Aint No Right

Pandemonium wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:My personal favourite from Oceania. I like it because he's not trying to ape Siamese or Mellon Collie on it. And it's got a great hook.

That hook is U2's "Bad" on a Casio.

That sounds horrible. Except for the Casio part.

Pandemonium wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:My personal favourite from Oceania. I like it because he's not trying to ape Siamese or Mellon Collie on it. And it's got a great hook.

That hook is U2's "Bad" on a Casio.

The opening Casio "riff" does sound a little like "Bad"...but it's not the hook of the song. The hook starts at 0:50.

$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?

hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?

I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?

I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.

I dunno man. To me that's no different than paying $57 to see Satellite Party play Jane's songs, and they start the set with their entire album.

I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....

hokahey wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?

I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.

I dunno man. To me that's no different than paying $57 to see Satellite Party play Jane's songs, and they start the set with their entire album.

I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....

Oh c'mon. You can't even compare the two. Billy Corgan is/was essentially the Smashing Pumpkins. He wrote over 95% of their songs...and most of what James wrote (barring his contribution to Mayonaise) sucked. D'arcy was there for aesthetics. The only other member that was arguably essential was Jimmy Chamberlain...which is funny when you consider that most Pumpkins fans hail Adore as an unsung classic...and their best album in some circles. I'm willing to admit that Zeitgeist was a mess/failure (with a few gems)...but the new album is very good. BC is not pulling an Axl Rose here; the Pumpkins was his vision.

Don't get me wrong, the original Pumpkins lineup was a cool band; a great "package" with a cool image. But when you look at their history of who wrote and/or recorded what in the studio, it is fairly evident that they were always a fragmented band with Billy always at the helm. That's the reality.

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?

I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.

I dunno man. To me that's no different than paying $57 to see Satellite Party play Jane's songs, and they start the set with their entire album.

I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....

Oh c'mon. You can't even compare the two. Billy Corgan is/was essentially the Smashing Pumpkins. He wrote over 95% of their songs...and most of what James wrote (barring his contribution to Mayonaise) sucked. D'arcy was there for aesthetics. The only other member that was arguably essential was Jimmy Chamberlain...which is funny when you consider that most Pumpkins fans hail Adore as an unsung classic...and their best album in some circles. I'm willing to admit that Zeitgeist was a mess/failure (with a few gems)...but the new album is very good. BC is not pulling an Axl Rose here; the Pumpkins was his vision.

Don't get me wrong, the original Pumpkins lineup was a cool band; a great "package" with a cool image. But when you look at their history of who wrote and/or recorded what in the studio, it is fairly evident that they were always a fragmented band with Billy always at the helm. That's the reality.

And yet anything he's done without Iha and Chamberlain sounds nothing like Pumpkins (to me). Especially Chamberlain.

hokahey wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?

I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.

I dunno man. To me that's no different than paying $57 to see Satellite Party play Jane's songs, and they start the set with their entire album.

I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....

Oh c'mon. You can't even compare the two. Billy Corgan is/was essentially the Smashing Pumpkins. He wrote over 95% of their songs...and most of what James wrote (barring his contribution to Mayonaise) sucked. D'arcy was there for aesthetics. The only other member that was arguably essential was Jimmy Chamberlain...which is funny when you consider that most Pumpkins fans hail Adore as an unsung classic...and their best album in some circles. I'm willing to admit that Zeitgeist was a mess/failure (with a few gems)...but the new album is very good. BC is not pulling an Axl Rose here; the Pumpkins was his vision.

Don't get me wrong, the original Pumpkins lineup was a cool band; a great "package" with a cool image. But when you look at their history of who wrote and/or recorded what in the studio, it is fairly evident that they were always a fragmented band with Billy always at the helm. That's the reality.

And yet anything he's done without Iha and Chamberlain sounds nothing like Pumpkins (to me). Especially Chamberlain.

