[MrLee192]

*zero*, on 02 July 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

shit. this thread is too good for you guys. not one of you gets it.

i detected sarcasm in the chemistry between members part but other then that, i dont see sarcasm, unless you hate pumpkins.

[*zero*]

note to future posters in this thread: if you haven't carefully read all my posts on page 1 and completely understand them, don't bother replying.

also, make sure you have a strong grasp of the english language and do not want to discuss saves the fucking day.

thankyou,

the OP.

[MrLee192]

o...k well.... im just gonna go wash my dick. brb

[V_____]

*zero*, on 02 July 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

note to future posters in this thread: if you haven't carefully read all my posts on page 1 and completely understand them, don't bother replying.

also, make sure you have a strong grasp of the english language and do not want to discuss saves the fucking day.

thankyou,

the OP.

You may think you are kidding but I am not kidding.

[Inertia]

*zero*, on 30 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

but there must be objective reasons for why people have different tastes.

when those are identified, world peace will be consummated.

For the most part, people who live in the american hood gravitates toward hip hop, rednecks to country, and so on. So I suppose that there's this idea where when a band or artist introduces you to a higher tier of music, you declare them the best since they were the first and original band to introduced you to this whole new tier of music. Before listening to SP, I was listening to Angels and Airwaves and thought that they were the best band in the world for me. But then SP came along and shattered those traditional beliefs. Now when I listen to a band like Nine Inch Nails, I sometimes speculate whether or not this band could have been my favorite if they were the first to shatter my beliefs. So I think it has a lot to do with the refreshment that the band creates for music listeners and how you're raised. That's why people have different tastes.

[*zero*]

V_____, on 02 July 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

You may think you are kidding but I am not kidding.

let's hear some of your music then

[*zero*]

Inertia, on 02 July 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

For the most part, people who live in the american hood gravitates toward hip hop, rednecks to country, and so on. So I suppose that there's this idea where when a band or artist introduces you to a higher tier of music, you declare them the best since they were the first and original band to introduced you to this whole new tier of music. Before listening to SP, I was listening to Angels and Airwaves and thought that they were the best band in the world for me. But then SP came along and shattered those traditional beliefs. Now when I listen to a band like Nine Inch Nails, I sometimes speculate whether or not this band could have been my favorite if they were the first to shatter my beliefs. So I think it has a lot to do with the refreshment that the band creates for music listeners and how you're raised. That's why people have different tastes.

i think that's partly true. i also think taste is possibly down to genes or chemical balance in the brain. i don't know if there's any scientific research to back that up, but i remember responding to sophisticated alternative music from a very early age. i remember listening to my parents' tapes of the cure, prince and the police when i was 4 (which they never listened to, i discovered them by myself) but i hated most stuff on the radio. there must be a reason for that.

[Kreatorkind]

There will never be another "Smashing Pumpkins", "The Who", "Led Zepplin", "The Beatles", "The Doors", "The Cure"... ect. Every great band is unique. There will most certainly be other bands in their league in the future. (maybe some out there right now...) The question is: Will we recognize it when it appears?

[*zero*]

you still don't understand the question

[Kreatorkind]

*zero*, on 02 July 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

you still don't understand the question

I do understand the question. There are bands like this out there. There just aren't any good ways left to get the exposure that the Pumpkins were lucky enough to get. Billy said himself that it would be hard for the Pumpkins to get signed and be successful these days. We need some kind of new path to reach people. But the real problem isn't that there aren't any good bands with a lot of the (I'll say intangible) qualities that the Pumpkins have, the problem is nobody can pay attention for more than 3 minutes unless it's something that is irritatingly catchy. In today's environment, music is nothing but background noise to most people.

[*zero*]

Kreatorkind, on 02 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

I do understand the question. There are bands like this out there. There just aren't any good ways left to get the exposure that the Pumpkins were lucky enough to get. Billy said himself that it would be hard for the Pumpkins to get signed and be successful these days. We need some kind of new path to reach people. But the real problem isn't that there aren't any good bands with a lot of the (I'll say intangible) qualities that the Pumpkins have, the problem is nobody can pay attention for more than 3 minutes unless it's something that is irritatingly catchy. In today's environment, music is nothing but background noise to most people.

despite what billy says, i disagree with the view that it would be hard for SP to get a break in today's music culture- i think they would be a viral sensation. people are always looking for a new artist that has real star quality and every member of SP was a star in their own right. it's the cartoonish personal chemistry of the original band that people were attracted to because no other band had that. what i want people to ask themselves in this thread is why aren't there more bands like that? how can you get four strong, contrasting personalities to click like that and share such a grand musical vision? i think people are bored of simply hearing "good" new music. what really interests us as a culture is when a rare meeting of great minds/personalities occurs and it becomes a soap opera. we like following the drama. if SP had been billy and 3 boring white guys it probably wouldn't have worked.

my point is that most new bands aren't trying hard enough to be great artists or sophisticated, interesting people. they're musically lazy and have no attitude or personality.

[Kreatorkind]

*zero*, on 02 July 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

my point is that most new bands aren't trying hard enough to be great artists or sophisticated, interesting people. they're musically lazy and have no attitude or personality.

I agree with you there... however, that is how it's always been from the 50's to today. Most people who call themselves musicians, or guys who start bangs are lazy... always has been that way. The one's who take it more seriously have always been around and always will be. The problem is everyone who can string together a couple chords, forms a band, records some songs on their laptop and demand to be famous. The real issue is the instant gratification society we live in. It's almost impossible for real talent to get discovered amid all the funny cat videos and Justins and Brittneys. People don't listen anymore. Think of the best new band you know, then ask 20 people on the street if they've heard of them. Ask those same 20 people if they've heard of Justin Bieber.

