The Smashing Pumpkins

Discussion regarding other bands, movies, etc.
Message
Author
User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#81 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:34 am

Essence_Smith wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
I don't think the younger audience is looking for as much substance in their music as we did
What. The. Fuck?!

... "the younger audience" in the 80s listened to Madonna and Cyndi Lauper, not Joy Division and Jane's Addiction... you guys were music nerds. Music nerds today are exactly the same as you were. The general public is exactly as vapid as it's always been. :confused:
Not nearly to the degree it is now. All I have to say is when was the last time you saw a rock band have a #1 single or album? Up through the last decade, it happened all the time even though there was the occasional brainless pop act dominating the charts a few months here and there.
:confused: ... What the hell... I didn't even live through half the 80s... you did... and ... you're totally in that silly "Golden Age" thinking...

http://www.musicimprint.com/Chart.aspx?id=C000156

What has #1 singles/albums got to do with anything, anyway? The music industry is dead. But it was when people realized they could tape the radio, too.
Every generation basically hold the perspective that the younger one doesn't have music that's as good, yadda yadda...but there's definitely a difference now even with pop music...I remember kids being excited when Biz Markie's "Just A Friend" was in the top ten in the Billboard charts years ago because in those days it was rare for ANY rap song to get that kind of play...now the pop charts are pretty much rap songs...rock music is not what it once was...I don't even think of the 80's and 90's as a "Golden Age" for rock based music...the best, most innovative stuff imo was hip hop at the time and was always a kid looking backwards at the 60's and 70's and even early 80's music during the 90's...I still do...but from the perspective of a musician, the business is different...it has changed the audience of popular music imo...and to be honest I LOVED Madonna and Cyndi and Metallica...I also loved Depeche Mode, the Peppers, Metallica alongside Krs One and Public Enemy and shit even Shabba Ranks and Supercat...I don't know if the general public is the same or worse than they ever have been but I think its actually worse...the pop music back in the days I could get into...nowadays it seems like pop music is more sexualized than ever, etc...I think its quite different...
It isn't. Pop music was, for me, so much worse from 1995-2005 or so than it has been since. Why do you think I got into Jane's Addiction? It's because I hated the Pearl Jam/Creed bullshit ripoffs and the Avril Lavigne shit and got tired of Eminem. (Not to mention Green Day and Coldplay... who, by the way... are not currently all that big... Pandemonium is about 5-10 years off base). :confused:

But Pop music is ALWAYS terrible. And it's cyclical, and it's always the same four-chord, repetitive chorus/verse shit.

Matov
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#82 Post by Matov » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:29 am

Essence_Smith wrote:nowadays it seems like pop music is more sexualized than ever, etc...



:boobs:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#83 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:38 am

Actually, this reminds me of something... http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... dustry.htm
The eccentricity of the circus, peepshow, and brothel is as embarrassing to it as that of Schönberg and Karl Kraus. And so the jazz musician Benny Goodman appears with the Budapest string quartet, more pedantic rhythmically than any philharmonic clarinettist, while the style of the Budapest players is as uniform and sugary as that of Guy Lombardo. But what is significant is not vulgarity, stupidity, and lack of polish.

The culture industry did away with yesterday’s rubbish by its own perfection, and by forbidding and domesticating the amateurish, although it constantly allows gross blunders without which the standard of the exalted style cannot be perceived. But what is new is that the irreconcilable elements of culture, art and distraction, are subordinated to one end and subsumed under one false formula: the totality of the culture industry. It consists of repetition. That its characteristic innovations are never anything more than improvements of mass reproduction is not external to the system. It is with good reason that the interest of innumerable consumers is directed to the technique, and not to the contents – which are stubbornly repeated, outworn, and by now half-discredited. The social power which the spectators worship shows itself more effectively in the omnipresence of the stereotype imposed by technical skill than in the stale ideologies for which the ephemeral contents stand in.

