|
|
Post by middleearthguy on Dec 10, 2008 16:56:04 GMT 7
www.smashingpumpkins.com/pages/blog/clarification-from-my-interview-greg-kot-in-chicago-tribuneClarification from my interview with Greg Kot in the Chicago Tribune. December 9, 2008 | 113 views I enjoyed talking to Greg. He is a very well-liked and respected writer, and outside of one small misquote (I don't recall saying we needed to write songs like '1999'. I think I said '1979'), the interview is an accurate potrayal of my feelings. But let's be clear here. I never said I would never play any old songs ever again. That's just drama if that's what people hear, or want to hear. What I've said is that we aren't going to play most of those old songs any more because it locks us into permanent reunion band mode, and we are over it. For some fans to be upset at a band that plays 48 songs over 2 nights, the great majority of which are old, shows you the level of insanity we deal with. The word is called entitled. If they are entitled to demand, we are entilted to be who we are without reservation. There is no apology in that. We feel good, happy, and strong, and that should be the story here. Nobody owns us. We own us. Where is the happy ending of 'the band that once self-destructed is back and playing great and is looking forward to the future?' If you come see us on some crazy big tour you will hear a few familiar songs, because that is the right forum for it. But it certainly won't be the main focus. When we play small venues we won't be playing those songs pretty much at all cause that won't be the place for it anymore. But that doesn't mean we are even gonna play at all. It doesn't make sense to some now and we understand and we are ok with those that leave because they are stuck in some year from a different decade. We'll be fine without them. Thanks, and goodbye. Just remember us when we say 'I told you so'. Because we are on our way back, and that's that. (Insert smiley face right fucking here). As I said to some fans, if after 20 years we are one song, or one show away from losing your loyalty, good riddance then. We don't need that energy around us. Our message has been consistent: don't ask us to do or be anything that will once again lead to the death of the band. The band's survival comes first. We can debate aesthetics and marketing platforms later. If you want us to fall away, fade away like some dust and relics it aint gonna happen. We are here to stay. We deserve to be here, and are proud of what we have gotten right thru the years. And we are truly grateful to those fans that trust us like family. The kind of extended family where you can make a mistake, say something not quite the right way, and still be welcomed home. There will never be anything wrong with flying too close to the sun. God bless everybody here, BC
|
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Dec 10, 2008 17:30:07 GMT 7
I'm glad Billy finally explained what he meant, and it is what I expected him to say. It really sounds like the focus is about the future. I'm so excited.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 10, 2008 17:54:53 GMT 7
Yeah it's a really well written piece. With what was going on i have to admit i was pretty much turned off talking about this side of the band
Well done Cowboy Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 11, 2008 5:19:50 GMT 7
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by AlmostOz on Dec 11, 2008 6:50:48 GMT 7
they've just done two years of playing old stuff for us, we have the recordings, so now i'm excited about going to an sp concert and hearing mostly all new stuff.
I've been listening to the old stuff for the last 10 years, new stuff is good, and with the quality of the new songs that they are bringing out I can't wait
|
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 8:18:50 GMT 7
that was great.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaRkA on Dec 11, 2008 8:32:28 GMT 7
i would like to say i told you so but the would be pretentious and self centred... ah fuck it I TOLD YOU SO  |
|
|
|
Post by AlmostOz on Dec 11, 2008 8:35:46 GMT 7
so in 5 years if we stand there and yell out play owata! will we still be welcome as fans?
|
|
|
|
Post by PaRkA on Dec 11, 2008 9:28:13 GMT 7
it will be under different premise tho.i see it that billy would rather you yell that than say bullet or today or mayo. yell out whatever you want just dont be upset by the response. i think that is the message here.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on Dec 11, 2008 11:35:01 GMT 7
I have a question for Billy from what I have read here but I dont really know how to word it.
I know that SP were always going to be about the future, since the new band was announced it was made clear to those of us who cared enough to find out. But having had such strong reactions from fans who were expecting the reunion band, has this pushed Billy to me more experimental (for want of a better word) in recordings and gigs than he would have been if people had been receptive to what the new SP were doing?