[*zero*]

Kreatorkind, on 02 July 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I agree with you there... however, that is how it's always been from the 50's to today. Most people who call themselves musicians, or guys who start bangs are lazy... always has been that way. The one's who take it more seriously have always been around and always will be. The problem is everyone who can string together a couple chords, forms a band, records some songs on their laptop and demand to be famous. The real issue is the instant gratification society we live in. It's almost impossible for real talent to get discovered amid all the funny cat videos and Justins and Brittneys. People don't listen anymore. Think of the best new band you know, then ask 20 people on the street if they've heard of them. Ask those same 20 people if they've heard of Justin Bieber.

of course musicians have always been lazy. i actually think most of the classic "great bands" sound pretty crappy and primitive compared to modern bands who refined their style. it was easier to be exciting back in the old days because there was so much room for experimentation. now, in 2012, we've seen the 60s/70s/80s/90s revival movements come and go and now we're at a crossroads where no one is really sure what the future of music will sound like. so i think we need to re-examine the purpose of popular music and try to create it in more subversive, sophisticated ways. bands need to stop thinking like bands (ie look how cool we are) and start thinking like serious artists or musical scientists. that's my personal approach. i think the masses DO enjoy alternative music - we do still see hit alternative songs from time to time - but it has to be subversive. a song can be totally weird and alternative so long as it is accessible and extremely catchy. a lot of musicians seem to hate the idea of writing hit songs, but i think they're afraid. you can't expect the masses to like strange music, it's your job as an artist to give them something they can understand but will also show them something new and open their eyes a little. unfortunately not many of our favourite artists (SP etc) have written many crossover hits in the last 10 years. but it can still happen.

[misguided]

The Decemberists
Murder by Death
Brand New (3rd album on)
...Trail of Dead

They all have deep meaningful lyrics, textured sound, variety of songs, and great concept albums. So, there ARE bands similar to TSP in depth, but a repertoire ranging from Blank Page to Soma to XYU proves that no band 1991+ can match them. Not even NIN or Radiohead, which I do like a ton.

[SilverDuck]

I see lots of far out stuff that reminds me...but Billy is kinda one of a kind. It's like if you took Hendrix and morphed him with Rick Flair...which gives me horrible ideas for my own band.

[Julian]

misguided, on 02 July 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

but a repertoire ranging from Blank Page to Soma to XYU proves that no band 1991+ can match them. Not even NIN or Radiohead, which I do like a ton.

Oh come on. You're telling me that no-one can write a piano dirge + a heavy depressive song + a heavy growly song? I'm sure NIN has done all three multiple times. Two out of three of those songs are rock songs. Yeah, real varied.

[whyisnohere?]

*zero*, on 30 June 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

actually i take back what i said about the cure. i do think they had a magical realism, but it was always centered around robert- i never felt a personal connection to anyone else in the band throughout the various lineups, because they were really just silent backing musicians. this is a good example of the difference i'm talking about between SP and other bands. SP's fans feel a much stronger than average connection with each individual SP member because they had distinct, cartoonish personalities that illustrated the character of the music in a way that i don't think you can say about many other bands. for the record, i'm not suggesting that SP are the only band with "magical realism" - i certainly think the cure and garbage had it, two of my favourite bands - but i would argue that no band had it on quite the same level as SP for many reasons. i will gladly get into them, but frankly, if you don't already intuitively see that there was an almost magical depth and grandeur to SP's career 1988-2000 (and not just in their output but in their personal lives as well) that is unmatched by any band before or since, then we're not speaking the same language here. while you or most people may just see SP as a cool interesting band, to me they are more like a living fairytale. a combination of elements so stunningly unlikely that it seems miraculous. i'm surprised that more people don't see that.

i still think the cure is in the same exact league. same type of cult, same themes, same mad-genius innovator/popsong writer/iconoclast/pain in the ass leader...the makeup, the bombast, the raw emotional power of the shows...and most cure diehards--of which there are millions, in every outpost in the world--know quite a bit about the other members (simon, porl, lol, roger, etc) and follow them more lovingly than many FRONTMEN of bands. check out roger o'donnell's facebook sometime--and he just came back into the band after years away! no one in the band died, but there were a gazillion lineup changes, robert escaping to play with siouxsie and the banshees, the firing of a longtime member due to being a drunk (when the whole BAND was high and drunk all the time), ensuing lawsuits, robert's disses of morrissey, new order, inxs, adam ant and others, jokey side projects, questionable late-period nu-metally albums (sound familiar?), a lead voice that is evocative, dreamy and cathartic to fans but whiny, mopey and difficult to most others, the ability to fill stadiums--nay, FOOTBALL FIELDS--with the furthest thing from arena rock imaginable, and on and on. billy once called the pumpkins "the american cure", and i always thought it, even before he said it.

and it IS provable. everything can be objectified and measured. most bands' accomplishments pale into insignificance next to SP's.

i think i understand what you mean here--i often feel some of my analyses, even when they don't involve FACTS, are so apparent that it's ridiculous when people disagree (almost like teachers who criticize multiple interpretations of poems--yes, it's technically not the "right" way to teach, but with some works, the meaning is apparent even if it's abstracted, and other wild conclusions, while not DEMONSTRABLY "wrong", are OBVIOUSLY wrong)--but no, "everything can NOT, in fact, be objectified (not sure that's the word you wanted) and measured."

[misguided]

Julian, on 02 July 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

Oh come on. You're telling me that no-one can write a piano dirge + a heavy depressive song + a heavy growly song? I'm sure NIN has done all three multiple times. Two out of three of those songs are rock songs. Yeah, real varied.

Talking about the range of songs. Did Trent write a For Martha or With Every Light? I could be wrong.

[SilverDuck]

misguided, on 03 July 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Talking about the range of songs. Did Trent write a For Martha or With Every Light? I could be wrong.

exactly....this is why ole bill is best and under-rated...he can write a song like silverfuck..then bust out 1979...then write a jammy song that makes a Grateful Dead tune seem short with Gossamer. Fucking Corgan....dudes a wizard.

http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/music/smashingpumpkins/unitedpalace/35.jpg

"I WILL DESTROY HARRY POTTER!"

[cookieshoes]

*zero*, on 02 July 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

it's the cartoonish personal chemistry of the original band that people were attracted to because no other band had that. what i want people to ask themselves in this thread is why aren't there more bands like that? how can you get four strong, contrasting personalities to click like that and share such a grand musical vision? i think people are bored of simply hearing "good" new music. what really interests us as a culture is when a rare meeting of great minds/personalities occurs and it becomes a soap opera. we like following the drama. if SP had been billy and 3 boring white guys it probably wouldn't have worked.

Wow. Lots of romanticizing there, so it makes it difficult to answer your question. At the time, the original Pumpkins lineup was Billy and a bunch of nobodies. Without Billy, the band would not have existed. In the aftermath, it's still Billy and a bunch of nobodies.