Nevertheless the culture industry remains the entertainment business. Its influence over the consumers is established by entertainment; that will ultimately be broken not by an outright decree, but by the hostility inherent in the principle of entertainment to what is greater than itself. Since all the trends of the culture industry are profoundly embedded in the public by the whole social process, they are encouraged by the survival of the market in this area. Demand has not yet been replaced by simple obedience. As is well known, the major reorganisation of the film industry shortly before World War I, the material prerequisite of its expansion, was precisely its deliberate acceptance of the public’s needs as recorded at the box-office – a procedure which was hardly thought necessary in the pioneering days of the screen. The same opinion is held today by the captains of the film industry, who take as their criterion the more or less phenomenal song hits but wisely never have recourse to the judgment of truth, the opposite criterion. Business is their ideology. It is quite correct that the power of the culture industry resides in its identification with a manufactured need, and not in simple contrast to it, even if this contrast were one of complete power and complete powerlessness.
The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises. The promissory note which, with its plots and staging, it draws on pleasure is endlessly prolonged; the promise, which is actually all the spectacle consists of, is illusory: all it actually confirms is that the real point will never be reached, that the diner must be satisfied with the menu. In front of the appetite stimulated by all those brilliant names and images there is finally set no more than a commendation of the depressing everyday world it sought to escape. Of course works of art were not sexual exhibitions either. However, by representing deprivation as negative, they retracted, as it were, the prostitution of the impulse and rescued by mediation what was denied.

1944. :idea:
Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen. The abolition of educational privilege by the device of clearance sales does not open for the masses the spheres from which they were formerly excluded, but, given existing social conditions, contributes directly to the decay of education and the progress of barbaric meaninglessness. Those who spent their money in the nineteenth or the early twentieth century to see a play or to go to a concert respected the performance as much as the money they spent. The bourgeois who wanted to get something out of it tried occasionally to establish some rapport with the work. Evidence for this is to be found in the literary “introductions” to works, or in the commentaries on Faust. These were the first steps toward the biographical coating and other practices to which a work of art is subjected today.
The assembly-line character of the culture industry, the synthetic, planned method of turning out its products (factory-like not only in the studio but, more or less, in the compilation of cheap biographies, pseudo-documentary novels, and hit songs) is very suited to advertising: the important individual points, by becoming detachable, interchangeable, and even technically alienated from any connected meaning, lend themselves to ends external to the work. The effect, the trick, the isolated repeatable device, have always been used to exhibit goods for advertising purposes, and today every monster close-up of a star is an advertisement for her name, and every hit song a plug for its tune. Advertising and the culture industry merge technically as well as economically. In both cases the same thing can be seen in innumerable places, and the mechanical repetition of the same culture product has come to be the same as that of the propaganda slogan. In both cases the insistent demand for effectiveness makes technology into psycho-technology, into a procedure for manipulating men. In both cases the standards are the striking yet familiar, the easy yet catchy, the skilful yet simple; the object is to overpower the customer, who is conceived as absent-minded or resistant.

Matov
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#84 Post by Matov » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:48 pm

Though i'm no scholar i tend to be a bit skeptical of Frankfurtians. They've always seemed too manichaeistic (sp?) for my taste, even though on occations they do sound insightful. The quote is fitting for the subject but i'm not sold on the idea that there's a group of evil masterminds behind every mainstream cultural expression plotting on how to dominate the masses. :yikes:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#85 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:53 pm

Matov wrote:Though i'm no scholar i tend to be a bit skeptical of Frankfurtians. They've always seemed too manichaeistic (sp?) for my taste, even though on occations they do sound insightful. The quote is fitting for the subject but i'm not sold on the idea that there's a group of evil masterminds behind every mainstream cultural expression plotting on how to dominate the masses. :yikes:
I'm not a continental philosopher. I tend to think they're a little short on rigour. But I will say that in this case, it's relevant because it shows that people were noticing the same problems people have complained about in this thread, 70+ years ago. (In fact I'm pretty sure people complained about Mozart being too accessible -- too pop...)

As for the "group of evil masterminds", well, I wouldn't interpret that to mean there literally is a cabal of five guys sitting around plotting how to maintain control of the plebs. I suspect Adorno and Horkheimer were more likely referring to an unconscious (or subconscious) tendency that characterizes the behaviour of the ruling class, whether they mean to or not. It could be given an evolutionary/scientific explanation. (This would also partially make sense of why 4x as many CEOs are sociopathic than there are in the general population; a certain sort of callous disregard is clearly adaptive in the ecological niche that CEOs and other 'class-rulers' inhabit.) So it's not like the CEO of Geffen records sits around all day saying to himself: how can I sell the cheapest, least quality product for the highest cost, to these idiots? But that does seem to be the most accurate description of what happens in practice once an art is commodified and mass-marketed.

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#86 Post by Hokahey » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:10 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote: But Pop music is ALWAYS terrible.
Wrong.

The 80's had some amazing pop music.

There is still some good pop music.

Youtube:

Sky Ferrieria "One"

Annie "Bubblegum"


Very pop, very awesome.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#87 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:12 pm

:lol: (Yes, of course the universal claim I made is absurd... which is why I'm laughing... think about what Pandemonium has been saying... :nod: )

Matov
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#88 Post by Matov » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:38 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:I'm not a continental philosopher. I tend to think they're a little short on rigour. But I will say that in this case, it's relevant because it shows that people were noticing the same problems people have complained about in this thread, 70+ years ago. (In fact I'm pretty sure people complained about Mozart being too accessible -- too pop...)

