Criticisms of the pumpkins

[sunkissed]

Have you ever come across criticisms of the pumpkins that have made sense to you?

Since moving to Melbourne I have met many young people who criticise the zeitgeist release (with its many forms) and for the first time I have had to justify the pumpkins to people.

It's interesting to me because for billy, as the epitome of the pumpkins he has had to revive the band and in interviews he has suggested that he feels as though all of the aclaim and merit that band has earnt in the past is no longer attributed to him, but rather, to a period, that of the 90's.

When I speak to people about the pumpkins, this sentiment seems to be the case.

It's not a matter of the 'rat in a cage' band, or '1979'. I'm dealing with people calling the pumpkins the "Grunge U2" (in terms of production and Billy as a Bono asshole, egotist figure); furthermore, I have been thinking abou the famous article where former Hüsker Dü frontman Bob Mould called them "the grunge Monkees," and fellow Chicago musician/producer Steve Albini wrote a letter in response to an article praising the band assertinag that the Pumpkins were no more alternative than REO Speedwagon and said they were created "by, of and for the mainstream" and "stylistically appropriate for the current college party scene, but ultimately insignificant."

What criticisms of the pumpkins have you come across that you thought were valid? Please cite references.

I think the pumpkins are an amazing band who have received pitiful amounts of praise and attention throughout their career, so I am interested in the negative criticism they have received; how is it justified?

What have you found?

[Steve]

Billy is an egomaniac
all the songs sound the same
they only have one good song (rat in a cage)
they only got together for the money
billys never written a good song since 1995

i coud go on good topic actually

[sunkissed]

Stevie!!

I was asking what criticisms made sense "to you"!

[Cygnet]

Yeah i have to defend them to everyone, especially since the adelaide show, the first thing anyone says when i mention them is "oh, i heard they were shit live"
I've grown to ignore it, no none of it makes sense to me, I understand how they are perceived that way for sure, but only in the same way that everyone thinks that marilyn manson screws his girlfriend in the eyesocket and injects heroin into the stump of his toe. If you actually listen to the band and are accepting of what they have to say, all the bullshit becomes untenable with it.

The one thing i agree with is that corgan says some dumb shit sometimes, he can be tempramental, but we all have days like that, his just get quoted.

[Steve]

Hehe sorry guys, just a few examples

I'm yet to hear a criticism with any real merit to be honest, there's so much pettines in what people/haters say.

[blue_june_destroyer]

Good topic!

I'm with Steve on this one. As you can imagine, Simon and I hear so many words of criticism from here, there and everywhere. But I think a large portion of these critical commentaries mean something only to the people who believe them. I'm yet to hear something that resonates with me as a fan and makes me realise that 'hey yeah, the production does suck on this album' or 'the band really isn't the same without Iha'.

I think what is clear is that if people want to find something wrong or want to dislike something about the band, they will find a way.

[the viper]

Of course some critisisms have to be true in some way. Not everything about the band and members in it can be all positive, and free from critical views - otherwise they would be totally PERFECT, and we all know that's impossible. I too find myself always defending the band - and usually it's to do with Corgan's voice.

Although I love Billy's voice, I can completely understand and relate to people who don't like it. Each has their own tastes. And in the early days, it wasn't the best voice in live situations - which he himself freely admits.

The one element of critisism I can't understand is when Steve Lukather called Corgan an "unremarkable guitarist". What a load of shit. Given he's one of the most boring guitarists, I would have thought he'd have known better.

[Steve]

Good point there, Corgans ego can do it for me sometimes i suppose.

[sunkissed]

Well, this didn't go the way I planned.

Maybe this will help:

What do you think former Husker Du frontman meant when he called the Pumpkins the "Grunge Monkees" - in light of what we now know about the ambiguous 'role' of Darcy and James and to some extent Jimmy's, following Billy's comments on the completion of the Machina album amongst other interviews and comments emerging circa SP2?

Billy even mentioned in a recent video interview, "Well, they looked good didn't they?" - was this a satirical reference to the criticisms of the Pumpkins as a 'band' or an admission?

So?