D'Arcy couldn't sing to save her life (see any live recording), and James was a very weak guitarist up until he started doing some nice soloing things during the MCIS tour. Listen to any live version of "Rocket" and hear James butcher the solo melodies that Billy had recorded.

I don't really know where this impression of them all being "strong" or personalities comes from either. Certainly none of them were "great minds", even counting Billy's exceptional songwriting skills. Holy moly. I think you're looking at too many photographs and posters where they're doing that MTV pose and looking all "unique". Jimmy was strung out on heroin for the duration of the band's peak, James was along for the ride, and D'Arcy was doing that "I look serious, all the time" thing already done by dozens of others in rock acts.

Sure, it would be one thing if the other members' personalities really contributed in a significant way to the musical output of the band (beyond their live shows of course). But the reality is that Billy told D'Arcy what to play, he told Jimmy what to play, and he certainly told James what to play. Looking back and saying that they were some cosmic group of people who were brought together by chance is completely over-doing it and objectifying the members of the band based on some surface qualities (i.e. D'Arcy is "cool" because she's a girl playing bass, James is "cool" because he's second generation Japanese, Jimmy is "cool" because he has black hair, etc.). Not the same as bands where every member is a strong player who contributes with a unique voice, each member wrote hit songs, or where each member had a personality in the group that went beyond just the way they looked onstage. The Pumpkins' as a "band" was extremely helpful for Billy to get to the level of stardom he wanted, but obviously was only good for that and nothing more. This is proven by how quickly they replaced Jimmy after Melvoin's death, D'Arcy after she was fired/left, and how Billy has no problem carrying on with a now revolving lineup of people who for all intents and purposes only serve to meet the profile of past band members (a girl on bass, an Asian-American on second guitar, and an obligatory "prodigy" on the drums).

[*zero*]

cookieshoes, on 03 July 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Wow. Lots of romanticizing there, so it makes it difficult to answer your question. At the time, the original Pumpkins lineup was Billy and a bunch of nobodies. Without Billy, the band would not have existed. In the aftermath, it's still Billy and a bunch of nobodies.

D'Arcy couldn't sing to save her life (see any live recording), and James was a very weak guitarist up until he started doing some nice soloing things during the MCIS tour. Listen to any live version of "Rocket" and hear James butcher the solo melodies that Billy had recorded.

I don't really know where this impression of them all being "strong" or personalities comes from either. Certainly none of them were "great minds", even counting Billy's exceptional songwriting skills. Holy moly. I think you're looking at too many photographs and posters where they're doing that MTV pose and looking all "unique". Jimmy was strung out on heroin for the duration of the band's peak, James was along for the ride, and D'Arcy was doing that "I look serious, all the time" thing already done by dozens of others in rock acts.

Sure, it would be one thing if the other members' personalities really contributed in a significant way to the musical output of the band (beyond their live shows of course). But the reality is that Billy told D'Arcy what to play, he told Jimmy what to play, and he certainly told James what to play. Looking back and saying that they were some cosmic group of people who were brought together by chance is completely over-doing it and objectifying the members of the band based on some surface qualities (i.e. D'Arcy is "cool" because she's a girl playing bass, James is "cool" because he's second generation Japanese, Jimmy is "cool" because he has black hair, etc.). Not the same as bands where every member is a strong player who contributes with a unique voice, each member wrote hit songs, or where each member had a personality in the group that went beyond just the way they looked onstage. The Pumpkins' as a "band" was extremely helpful for Billy to get to the level of stardom he wanted, but obviously was only good for that and nothing more. This is proven by how quickly they replaced Jimmy after Melvoin's death, D'Arcy after she was fired/left, and how Billy has no problem carrying on with a now revolving lineup of people who for all intents and purposes only serve to meet the profile of past band members (a girl on bass, an Asian-American on second guitar, and an obligatory "prodigy" on the drums).

"wow"? the only thing that is "wow" here is how you have completely missed the point... i despair for the human race if people can't understand what i obviously meant by "strong personalities" and "great minds" in this context. NO, of course james and d'arcy were not musical geniuses, of course no one in the band was an intellectual - do you really think that's what i was suggesting? they were flawed individuals, as we all are, and they had a dysfunctional relationship. what you fail to see - pitifully, i must say - is that that was largely what endeared us to the band and made them interesting. we cared deeply about each member for the unique qualities they brought to the band - darcy's cynicism, james' humor, billy's grandiosity, jimmy's sketchiness - and those qualities TOTALLY contributed to the band's music. and it is not shallow to remark upon the band's appearance- billy chose james and darcy to ensure the band had greater visual impact, which is something most bands don't naturally have. even james's "weak" guitar playing added some punk-rock irony to SP's performances that gave them character and made them more fun to listen to than any of the polished "SP2" shows have been, in my opinion. on top of that, it is hugely interesting, to me anyway, that james and d'arcy (and to a lesser extent, jimmy) were actually WILLING to learn all of billy's songs and do what he told them. unless you are already an established famous songwriter, do you know what happens when you try to start a band and expect the other musicians to play the parts you've written? they tell you to fuck off, that's what happens. the fact that james and d'arcy were willing to learn hundreds of songs with hardly any opportunity to contribute is beyond amazing. they weren't even the most proficient musicians on the block, and billy still got them to learn more songs in 12 years than most bands write in their entire career. that was either magic, or billy was paying them all along.

and your comments about replacing members is wrong- billy never wanted to replace the original members. he was not just "using" them to launch himself as a solo artist. he was a tyrant and they were basically his slaves, but he was committed to them. he had to replace them for the sake of keeping the band going, which is what they all would have wanted anyway. billy's been astronomically lucky to have met so many suitable replacements over the years. i very much consider melissa an honorary "original" SP member because she would have fit the personal dynamics of the band from the very beginning. as for other members over the years - the adore drummers, ginger, jeff, lisa, nicole, mike - they are fantastic musicians and have enough visual impact to remind us of what the band is "about" (ask Billy) but i don't think that we, as an audience, get a sense of anything like the special personal dynamics of the original band from them. it's now a purely professional relationship between billy and his current band- sure, they're friends and writing original music together, but it ain't magic.

rant over.