As for the "group of evil masterminds", well, I wouldn't interpret that to mean there literally is a cabal of five guys sitting around plotting how to maintain control of the plebs. I suspect Adorno and Horkheimer were more likely referring to an unconscious (or subconscious) tendency that characterizes the behaviour of the ruling class, whether they mean to or not. It could be given an evolutionary/scientific explanation. (This would also partially make sense of why 4x as many CEOs are sociopathic than there are in the general population; a certain sort of callous disregard is clearly adaptive in the ecological niche that CEOs and other 'class-rulers' inhabit.) So it's not like the CEO of Geffen records sits around all day saying to himself: how can I sell the cheapest, least quality product for the highest cost, to these idiots? But that does seem to be the most accurate description of what happens in practice once an art is commodified and mass-marketed.
well i'm guilty of ridiculising (sp again?) their point to make my own. It's the class conflict materialistic marxist cosmovision that doesn't appeal to me, which i find manichaeistic. As i also said, i don't find it completely useless or insight lacking. To sort of stay on subject, the subconcious (i'm sure they have to have a word to describe the process, something like class conduct or sth) intent of the ruling class of mass cultural industry not only tends to, but actually gives us on a constant basis whatever cheap garbage they come accross, selling what would be (pop) art as a commodity. By these standards, what's the difference between John Lennon and Chad Kroeger? Or Billy Corgan and Nick Lachey (that's a tricky one)?

I'll tell you what the problem with the theory is, in my opinion. It's not that such class differences do not exist. I think they do, but if i'd criticise Adorno, Horkheimer, or Benjamin of something it wouldn't be of lacking rigor, but insted of trying too hard to apply the level of rigor they do have. As i said, they manage to compile interesting insights regarding society, and man. But so does Larry David.
I'm not too sold on the Ayn Rand way of seeing modern life (not sure if it's the best example to place accross the street from what we call in spanish Los Criticos) but i wouldn't detract from it the fact that it looks at men in an interesting way, regarding his liberties and rights or whatever. I'm rambling and this isn't my field :dunce:, but buying into one or the other ethic, seems a bit "my way or the high way", if that makes any sense.

I'll just stop now. Keep in mind that i'm making an effort to make my point in a language that's not my own, it'd help if something's unclear or misspelled, if you could point it to me.

PS: a couple of weeks ago i started going to these very informal, laid back, introduction to Spinoza and his overall metaphysics, ethic and politics. Very very interesting stuff :tiphat:

EDIT: As soon as i mention Rand, hokahey pops up. I'm in for a treat :aoa:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#89 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:45 pm

Matov wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:I'm not a continental philosopher. I tend to think they're a little short on rigour. But I will say that in this case, it's relevant because it shows that people were noticing the same problems people have complained about in this thread, 70+ years ago. (In fact I'm pretty sure people complained about Mozart being too accessible -- too pop...)

As for the "group of evil masterminds", well, I wouldn't interpret that to mean there literally is a cabal of five guys sitting around plotting how to maintain control of the plebs. I suspect Adorno and Horkheimer were more likely referring to an unconscious (or subconscious) tendency that characterizes the behaviour of the ruling class, whether they mean to or not. It could be given an evolutionary/scientific explanation. (This would also partially make sense of why 4x as many CEOs are sociopathic than there are in the general population; a certain sort of callous disregard is clearly adaptive in the ecological niche that CEOs and other 'class-rulers' inhabit.) So it's not like the CEO of Geffen records sits around all day saying to himself: how can I sell the cheapest, least quality product for the highest cost, to these idiots? But that does seem to be the most accurate description of what happens in practice once an art is commodified and mass-marketed.
well i'm guilty of ridiculising (sp again?) their point to make my own. It's the class conflict materialistic marxist cosmovision that doesn't appeal to me, which i find manichaeistic. As i also said, i don't find it completely useless or insight lacking. To sort of stay on subject, the subconcious (i'm sure they have to have a word to describe the process, something like class conduct or sth) intent of the ruling class of mass cultural industry not only tends to, but actually gives us on a constant basis whatever cheap garbage they come accross, selling what would be (pop) art as a commodity. By these standards, what's the difference between John Lennon and Chad Kroeger? Or Billy Corgan and Nick Lachey (that's a tricky one)?