To me, it's a logical progression. Most the Pumpkins albums sounded completely different from another (except the jump from Gish to Siamese Dream). I have a feeling you'd be complaining all the same if what Billy was doing now sounded too much like the old days. Once an artist has reached a certain level of fame and/or been around a certain length of time, they can never win with everyone...they either don't sound like their glory days or all they are doing is rehashing the past.

I'm in the camp that ranks Adore as among my favorite SP albums, but I agree with Hoka that without Chamberlain, a major ingredient to the band's sound and overall appeal especially on the harder rocking tunes is missing.

Tyler Durden wrote:To me, it's a logical progression.

To turn in to a generic, flavorless version of your previous self? Well I guess if Jane's is any indicator I suppose this is true.

Most the Pumpkins albums sounded completely different from another (except the jump from Gish to Siamese Dream).

Mellon Collie is also clearly the same band. Even when they embraced electronica there were enough sonic similarities to recognize who it was.

I have a feeling you'd be complaining all the same if what Billy was doing now sounded too much like the old days.

No I wouldn't.

Once an artist has reached a certain level of fame and/or been around a certain length of time, they can never win with everyone...they either don't sound like their glory days or all they are doing is rehashing the past.

I'd rather he either relive the past or make something just as interesting. As it stands, he's doing neither and I don't hear anything outside of his voice that identifies the music as anything unique or interesting.

See TGEA

I will say this...I don't think Oceania is on par with the material produced during the original lineup's era...but that being said, I think it is related to the age Billy is at and nothing to do with the current lineup. Hence, if the original band reunited and recorded new material, the results wouldn't be any different, imo.

Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.

I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.

I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.

There are artists in their 50s and up that still put on amazing shows and/or make great albums.

I saw the Smashing Pumpkins in 1994 and they were terrible.

Thats what always surprises me about pandy-man..some of his favorite live shows are when the band is way past their prime...

Tyler Durden wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.

I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.

There are artists in their 50s and up that still put on amazing shows and/or make great albums.

I saw the Smashing Pumpkins in 1994 and they were terrible.

Of course there are good artists 50+, but most aren't.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.

I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.

There are artists in their 50s and up that still put on amazing shows and/or make great albums.

I saw the Smashing Pumpkins in 1994 and they were terrible.

Of course there are good artists 50+, but most aren't.

Sure, but old age is just a correlation in the equation; there are plenty of other contributing variables.

Sure.

I'll just say, instead: The Smashing Pumpkins really suck now, whatever the reason(s).

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Sure.

I'll just say, instead: The Smashing Pumpkins really suck now, whatever the reason(s).

Critical reception would suggest otherwise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania_(T ... #Reception

I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.

Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.

hokahey wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.

Guys, if the new era of Smashing Pumpkins isn't your thing, just admit it. But to compare them to Satellite Party and make blanket statements like "they suck" when the new album has gotten nothing but favourable reviews is just silly.

But that's what "they suck now" means... means I don't like them and they sound like Satellite Party.

Tyler Durden wrote:

hokahey wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.

Guys, if the new era of Smashing Pumpkins isn't your thing, just admit it. But to compare them to Satellite Party and make blanket statements like "they suck" when the new album has gotten nothing but favourable reviews is just silly.

I agree, it's not Adore etc. by a long shot but it's way better than TGEA.

I'm a rock snob myself but if you take it too far like i think Hype does here it's a little ridiculous

I don't think it's possible to take one's own taste too far...

Tyler Durden wrote: Guys, if the new era of Smashing Pumpkins isn't your thing, just admit it.

Admit it? I think I've clearly stated that I think the Smashing Satellite Roses suck.

But to compare them to Satellite Party and make blanket statements like "they suck" when the new album has gotten nothing but favourable reviews is just silly.

What do critical reviews mean to my taste? It's not silly for me to dislike it. I grew up on the Pumpkins. They were my favorite band at one point. I followed every move Billy made and listened to every song a thousand times over. I thought Mellon Collie began showing cracks in the wall, and then it was downhill ever since. I liked Zwan quite a bit, so it has nothing to do with rehashing a sound. It's either good, or it isn't. I think people were so happy this album wasn't total trash like Zeitgiest and over hyped it.