[Inertia]

cookieshoes, on 03 July 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Wow. Lots of romanticizing there, so it makes it difficult to answer your question. At the time, the original Pumpkins lineup was Billy and a bunch of nobodies. Without Billy, the band would not have existed. In the aftermath, it's still Billy and a bunch of nobodies.

D'Arcy couldn't sing to save her life (see any live recording), and James was a very weak guitarist up until he started doing some nice soloing things during the MCIS tour. Listen to any live version of "Rocket" and hear James butcher the solo melodies that Billy had recorded.

I don't really know where this impression of them all being "strong" or personalities comes from either. Certainly none of them were "great minds", even counting Billy's exceptional songwriting skills. Holy moly. I think you're looking at too many photographs and posters where they're doing that MTV pose and looking all "unique". Jimmy was strung out on heroin for the duration of the band's peak, James was along for the ride, and D'Arcy was doing that "I look serious, all the time" thing already done by dozens of others in rock acts.

Sure, it would be one thing if the other members' personalities really contributed in a significant way to the musical output of the band (beyond their live shows of course). But the reality is that Billy told D'Arcy what to play, he told Jimmy what to play, and he certainly told James what to play. Looking back and saying that they were some cosmic group of people who were brought together by chance is completely over-doing it and objectifying the members of the band based on some surface qualities (i.e. D'Arcy is "cool" because she's a girl playing bass, James is "cool" because he's second generation Japanese, Jimmy is "cool" because he has black hair, etc.). Not the same as bands where every member is a strong player who contributes with a unique voice, each member wrote hit songs, or where each member had a personality in the group that went beyond just the way they looked onstage. The Pumpkins' as a "band" was extremely helpful for Billy to get to the level of stardom he wanted, but obviously was only good for that and nothing more. This is proven by how quickly they replaced Jimmy after Melvoin's death, D'Arcy after she was fired/left, and how Billy has no problem carrying on with a now revolving lineup of people who for all intents and purposes only serve to meet the profile of past band members (a girl on bass, an Asian-American on second guitar, and an obligatory "prodigy" on the drums).

The implications are merciless.

[cookieshoes]

*zero*, on 03 July 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

what you fail to see - pitifully, i must say - is that that was largely what endeared us to the band and made them interesting. we cared deeply about each member for the unique qualities they brought to the band - darcy's cynicism, james' humor, billy's grandiosity, jimmy's sketchiness - and those qualities TOTALLY contributed to the band's music.

That's fanboy nonsense. Back in 1991, nobody knew anything about James, D'Arcy, or Jimmy. Certainly nobody "cared deeply" about them. That's a modern-day revision of how things really were, largely enforced by Billy spending the better part of the last 20 years constantly talking about how significant his original lineup was. The reality is that all anybody knew was that Billy was talented and that there was a Japanese guy on guitar, a somewhat attractive girl in way too much pancake makeup on bass, and a drummer who was really good but dressed in bad R&B 90's clothes who had a bad haircut. The whole "drama" of the band and all this talk about personalities is what was manufactured later and sold to the press once the band hit big in 1993, just like any good publicist would do for a band. It only became noteworthy that James and D'Arcy dated and broke up, and that Jimmy had a tough time kicking heroin once Billy and the band's manager started packaging "the story of the band" to the press.

The thought that James, D'Arcy, and Jimmy should be commended for somehow sticking around to learn Billy's songs is compleeeeete nonsense. D'Arcy was waiting tables when the Pumpkins were playing out in the early days. Billy was working in a record store, and who knows what minimum wage job James and Jimmy were doing at the time. They were one bad gig from fading into the same obscurity that the millions of people who are in bands that go nowhere fall into. So, hell yes the rest of the band were grateful as hell to learn Billy's songs once they started making money and gaining fame. He made them all millionaires. With all the drama and shit he put them through, notice that it wasn't until they were past their prime nearly a decade later that individual members started to jump ship.

This fantasy about the individual band members having some big input or significance is simply not the case. Billy could've had any girl on bass, any guy on second guitar, and any number of good drummers. He found the people that he found and once his songs started to catch on, he marketed the band members as being "meaningful" people. The reality was that they were terribly uninteresting. People obsessed about their looks and the fact that they were in this band fronted by this complicated loudmouth who wrote good songs. This type of approach is no different than what Jack White was able to do by selling Meg White as a "girl who plays drums with a childlike innocence". That kind of crap draws a lot of people into wanting to buy your album, and the fanbase eats that shit up because they've found something "unique" about the band. That has nothing to do with the music itself. It ends up being just a package to buy into.

[CZR]

I wonder if I would still like SP the same as I do today if Billy had a regular voice. I'm not so sure, his voice attracted me to his music since the beginning. Like Disarm, whenever someone else sings it, it Doesnt sound too appealing. Would he be mad if people only liked his music because his voice made it interesting?

[*zero*]

cookieshoes, on 03 July 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

That's fanboy nonsense. Back in 1991, nobody knew anything about James, D'Arcy, or Jimmy. Certainly nobody "cared deeply" about them. That's a modern-day revision of how things really were, largely enforced by Billy spending the better part of the last 20 years constantly talking about how significant his original lineup was. The reality is that all anybody knew was that Billy was talented and that there was a Japanese guy on guitar, a somewhat attractive girl in way too much pancake makeup on bass, and a drummer who was really good but dressed in bad R&B 90's clothes who had a bad haircut. The whole "drama" of the band and all this talk about personalities is what was manufactured later and sold to the press once the band hit big in 1993, just like any good publicist would do for a band. It only became noteworthy that James and D'Arcy dated and broke up, and that Jimmy had a tough time kicking heroin once Billy and the band's manager started packaging "the story of the band" to the press.

The thought that James, D'Arcy, and Jimmy should be commended for somehow sticking around to learn Billy's songs is compleeeeete nonsense. D'Arcy was waiting tables when the Pumpkins were playing out in the early days. Billy was working in a record store, and who knows what minimum wage job James and Jimmy were doing at the time. They were one bad gig from fading into the same obscurity that the millions of people who are in bands that go nowhere fall into. So, hell yes the rest of the band were grateful as hell to learn Billy's songs once they started making money and gaining fame. He made them all millionaires. With all the drama and shit he put them through, notice that it wasn't until they were past their prime nearly a decade later that individual members started to jump ship.