I'll tell you what the problem with the theory is, in my opinion. It's not that such class differences do not exist. I think they do, but if i'd criticise Adorno, Horkheimer, or Benjamin of something it wouldn't be of lacking rigor, but insted of trying too hard to apply the level of rigor they do have. As i said, they manage to compile interesting insights regarding society, and man. But so does Larry David.
I'm not too sold on the Ayn Rand way of seeing modern life (not sure if it's the best example to place accross the street from what we call in spanish Los Criticos) but i wouldn't detract from it the fact that it looks at men in an interesting way, regarding his liberties and rights or whatever. I'm rambling and this isn't my field :dunce:, but buying into one or the other ethic, seems a bit "my way or the high way", if that makes any sense.

I'll just stop now. Keep in mind that i'm making an effort to make my point in a language that's not my own, it'd help if something's unclear or misspelled, if you could point it to me.

PS: a couple of weeks ago i started going to these very informal, laid back, introduction to Spinoza and his overall metaphysics, ethic and politics. Very very interesting stuff :tiphat:

EDIT: As soon as i mention Rand, hokahey pops up. I'm in for a treat :aoa:
Good thoughts, man. (If you have questions about Spinoza, shoot me a PM and I'll give you my take, and try to make things clearer (I teach Spinoza to university students too). I'm currently working on a paper on a huge mistake I think all Spinoza scholars have been making...)

'Ridiculising' isn't a word, but it's clear that you mean a combination of 'trivializing' and 'making ridiculous'; 'ridiculising' is actually a cool portmanteau that I may steal.

I've ended up on the far left-wing through thinking carefully and for a long time about really theoretical/technical material (and in light of my fairly extensive experience as a minimum wage worker in various industries), but you have a good point about the problem of simply accepting one or the other extreme ideology. I think that's just right. But this doesn't mean the Frankfurt school's view of the 'culture industry' doesn't have some important truth behind it. The commodity fetishism thing... forgetting that art isn't, qua its aesthetic function, economic, but merely (!) sublime.

Matov
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#90 Post by Matov » Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:44 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:art isn't, qua its aesthetic function, economic, but merely (!) sublime.
that's very nice man.

I think you'd enjoy the classes i'm talking about, it's the second course in a string this friend of mine is giving at his house, that revolve around the subject of happiness. I know it sounds hippy as hell but its quite fun. The first one was on Epicurus, and you have the most diverse attendance you can think of; from philosophy students to middle aged housewives, an IT guy, a phisycist, and a couple of drunks, so there's so many levels of dialogue :drink: . It has a kind of a book club vibe, but always related to the subjects i mentioned: metaphysics, ethic, politics, and ultimately happiness.

Back on track:



I just love that. Pompous? Pretentious? Why of course its pompous and pretentious, this is Billy Fucking Corgan. Say what you will about the man, but he's always seemed to be on a quest, never imitating or repeating himself, but instead incorporating elements from whatever ground he's covered before into his new work. That's the case with this album. It has a little bit of loud, queen-ish guitars, a little bit of melancholy accoustics, a little bit of great synth, a little bit of cheap synth, a little bit of pre breakup pumpkins, a little bit of zwan, a little bit of solo corgan, a little bit of zeitgeist, a little bit of cheesy post-zeitgeist SP...and for a change, this time every other member (employee) in the band seems to have had their input and participation. New bass player Nicole Fiorentino is very talented, and hot as hell :love:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#91 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:16 pm

that's very nice man.

I think you'd enjoy the classes i'm talking about, it's the second course in a string this friend of mine is giving at his house, that revolve around the subject of happiness. I know it sounds hippy as hell but its quite fun. The first one was on Epicurus, and you have the most diverse attendance you can think of; from philosophy students to middle aged housewives, an IT guy, a phisycist, and a couple of drunks, so there's so many levels of dialogue :drink: . It has a kind of a book club vibe, but always related to the subjects i mentioned: metaphysics, ethic, politics, and ultimately happiness.
It's not hippy at all. My supervisor works directly on the subject of 'happiness' (specifically the difference in the concept from antiquity to now). Epicurus is fun. I'd suggest Epictetus, too. :nod:

Tyler Durden

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#92 Post by Tyler Durden » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:00 pm

Adurentibus Spina (aka Hypersonic): Ruining threads since 2002.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#93 Post by Hype » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:01 pm

I'm just smashing metaphorical pumpkins. :neutral:

User avatar
Essence_Smith
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#94 Post by Essence_Smith » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:01 pm

Tyler Durden wrote:Adurentibus Spina (aka Hypersonic): Ruining threads since 2002.
Word...wtf happened here? :lol:
Btw I think he should be Hypersonic again...if he posted as Mr. X we'd still all know it was him... :nod:

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#95 Post by Artemis » Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:43 am

Matov wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:art isn't, qua its aesthetic function, economic, but merely (!) sublime.
that's very nice man.