Does that make sense? Simon, should i post this in the questions for teh b0lly thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on Dec 11, 2008 11:47:23 GMT 7
interesting....
i can't say i'm not a little disappointed that there won't be any more full length albums or playing their old stuff, but i 100% see his point of view. i think Billy is good at clarifying where he is coming from, hopefully everyone will get it and not continue to bitch.
lmao @ the smiley face comment
|
|
|
|
Post by closer on Dec 11, 2008 11:58:05 GMT 7
Billy does have a point, and I'm sure that if I was in his position, i would be irritated by fans who only want the hits, and their abusive behaviour when they don't receive the hits...
I have been speaking to fans, and some are of the opinion that Billy's behaviour is a bit over the top, and is taking away from the great music he has produced. They would prefer it if he conducted himself in another way. But thats Billy. Change one thing, change everything, right? I guess some fans will have to take the good (the music) with the bad (his contradictory and agressive behaviour!).
This brings me to a point... You can't pick and chose. From a fans perspective, Billy is putting everything he stands for on the line, for all to see. You like it? Take it! You don't like it? Throw it right back at him !
However... I think this also applies to Billy.
Why did he reform the Smashing Pumpkins? What constitutes the Smashing Pumpkins?
The album sales for the Future Embrace, and the collapse of Zwan - I believe - made Billy realise that the most viable way for him to continue making music well into the future, would be to do it under the name - The Smashing Pumpkins. Lets face it - he's getting old. He can't really form another band... his solo career didn't work out. Its pretty much the only option he had left.
Playing concerts using the name The Smashing Pumpkins, is selling a product to the masses with certain connotations... People will expect certain things when they attend a show by the Smashing Pumpkins. Billy is reaping the benefits of the name. They wouldn't have been able to headline ANY of the major festivals they headlined when the band reformed, or embark on a world tour of such a large scale, had it not been for the name, the Smashing Pumpkins. It has been financially benefitial for Billy and Co. to use the name.
And again, I go back to my previous point...
You can't pick and chose. If Billy wants the benefits that come from using the name The Smashing Pumpkins, he must also take the bad that comes with using the name.
If all he wants to do is write and release new music, perhaps using the name isn't the best way to go about it ? Especially considering it only features two original members. I remember someone saying a while back, that this is just as much a reformation of Zwan as it is a reformation of the Smashing Pumpkins.
Billy built the brand, so he can do whatever with it he likes. But to claim that this is all about art, I think is missing the point - and is probably just some clever Billy marketing.
I'd like to hear peoples views on this! Ciao!
|
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Dec 11, 2008 12:24:22 GMT 7
I agree with you, he owes something to the history of the Smashing Pumpkins and should never forget that ... and he won't, they won't. They built this band, the last thing they want is for it to crumble again.
But I want to ask everybody, Were they the Smashing Pumpkins in the Adore tour? Yes.
When they only played songs from Adore and a handful from MCIS? ... yes. So how is this different? They are moving forward playing the music of now, with a few older songs thrown in.
Billy is not saying, we are NEVER playing those old songs again, he is saying we are done with playing the hits people expect to hear at everyshow. So they could still play a concert, play a bunch of new stuff and plus only play 1979, Bullet and Today. I guess it is what ever suits the mood of the other songs and the entire concert as a whole.
Yes he (and Jimmy) got the band back because they wanted to work with each other, every time they did what did everybody say "When are you getting the Smashing Pumpkins together?" Thats what they faced with Zwan and even their solo projects. The band broke up not because of them, because of others not wanting to be part of it. So for them to creat music, they had to get the Pumpkins together ... and also ... as Billy said "He wanted his old songs back".
I don't want to get into the whole, how many band members makes a "full" band anymore. I've said it a number of times. Queens of the Stoneage, The Cure, NIN etc ... have always had multiple line ups but they have never faced the same criticism to the level SP have.