This fantasy about the individual band members having some big input or significance is simply not the case. Billy could've had any girl on bass, any guy on second guitar, and any number of good drummers. He found the people that he found and once his songs started to catch on, he marketed the band members as being "meaningful" people. The reality was that they were terribly uninteresting. People obsessed about their looks and the fact that they were in this band fronted by this complicated loudmouth who wrote good songs. This type of approach is no different than what Jack White was able to do by selling Meg White as a "girl who plays drums with a childlike innocence". That kind of crap draws a lot of people into wanting to buy your album, and the fanbase eats that shit up because they've found something "unique" about the band. That has nothing to do with the music itself. It ends up being just a package to buy into.

just no. too many fails to list.

CZR, on 03 July 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

I wonder if I would still like SP the same as I do today if Billy had a regular voice. I'm not sure, his voice attracted me to his music since the beginning

his voice is certainly unique. i've always noticed that his voice changed slightly from album to album. as a result, when i listen to gish/sd/mcis/adore/machina i don't hear "billy" on the record as much as i hear a character he's created. with the exception of TFE, i think billy's vocals 2000-2012 have tonally been very samey. he knows how to control his voice now and it sounds a little less raw and emotional to me.

[CZR]

What do you think of this singing http://m.youtube.com...h?v=vVelg9ZpFuw

[cookieshoes]

*zero*, on 03 July 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

just no. too many fails to list.

How about name one....

[Kreatorkind]

There's a reason we're not all on the "Snaketrain" messageboard.

[Fernando]

cookieshoes, on 03 July 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Wow. Lots of romanticizing there, so it makes it difficult to answer your question. At the time, the original Pumpkins lineup was Billy and a bunch of nobodies. Without Billy, the band would not have existed. In the aftermath, it's still Billy and a bunch of nobodies.

D'Arcy couldn't sing to save her life (see any live recording), and James was a very weak guitarist up until he started doing some nice soloing things during the MCIS tour. Listen to any live version of "Rocket" and hear James butcher the solo melodies that Billy had recorded.

I don't really know where this impression of them all being "strong" or personalities comes from either. Certainly none of them were "great minds", even counting Billy's exceptional songwriting skills. Holy moly. I think you're looking at too many photographs and posters where they're doing that MTV pose and looking all "unique". Jimmy was strung out on heroin for the duration of the band's peak, James was along for the ride, and D'Arcy was doing that "I look serious, all the time" thing already done by dozens of others in rock acts.

Sure, it would be one thing if the other members' personalities really contributed in a significant way to the musical output of the band (beyond their live shows of course). But the reality is that Billy told D'Arcy what to play, he told Jimmy what to play, and he certainly told James what to play. Looking back and saying that they were some cosmic group of people who were brought together by chance is completely over-doing it and objectifying the members of the band based on some surface qualities (i.e. D'Arcy is "cool" because she's a girl playing bass, James is "cool" because he's second generation Japanese, Jimmy is "cool" because he has black hair, etc.). Not the same as bands where every member is a strong player who contributes with a unique voice, each member wrote hit songs, or where each member had a personality in the group that went beyond just the way they looked onstage. The Pumpkins' as a "band" was extremely helpful for Billy to get to the level of stardom he wanted, but obviously was only good for that and nothing more. This is proven by how quickly they replaced Jimmy after Melvoin's death, D'Arcy after she was fired/left, and how Billy has no problem carrying on with a now revolving lineup of people who for all intents and purposes only serve to meet the profile of past band members (a girl on bass, an Asian-American on second guitar, and an obligatory "prodigy" on the drums).

I think you are missing the point here.

I also think that D'arcy and James were not good musicians most of the time. But it's not about that.

I think that the Pumpkins was able to understand both the alternative culture and the mainstream culture and to cross them with graciosity and weirdness. Image was part of that, for sure... but that was a big part of the 90's culture:videoclips, magazines, booklets, posters, vestiment and the Pumpkins was pretty good on those things. That's why the 90's bands were big, and I can call some bands here: Suede, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Oasis, Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Guns N' Roses... were they all great musicians? No, but they had personality!

I can think about many "new" good bands (Elbow, Arcade Fire, Queens of the Stone Age etc), but now, people just don't care about those things (Visuals and music), it's all about behavior (as in advertising). That's why rock is so irrelevant. That's why it's so hard to get another band like the pumpkins.

[indisposed]

No, because once you reach a certain age, your tastes are defined and carved in stone. The end.

[RottingApples]

*zero*, on 02 July 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

shit. this thread is too good for you guys. not one of you gets it.

Thanks for ignoring my earlier point.

The fact that you don't like people's answers does not mean they don't get it. Everyone has given, in some way or another, an answer to your imaginary, hypothetical question: There will never be another band exactly like SP. There will be bands who share some of the same elements that made SP great, and there will be bands that evoke the same deep connection to their music that SP has to us. I don't know what else you could want since there is no "correct" or perfect answer in this made up discussion.

[Woody]

From 1993-2001 the Smashing Pumpkins were the band I was listening to about 75% of the time. It's hard to let other bands touch your life in the same way when SP was the soundtrack to your entire youth from Grade 6 to college. Every album comes with a different set of memories and experiences from important moments in my life.

I believe that since the Internet age where I can sample and purchase any album under the sun, I have been exposed to so much music, both new and old, that I found were technically better, and more interesting than anything that Smashing Pumpkins has ever released...but the music of Smashing Pumpkins is so personal to me and so ingrained in my life and my character that no other band or artist in the world can ever come close to being as important.
Even Oceania, which I admit is one of the greatest things Billy has ever accomplished, can't compete with the 15 year old me, just starting high school and listening to a cassette tape of Mellon Collie for the first time. You just can't touch that sort of nostalgia.

So no, there will never be another Smashing Pumpkins for me, even if there have been much better bands and albums prior to and since.

[CelestialBeing]

You all raise alot of interesting points. I agree on some of them. Though looks do account for the personality especially back in the early 90"s where there was a girl playing bass in a band full of boys (big deal back then) a Japanese who looked like a girl from a distance (who dint speak Japanese) and drummer who looked like you dint want to mess with helped make the Pumpkins all that more intriguing. They looked like a bunch of misfits and for their style of music the combination was inseparable. Now the music was a different beast (the music was awesome and that spoke for itself) it was SPs time and no one can take that away from them. God was like "Let there be SP" and who can disagree with that. I am so happy I was around for them the same way my parents were for The Beatles. Another reason why they worked then as they do now is because of their karma. All individuals in a band mash their karma together. When it works well it makes for some nice music. I am talking about the beginning stages of course. From Michael Jackson to Marilyn Manson. They are all nice ppl when you get to meet them even if they are batsh#t crazy. Work out your karma and you will know with the group you are with if it is the right group because anytime is right :)/>

[cookieshoes]

Fernando, on 04 July 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

I think you are missing the point here.