[blue_june_destroyer]

Wait a second... are we helping write a thesis on modern rock or misconception through media, o'sullivan?
(I loathe the term SP2! I thought everyone had stopped using it)

My personal opinion (because let's face it, you're gonna hear it anyway!) is that Bob Mould is (for want of a better analogy) comparing apples and oranges. He's from a totally different era and background than the Pumpkins and can only speak from where he's been and what he's seen in his career. I think it was largely a backhanded and ill-informed commentary from Mould on a band and musical era that he was so far removed from at the time. Husker Du were no longer relevant themselves at the height of the Pumpkins period of 90's rock infamy and for a man that is no more than 5 years Billy Corgan's senior to call the band out as merely a manufactured karaoke outfit with minimal musical talent is absurd. It smacks of sour grapes and jealousy. Husker Du never gained rock stardom and fame as the Pumpkins did and had to settle for medium success and middle of the road notoriety. Sure they (and other bands of the mid to late 80's) may have set the tone for the 'grunge explosion' and even inspired the alt-rock bands of the 90's but they fell off the radar and became somewhat of an obscurity. Husker Du were a band plagued by drug and alcohol problems too which led to their eventual demise... the two bands are very much alike in many respects.

As for the 'Well, they looked good, didn't they?' quip, I'd take the satirical commentary option. You can't blame Billy for making these deprecating remarks when that seems to be what majority of mainstream music media want to hear from him. They want the 'James and D'arcy were just along for the ride' stories because it adds fuel to the fire... it makes the naysayers and the self-proclaimed music journalist elite happy because it gives them more reasons to get up in the morning and keep dragging Billy Corgan's name through the mud. Hell, most of these 'journalists' have made a living from doing the same thing... critiquing the critiqued-to-death and keeping up appearances. I think even Corgan himself said that it's the cool thing to hate the Pumpkins and anything attached to his name.
Why wouldn't he play it up? It's what the bastards are going to write anyway so why not throw in a few quotable quotes and be done with it.

(Sorry... once I started, I couldn't stop writing...)

[AlmostOz]

"oh, i heard they were shit live"

I took a friend to the v fest, and he thought pumpkins were shit, he only had two songs on his ipod. After the v fest (he wanted to go to see presets when pumpkins were playing) he said he finally understood why I love them and that they are amazing live. He downloaded all the albums

[explosionsinthesky]

I think all of you have covered the usual array of criticisms I've heard.

It's hard not take personally sometimes. People just listen to music in different ways.

The only part of it all that I find dissapointing is when people are ignorant to the relevance of the band when it comes to the cultural landscape. This is what I take personally the most. I'm all for not enjoying or liking a band but to disregard the change they made to the whole alternative rock thing is in my mind a crime. I personally hate Bob Dylan's music, but respect the man and what he did for music. If I meet a fan of the man, I respect the impact that he had on them.

At the end of the day music is not sport, but on occasions fans can make it a sport. I'm not looking for people to love the smashing pumpkins, I'm simply looking for them to issue respect for why people possibly do. I think that applies to any band I like.

[sunkissed]

Haha - No! No thesis as of yet! The SP2 reference was tongue in cheek!!

I notice that alot of articles which attempt to justify the worthiness of the pumpkins revolve around either the prolific output, the technical proficiency ala Corgan's position as the "woefully underrated guitarist of the 90's" or Jimmy's drumming skills, the varied output of work, the relationship with the fans, or the "Pumpkins did it first" arguments circulating free distribution of music (Machina II) viral marketing (Machina II concerts, accompanying videos, web publishings etc).

Whenever these points are asserted detractors quickly point out that they were either unsuccessful (Machina sales, Machina + Machina II ties ins etc) that technical proficieny doesn't make for good music etc.

It's interesting, when considering the latter when you refer to the Guitar World four (five?) part article corgan wrote where he mentioned something along the lines of "Musicians, strictly guitarists like that of Green Day write great accessible music, people don't care about Yngwie Malmsteen) - also that documentary with Uli Roth where Billy talks about producing 'moments' in his music, where people don't want to see someone get up there and shred.

The Pumpkins have always talked about 'dynamics' in their music, songs like Starla and even recent work like United States, they have spoken about making it worth someone's while to get through the track, building it up to a moment....

Songs like 1979 capture some sense of movement, and a moment in time, which has resonated with a larger audience than their other work has ever achieved and yet the song revolves around simple octaves and short leads and a simple drum rhythm.

Authenticity in Rock and Roll or alt. rock (what we shall from here on in refer to as rock music; encompassing all forms...) stems from the same grounds authenticity was produced for in Blues music. Observe the emergence of MTV unplugged in the 90's etc. Are you able to reproduce your studio work in the 'real' - can you play your instrument, does your music really reflect who you are or what you are about etc etc. Sincerity emerging via authenticity, authenticity produced via the above.