As for the single type releases, well I said this last year ... its just like the 60's of rock again. The Beatles would release so many EP's / Singles throughout the year, then compile them all together. I would love this, Im so excited about this idea. A few new songs every few months, hell yeah! Better than 2 years with no music, then you get 12 songs, then they tour, then they dissapear for another 2 years. This way they have planned would mean they would be around all the time, this would be a full time job ... with small breaks every now and then.
Im just seeing this next era as a time for the band to really find their future sound direction and style for the next era.
|
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Dec 11, 2008 12:50:56 GMT 7
i'm pretty sure its been discussed, but if its about the new songs.. go a new name. the real fans will love it regardless, and the ones you dont care about will still leave.. it really seems it was the SP name to get back in the spotlight, old songs to get the masses in, and now focus on the new songs as the word has spread and everyone knows the band is back
|
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Dec 11, 2008 12:59:32 GMT 7
But how is that different if the past 7 years didn't happen, and Machina 2 was their last release and they never broke up? And they came out and said "We are all about our new music". is it just because they broke up, we expect old songs to be the main focus and new songs to come second?
Its no different. They aren't a reunion band, they are a band. A band wanting to play both their old songs and their new music too, just like if they never broke up. I think that is where their frustration is, they wanted the old tracks plus to look to the future ... just like if they never broke up.
But since they "re-formed" the general public is putting them in the "reunion band" genre, which means ... play your old stuff and if you want, play a few new songs. There is no way they could have started a new band, but played old songs ... this was the only way.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleearthguy on Dec 11, 2008 13:08:25 GMT 7
Thats somewhat due to every other 90s band doing reunions
I've seen
Crowded House
RATM(Blah)
Supergroove (NZ)
Headless Chickens (NZ)
The Pixes <33
Sonic Youth
all in the last 2 years
see how the fans get confused?
|
|
|
|
Post by closer on Dec 11, 2008 13:19:12 GMT 7
Im sure each of those bands have some way they are justifying their reunion (in the aim of avoiding being painted with the "making money" brush). I was watching Cliff Richard on the news last night justifying how they are reforming his band (the shadows?). Its not the money for him, either!!
I don't see anything wrong with what billy is doing, as far as what songs to play, and who with. Which is why comparing the bands setlists and lineups from the past doesn't really form any grounds for an argument against the point I'm making. Ive been a fan since 97, and I've seen the many changes... and read about the bands history...
I just don't understand the agression billy is showing his audience, his fans. He should do his thing, and be happy within himself that its the right thing to do, without being a grumpy old fart about it.
And everything I said - regarding band members, songs new + old, was to give reason as to why I think his aggression is unwarranted.
|
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 13:19:30 GMT 7
Thats somewhat due to every other 90s band doing reunions I've seen Crowded House RATM(Blah) Supergroove (NZ) Headless Chickens (NZ) The Pixes <33 Sonic Youth all in the last 2 years see how the fans get confused? Sonic Youth never broke up and aren't a reunion band for a start. They've remained together for the last 26 years. Just thought I'd correct that for you. Back to the topic, I just want new music. Plain and Simple. Give me more music, that's all I want. When they play live, I don't honestly give a shit, just give me a mindblowing experience. How they choose to do that is up to them. |
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on Dec 11, 2008 13:20:54 GMT 7
The album sales for the Future Embrace, and the collapse of Zwan - I believe - made Billy realise that the most viable way for him to continue making music well into the future, would be to do it under the name - The Smashing Pumpkins. Lets face it - he's getting old. He can't really form another band... his solo career didn't work out. Its pretty much the only option he had left. Playing concerts using the name The Smashing Pumpkins, is selling a product to the masses with certain connotations... People will expect certain things when they attend a show by the Smashing Pumpkins. Billy is reaping the benefits of the name. They wouldn't have been able to headline ANY of the major festivals they headlined when the band reformed, or embark on a world tour of such a large scale, had it not been for the name, the Smashing Pumpkins. It has been financially benefitial for Billy and Co. to use the name. And again, I go back to my previous point... You can't pick and chose. If Billy wants the benefits that come from using the name The Smashing Pumpkins, he must also take the bad that comes with using the name. but are you basically saying that's he's still in it for the money? maybe i'm being naive here, but i don't think that's what he cares about.... i can't believe how much criticism the band seem to go through, it's crazy. if i was Billy i'd be sick of the shit too. |