I also think that D'arcy and James were not good musicians most of the time. But it's not about that.

I think that the Pumpkins was able to understand both the alternative culture and the mainstream culture and to cross them with graciosity and weirdness. Image was part of that, for sure... but that was a big part of the 90's culture:videoclips, magazines, booklets, posters, vestiment and the Pumpkins was pretty good on those things. That's why the 90's bands were big, and I can call some bands here: Suede, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Oasis, Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Guns N' Roses... were they all great musicians? No, but they had personality!

I can think about many "new" good bands (Elbow, Arcade Fire, Queens of the Stone Age etc), but now, people just don't care about those things (Visuals and music), it's all about behavior (as in advertising). That's why rock is so irrelevant. That's why it's so hard to get another band like the pumpkins.

Rock was just as irrelevant back in the 1990s. The fact that bands like Nirvana and all of the bands you mentioned got so much exposure (and as a consequence, the average fan could "bond" with individual members) had less to do with the quality of the bands or the people in them than it did with the machine that they were feeding into: MTV. Nobody knew anything about most bands from the 70s beyond the lead singer and the guitarist, and whatever they could find out they had to find in magazines. When MTV came around, now everyone in the band had to be a personality, because the video cameras were showing everybody up close. Like a throwback to Beatlemania, where now fans could pick a favorite member. That's why you saw so many terrible hair metal bands going to such great lengths to try and sell an image with all of those stupid videos about partying and playing in stadiums. It was no different in the 1990s. The only thing that had changed was the type of image that was being sold to the kids. Replace the makeup and hairspray of the 1980s with the vintage thrift store clothes and "disaffected youth" image of the 1990s bands.

It didn't matter what the personalities of the band members were, as it was going to be marketed on MTV however they wanted it to be. The Pumpkins were not the first alternative band, nor where they the first to have a confrontational "artist" leader and submissive backing members. There were lots of bands like that before them. That somehow it appears that there aren't any bands like the Pumpkins or Nirvana or Pearl Jam now is due to the fact that the game has changed. The people who do get exposure these days are given it based on a completely different market setup. And yes, those people sell out just as hard today as the Pumpkins and Nirvana did back then, with the videos and the photoshoots and the image that they want people to see. In 10 years it will be different tastes, but the mechanisms will still be the same. Every era has it's famous and it's not-so-famous, but comparing eras to make one "better" or "unique" only goes so far.

Looking back and thinking that somehow James was a unique musical presence, or that D'Arcy brought some kind of magical energy to the Pumpkins music is complete rubbish. They didn't even play on half of the songs on the record that made the group famous. I'm sure if you asked them today what it was like being in such an influential band, they will tell you it had its ups and downs. But if you were to ask them "What was it like writing XXX song" they would have nothing to say, because they didn't have a hand in writing the bulk of the group's songs. And the live shows were played note for note every night, beyond what soloing and vocals Billy would improvise. So, where then was James and D'Arcy's contribution as being part of this band beyond showing up and playing Billy's music year after year? Were they competent on their instruments? Sure. Did they have their own stage presence? Sure. But take out the recordings they played on and the gigs that they played, and their contribution gets reduced to the magazine covers, photoshoots, and the videos, all of which were choreographed to sell the band's image.

Sure, if you were flipping through a photobook of bands from the 90s, and saw shot after shot of bands with 4 or 5 guys in them, and then suddenly came to a picture of the Pumpkins, with this girl on bass, a really tall somewhat normal looking guy as the lead singer, a Japanese-American on guitar, and a muscular drummer, you might stop and say "I wonder what they sound like? They look different." And then if you were to hear their album, you'd say "Wow, they do sound different". The problem is that their songs and sound had nothing to do with the members in the band, it had to do with Billy. Did the band's makeup of members help the band draw in more fans? Of course. But inventing personalities for them that they didn't have is where the fandom goes too far. Especially when it comes to the contributions to the recorded music. Just because you see someone in a movie play Batman doesn't mean that actor really IS Batman.

[Fernando]

When I speak about personality, I'm not speaking about bandmembers, I'm speaking about the band - music and visuals. In the 90's, it was about the music then all those other elements were added to that. Now, it's not about the music anymore... I don't fucking care if Lady Gaga knows how to sing, I want to know if she dresses a "Human fur coat", I don't care if 50 cent can't rhyme if he's is talking about how gangstar he is... I don't care if Nikki Minaj songs are all protooled if her videos show some asses and free sex. It's not about the music anymore.

We can't say things would be better or worse if James and D'arcy were better musicians, cause things didn't happen that way... So, I don't care Pumpkins music was made by Billy or Jimmy or James or D'arcy or by all of them. That band created a great body of music, cause they loved music, it was about music... now, it's not about that anymore.

[*zero*]

RottingApples, on 04 July 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Thanks for ignoring my earlier point.

The fact that you don't like people's answers does not mean they don't get it. Everyone has given, in some way or another, an answer to your imaginary, hypothetical question: There will never be another band exactly like SP. There will be bands who share some of the same elements that made SP great, and there will be bands that evoke the same deep connection to their music that SP has to us. I don't know what else you could want since there is no "correct" or perfect answer in this made up discussion.

i replied to your post on page 1. and you're *still* not getting it. i said several times already i'm not asking whether there will be a band "exactly" like SP. jesus, how carefully do you read? personally i think such a band may happen again. the names and faces will be different, the music will be slightly different, but the presence and power and mystique will be the same. this thread is not about establishing who's right or wrong. i don't expect everyone out there to see things the way i do, but i want to see if there are a least few people who do. ultimately, i am indeed suggesting that SP's formation and career was some kind of cosmic event. much like bill himself, i believe in god/fate, and as far as bands go, i have never felt such a strong sense of destiny uniting 4 musicians as SP. i look at them and see divine providence, basically. however, i know such beliefs are extremely unfashionable in this age, so you can take that thought or leave it.