Consider Billy's comments lately concerning his and Jimmy's technical proficieny and being a part of the 'tradition' of 'musicians' in the strictest sense who can really play, ala not utilise pro tools.

In this sense Billy attempts to place himself within the 'tradition' of 'authentic' musicians who can
'really' play their music.

I, of course, am not doubting his ability, as all of us hear know how hard he and Jimmy work to produce their work.

It's interesting though....


OK, that's enough from me for now, what do you think?

[sunkissed]

I remember reading somewhere (just googled it but couldn't find it!?) where Billy spoke about how tere are books on Radiohead and analysis of their music etc but nothing on the pumpkins - Over the years I've seen Billy try to take charge of the Smashing Pumpkins and how they are perceived (most obviously noted in the 'purveyors of American Gothic music' quote from the official site) - which in the past has led to attacks on the band, specifically Billy who is perceived as an egotist too concerned with getting the band into the hall of fame along with himself.

Obviously it's not a bad thing for Billy to try and clarify his music, take for example, Robert Smith when asked about the changing sound of the Cure, where he spoke of the band producing a specific aesthetic that he himself recognises as The Cure.

...Following the breakup of the band including the confessions, the poetry, chicago songs, zwan, thefutureembrace etc etc Billy for a long while avoided discussing the pumpkins at all, and now he has come back full force trying to shape the way they are perceived.

Billy obviously feels that the band have not received the critical recognition they deserve, or, have been misunderstood over the years (ala Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness; derided for it's lyrical content; late twenty year old man singing about being a rat in a cage, which, as we know the album was a concept record in the sense that it was supposed to express the spectrum of emotions of an entire day for a teenage heart) - so he speaks about the direction of the new album being an 'arts' focussed one, keeping in mind the 'Purveyors of fine American Gothic music' title he has given the band....

So, why is it that the pumpkins have not had the critical attention Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson and other bands have received, and also, what do you think of the notion of American Gothic and the direction this may take the band?

Is it applicable to the historical body of their work? And if so, what does that mean for the next album?

ok ok ok ok ok

[Insanity's Horse]

I guess one form of criticism that has resonated with me personally is that Adore was too far removed from the sound of the earlier releases of the Pumpkins. I remember being quite dissapointed listening to Adore for the first time waiting for the 90's grunge guitars to kick in...

It was this moment i believe that both divided fans of the band, and turned away the casual main stream listener, and despite personal opinion the band has never recovered their popularity from that moment onwards. I know Billy has spoken about this in recent times saying that it probably was a mistake to release such a different sounding album, or possibly that if he had called it their acoustic album it would have been perceived differently.

In 1995/96 it was cool to like the pumpkins - by the late 90's early 2000 they had become a bit of a joke to a lot of people, and although there are a lot of factors that go into this, the release of Adore i believe to be the main contributing factor.

[sunkissed]

Billy has also said that he wished he'd written an album that was even further removed, harder to reach I think was his phrasing (in relation to Adore) - Obviously over time he has contradicted himself trying to work out what could/would've happened if things were different, which is something that Billy has always had difficulty with as far as I can tell from interviews etc.
I think you're right about Adore being the divisive moment in their career, not knowing the Pumpkins during MCIS years I don't have access to the reaction listener wise to Melvoin's passing or Jimmy's being fired from the band, which Billy has pointed to in the past as a reason for their downfall.

All of us try to pinpoint a 'moment' in our lives, a catalyst, breaking point etc etc to 'discover' where things changed so as to never be the same again, and of course sometimes we even convince ourselves of it being true, but obviously it is always a number of events so broad/complex etc that pinpointing a particular event and granting that event the accountability for all to come is foolish.

I think this is something Billy has tried to deal with in his music, for example when he spoke about 1979 as a romantic or ideal moment of youth of which he was never able to experience, or the confessions/openness about child abuse or his relationship with his family etc. All of those 'kind' of statements attempt to justify his current situation at any given time.

With theFutureEmbrace he seemed to realise that and try to move past it, to focus on the present, so to speak, rather than the optimism of Zwan, or the longing present in the pumpkin records.

Zeitgeist I haven't worked out yet....

[siamese]

Being a fan since 94 I have heard alot of criticism of the band and have had to defend them countless times.

The most common one was that Adore "sucked" and that Billy was an egotistical maniac.

Adore, while not as good as it would have been with less electronic manipulation and the addition of Jimmy, is a solid album hosting one of my favourite all time SP songs - For Martha.

