[Fernando]

https://mashable.com...gan-revolution/

[Deleted User Account]

"Corgan, who’s no stranger to controversy, believes that the music industry is currently structured to prevent artists from achieving the type of success his band enjoyed. In fact, Corgan doesn’t believe the Pumpkins could achieve the success they have, or anything close to it, if they debuted now."

Of course. Is that such a bad thing? With the internet and the multitude of choice it provides, people are able to cater to their own interests with a greater specificity than ever before. How many people who bought Mellon Collie or Siamese back in the day did so only for the singles?

The whole argument is premised on BC making good music. I think he does, but it's entirely arguable and dependant individual qualifiers. Elliott Smith was a genius, but he didn't receive mass exposure the way the Pumpkins did. That system 'failed' him.

As far as listening to albums, etc; the way people consume music nowadays isn't a symptom of the time-- it's that technology finally caught up with the consumers wants. Most general music fans can't be bothered to listen to full albums, it's just that they used to *have* to. Now that they don't, sainará.

Also, getting mass exposure on MTV/radio in the 90's; how was getting promoted there not as 'harmful', or more so, to music than Pitchfork pimping a band nowadays? It was a great thing if you perceived the music being played to be good, but again, how many amazing bands/singers were failed by that system too?

[DeepPurple]

I thought the SXSW interview was supposed to be released in its entirety a few weeks after it happened? That was quite a while back.

[amu1167]

^^ I wondered about that, too. It was good to see this surface, and it is interesting... but I had the feeling there was something bigger coming from all this. Hope we hear more soon.

[breathesgelatin]

Just to make things clear, this is NOT the hourlong official SXSW panel. This is just another conversation Solis and Corgan had just before the panel that they recorded for later. SXSW holds the rights to the panel and will, I suppose, put it up on their YouTube if the mood strikes them. Solis is apparently trying to get the rights.

https://twitter.com/...391787579981824

https://twitter.com/...186547039215617

SXSW has been trickling out various content on their YouTube account. So far like almost none of the 2012 panels have been posted.

http://www.youtube.c...ser/sxsw/videos

[snail33]

ArticulateEric, on 01 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

"Corgan, who’s no stranger to controversy, believes that the music industry is currently structured to prevent artists from achieving the type of success his band enjoyed. In fact, Corgan doesn’t believe the Pumpkins could achieve the success they have, or anything close to it, if they debuted now."

Of course. Is that such a bad thing? With the internet and the multitude of choice it provides, people are able to cater to their own interests with a greater specificity than ever before. How many people who bought Mellon Collie or Siamese back in the day did so only for the singles?

The whole argument is premised on BC making good music. I think he does, but it's entirely arguable and dependant individual qualifiers. Elliott Smith was a genius, but he didn't receive mass exposure the way the Pumpkins did. That system 'failed' him.

As far as listening to albums, etc; the way people consume music nowadays isn't a symptom of the time-- it's that technology finally caught up with the consumers wants. Most general music fans can't be bothered to listen to full albums, it's just that they used to *have* to. Now that they don't, sainará.

Also, getting mass exposure on MTV/radio in the 90's; how was getting promoted there not as 'harmful', or more so, to music than Pitchfork pimping a band nowadays? It was a great thing if you perceived the music being played to be good, but again, how many amazing bands/singers were failed by that system too?

i'll never understand why this is supposedly so. why can people watch an hour and a half to 3 hours of a movie routinely, but a 40-75 minute album is such a slog? i LOVE listening to albums. how could it be that all but the most diehard of music lovers ONLY like singles and were formerly "forced" to buy whole albums? they couldn't buy singles? tape off the radio or from a friend? and it's not like singles are ALWAYS so much more commercial and accessible than deeper album tracks...if someone liked "1979", "bullet" and "tonight", would it be such a stretch to guess they'd probably like any number of other songs on mellon collie?


and dude..."sainara"?

i really am not trying to be a dick...but why don't people look words up that they can't spell?

[Deleted User Account]

snail33, on 02 May 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

i'll never understand why this is supposedly so. why can people watch an hour and a half to 3 hours of a movie routinely, but a 40-75 minute album is such a slog? i LOVE listening to albums. how could it be that all but the most diehard of music lovers ONLY like singles and were formerly "forced" to buy whole albums? they couldn't buy singles? tape off the radio or from a friend? and it's not like singles are ALWAYS so much more commercial and accessible than deeper album tracks...if someone liked "1979", "bullet" and "tonight", would it be such a stretch to guess they'd probably like any number of other songs on mellon collie?


and dude..."sainara"?

i really am not trying to be a dick...but why don't people look words up that they can't spell?

LOL my spelling is usually very good. That was an exceptional oversight, so it's petty to use it as an excuse to, once again, air your pet peeve. And in my experience you don't have to *try* to be a dick. That's a joke.