I think you'd enjoy the classes i'm talking about, it's the second course in a string this friend of mine is giving at his house, that revolve around the subject of happiness. I know it sounds hippy as hell but its quite fun. The first one was on Epicurus, and you have the most diverse attendance you can think of; from philosophy students to middle aged housewives, an IT guy, a phisycist, and a couple of drunks, so there's so many levels of dialogue :drink: . It has a kind of a book club vibe, but always related to the subjects i mentioned: metaphysics, ethic, politics, and ultimately happiness.
That's cool, Matov. Sounds like what you are doing is the present day "salon" not really a class. Me gusta. :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(gathering)

For the SP fans...
http://www.alancross.ca/a-journal-of-mu ... Cross+%28A

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#96 Post by creep » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:21 pm

Twyla wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:I'm just smashing metaphorical pumpkins. :neutral:
omgwow, i looked up your name, Adurentibus Spina, and.. i've come to the conclusion that you're a brilliant intellectual genius smart wise awesome cool likeable gnarly person. :eyes: (is that what we're supposed to do?)

i know it gets said a lot, but.. don't try so hard. it honestly makes you look like a stupid dummy that's low on T-cells.
:lol: you did so good for a few days forcing yourself to be nice. i guess you finally had enough.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#97 Post by Artemis » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:26 pm

Twyla wrote:i used to love the smashing pumpkins

nowdays that's like a douchey confession

like i used to blow guys for cigarettes
with the price of smokes these days i wouldn't judge you if you did.

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#98 Post by creep » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:48 pm

Twyla wrote:
dave wrote: :lol: you did so good for a few days forcing yourself to be nice. i guess you finally had enough.
:lolol: :lol: :lolol: well just look at those fukn posts :arrow: :eyes:

holy goddamn christ alMIGHTY :lol:

:dunce: :whip:

so did the avatar give it away, or an ip #..

are you hoka? yr not are you, or, are you
the avatar plus the ministry stuff backed up by the ip check.

hokahey is hokahey. he runs the place. i just set this place up after sonny went sonny and took down xiola.

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8743
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#99 Post by kv » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:56 pm

plus not a single new person in the history of these sites comes out of nowhere and posts as much as you did...starting threads and feeling right at home..

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#100 Post by creep » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:03 pm

Twyla wrote::tiphat: :wave: do we know each other?
up until last week i was creep. :noclue:

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8743
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#101 Post by kv » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:14 pm

naw man lay low don't be a dick you'll be fine ( i know you can't do that though) :lolol:

Tyler Durden

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#102 Post by Tyler Durden » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:36 pm

dave wrote:
Twyla wrote::tiphat: :wave: do we know each other?
up until last week i was creep. :noclue:
"creep" suits you more.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#103 Post by Pandemonium » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:18 pm

Twyla wrote:last year i think? sgb got ahold of me and said hey dude go to hoka's site, so i did. then he went off like a maniac and it was fun... i was just replying to his stuff and laughing cuz he's great at that. then we both got banned.. and i was all omgwtflol, what did i do really

for what its worth i like hoka and have 0 desire to piss on his website. erik is a fucking cuntdork and our ying/yang goes way back so i enjoy pissing on his. i want to knock sonny out so i enjoy shitting on him. thats kinda how it goes. whatever, it's 2012 and i'm 36 years old.... knowwhatimean
You should call yourself Mr Self Destruct 'cause that's your M.O., Adolph.

User avatar
zuello
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:22 am

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#104 Post by zuello » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:41 am

Jptm thanks for the download link. I'm really digging the new album. At first oceania was the track that got stuck in my head. Then pinwheels, and now pale horse. It's really good stuff. I was a big pumpkins fan when I was younger. I know it's sort of wussy and stuff but I was a romantic and it fit my awkwardness. It makes me smile a :thumb: nd reminds me of a simpler time.

User avatar
intertwoven
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: pdx
Contact:

Re: The Smashing Pumpkins

#105 Post by intertwoven » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:26 pm

Someone needs to post a mini Wiki of the Jane's Online Community Bad Boys. I wasn't really around for the Whores-board era so I only know these people from hearsay and allusion, no backstories.
So there was.. um..
Miggy
Adolph (Dain?)
Satan's Gopher Boy
Feek (does he count?)
..who'm I forgetting?

Post Reply