And as for Billy being an egotistical maniac, well sometimes thats hard to defend, the guy is portrayed in the media as having a huge ego, and what he says and does certainly doesnt help his cause.

Criticisms I agree with:
1. Zeitgeist is not the return to form Pumpkins fans had hoped for - totally agree with this, but its been over a decade since the band was at its prime and I dont think anything would be as good as SD or MCIS. Zeitgeist is a 3 stars outta 5 type album and I really was hoping for a 5 star effort from the band.

2. Machina sucks - this has its pro's and cons for me. Songs like SIYL, Everlasting Gaze, and This Time, are awesome songs but then on the other side is absolutely terrible songs that didnt fit with the Pumpkins I had grown up with. Crying tree of Mercury, Blue Skies bring tears (the machina 2 edit was much better) raindrops and sunshowers, glass and the ghost children and Heavy Metal Machine....god I hate that song.
Of course there will be tonnes of people who disagree with me on those songs, but thats the thing - the album was so different to the old stuff, and varied across the whole album. Where as every song on gish and SD "fit" Machina was all over the place in style. The same could be said about MCIS but I think those songs still fell into the standard pumpkins formula.

Anyway I feel like I am ranting and may have lost my point in all this blabber so I will leave it at that.

[AlmostOz]

I disagree with billy about adore.
All bands need a change of sound, or you risk becoming what Nickelback has become. They were never an awesome band, but produced quite a few hits, but produce album after album of the same sound, and not only will the mainstream listener desert you, but so will your fans.

Adore was way out leftfield for the pumpkins, but you can still tell it's the pumpkins, with songs like ava adore and perfect tieing it in to the previous albums. Adore allowed the pumpkins to move on to new sounds, otherwise if they had of only done a slight change of sound I bet people would never have accepted albums like machina.
The pumpkins weren't the only band that I know of to release an album like adore. Live also released Secret Samadhi around the same time as adore, after their previous album Throwing Copper was a smash hit Globally ( Just like MCIS) Secret Samadhi was a complete change of sound for Live also, and many people hated it, but it's still one of those gold albums that fans love, but the mainstream doesn't.
My point is you have to make an album that announces to fans "we are changing our sound, we aren't just bwbw we are more.

I can't find any criticisms of the pumpkins for me personally.

I also disagree that machina sucks. For me it just depends on what mood I'm in and that determines what album i'll listen to. I love that their albums encompass different feelings to me, and not just heaps of albums with teenage angst etc.

[foxy]

Oct 9, 2008 10:44:20 GMT 7 siamese said:

2. Machina sucks - this has its pro's and cons for me. Songs like SIYL, Everlasting Gaze, and This Time, are awesome songs but then on the other side is absolutely terrible songs that didnt fit with the Pumpkins I had grown up with. Crying tree of Mercury, Blue Skies bring tears (the machina 2 edit was much better) raindrops and sunshowers, glass and the ghost children and Heavy Metal Machine....god I hate that song.
Of course there will be tonnes of people who disagree with me on those songs, but thats the thing - the album was so different to the old stuff, and varied across the whole album. Where as every song on gish and SD "fit" Machina was all over the place in style. The same could be said about MCIS but I think those songs still fell into the standard pumpkins formula.

Anyway I feel like I am ranting and may have lost my point in all this blabber so I will leave it at that.

No, I think this is well off that mark. The thing about the pumpkins is that they are constantly evolving, in the same way that Adore is a step away from MCIS, Machina is a step away from adore. The soft guitar tones are fantastic on this album (see raindrops, sacred, this time), It has a feeling and a tone that I think people were not ready for. You can say some songs are crap, thats your opinion, but I honestly think that it fits together really well. And I will always stand up for Crying Tree, its a fantastic song. When billy is singing over the top of that solo, its fucking great. I'll give you that it sounds harsh at the start, I still cringe for the first few seconds of All things change (and I'm ready)

The thing about the pumpkins is that their audience is fickle. It's just one of those things, Thom Yorke could record the sound of his farts set to some quirky drum beat and radiohead fans would crack a fat. The pumpkins release something different to their last work and people say it's too different. I'm sure that if they did give some fans what they wanted like an MCIS 2 then all the 'fans' would be like ohhh this is shit it's just like MCIS, or why didn't they make it more like siamese dream.