[cookieshoes]

*zero*, on 04 July 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

ultimately, i am indeed suggesting that SP's formation and career was some kind of cosmic event.

So then, what exactly was James contribution? D'Arcy's contribution? What made them so "cosmic"?

Examples, please.

You can say that Lennon meeting McCartney was such a "rare" event because they both had a unique gift for melody and writing songs, and that usually a group of musicians only have one notable songwriter in the bunch. Even then, that type of occurrence still happens all the time. It's only made to be really rare because the songs they ended up writing together were beloved by so many people. But even then, that's still some pretty easy to observe phenomena in that they inspired each other. Nothing "cosmic" needed to explain that. Thomas Jefferson inspired the other founding fathers, just as scientists inspire the work of other scientists.

I would love to see you elaborate on the "cosmic" nature of James or D'Arcy...what exactly did they do while they were in the Pumpkins that should elevate the band to a once-in-a-lifetime-it-will-never-happen-again type of happening?

[*zero*]

cookieshoes, on 04 July 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Rock was just as irrelevant back in the 1990s. The fact that bands like Nirvana and all of the bands you mentioned got so much exposure (and as a consequence, the average fan could "bond" with individual members) had less to do with the quality of the bands or the people in them than it did with the machine that they were feeding into: MTV. Nobody knew anything about most bands from the 70s beyond the lead singer and the guitarist, and whatever they could find out they had to find in magazines. When MTV came around, now everyone in the band had to be a personality, because the video cameras were showing everybody up close. Like a throwback to Beatlemania, where now fans could pick a favorite member. That's why you saw so many terrible hair metal bands going to such great lengths to try and sell an image with all of those stupid videos about partying and playing in stadiums. It was no different in the 1990s. The only thing that had changed was the type of image that was being sold to the kids. Replace the makeup and hairspray of the 1980s with the vintage thrift store clothes and "disaffected youth" image of the 1990s bands.

It didn't matter what the personalities of the band members were, as it was going to be marketed on MTV however they wanted it to be. The Pumpkins were not the first alternative band, nor where they the first to have a confrontational "artist" leader and submissive backing members. There were lots of bands like that before them. That somehow it appears that there aren't any bands like the Pumpkins or Nirvana or Pearl Jam now is due to the fact that the game has changed. The people who do get exposure these days are given it based on a completely different market setup. And yes, those people sell out just as hard today as the Pumpkins and Nirvana did back then, with the videos and the photoshoots and the image that they want people to see. In 10 years it will be different tastes, but the mechanisms will still be the same. Every era has it's famous and it's not-so-famous, but comparing eras to make one "better" or "unique" only goes so far.

Looking back and thinking that somehow James was a unique musical presence, or that D'Arcy brought some kind of magical energy to the Pumpkins music is complete rubbish. They didn't even play on half of the songs on the record that made the group famous. I'm sure if you asked them today what it was like being in such an influential band, they will tell you it had its ups and downs. But if you were to ask them "What was it like writing XXX song" they would have nothing to say, because they didn't have a hand in writing the bulk of the group's songs. And the live shows were played note for note every night, beyond what soloing and vocals Billy would improvise. So, where then was James and D'Arcy's contribution as being part of this band beyond showing up and playing Billy's music year after year? Were they competent on their instruments? Sure. Did they have their own stage presence? Sure. But take out the recordings they played on and the gigs that they played, and their contribution gets reduced to the magazine covers, photoshoots, and the videos, all of which were choreographed to sell the band's image.

Sure, if you were flipping through a photobook of bands from the 90s, and saw shot after shot of bands with 4 or 5 guys in them, and then suddenly came to a picture of the Pumpkins, with this girl on bass, a really tall somewhat normal looking guy as the lead singer, a Japanese-American on guitar, and a muscular drummer, you might stop and say "I wonder what they sound like? They look different." And then if you were to hear their album, you'd say "Wow, they do sound different". The problem is that their songs and sound had nothing to do with the members in the band, it had to do with Billy. Did the band's makeup of members help the band draw in more fans? Of course. But inventing personalities for them that they didn't have is where the fandom goes too far. Especially when it comes to the contributions to the recorded music. Just because you see someone in a movie play Batman doesn't mean that actor really IS Batman.

you could have made your point in about half as many words... you're generally right about marketing culture, but i think you fail to see that beyond the band's image - which is an important asset in informing the audience's perceptions about the music and is thus a legitimate artistic extension of the band's work - they really were interesting people and had what i will again call a cartoonish personal chemistry that is unlike any other band. even though they were just being dorky most of the time, that endeared them to fans. their personalities weren't "invented" in the slightest, they were totally genuine. and the argument that they "had nothing to do with the music" because billy wrote it all is ultimately an irrelevant technicality, because they felt as strongly about the music as billy did, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck with him. the music was as much a part of them as it was a part of him.

[cookieshoes]

*zero*, on 04 July 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

you could have made your point in about half as many words... you're generally right about marketing culture, but i think you fail to see that beyond the band's image - which is an important asset in informing the audience's perceptions about the music and is thus a legitimate artistic extension of the band's work - they really were interesting people and had what i will again call a cartoonish personal chemistry that is unlike any other band. even though they were just being dorky most of the time, that endeared them to fans. their personalities weren't "invented" in the slightest, they were totally genuine. and the argument that they "had nothing to do with the music" because billy wrote it all is ultimately an irrelevant technicality, because they felt as strongly about the music as billy did, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck with him. the music was as much a part of them as it was a part of him.

What was so interesting about D'Arcy? About James? They were run of the mill people who just happened to be in a band. Plenty of girl bass players around (and better ones, who actually knew how to sing and write songs -> Kim Deal, Juliana Hatfield, etc.), and plenty of people of various ethnicities in bands. Those qualities are about as generic and surface as you can get.

You are creating something out of nothing and giving significance to James and D'Arcy based on what, how they mimed in videos? Or how they played Billy's music note-for-note onstage? How they dressed? You can count on one hand the number of interviews that Billy let either of them do. So, where is this deep appreciation from "knowing" them coming from? There is nothing there. You're making the sidekicks out to be special, when it fact the only thing that made them noteworthy was that they knew someone who was truly special.

[indisposed]

The return of snail33.

The second...er... fifth coming.

