2) The actual position (as it applies to SP specifically)

Jimmy gave up his right to say "This is SP" in 1996 for obvious reasons--he substantively quit the band. He was ALLOWED back in in 1999 because ALL of the other 3 members let him back in, but he no longer had any say in the matter of "This is SP".

D'arcy and James gave up their right to say "This is SP" in 1999 because that's when they said "We're gonna quit this soon". At that point they had committed to leaving, which meant that they had given up on doing SP after the end of the tour. Even if either/both changed their minds about leaving SP in 2000 ("Actually, let's keep doing this...another metro show! Now album! WOOOO!"), the fact that they said they were gonna quit soon meant they had abandoned the notion of doing SP indefinitely into the future. This put BC in the position of being the only person left who wanted to do "SP" indefinitely, which meant he was the only person left to decide what "SP" was. He ALLOWED D'arcy and James to continue to be in SP. He would have been well within his rights to say "I only want 'SP' to be people who are in this for the long haul--you're both no longer 'SP'." It makes no sense to say "I'm quitting SP next week" and then next week say "Actually, I was kidding, and now I still want to be able to say what is SP and what isn't."

You could argue that D'arcy and James and BC each retained the right to say "This is SP" in 2000 because they all quit at the same time (and hadn't substantively quit before as Jimmy did). However, the only reason why BC quit in 2000 was because he didn't want SP to only have 2 original members. If D'arcy and James both hadn't collectively put BC in that position, he probably would not have said "SP no longer exists", so it makes no sense to say they all gave up or retained their right to say "This is SP". The context of why BC said "SP no longer exists" is very relevant here.

BC retained the right to say "This is SP" when he stopped saying "This is SP" (in 2000). He was the only person left to be able to say "This is SP" because in 1999 he was the only person who hadn't given up on 'doing SP' indefinitely at any point. Therefore, the only person with the right to say "SP exists again" was BC, which is what he did in 2005. He is therefore also the only person able to say "Mike is not SP" or "There is no SP". Even if BC said "SP is over and there will never be SP again", he would still retain the right to say "This is SP" because he is the only person with a plausible claim on the name--he was an original member and the last to give up on the idea of SP.

(3) An incidental way of also looking at in in addition to position #2

~90% of the artistic work of making SP music what it was in the original lineup (1988-1996) and the 2 or 3/4 lineups (1996-2000) was BC. Therefore, if there's going to be a band that plays SP music (1988-2000) ~50% of the time, it's BC and only BC.

[Parksey]

Corgan is obviously the creative force behind the band and always has been, but I'm not sure if that's enough to definitively say that this band is the Smashing Pumpkins. Thinking about past members is just too disappointing so I try not to.

For me, the music does the talking and what it's been saying to me throughout the TBK project is that it's not SP music. It doesn't have that certain something that no one can put their finger on that makes it SP (sorry Mike lovers, but I think the drumming is a major part of this). Maybe BC will find that certain something again with 0@sh, I really hope so.

[lucciola]

Quote

So, in saying that, "the new group of people isn't Smashing Pumpkins" is like saying "the person that lost his immediate family and started over isn't really a 'Jones' but some other 'name') -- which of course doesn't make sense -- that person was always a Jones since birth. Also, keep in mind that Billy Corgan is the founder of the very idea of "Smashing Pumpkins"...

No, he isn't a "Jones." Not fully. No longer exposed to the complicated inner dynamics of his immediate family, he gradually loses a great part of what it means to be a "Jones." Further, he absorbes whatever spirit his new family offers. The "Jones" becomes a "Smith."

Anyway ... in relation to SP proper (meaning 90s SP) the band Billy now fronts is the Smashing Pumpkin in neither form nor spirit. But is that really the end of the world? I've enjoyed some of what Billy has recently produced and some of it I have not. But SP? No.

btw was recently listening to How We Said Goodbye. Beautiful.

[whywontyoulisten]

lucciola, on 29 March 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

No, he isn't a "Jones." Not fully. No longer exposed to the complicated inner dynamics of his immediate family, he gradually loses a great part of what it means to be a "Jones." Further, he absorbes whatever spirit his new family offers. The "Jones" becomes a "Smith."