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 13:26:49 GMT 7
The album sales for the Future Embrace, and the collapse of Zwan - I believe - made Billy realise that the most viable way for him to continue making music well into the future, would be to do it under the name - The Smashing Pumpkins. Lets face it - he's getting old. He can't really form another band... his solo career didn't work out. Its pretty much the only option he had left. Playing concerts using the name The Smashing Pumpkins, is selling a product to the masses with certain connotations... People will expect certain things when they attend a show by the Smashing Pumpkins. Billy is reaping the benefits of the name. They wouldn't have been able to headline ANY of the major festivals they headlined when the band reformed, or embark on a world tour of such a large scale, had it not been for the name, the Smashing Pumpkins. It has been financially benefitial for Billy and Co. to use the name. And again, I go back to my previous point... You can't pick and chose. If Billy wants the benefits that come from using the name The Smashing Pumpkins, he must also take the bad that comes with using the name. but are you basically saying that's he's still in it for the money? maybe i'm being naive here, but i don't think that's what he cares about.... i can't believe how much criticism the band seem to go through, it's crazy. if i was Billy i'd be sick of the shit too. This is one hot topic at the moment lol. I've never understood the "in it for the money" call, I think it's become way to easy for a fan to say that now, the same way it's become way to easy to label something a "sellout," when in truth fans quite often sell bands out by not being able to evolve with them, a great example always being Silverchair (how anyone could take Frogstomp and Freakshow over Diorama and Young Modern is beyond me) and is it so bad if a band or person wants to make money. I've always lived by the Leonard Cohen theory that "I don't want to work for my pay, but be paid for my work." Being a musician myself, that makes sense and I think that would apply to Billy as well. |
|
|
|
Post by closer on Dec 11, 2008 13:30:26 GMT 7
If that is all you derived from my post, you have clearly missed my point*
*point is located in original post.
|
|
|
|
Post by closer on Dec 11, 2008 13:32:07 GMT 7
I think David Pajo would have a few things to say regarding Billy and his drive for making money before good music.
|
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 13:32:29 GMT 7
If that is all you derived from my post, you have clearly missed my point* *point is located in original post. I was replying to de-tec-tive's post, not yours, making a point seperate to whatever it is you posted.  |
|
|
|
Post by closer on Dec 11, 2008 13:36:11 GMT 7
haha.
I wasn't refering to what you said, I was refering to Detective. I think we both posted our replies at the same time!
|
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 13:36:26 GMT 7
I think David Pajo would have a few things to say regarding Billy and his drive for making money before good music. I can't comment on that, I don't know what David Pajo has said. Although had Zwan not of happened I would of not become a David Pajo / Papa M / Slint fan, so he can't complain too much. I'm sure I'm not the only person who brought a Zwan record and dug deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 13:37:09 GMT 7
haha. I wasn't refering to what you said, I was refering to Detective. I think we both posted our replies at the same time! I think we did too, we both seem to have itchy fingers with this one lol. |
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Dec 11, 2008 14:19:47 GMT 7
wow. these get heated  the pumpkisn discussion is boring.. but the other shit is more fun  bring on jerry! |
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Dec 11, 2008 14:42:00 GMT 7
wow. these get heated the pumpkisn discussion is boring.. but the other shit is more fun bring on jerry! I must say this is the most heated I've seen it during my short time here. It took me back to the days where I used to post on "Metalshop" and "Bombshell." I had flashbacks to being 21 again. |
|
|
|
Post by PaRkA on Dec 11, 2008 14:47:49 GMT 7
i love ozphoria and our ability to discuss this civally(sp).
longer post in the making stay tuned!
|
|
bonno
cherub rocker
Posts: 87
|
Post by bonno on Dec 11, 2008 15:41:38 GMT 7
no more albums? that's just shit.
|
|
