|
Post by Cygnet on Feb 4, 2009 20:30:34 GMT 7
Are you people bagging it forgetting what it is? Its a song for a tv commercial, id be worried if it was A game, but it has a catchy riff andsuits the ad quite well, and is better than glow in most every way. So yeah, i shallnt be measuring it against ruby anytime soon because it'd be pretty redundent, it serves its purpose and thats all it needs to do. I would also be worried if i thought this was what all future pumpkins songs would be, but im still pretty certain that these are scraps lying round from rehearsals
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Feb 4, 2009 21:12:29 GMT 7
You're right Jimmy, not every song is going to be "epic" and ground breaking. Yes it is dissapointing, but it is a fun rock song ... there is no deep hidden message behind it. Its simple paint by numbers rock ... and it is a side of Billy/SP we haven't seen before.
I put this down to, they got the offer for this huge exposure and they needed something that suited the advert, suited the product. As for this being called a "sellout" move ... lets be real for a minute. They "sold out" when they signed to a major label back in the day, the "sold out" when they wrote a song for the Batman soundtrack, they "sold out" when they got the band back together ... the Pumpkins have been accused of selling out, just like every other band out there. They've been apart of the corporate machine for a while now, long gone are the "struggling artist" days.
(sorry to rant, that wasn't at anybody in particular more so just a rant about the flack they've received for this venture)
|
|
|
Post by PaRkA on Feb 5, 2009 6:09:45 GMT 7
i should clarify my last comment and open it a little more, what i have missed since the reunion is the feeling, the goosebumps, the shivers, the shakes i used to get and still do with some songs when i hear them. is the passion gone, did billy bite off more than he could chew and is know clutching at straws, did he just mature a hell of a lot and we missed it, hence we missed the point.
forgetting FOL for a second, machina took and absolute beating when it came out but it was quality, zeitgeist missed the boat, american gothic is great, and there would be maybe 3-4 songs the pumpkins do now that i would call "pumpkins quality"...maybe i got old in the process...but i just feel like he is doing it for sake of it, theres no passion in the way he sings, his voice is amazing now dont get me wrong but i miss the gutteral roars and howling in the songs that used to just break you when you heard it, when i made the connection to ruby i was more talking about the fact that can feel billy in the song, the passion the want, he seems disconnected, whether its because he's confused as to how to write because of what was happening at the concerts (which i thought were amazing) or he just cant join the dots like he used. i get the feeling as much as they want to move forward i bet billy wishes it was 1995 again, and that he could write mellon collie all over.
apologies for the length and off topicness.
|
|
wolfbite
zero
Please don't feed the animals
Posts: 113
|
Post by wolfbite on Feb 5, 2009 7:25:02 GMT 7
The song is what it is, a fun little rock tune which is being used for a car ad. I have no problem with it, it doesn't have the quality of a lot of other tracks but it isn't like it is the first single off of a new album.
Does anyone even know when it was recorded? It is possible that they had a very short timeframe to get it done and didn't have the chance to put the usual polish to it but if you got offered a Superbowl spot I reckon that you would knock something together pretty quick as well.
The way some people are bagging it anyone would have thought that they had to pay to get a copy. ;o)
|
|
|
Post by rockon on Feb 6, 2009 6:14:37 GMT 7
too much come ons for my taste. why are sp songs lacking creativity nowadays i wonder.
|
|
|
Post by siamese on Feb 12, 2009 6:29:41 GMT 7
Im sure this has been said before but what the hell is up with the lyrics of the pumpkins stuff commercially released lately? Where is the emotion? Whats up with all the Come on' come feel my love, come do this with me, come do that with me? Feel me glowing you? Come on can you feel it....
Theres has been some good stuff since the reunion, several songs off Zeitgeist were decent, alot of the acoustic stuff or softer stuff on All goes wrong is awesome, american gothic is pretty good although could have done without the billy backing vocals and it doesnt strike me as having the same emotion as the performance of the rose march in the dvd. As Rome Burns seems awesome, superchrist was cool.