The pumpkins are a band that people love to criticise, maybe they brought it upon themselves, maybe it's a bit unfair, but context never really seems to come into it when people talk about them. Of course adore is going to be a softer record with more electronic beats, THE BANDS DRUMMER AND BILLYS CLOSE FRIEND WAS FIRED IN TERRIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES. Zeitgiest sounds different, not as good as their other stuff, 2 MEMBERS OF THE BAND ARE NO LONGER THERE, ITS BEEN 7 YEARS SINCE THEIR LAST RELEASE, TIMES HAVE CHANGED, they don't want to be stuck in the 90s do they?

[boelsen]

Oct 10, 2008 18:20:01 GMT 7 foxy said:

Oct 9, 2008 10:44:20 GMT 7 siamese said:

2. Machina sucks - this has its pro's and cons for me. Songs like SIYL, Everlasting Gaze, and This Time, are awesome songs but then on the other side is absolutely terrible songs that didnt fit with the Pumpkins I had grown up with. Crying tree of Mercury, Blue Skies bring tears (the machina 2 edit was much better) raindrops and sunshowers, glass and the ghost children and Heavy Metal Machine....god I hate that song.
Of course there will be tonnes of people who disagree with me on those songs, but thats the thing - the album was so different to the old stuff, and varied across the whole album. Where as every song on gish and SD "fit" Machina was all over the place in style. The same could be said about MCIS but I think those songs still fell into the standard pumpkins formula.

Anyway I feel like I am ranting and may have lost my point in all this blabber so I will leave it at that.

And I will always stand up for Crying Tree, its a fantastic song. When billy is singing over the top of that solo, its fucking great.

are.. are you seeing anyone Mitchell? Cos if not i think its meant to be... The crying tree is an awesome song! and somehow it gets so much hate (i needed a crying smiley here simon...!) and ofcourse the Uli Gossamer love.. but i think it could struggle over such a distance

[scotopic lux]

firstly, can i say that the term "crack a fat" is just not used enough on this forum, so thanks foxy.
And while i really really love machina, there are a few moments in a few songs that give me a little cringe, but that is the same with a few SP albums, and i end up embracing them for these reasons.

That synth at the start of Crying Tree, its that love/hate relationship - the rest of the song is amazing but that first little intro - well im sure some of you know what i mean....and like you said foxy, with All Things Change, its that same kinda deal - but you gotta love that the man makes the sound he wanted to make regardless of what schmucks like us are going to write about it on a forum haha!

[jenstar]

Hello there, I must confess… I am one of the lurkers that have been enjoying these forums all about the mighty pumpkins!! Well I've come out (no, not in that way…)

I'm glad there are so many others out there that are just as passionate or even more crazy about the smashing pumpkins than me!

The main criticism I've had from friends etc is Billy's voice… too whiney apparently. I tend to agree with them there, but I think his talent, music & lyrics all override this. You don't even notice it in some of the songs.

[foxy]

hahaha Scott, it does seem like we are meant to be.

Kez, I use the term crack a fat all the time, I'll try to bust it out more often here...

Jenstar, I think Billy's voice has a love hate dynamic. He certainly has a tendency to 'snarl' a bit (songs like zero and imploding voice are good examples) and he definitely isn't a fantastic singer (he really has improved, not to say he couldn't hold his own, but he's no jeff buckley or MJK) but true fans seem to love his voice (I especially like the snarling style of singing) and casual fans are really put off by it.

again, to draw parallels with Radiohead, Thom Yorke has is far more whiney (in both lyrical content and sound) but yet again everyone cracks a fat over him... Go Figure.

[boelsen]

lol, just had to pull it out for kerrie again haha

i dont think it'll ever change how much unjustified love radiohead get and how much unjustified bagging the pumpkins get

[explosionsinthesky]

I've always found his voice to be one of the most appealing things about the pumpkins. I can never understand the criticism personally.

[scotopic lux]

Oct 23, 2008 16:23:16 GMT 7 boelsen said:

lol, just had to pull it out for kerrie again haha

this line deserved a quote all on its own, never mind the fact it was also referring to the term "crack a fat". Doesn't get much cruder than that, thanks boys

Billy's voice will always get criticism, understandable - but like Foxy said, he has some real dynamic in his vocals now.

[Mitchanator]

I think some of them can be justified.

for example, zeitgeist, i didnt think was a return to form, but how many bands have a 7 year break, and return at there creative peak, it was still a pumpkins record to me, just sub par.