Billy should rename the band "The Smiths".

[glassjon]

JSapp, on 27 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

So Siamese Dream isn't SP?

Actual win!

[Deleted User Account]

glassjon, on 29 March 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Actual win!

No. Please read lucciola's post, and consider that Billy has admitted, despite playing the guitars, he was preforming parts the band had written in rehearsal and the like.

[awsmsc]

If a solo artist can say their band is "X", and this is acceptable to most people, why is it unacceptable for BC to say his band is "X" when he was doing ~90% of the creative work for "X" during its first run?

Also, most people would accept BC playing in a band that plays 1988-2000 SP about half of the time or more, right? So why would we call that band something other than SP if it's playing old SP half the time?

And wouldn't it be weird if a band without BC did that (regardless of what it was called)?

I appreciate the complexity of the issue, but I'd say this band being called SP is the worst of our possible options except for all the others.

[JSapp]

I dont remember anyone saying Sp wasn't Sp when Adore came out without JC when Zeitgeist came out without JI or DW we ha this debate start of if it was still SP or not. Surely when it comes to creative input JC>JI+DW so why is Adore a "real" SP album but not Zeitgeist?

[Deleted User Account]

Because Adore was good.

I have to say I don't miss JC's input a bit on Adore. Probably by design, the songs didn't require a large drum presence and what's there serves the song.

[serotoninsage]

lucciola, on 29 March 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

No, he isn't a "Jones." Not fully. No longer exposed to the complicated inner dynamics of his immediate family, he gradually loses a great part of what it means to be a "Jones." Further, he absorbes whatever spirit his new family offers. The "Jones" becomes a "Smith."

Good point, I hadn't thought of and covered that aspect. But I think you're overextending yourself with the Jones becomes a Smith point. Back to the family part of the analogy, if it were the case that I had kids, then my children shouldn't take on my family name and should choose their own name. See where I'm going with this? (I think it doesn't need further explanation, but if it's not clear, say so.......)

Let's look at this from another POV but keeping the same [flawed, as it were] analogy. Biologically, you pass on the same genetics (to relate this to the band analogy, you play a consistent type of sound/music that resonates the same message -- which is where this issue gets messy, I realize) you keep the same family name (traditionally as a male in our culture, but this now applies to women as well of course), but you grow up in a social environment and have experiences that shape you as an individual. So, that brings in the "Jones becomes a Smith" part -- but if you believe in the 'tenants/traditions/values/etc' of the Jones, you still maintain that name/identity --- and further, you 'celebrate' it -- which is supposed to convince us that despite change, the Name/Identity has been maintained.

So, it comes down to evaluating whether or not the sound that Billy is creating lives up to the values/spirit/etc of what it means to be SP (and this applies to the new members as well). From what we've been seeing from some of the more public members (Nicole), there seems to be a consensus of camaraderie (both professionally and in friendship) that is understood within the family. And as a band, they play well together for anyone that has seen the band live (whether or not you like the sound/songs/etc is simply a matter of taste and irrelevant to the issue). Just a quick note that this doesn't mean the caliber of old SP is outmatched...I'm not a damned fool ;)/>

Finally, as outsiders (all of us fans and media)... who are we to say whether or not a family/band has maintained its identity? I mean, it's like someone coming up to you and telling you that you aren't you, simply for deciding to wear green pants and no longer wear blue jeans. Billy has said this himself, come to think of it -- I think he once made a reference to the song Mayonaise about "I just want to be me (whoever I choose for that person to be)"

Anyway, I just think the whole thing is interesting in terms of how people associate a name/label to a perceived identity and how threatened they are by the aspect of change...

This post has been edited by serotoninsage: 29 March 2012 - 12:11 PM

[lucciola]

ArticulateEric, on 29 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Because Adore was good.

I have to say I don't miss JC's input a bit on Adore. Probably by design, the songs didn't require a large drum presence and what's there serves the song.

yes.