I dont know, I mean we cant expect Billy to be all angsty like he was in his younger years, but I also think he is better than this "come on" stadium rock crap.
FOL as a song musically however is growing on me.
|
|
|
Post by siamese on Feb 12, 2009 6:32:52 GMT 7
theres no passion in the way he sings, his voice is amazing now dont get me wrong but i miss the gutteral roars and howling in the songs that used to just break you when you heard it, I miss this too, you see glimpses of it on some songs now, but alot of zeitgeist and american gothic lacked emotion. All Goes Wrong had it though - i think it helped that I could watch as well as listen.
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Feb 12, 2009 7:15:28 GMT 7
I agree, lyrically he hasn't been finding great form ... I think songs like 99 Floors, Peace and Love, No Surrender, Stellar, Neverlost ... and some others ... have been on the money with lyrics. But yeah, rock wise ... not so much.
Question is do you think (or feel) that lyrics aren't defining the meaning of the song as much anymore ... with it basically being JC / BC in the studio is there anybody really pushing BC lyrically? I don't know how much input D'Arcy, James had on that but Im sure there would have been times where they pushed or challenged him to make something 'that' much better. Does this just come down to there not being enough creative heads in the studio during the writing process?
Musically I think the both of them are on fire though.
|
|
|
Post by siamese on Feb 13, 2009 8:09:10 GMT 7
I agree, lyrically he hasn't been finding great form ... I think songs like 99 Floors, Peace and Love, No Surrender, Stellar, Neverlost ... and some others ... have been on the money with lyrics. But yeah, rock wise ... not so much. Question is do you think (or feel) that lyrics aren't defining the meaning of the song as much anymore ... with it basically being JC / BC in the studio is there anybody really pushing BC lyrically? I don't know how much input D'Arcy, James had on that but Im sure there would have been times where they pushed or challenged him to make something 'that' much better. Does this just come down to there not being enough creative heads in the studio during the writing process? Musically I think the both of them are on fire though. Billy's lyrics have always been very poetic, often very hard to understand, but always beautiful. Compare this from Mellon Collie: ain't it funny how we pretend we're still a child softly stolen under our blanket skies and rescue me from me, and all that i believe i won't deny the pain i won't deny the change and should i fall from grace here with you will you leave me too? carve out your heart for keeps in an old oak tree and hold me for goodbyes-and-whispered lullabyes and tell me i am still the man i'm supposed to be i won't deny the pain i won't deny the change and should i fall from grace here with you will you leave me too? too late to turn to turn back now, i'm running out of sound and i am changing, changing and if we died right now, this fool you love somehow is here with you i won't deny the pain i won't deny the change and should i fall from grace here with you would you leave me too? To this: i'm so alone i'm so alone, i'm thinking i'm so alone, i can't get old i'm so alone i'm so alone, i can't get off of you fool, you love yourself fool, you love yourself and no one else the bitter root of self come on, baby no time for maybes one last trip to hell come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? low in you slow in you it's that glow in you i'm so alone i'm so alone, i'm sinking i'm so alone, i can't get lost in you fool, you love yourself fool, you love yourself and no one else the bitter root of self come on, baby drive me crazy one last trip to hell come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? low in you slow in you it's that glow in you and it's not strange that you're the same from me and it's not strange that i'm so strange to please come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it? come on, come on, come on, can you feel it glow? _______________ Oh god I just actually read them and compared them myself and its actually painful how absolutely terrible GLOW is You could be right Sunks, maybe before Billy felt the tone of the song and had a "story" to fit that songs vibe. Where as now he writes a great rocking song, but doesnt have that angsty aggressive pool anymore to draw lyrics from, so he writes crap like Glow.......god thats a horrible thought.
|
|
|
Post by sunkissed on Feb 13, 2009 14:56:17 GMT 7
I'm not commenting on the worth of the pumpkins lyrics since reformation, but I do think that the lyrics to glow are good, as a reflection on 'love' and identity in the current age. I also don't think it's fair to compare lyrics either, considering that the lyrics for mellon collie served a completely different aesthetic to that of the current pumpkins. Glow seems to explore the hollow narcissism inherent in our conception of love; in so far as "fool, you love yourself/ fool, you love yourself and no one else/ the bitter root of self/" where 'love' becomes a pursuit of self gratification, a projection of desire onto an object as opposed to some form of 'organic' love which emerges 'naturally' which I believe are the two most powerful narratives surrounding our conception of love.
