|
Post by SPchick on Mar 26, 2009 11:04:39 GMT 7
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. If a band member does something for personal reasons, whether it be the eroding of a personal relationship, their health or for whatever reason; it's just that: personal.
There needs to be some distinction between Jimmy Chamberlin - drummer and Jimmy Chamberlin - father/husband/friend.
I don't like this mentality that as fans we are owed any information that forever reason, the band has decided not to share. We're not owed anything.
I think this is the internet's fault. 30 years ago, if this had happened you'd read the article in Rolling Stone and the band would issue a statement if they wanted. You wouldn't be writing letters to the band demanding answers "because I'm a fan and you owe me". You know why? Cos it would have been creepy and stalkerish. The internet gives us a false sense of entitlement.
I think everyone just needs to give Jimmy and Billy time to sort their shit out. If they want to talk about it they will, if they don't want to, hey that's their prerogative. I'm a fan of their music, not of their personal lives.
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Mar 26, 2009 11:07:39 GMT 7
BC making court appearances to defend the 'artists' rights to more money from their music Are you fucking kidding me? He was arguing that ALL performers on a song should get royalties, not just the SONGWRITER. Up until now, BILLY as SONGWRITER has been getting most of the SONGWRITING royalty. Up until now, JIMMY as NON SONGWRITER has been getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the songwriting royalty. If anything, Jimmy should have been right next to him, fighting for money that he deserves. THIS WAS A PRO-JIMMY MOVE. ***NOT*** selling out at all, but rather FAIRER COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT GOT A SONGWRITING CREDIT. I must also say that i STRONGLY DISAGREE with the rest of your post too, but this point just shits me to tears. BILLY APPEARING IN COURT WAS A GOOD THING FOR ALL MUSICIANS WHO EVER GET THEIR SONGS PLAYED IN THE UNITED STATES. gah.
|
|
|
Post by explosionsinthesky on Mar 26, 2009 11:11:44 GMT 7
BC making court appearances to defend the 'artists' rights to more money from their music Are you fucking kidding me? He was arguing that ALL performers on a song should get royalties, not just the SONGWRITER. Up until now, BILLY as SONGWRITER has been getting most of the SONGWRITING royalty. Up until now, JIMMY as NON SONGWRITER has been getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the songwriting royalty. If anything, Jimmy should have been right next to him, fighting for money that he deserves. THIS WAS A PRO-JIMMY MOVE. ***NOT*** selling out at all, but rather FAIRER COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT GOT A SONGWRITING CREDIT. I must also say that i STRONGLY DISAGREE with the rest of your post too, but this point just shits me to tears. BILLY APPEARING IN COURT WAS A GOOD THING FOR ALL MUSICIANS WHO EVER GET THEIR SONGS PLAYED IN THE UNITED STATES. gah. Amen to all you said
|
|
|
Post by PaRkA on Mar 26, 2009 14:44:05 GMT 7
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. If a band member does something for personal reasons, whether it be the eroding of a personal relationship, their health or for whatever reason; it's just that: personal. There needs to be some distinction between Jimmy Chamberlin - drummer and Jimmy Chamberlin - father/husband/friend. I don't like this mentality that as fans we are owed any information that forever reason, the band has decided not to share. We're not owed anything. I think this is the internet's fault. 30 years ago, if this had happened you'd read the article in Rolling Stone and the band would issue a statement if they wanted. You wouldn't be writing letters to the band demanding answers "because I'm a fan and you owe me". You know why? Cos it would have been creepy and stalkerish. The internet gives us a false sense of entitlement. I think everyone just needs to give Jimmy and Billy time to sort their shit out. If they want to talk about it they will, if they don't want to, hey that's their prerogative. I'm a fan of their music, not of their personal lives. totally agree with ya vic (btw hi boss long time no squishy) so I'll reword that statement to this. if it's because of personal reasons for jimmy then right on I don't care best wishes. but if it's because of the direction billy wants to take the pumpkins then I'm pissed off that they couldn't come to an agreement. I don't deserve to know the nitty gritty but it's a shame if they don't give us a gist of what went down. or maybe they won't
|
|
|
Post by the viper on Mar 26, 2009 16:07:48 GMT 7
So now Jimmy has left, who's going to replace him?