[*zero*]

cookieshoes, on 04 July 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

What was so interesting about D'Arcy? About James? They were run of the mill people who just happened to be in a band. Plenty of girl bass players around (and better ones, who actually knew how to sing and write songs -> Kim Deal, Juliana Hatfield, etc.), and plenty of people of various ethnicities in bands. Those qualities are about as generic and surface as you can get.

You are creating something out of nothing and giving significance to James and D'Arcy based on what, how they mimed in videos? Or how they played Billy's music note-for-note onstage? How they dressed? You can count on one hand the number of interviews that Billy let either of them do. So, where is this deep appreciation from "knowing" them coming from? There is nothing there. You're making the sidekicks out to be special, when it fact the only thing that made them noteworthy was that they knew someone who was truly special.

man, do you hate james and d'arcy or what? you've really got the wrong end of the stick here. the fact that they didn't make a big creative contribution doesn't make them less worthy. nomatter how i put it, you don't seem to understand that they were simply special for who they were. no, billy could not have just picked any other girl bassist or ethnic guitarist and had the same effect. did you not see the recent video clip where billy talked about the how the four original members had a kind of zen harmony together? that, whatever it is, is the cosmic event i'm talking about. either you see that connection or you don't. it goes beyond a meeting of two complimentary talents, like lennon and mccartney. way beyond. you can spend a lifetime looking for that but never find it.

[cookieshoes]

*zero*, on 04 July 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

man, do you hate james and d'arcy or what? you've really got the wrong end of the stick here. the fact that they didn't make a big creative contribution doesn't make them less worthy. nomatter how i put it, you don't seem to understand that they were simply special for who they were. no, billy could not have just picked any other girl bassist or ethnic guitarist and had the same effect. did you not see the recent video clip where billy talked about the how the four original members had a kind of zen harmony together? that, whatever it is, is the cosmic event i'm talking about. either you see that connection or you don't. it goes beyond a meeting of two complimentary talents, like lennon and mccartney. way beyond. you can spend a lifetime looking for that but never find it.

So, in other words, you don't have anything to say about James and D'Arcy beyond "they were simply special for who they were."

The trouble is, you don't have a single thing to say about them to describe this "specialness", other than more generic comments about some silly stereotype you've invented.

Obviously, I don't "hate" James or D'Arcy or any other person out there for the simple reason that I don't know them (in fact, actually I've met both), just as you don't know them. I can respect them for having been in a band I like, just as I can respect anyone else involved in a band I like, but their contribution to that band was essentially as hired players, and they were both mediocre players at best. Their outfits and hairdos onstage were more noteworthy than their individual skills or personalities. Watch the footage, read the interviews, or stare at the photographs all you want. They could've been completely different people and it wouldn't have mattered. Did James make the occasional funny joke in concert? Sure, but that's not why anybody went and saw that band or listened to the music. Of course Billy is going to talk about how "special" or "zen" he thought the original lineup was. He's been saying that for 20 years as if it meant something. He has similar thoughts about himself you know. They were so special he couldn't help but boss them all around for the better part of 10 years.

If you're going to gush over people and start talking about some massive significance, at least back it up with some examples. What song did D'Arcy write? What quote can you name from her? What unique skill on the bass did she have? Did she give some amazing interview where she talked about anything about her personality, what she likes, what she's into? There is no interview, there is no record of D'Arcy doing anything else but showing up for shows and being onstage absolutely silent. So, you know absolutely nothing about her. At least you can find a dozen or so stupid jokes that James said, or some deadpan interview that he gave. But what is so special about that? Nothing.

[Bulletproofmask]

"I fell on my sword for James" -Billy Corgan

I remember reading the above quote from Billy in that Rolling Stone article a few years back. I always wondered what he was referring to. Does anyone know what he meant when he said that?

[*zero*]

cookieshoes, on 04 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

So, in other words, you don't have anything to say about James and D'Arcy beyond "they were simply special for who they were."

The trouble is, you don't have a single thing to say about them to describe this "specialness", other than more generic comments about some silly stereotype you've invented.

Obviously, I don't "hate" James or D'Arcy or any other person out there for the simple reason that I don't know them (in fact, actually I've met both), just as you don't know them. I can respect them for having been in a band I like, just as I can respect anyone else involved in a band I like, but their contribution to that band was essentially as hired players, and they were both mediocre players at best. Their outfits and hairdos onstage were more noteworthy than their individual skills or personalities. Watch the footage, read the interviews, or stare at the photographs all you want. They could've been completely different people and it wouldn't have mattered. Did James make the occasional funny joke in concert? Sure, but that's not why anybody went and saw that band or listened to the music. Of course Billy is going to talk about how "special" or "zen" he thought the original lineup was. He's been saying that for 20 years as if it meant something. He has similar thoughts about himself you know. They were so special he couldn't help but boss them all around for the better part of 10 years.

If you're going to gush over people and start talking about some massive significance, at least back it up with some examples. What song did D'Arcy write? What quote can you name from her? What unique skill on the bass did she have? Did she give some amazing interview where she talked about anything about her personality, what she likes, what she's into? There is no interview, there is no record of D'Arcy doing anything else but showing up for shows and being onstage absolutely silent. So, you know absolutely nothing about her. At least you can find a dozen or so stupid jokes that James said, or some deadpan interview that he gave. But what is so special about that? Nothing.

i don't feel that i have to give examples because at this point i'm not sure you will understand their relative value and i'll be wasting my time. what you see as mundane qualities in james and d'arcy (are we still including jimmy?) i see as special qualities in a subliminal way. of course i could go into detail describing what those qualities are, and how i think they add up to something greater than the sum of their parts, but to do so would defeat the point of this exercise. i'm not here to dissect SP's mystique on the operating table (for a largely ungrateful public) and demonstrate conclusively that the band is "magic" because of X Y and Z, because to do so would effectively be giving away a formula for SP's success that anyone with a visionary mind could take advantage of. i'm simply here to see if anyone else (among the supposedly hardcore fan community) already perceives these truths as self-evident. i'm looking for someone who speaks my language; who has, for want of a better term, a spiritual connection to SP. someone who is not merely a happy-clappy consumer of their records, but someone who intuitively understands what it means to "be" a Smashing Pumpkin. i've met a few people in real life who get it... maybe one or two on other SP forums... but nobody here, yet.

i think i'm done here.