Also, what's with this use of the word 'angsty' in relation to the pumpkins?
What the fuck?
Anyway, I don't like FOL, as has been said there seems to be something missing.
However, immediately a song like galapogos resonates with people because the imagery is already loaded with meaning, because it's strewn with cliches. But when Billy takes a cliche like "come on and feel our love" and imbues it with a kind of taunting sarcasm, people immediately hear his voice and think he isn't singing powerfully, rather than keeping in mind the aesthetic of the song.
So, I disagree the lyrics to GLOW aren't terrible, and from where i'm sitting 'love' seems to be an antagonism between an idealised romantic sense of love as is represented in galapogos and that of the kind represented in GLOW.
So as far as that goes, in relation to the pumpkins catalogue I find it strange that ths kind of exploration of 'love' isn't appreciated.
P.S: Galapogos is a far better song IMO
|
|
|
Post by Anahedonia on Feb 15, 2009 16:24:58 GMT 7
fellators owe lunch? #lol# #bolly# #zeitgeist# ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by siamese on Feb 16, 2009 2:57:23 GMT 7
Also, what's with this use of the word 'angsty' in relation to the pumpkins? What the fuck? haha fair enough, maybe angsty wasnt the right word, but I guess you know what I mean. When he sung a song like Bodies, XYU, geek usa, an ode to no-one or something along those lines you felt the aggression and energy coming straight out of him, and I think alot of that came down to the lyrics as well as the delivery. I find it hard to write down what it is that I actually feel, but I just really hate the "come on, come on" stuff thats in quite a few songs that have been released recently.
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on Feb 16, 2009 14:31:58 GMT 7
I pretty much agree with with peoples comments on the lyrics debate etc blah blah. But I just want to add (and it may have already been said, so don't be a hater) but BC has been around long enough and knows his craft well enough and has dealt with people reading into his songs for long enough to know that what he is writing is what he intends it to be... he has chosen it as the best way for him to express what he wants for that song, and that emotion. It must just be where his head is at, at the moment.
I get kinda bummed because the geist was not really my fave SP, American Gothic I adore and thought was brilliant, and now we have had G.L.O.W. And F.O.L. which again aren't really my fave SP style that has been explored.
Anyway, my class is about to start, I just wanted to add my 2 cents, and say how happy it makes me that everyone can share their opinions here, on Ozphoria, and we can all discuss and debate it all without any issues! Makes me happy!
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Feb 16, 2009 14:56:05 GMT 7
Lyrics comparison, I think its unfair to compare Galapogos and GLOW ... one song has such a beatiful sound, it needs that poetry of lyrics to go with it. GLOW is a rock song, it has to have 'rock' lyrics ... that being said, if we are to compare GLOW and Zero ... both in the same category. You’d see the lyrics still don’t match up … the lyrics remind me of a very early style of lyrical content from Billy. Song like C’mon and East … I guess very pre-Gish.
So while we are talking about the current sound, today I listened to the Gravity demo’s for the first time in ages. It really struck me that the Pumpkins just don’t work this way anymore … they don’t work as a unified band. Well as unified as they were. I feel this is going to cause the sound of the songs to suffer, there won’t be a time where they’ll have all instruments playing at once to hear what it sounds like … until they are playing live again. Is this unhealthy in sense of how will the song evolve the writing process … it won’t. Well not in the same way as the songs used to grow.