Music typically occupies a different space in people's lives than film. It's filler. It soundtracks moments. Most people don't sit around with an album on and stare at a wall, unless they're huffing gas or trying to figure out the chords.

There's no sense of satisfaction in plowing through an album like there is sitting through a narrative work in cinema that rewards you for your investment. OK, some albums, but few.

[Elphenor]

I totally listen to albums while staring at the wall. It's the only way to do it...

[snail33]

ArticulateEric, on 02 May 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

LOL my spelling is usually very good. That was an exceptional oversight, so it's petty to use it as an excuse to, once again, air your pet peeve. And in my experience you don't have to *try* to be a dick. That's a joke.

Music typically occupies a different space in people's lives than film. It's filler. It soundtracks moments. Most people don't sit around with an album on and stare at a wall, unless they're huffing gas or trying to figure out the chords.

There's no sense of satisfaction in plowing through an album like there is sitting through a narrative work in cinema that rewards you for your investment. OK, some albums, but few.

>no one who would write "sainara" instead of "sayonara" could possibly be someone whose spelling is "usually very good." sorry.

>>i don't need an excuse. i correct poor spelling, ALL the time. if that makes me a dick, i can live with that. there are plenty of other things about me that are wonderful.

>>>as far as the IMPORTANT part of this post, i could not disagree with you more vehemently. music might typically occupy that "filler" space in MANY people's lives, but it shouldn't for anyone who claims to truly love music. someone who says, as YOU did, that "there's no sense of satisfaction in 'plowing' through an album", compared to literature, cinema, etc. is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, someone who does NOT truly love music. i have been ardently listening to rock/popular music since i was about 4, and i am almost 40 now, and i could name probably FIVE HUNDRED albums off the top of my head that have rewarded me richly for my investment--and i consider myself to be LACKING in how many records i have been able to hear compared to how many i want to. i don't consider listening to an album an "investment" or, certainly, "plowing." and i love plenty of movies and books--i am a fast, engaged reader and i was reading by age TWO--but i find those media (a 300-page novel, a 150-minute movie) far more of an effort or an endurance test than listening to a 50-70 minute, dynamic rock and roll album, particularly because, if i want, i CAN do other things at the same time...or i can just sit there and, as you so derisively put it, "stare at the walls."

if you consider yourself a music lover but can only claim to have enjoyed significant payoff from "a few" full albums, i really do feel badly for you.

[monkeysnot]

ArticulateEric, on 01 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

How many people who bought Mellon Collie or Siamese back in the day did so only for the singles?

Most general music fans can't be bothered to listen to full albums, it's just that they used to *have* to. Now that they don't, sainará.

Tons of people I knew in high school at the time (I'll be 32 in June) bought MCIS for singles (as well as countless other albums). Of course I am not one of them because I have an attention span and I love the drawn-out songs and full albums. I know people who bought whole CDs for the singles only, just because they didn't know any other way.

Trust me, music lovers, such as myself, LOVE full albums and always have. We never HAD to listen to a full album. Who was forcing these people to listen to a whole freaking album?

To your credit, thought, maybe that is why you used the word "general." Because overall, I think "general" music fans suck and listen to crap music. They generally listen to anything that has a beat and can't decide what their style is. Still, even the "general" fan NEVER HAD to listen to a full album with a gun to their head. Even with cassettes there was fast forward.

ArticulateEric, on 02 May 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Music typically occupies a different space in people's lives than film. It's filler. It soundtracks moments. Most people don't sit around with an album on and stare at a wall, unless they're huffing gas or trying to figure out the chords.

There's no sense of satisfaction in plowing through an album like there is sitting through a narrative work in cinema that rewards you for your investment. OK, some albums, but few.

I've never huffed gas, and I generally can't figure out chords because I suck at the guitar. Give me some tablature, thought, and I'm all good. Which is unfortunate because I have a good ear. I should probably take lessons.

My point, though, is that I have stared at MANY walls while listening to albums, never high, never huffing, never drunk. Music IS MY SOUNDTRACK in my life. I LIVE for music. Music is my life. Music is my DRUG. I can space out for hours and be taken on a journey without using substances and these are some of the best times I've ever had (try sitting on a couch, closing your eyes, and listening to Dark Side of the Moon straight through). Am I redundant enough?

snail33, on 06 May 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Someone who says, as YOU did, that "there's no sense of satisfaction in 'plowing' through an album", compared to literature, cinema, etc. is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, someone who does NOT truly love music. if you consider yourself a music lover but can only claim to have enjoyed significant payoff from "a few" full albums, i really do feel badly for you.

Perhaps a truer statement has never been stated (obviously I'm using hyperbole but this is a great post right here).