I thought about Matt Walker, but then again probably not. Billy tends not to "get people back" once they've been in the band once (talking about "guests" here, not the original lineup). He didn't come back after the rest of the MCIS tour. Kenny Arnoff only did Adore. Melissa didn't come back for Zeitgeist etc.
I reckon it will be someone unknown. Don't know why. Just do. But you HAVE to have a drummer for live situations, even if drum machines are used in the studio.
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Mar 26, 2009 16:27:33 GMT 7
Well Matt did play on the 20th Ann tour on a few songs while in Chicago. It was him and Jimmy on a few tracks, so maybe Matt ... but then he'd be accused of "looking back" and going against his "going forward" talk. I think it will be an unknown, like with Ginger, Jeff and Lisa ... or ... is Dave Grohl busy?
|
|
|
Post by foxy on Mar 26, 2009 17:43:48 GMT 7
look I know it sucks that jimmy left and I'm not going to discount his importance, but theres no point getting too hung up on it until we really know what went down. Jimmy's blog has mixed messages and the way the whole few weeks has gone down has been open to speculation... As I said on the first page, I really hope billy takes the acoustic direction. I've said it a million times, it feels like billy wants to go in that direction and is being forced to try and rock... Maybe Jimmy finds that kind of drumming boring, in fairness he is way better than just keeping the beat on folk rock songs. He does really need to be tested and that could have lead to all this. Either way I'm excited for music, but come on, give it a chance before you get all shitty... Has anyone thought that this could work out for the best?
|
|
wak
ghost child
If you're giving in then you're giving up...
Posts: 37
|
Post by wak on Mar 26, 2009 18:20:38 GMT 7
BC making court appearances to defend the 'artists' rights to more money from their music Are you fucking kidding me? He was arguing that ALL performers on a song should get royalties, not just the SONGWRITER. Up until now, BILLY as SONGWRITER has been getting most of the SONGWRITING royalty. Up until now, JIMMY as NON SONGWRITER has been getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the songwriting royalty. If anything, Jimmy should have been right next to him, fighting for money that he deserves. THIS WAS A PRO-JIMMY MOVE. ***NOT*** selling out at all, but rather FAIRER COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT GOT A SONGWRITING CREDIT. I must also say that i STRONGLY DISAGREE with the rest of your post too, but this point just shits me to tears. BILLY APPEARING IN COURT WAS A GOOD THING FOR ALL MUSICIANS WHO EVER GET THEIR SONGS PLAYED IN THE UNITED STATES. gah. Appreciate your contribution... but what just shits me to tears is when someone changes a word I have written (being the all-encompassing 'artists') into something different (SONGWRITER) to fit into their argument, and then harp on about something totally out of concept. But I do appreciate your contribution.
|
|
|
Post by the viper on Mar 26, 2009 19:15:59 GMT 7
Are you fucking kidding me? He was arguing that ALL performers on a song should get royalties, not just the SONGWRITER. Up until now, BILLY as SONGWRITER has been getting most of the SONGWRITING royalty. Up until now, JIMMY as NON SONGWRITER has been getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the songwriting royalty. If anything, Jimmy should have been right next to him, fighting for money that he deserves. THIS WAS A PRO-JIMMY MOVE. ***NOT*** selling out at all, but rather FAIRER COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT GOT A SONGWRITING CREDIT. I must also say that i STRONGLY DISAGREE with the rest of your post too, but this point just shits me to tears. BILLY APPEARING IN COURT WAS A GOOD THING FOR ALL MUSICIANS WHO EVER GET THEIR SONGS PLAYED IN THE UNITED STATES. gah. Appreciate your contribution... but what just shits me to tears is when someone changes a word I have written (being the all-encompassing 'artists') into something different (SONGWRITER) to fit into their argument, and then harp on about something totally out of concept. But I do appreciate your contribution. Right on man. One thing to challenge an argument. Another entirely to change the original argument to suit your (brendo's) purpose!!!