Now there are positives and negatives to this, sometimes you could accuse the band of “over thinking” a song and the stripped back first version was perfect. But then again, some times the experimentation was the best … anyway my head is all over the place. Think this is going to a big discussion topic.
|
|
|
Post by sunkissed on Feb 16, 2009 16:11:54 GMT 7
See, with the pumpkins whenever you hear the 'acoustic demos' of a period you see how strong the songs are at their core (machina acoustic demos for example are great to hear and compare to the final versions) and I think Sunky might have a point there with the "over thinking" in relation to some of the mediocre (I fucking hate using the adjective in relation to the pumpkins, but it's true) songs that have come out with the reunion. It seems that the lyrical content for the pumpkins after Machina aswell as the music itself has seemed to suffer, it hasn't reached the height of some of their older work ad you know, to create the kind of environment that the best of the pumpkins work emerged from seems like it will take time, which I think Billy has alluded to along the lines of "Everyone was expecting this grand artistic statement of an album when we released Zeitgeist, but you can't just recreate the energy of those periods which created those songs". And unfortunately there are an overwhelming amout of songs since they've returned which just say "Hello, we are still around, trying to work it out" which, of course, is fine and it's to be expected, but it often seems like the "Pumpkins" as an idea or ideal is what weighs Billy down, and as a result, let's down the songs. Zeitgeist has some moments but it's not a 'pumpkins' record for me, it seems like a stepping stone to greater things. American Gothic gave me alot of hope, but then FOL quickly reminded me of what Foxy has been saying for a while now, the pumpkins and the RAWKing don't seem to work anymore.
From the last six months of the live shows they were doing I have no doubt that they are still a phenomenal band, and they still have my heart, but the come ons and the palm mute pandering is so fucking pedestrian and patronizing coming from the man who talks the talk about great songs and great art and emotion and all that, but then delivers this.
If it wasn't a pumpkins song I'm sure I would use it as a point of reference in conversation highlighting a lack of anything interesting in mainstream rock and roll, but I can't because it's the pumpkins, which, upon realising it at this moment is very fucking sad.
|
|
|
Post by siamese on Feb 18, 2009 5:56:40 GMT 7
Lyrics comparison, I think its unfair to compare Galapogos and GLOW ... one song has such a beatiful sound, it needs that poetry of lyrics to go with it. GLOW is a rock song, it has to have 'rock' lyrics ... that being said, if we are to compare GLOW and Zero ... both in the same category. You’d see the lyrics still don’t match up … the lyrics remind me of a very early style of lyrical content from Billy. Song like C’mon and East … I guess very pre-Gish. Yes you are totally correct there, however I ran the mouse down the MCIS page on spfc.org kinda like a lottery and galapogos was the song I stopped at (wanted to be pure chance which song I compared it to just to illustrate the difference and strength of all the lyrics on MCIS) I probably should have noted that in my first post But again the lyrics to Glow imo are terrible and are also repeated over and over as well so any song on mcis beats in imo. Also referring to Sunkisseds post, I agree about the last thing you said. If these were not pumpkins songs I would be bagging them as much as nickelback and other radio loved bands.
|
|
|
Post by gavvvvvin on Feb 25, 2009 9:47:00 GMT 7
This song is complete garbage. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise. What don't you like about it? The question isnt what I dont like, its what you do like. In other news, GLOW is slowly growing on me.
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Feb 25, 2009 12:39:30 GMT 7
What don't you like about it? The question isnt what I dont like, its what you do like. why would you even bother to write that?! seriously. you rock champ
|
|
|
Post by AlmostOz on Feb 25, 2009 15:54:59 GMT 7
I bet people wrote the same stuff when they wrote teitbite, and released it as a single. It's ok, but to me its nothing special.
I'm not a fan of glow, but it was written for a game, and had to be possible for people to actually play that song.
I like Fol a bit, but people are right about the come ons. Billy loves the "come"
Zwan "Come with me" Zeitgeist "Come on lets go" Glow
It sounds like the band is ready to head off into an adore direction again (not the sound), to make something really different.