But I think all them reports of him being an egomaniac, seem to be exagerated. I mean, do you see james hetfield and lars ulrich, coming outside after a show, and conversing with fans, and I can also understand his anger at certain shows when he walks off stage, it would be frustrating to try and please everyone by playing certain songs and still try and remain credible as an artist, and not be able to do that. Whether or not he is an egomaniac seems a bit irrelevant to me, as it doesnt affect whether he is a good artist or a bad artist.

thats my little rant, hope i didnt go to far off topic or someshit

[PaRkA]

I'd rather him play something that is boring to the masses, than him playing 15 singles or so they have released. Intergrity in a artist means more to me than any number 1 hit single. I'd hazard a guess billy feels the same

[wak]

hmmm...

I would love to know why a few of you list Zeitgeist as sub-par, or a come-back / return to form SP album.

I think people class it as such because they are of the exact mind-set that it is to be a come-back / return to form SP album, and find it sub-par because they are not letting go of the past. I believe this is what BC has been preaching all along... that SP are not a reformed, greatest hits band, but an evolving act that is moving constantly moving forward. The tours are not a nostalgic trip back to memory lane, but concerts where BC plays what he enjoys and feels is appropriate, inviting the crowd to share in the SP experience. Again, I think this is the reason for the frustration towards fans and the reactions crowds are giving.

However, animosity and blunt rudeness from BC does not cut it. This has been my beef since they toured here. This is what I have had to defend and yet I can't. I can explain the 'mood' BC can sometimes be in (personally experienced here in the Adel concert, and Melb follow-up), but I can not defend his spitefulness and disrespect to those who hold him and SP dear (Meaning me, and those others who have travelled the journey with SP and really do feel that SP have been a part of them, growing as they did).

Zeitegeist to me is more than I wanted it to be, yet I had to truly let go of the past first to then apprecaite it for what it is. I too wanted to hear the SP of old, being of the same mind-set of many a fan, until I realised exactly what I've written above. When I consciously stopped comparing it to the past it was then that the power and scope of Zeitgeist dawned on me. then The only criticism I have is that it's too small. It does not capture the bigger picture. It does not encompass the majesty of BC and SP 'returning'. Which is kind of ironic, when it is not supposed to be a 'come-back' album. But when you throw in the 'bonus tracks' from subsequent Zeitgeist releases, American Gothic, and Superchrist, then it truly does then provide a better example of the scope and greatness of BC and SP. Ironic again, I know, but to me with all this thrown in (all from the same 'era' - 'the Zeitgeist era' as I like to call it) it is MCIS 2. The diversity, the power, the embracing, and the theme, come into true perspective.

On some further points you guys have listed, I would love to give you my two cents worth.

The defining moment that SP had peaked and were on the way down, was not Adore. Adore was different, yes, but the moment for me when SP briefly 'lost' some respect.... was Batman! TEITBITE is a great song, but I despise that it was in Batman (and the worst Batman in the franchise too). I still cringe to this day. And yes, I don't particularly like that Doomsday is in Transformers, but hey... what can you do. This smells of 'sell-out' to me for all that I believe of the SP.

I agree with a lot of you that Machina did truly have some crap in it. This album to me reaks of band break-up. It's as though BC lost something, lost a part of his essence that made SP great, and that the creativity had lapsed. Some songs are way too simple and sugary for the SP that I knew, and it smelled of trying to appeal to a wider audience. They lost their edge on some of those tracks, yet others were true SP to the core. It was as though SP were spluttering.
(I too despise Heavy Metal Machine *cringe*, and Blue Sky Brings Tears).

BC's voice. This to me is a trademark of SP. Many great bands have signature voices and musical styles that separate them from the pack. For those detracters that state they can't stand BC's voice, then I feel sorry for them, for their shallowness is causing them to miss an inspiring and unique, defining band of our time.

Inspiring and unique? Well, I always ask the detracter to tell me who out there comes close to the SP. Anyone sound like them? Anyone have the depth and power they still possess? Uh-uh.

An epiphany of this for me, after being disappointed with SP in the Adel and Melb concerts, and feeling a bit lost and betrayed by BC, was when I saw Foo Fighters two weeks later. Unbelievably fantastic concert, and had a great time, yet I still didn't get that 'smacked in the face' feeling, that I had seen something awe inspiring. It was like a sugar fix, not a fix to sugar. As we walked out, my friends (who are diehard Foo fans) raved about the concert we had just seen, and I too had a great time don't get me wrong, but I could only reply that Foo were no SP.

[PaRkA]

i always viewed TEITBITE as a filler because i think wasnt sure what was going to happen with the band at the time. its a fucking great song

BTW.

awesome post Wak appreciate your input. ( of course i dont agree with most of it but your post is quality )