That sounds horrible. Except for the Casio part.Pandemonium wrote:That hook is U2's "Bad" on a Casio.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.
The Smashing Pumpkins
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.Pandemonium wrote:That hook is U2's "Bad" on a Casio.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.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.Tyler Durden wrote:I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?
I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.hokahey wrote: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.Tyler Durden wrote:I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?
I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....
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.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
And yet anything he's done without Iha and Chamberlain sounds nothing like Pumpkins (to me). Especially Chamberlain.Tyler Durden wrote: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.hokahey wrote: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.Tyler Durden wrote:I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?
I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....
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.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.hokahey wrote:And yet anything he's done without Iha and Chamberlain sounds nothing like Pumpkins (to me). Especially Chamberlain.Tyler Durden wrote: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.hokahey wrote: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.Tyler Durden wrote:I'd gladly pay $57 to see them in a small theatre or club. In an arena, fuck no.hokahey wrote:$57 to see Corgan and fake Pumpkins play their new album?
I suppose the new SP is better than ...uh SP...but still....
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.
- Pandemonium
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.Tyler Durden wrote:To me, it's a logical progression.
Mellon Collie is also clearly the same band. Even when they embraced electronica there were enough sonic similarities to recognize who it was.Most the Pumpkins albums sounded completely different from another (except the jump from Gish to Siamese Dream).
No I wouldn't.I have a feeling you'd be complaining all the same if what Billy was doing now sounded too much like the old days.
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.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.
See TGEA
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.
I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.
I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
There are artists in their 50s and up that still put on amazing shows and/or make great albums.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.
I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.
I saw the Smashing Pumpkins in 1994 and they were terrible.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Thats what always surprises me about pandy-man..some of his favorite live shows are when the band is way past their prime...
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Of course there are good artists 50+, but most aren't.Tyler Durden wrote:There are artists in their 50s and up that still put on amazing shows and/or make great albums.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.
I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.
I saw the Smashing Pumpkins in 1994 and they were terrible.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Sure, but old age is just a correlation in the equation; there are plenty of other contributing variables.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Of course there are good artists 50+, but most aren't.Tyler Durden wrote:There are artists in their 50s and up that still put on amazing shows and/or make great albums.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Old people ARE generic. That's the problem.
I saw "The Smashing Pumpkins" in 2007 and they were terrible.
I saw the Smashing Pumpkins in 1994 and they were terrible.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Sure.
I'll just say, instead: The Smashing Pumpkins really suck now, whatever the reason(s).
I'll just say, instead: The Smashing Pumpkins really suck now, whatever the reason(s).
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
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.hokahey wrote:Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
But that's what "they suck now" means... means I don't like them and they sound like Satellite Party.
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
I agree, it's not Adore etc. by a long shot but it's way better than TGEA.Tyler Durden wrote: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.hokahey wrote:Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't know how to use critical reception to make what my ears hear sound better.
I'm a rock snob myself but if you take it too far like i think Hype does here it's a little ridiculous
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
I don't think it's possible to take one's own taste too far...
Re: The Smashing Pumpkins
Admit it? I think I've clearly stated that I think the Smashing Satellite Roses suck.Tyler Durden wrote: Guys, if the new era of Smashing Pumpkins isn't your thing, just admit it.
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.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.