Anyway my main gripe in this era of the pumpkins is billy doing his own backing vocals. They suck, most of they time they ruin the emotion of the song. Get someone else ie linda anyone to do them. Billy doesn't have to do all the singing.
|
|
|
Post by wbm001 on Feb 25, 2009 21:06:05 GMT 7
The question isnt what I dont like, its what you do like. lmfao i'm imagining a comic-store-guy-off-the-simpsons voice, *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Feb 26, 2009 4:03:08 GMT 7
PMM writer andy got all the goss: www.smashingpumpkins.com/pages/articles/truth-about-folTruth about FOL: "I was also able to get Billy to confirm that "FOL" is indeed an outtake from the Zeitgeist sessions. The song was written along with the album cuts, bonus tracks, songs from the now infamous whiteboard photo, and some additional songs back in 2006 and 2007. It ultimately did not make the album cut, and was temporarily put on the shelf." Its been killing me not being able to share the above news, check out the article its good.
|
|
wolfbite
zero
Please don't feed the animals
Posts: 113
|
Post by wolfbite on Feb 26, 2009 6:58:39 GMT 7
are there you where saying that era was over
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Feb 26, 2009 7:26:32 GMT 7
hahah, yeah so true.
|
|
|
Post by gavvvvvin on Feb 26, 2009 16:20:49 GMT 7
The question isnt what I dont like, its what you do like. why would you even bother to write that?! seriously. you rock champ Why would you bother to write that? Why would you bother to ask what I dont like about FOL? This place is funny. Its okay to go around mindlessly praising FOL, but if I say I dont like it everyones gets up in arms? I dont have to justify my opinion to you.
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Feb 26, 2009 20:35:24 GMT 7
Damn dude, calm down: www.anger-management-techniques.org/incase you were incapable of actually reading the thread, all the other people bagging it were giving reasons, you bag it, and didnt give one. Someone asked what you dont like, and you pulled out a response from grade 2. Simple as that. Why would you sign up to a forum if you dont wanna discuss things?
|
|
|
Post by gavvvvvin on Feb 27, 2009 3:32:10 GMT 7
Were really not too good at this whole reading comprehension thing, are we? No, I didnt give reasons for not liking the song. BUT NEITHER DID HALF THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT THEY DO LIKE IT. Hmm lets go back to the first page of this thread and examine a post by...oh lets see...YOU:
"i'm liking the song. for a rocky one i'm liking more than the rockers from the last tour."
Oh yeah. Thats some great justification your opinion has got there. And you have the nerve to say that I dont want to discuss things? Its okay for you to around unjustly praising stuff, but when someone from the other side of the coin does the same thing, thats not on, ay?
|
|
|
Post by sunkissed on Feb 27, 2009 5:32:05 GMT 7
^ *sigh*
Anyway, now that we know that FOL is a Zeitgeist era song does this context change anyone's opinion?
It's interesting because alot of the praise for the song on the o-board etc surrounded the supposed mcis era vocals toward the end of the track, which begs the question, were the vocals re-recorded for the superbowl gig?
If they weren't, did he choose to not include the song on Zeitgeist because of the 90's familiarity of the vocals? And if that's the case, it makes its placement in the hyundia advert all the more interesting, what do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Feb 27, 2009 7:07:56 GMT 7
I thought it was only at demo stage before this add... nope... that wasnt said anywhere. Is it really likely he'd try and re-record the vocals as it was to be on an add, to try and get his vocals to sound like they did during MCIS? I didnt notice the vocal similarities though, after yesterday my listen count stands at 2.
But it doesnt really change my opinion knowing its an 'older' song.
|
|
|
Post by sunkissed on Feb 27, 2009 10:42:53 GMT 7
No, I didn't mean it like that. I meant that for Zeitgeist he has mentioned that some of the early stuff he jammed with jimmy sounded too much like 90's pumpkins so they scrapped it, so it got me thinking that a song like FOL which according to many on netphoria and the o-board had mcis-ish vocals which didn't fit with zeitgeist could then be relegated elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Feb 27, 2009 10:46:24 GMT 7
ah, i hadnt heard that. the downfall of not watching/listening to video/audio interviews
|
|