Christ I hate this debate. I don't want to play the age card - truly, I don't. I grew up in a family that played that game. If I had the audacity to play Zeppelin, my oldest brother would gleefully remind me that his first concert was Zeppelin in 77. (The Firm, incidentally, were not Led Zeppelin) Another brother would tease me over the Clash "turn that off, that's my band!" As if I couldn't recognize good music without experiencing it in real time. So infuriating. Nevertheless, they had a small point. When I first heard Arcade Fire, I nearly teared up realizing that at my advanced decrepit age I was incapable of appreciating their music in quite the same way I might had I heard it at 18. I overheard my nephew listening to wu lyf recently and felt a pang of envy that he has that and I didn't. Point being, you may stubbornly insist that sp now is sp then until your lovely little faces turn blue but for most of you it will remain an argument based on not much more than abstract theory and old youtube videos. From what I've heard and read, near everyone who experienced SP1 first hand recognizes that Billy's new band is a distinctly different animal. The energy imprint, the feel, if you will, is entirely other. Again, I am not suggesting that Billy and his new bandmembers aren't capable of producing good music, but SP as a creative entity died many years ago. It was beautiful to witness, and I feel very fortunate to have been there, but it can't be resurrected. Jimmy, James, Darcy and Billy together couldn't resurrect that band. Move on.

*sigh*

Where is Mayfair?!?

[ShamanO]

i find it funny that this convo is still being talked about. SP is what it is now and that is that.
Reminiscing is fine, but that's all it is at this point. What we have today is SP today. All things change...

[themadcaplaughs]

Quote

I dont remember anyone saying Sp wasn't Sp when Adore came out without JC when Zeitgeist came out without JI or DW we ha this debate start of if it was still SP or not. Surely when it comes to creative input JC>JI+DW so why is Adore a "real" SP album but not Zeitgeist?

Because Adore was a band effort. In his Confessions Billy reiterates that although he wrote all the songs, James was starting to check out mentally, and D'arcy was falling into addiction, the magic still happened when the three of them got together. I believe it is "Shame" Billy discusses when he talks about the 3 of them literally sitting in a circle and recording it live off the floor.

Zeitgeist lacked that presence of a band. Jimmy's real only creative input was his drum parts, and as soon as he finished those he left Billy to record the rest solo. There was no discussion put into the songs, it was solely the work of Corgan. Love or hate TbK songs (I like almost all of them), Mark's playing added some life that was not present in Zeitgeist because he actually put a unique spin on the bass lines.

[snail33]

Parksey, on 29 March 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

Corgan is obviously the creative force behind the band and always has been, but I'm not sure if that's enough to definitively say that this band is the Smashing Pumpkins. Thinking about past members is just too disappointing so I try not to.

For me, the music does the talking and what it's been saying to me throughout the TBK project is that it's not SP music. It doesn't have that certain something that no one can put their finger on that makes it SP (sorry Mike lovers, but I think the drumming is a major part of this). Maybe BC will find that certain something again with 0@sh, I really hope so.

mike is certainly no jimmy, but i don't think it has anything to do with that at all. it's the songs, baby, the melodies, the words, the themes, the instrumentation, etc. it's billy.

lucciola, on 29 March 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

From what I've heard and read, near everyone who experienced SP1 first hand recognizes that Billy's new band is a distinctly different animal. The energy imprint, the feel, if you will, is entirely other. Again, I am not suggesting that Billy and his new bandmembers aren't capable of producing good music, but SP as a creative entity died many years ago. It was beautiful to witness, and I feel very fortunate to have been there, but it can't be resurrected. Jimmy, James, Darcy and Billy together couldn't resurrect that band. Move on.

doesn't the above statement basically contradict the rest of your theory and vindicate those of old farts who rail about the new SP not being good or real?

[serotoninsage]

lucciola, on 29 March 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Jimmy, James, Darcy and Billy together couldn't resurrect that band. Move on.

I don't know if this is taking your quote out of context but this is exactly how I feel, except for the whole idea of a response to anything apolitical is by its existence, a conflict.