|
|
|
Post by wbm001 on Mar 26, 2009 19:45:07 GMT 7
I think this is the internet's fault. 30 years ago, if this had happened you'd read the article in Rolling Stone and the band would issue a statement if they wanted. You wouldn't be writing letters to the band demanding answers "because I'm a fan and you owe me". You know why? Cos it would have been creepy and stalkerish. The internet gives us a false sense of entitlement. So no one cared why the Beatles broke-up? Come on. Just cos you see more people's opinions and disappointment on the internet doesn't mean those feelings don't exist prior to and irrespective of the medium that conveys them. Of course people want to know why Jimmy left. We devote so much of our energies into this band as fans that we are deeply invested in its goings on, musical and otherwise. Yes, there are boundaries and of course BC/JC are within their rights to withhold whatever information they choose, but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it. I don't feel 'entitled', but I do feel that I have a stake (however small) in their professional lives and as such have a (legitimate) interest in the circumstances which led to a dramatic shift that has major repercussions for this band that I’m invested in.
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Mar 26, 2009 21:17:54 GMT 7
Are you fucking kidding me? He was arguing that ALL performers on a song should get royalties, not just the SONGWRITER. Appreciate your contribution... but what just shits me to tears is when someone changes a word I have written (being the all-encompassing 'artists') into something different (SONGWRITER) to fit into their argument, and then harp on about something totally out of concept. christ on a fucking pogo stick, are you fucking daft?! wak, you're the one who's got the terms wrong. HENCE MY POST.have you studied performance royalty and music business law at all? no? The whole point of that court debacle was to bring the USA in line with the UK. Currently if a song is played in the UK, all PERFORMERS get a cut, not just the SONGWRITER if it's played in the USA. (From www.gillhams.com/articles/162.cfm)And Jimmy is a "performer" in the pumpkins, but a "songwriter" in JCC, so under current legislation he gets more money by doing his smaller JCC project than by being part of the pumpkins! So you can't say he's getting out of SP because he's afraid of cash. On Zeitgeist BC is the only one listed as the songwriter - so therefore JC gets NO songwriting royalty, and the only money he gets is from touring. And when you're touring out of your own pocket with no record label behind you etc, it gets expensive quickly. JC is BLEEDING MONEY. Billy's appearance at that hearing is something designed to PREVENT such situations from happening in the future. Right on man. One thing to challenge an argument. Another entirely to change the original argument to suit your (brendo's) purpose!!! If anything, wak is the one who you should be accusing of this. 'Artists' in quotes? What the hell is that supposed to mean. Artists as an all encompassing term, or what? Songwriters are different to performers, and "artists" encompasses both.
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Mar 26, 2009 21:30:27 GMT 7
Sorry everyone for pissing all over the thread, but this *really* bothers me. Billy does something right by his bandmates, and gets chastised for it?!
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 27, 2009 9:41:23 GMT 7
Keep it civilized please
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Mar 27, 2009 10:30:21 GMT 7
Sure. Just completely sick of the "Everything Billy Corgan does is WRONG" sentiment that seems to be the norm nowadays. People aren't even stopping to read the facts and understand what's going on before proclaiming that Billy must be in league with Satan.
|
|
|
Post by Spiral on Apr 7, 2009 19:04:52 GMT 7
I just logged in (first time since 05, four years unbelievably) to say something that I think needs to be said....
Regardless of what any human says (BC or otherwise) "The Smashing Pumpkins" are four people;
Billy Corgan Jimmy Chamberlain James Iha D'arcy Wretzky
THAT is the line-up of The Smashing Pumpkins, I believe. Adore is ofcourse the first thing people are going to bring up as an exception but that album was defined by Chamberlain's absence. His lack of presence on it is felt just as heavily as any other members presence.
We can all argue the merits of particular members' inputs or personalities until we're blue in the face but I don't think it matters. What matters is that a particular spirit existed between those four people while they called themselves a band and played music together. And that spirit was ended when D'arcy left... for better or worse.
I'm not arguing that only the old stuff is good... it just saddens me that people are arguing about whether the band can be called "The Smashing Pumpkins" without Chamberlain. Ofcourse it can, let it be called whatever whoever wants to call it. I don't believe that good music was ever created through some mathematical combination of elements.
|
|