pitchfork yet again insults billy corgan

darthvedder88 · June 2007

Corgan is real media savy like that. He's gonna make sure his albums sell so he can once again be the "antihero" of rock n' roll.

Brain of mJ · June 2007

If you look at Pitchfork's issue carefully, it's not with Billy releasing 4 versions, it's the fact that the independent stores get screwed out of one of them. They get the plain version while Itunes, Best Buy and Target get valued added ones. Why not give fans the incentive to buy from and Indie rather than the big box store that will already undercut the Indie on price, and that I agree with.

Alex_Coe · June 2007

JHomme did the same thing with Era V.... Ultimately it's annoying but I don't throw a fit over collecting 2 or 3 extra songs.

darthvedder88 · June 2007

B-Sides are worth it, especially if it's the Smashing Pumpkins...

cc10106 · June 2007

so i've heard there's a new version of 'doomsday clock' they recorded? but wasn't it a b-side on the 'rocket' single. perhaps they started playing it live. help?

glasshouse · June 2007

Blackeyedangel wrote:

Pitchfork is fucking hilarious.

i second this.

sasoj · June 2007

cc10106 wrote:

so i've heard there's a new version of 'doomsday clock' they recorded? but wasn't it a b-side on the 'rocket' single. perhaps they started playing it live. help?

no

doomsday clock is a new song and it wasnt on rocket single
it is an opening for zeitgeist

facepollution · June 2007

Brain of (M)J wrote:

If you look at Pitchfork's issue carefully, it's not with Billy releasing 4 versions, it's the fact that the independent stores get screwed out of one of them. They get the plain version while Itunes, Best Buy and Target get valued added ones. Why not give fans the incentive to buy from and Indie rather than the big box store that will already undercut the Indie on price, and that I agree with.

Yeah but the agreement will have been done between the record company and the big stores, given how many records the Pumpkins have sold, I'm willing to bet Corgan and co. wouldn't have to work another day in their lives if they didn't want to. If Billy Corgan was really just in it for the money, do you think he would be playing three hour long shows, when many bands in his position would play for half that time?

Scratchin a Letter · June 2007

I'm not necessarily anti-Corgan, or pro-Pitchfork, but they have a point.

-Zwan fail to make any impact.
-Corgan changes a few of Zwan's members
-Swaps Zwan's catalogue with the Smashing Pumpkins backcatalogue
-Records an album under the name 'Smashing Pumpkins.

=Big bucks.

The 'Smashing Pumpkins' of today have about as much merit as the 'Guns N' Roses' of today.

darthvedder88 · June 2007

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

I'm not necessarily anti-Corgan, or pro-Pitchfork, but they have a point.

-Zwan fail to make any impact.
-Corgan changes a few of Zwan's members
-Swaps Zwan's catalogue with the Smashing Pumpkins backcatalogue
-Records an album under the name 'Smashing Pumpkins.

=Big bucks.

The 'Smashing Pumpkins' of today have about as much merit as the 'Guns N' Roses' of today.

Only difference is Smashing Pumpkins actually have an album coming out.

jeff's_the_man · June 2007

darthvedder88 wrote:

Only difference is Smashing Pumpkins actually have an album coming out.

and they the songs sound like smashing pumpkins songs...

if he was using the smashing pumpkins name and then makings completly different styled music, then i think people would be right to say he's in it for the money. but the truth is he's playing pumpkins songs , and hes writing pumpkins songs, and i havn't head a single complaint about the live shows theyve been putting on, which also feel alot like pumpkins shows, to me, irrespective of the line up changes...

superdeluxe · June 2007

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

I'm not necessarily anti-Corgan, or pro-Pitchfork, but they have a point.

-Zwan fail to make any impact.
-Corgan changes a few of Zwan's members
-Swaps Zwan's catalogue with the Smashing Pumpkins backcatalogue
-Records an album under the name 'Smashing Pumpkins.

=Big bucks.

The 'Smashing Pumpkins' of today have about as much merit as the 'Guns N' Roses' of today.

They don't have a point.

The tone of the record is much different than Zwan.

sasoj · June 2007

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

I'm not necessarily anti-Corgan, or pro-Pitchfork, but they have a point.

-Zwan fail to make any impact.
-Corgan changes a few of Zwan's members
-Swaps Zwan's catalogue with the Smashing Pumpkins backcatalogue
-Records an album under the name 'Smashing Pumpkins.

=Big bucks.

The 'Smashing Pumpkins' of today have about as much merit as the 'Guns N' Roses' of today.

axl rose has not put a record out in 15 years, zwan was a side project ...

Pearl Jam and toast · June 2007

superdeluxe wrote:

They don't have a point.

The tone of the record is much different than Zwan.

exactly.

Zwan and the Future Embrace were Corgan trying to not be himself/the Pumpkins.

Then he said "fuck this, I want my songs back and I want to be myself" and got the pumpkins as back together as he could.

You anti-corgan people piss me off.

mrwalkerb · August 2007

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

exactly.

Zwan and the Future Embrace were Corgan trying to not be himself/the Pumpkins.

Then he said "fuck this, I want my songs back and I want to be myself" and got the pumpkins as back together as he could.

You anti-corgan people piss me off.

That's bullshit and you know it. Look Zwan and his shitty solo record didn't sell, remember what billy said when he broke up the pumpkins? "It's a backstreet boys world", he was made because people didn't buy Machina (I wish I had of been one of them) so he bailed. He also said that he would NEVER PLAY THOSE SONGS AGAIN, yet here is he recording a cd that for all intensive purposes sounds liek something he would release in 1996 because he knows barely anyone liked what he has done since then. So he called the hired guns SP and recorded an album that sounds like what people want the smashing pumpkins to sound like.

Also to jeff's the man's comment about nobody complaining about the live shows it's for 2 reasons people are either there for
1-a nostalgia trip
2-they drink the kool aid about the pumpkins and honestly belive this isn't all bullshit, which as I already said it is

lalalalaaaaaaaa · August 2007

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

I'm not necessarily anti-Corgan, or pro-Pitchfork, but they have a point.

-Zwan fail to make any impact.
-Corgan changes a few of Zwan's members
-Swaps Zwan's catalogue with the Smashing Pumpkins backcatalogue
-Records an album under the name 'Smashing Pumpkins.

=Big bucks.

The 'Smashing Pumpkins' of today have about as much merit as the 'Guns N' Roses' of today.

That's a terrible comparison. Guns n Roses was (more or less) a democratic band with Axl and Slash writing most of the material. Smashing Pumpkins is Billy Corgan and some other people....doesn't matter who they are. It's always been Corgan's project.

Having said this, I think the new album stinks. But I don't think he deserves the criticism he gets for using the Smashing Pumpkins name again. I personally liked Zwan, even though it didn't explode or anything...but compared to James Iha's solo shit it's a thousand times better. It's quite clear the other members made little impact on the creative direction of SP.

walkthamile · August 2007

1STmammal2wearPants wrote:

Pitchfork bashes anything that isn't indie anyways. They trashed Wilco's new album calling it "dad rock," trashed Pearl Jam's new album, and support acts that have no talent just because they support an indie label. I like lesser acts, don't get me wrong, but Pitchfork is a little out of their fucking minds.

everyone knows pitchfork is a comedy act.

It's kid journalism trying to be important.

pitchfork yet again insults billy corgan

Comments

Categories