Support NeoGAF

[kitchenmotors]

Adore to Machina? Quite possibly the worst decision that Billy ever made artistically. I started listening to Adore again, and I can't get over how beautiful this album is. The atmosphere is amazing, it's the type of album that really sticks with you because of it's intense message and sound. Billy also used his voice quite well and really seemed to tighten his lyric structure with the songs perfectly. So what happened? How does one go from Behold! The Night Mare (which is the best Pumpkins song IMO) to The Everlasting Gaze?

I feel he made the type of album that the musician in him wanted to after Mellon Collie, he put aside the popularity of the Pumpkins and tried to dig deep and record the best songs that he possibly could. Sure, it didn't sell like everyone expected, and a lot of fans hated it, but most Pumpkins fans were teenagers would watched MTV and bought Mellon Collie in droves and expected Mellon Collie 2. And so after Adore Billy records a harder album, something that might be more accepted, and it turned out to be crap.

It's sad really. Hopefully his solo effort is along the lines of Adore, something a bit more personal and filled with texture and atmosphere.

 

[bjork]

This won't end well.

 

[kitchenmotors]

Eh, I think it's a perfectly fair criticism.

 

[bjork]

Oh, I'm sure it is (haven't heard either album, so I can't agree or disagree), but any music topic with the mention of SP or Tool on GA = bitchy bickerfest.

 

[Optimistic]

No, I think most people would agree with kitchenmotors' opinion. The Pumpkins are my favourite band of all time, but Machina was a poor album, no doubt. What really gets me is that it could have been a great album, but for some reason Corgan decided to leave all of the amazing tracks on the unreleased Machina 2. If the best tracks off of Machina 1 and 2 had been combined it would have been an excellent record. IMO this was also the problem with the Zwan record - some of Zwan's b-sides are actually very, very good (download Danger Boy, Spilt Milk, Glorious, Number of the beast cover if you don't believe me), but for some inexplicable reason, only a few really good tracks made it onto the album.

 

[kitchenmotors]

Oh, I'm sure it is (haven't heard either album, so I can't agree or disagree), but any music topic with the mention of SP or Tool on GA = bitchy bickerfest.

The only one I expect to get bitchy is Diablos, but I'm sure he'll agree on some level. Adore is quite the album. You should give it a listen.

 

[Jesiatha]

Machina could have been a great album, it just ended up overproduced with everything sounding the same. There are some great tracks on there hidden under a layer of "half the guitars on the record sound the same".

 

[Optimistic]

Yes, Adore is a great record, I can't believe how underrated it is. It's probably the closest album to Siamese Dream in terms of sincerity.

 

[Dead]

I like Machina more than I probably should, the only songs I dont care for are Blue Skies bring tears and the imploding voice. Some things like the utterly beautiful sounding choruses to songs like everlasting gaze or heavy metal machine are fantastic, not to mention songs like stand inside your love, sacred and profane, this time, with every light, age of innocense, which are just great.

and yeah Adore is easily theire second best album.

 

[Laurent]

Adore wasn't THAT good. It was okay, much better than the critic thought it was, but still a deception... The Smashing Pumpkins wasn't a band, it was Billy Corgan not capable to let other people do their part THEIR way.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

How does a band like Smashing Pumpkins go from Mellon Collie to Adore?

Fixed.

 

[kitchenmotors]

Adore is pretty much the anti-SP album. It's almost a solo album and throws out the typical SP context. I could see how someone would love the other albums more than Adore, as they stem from rock roots. But Adore is on another level, and really his best work to date.

 

[Sirpopopop]

It would be nice if the words, "Smashing Pumpkins" and "Tool" were censored. We can't go a day without a thread starting up that references either band.

 

[Optimistic]

Adore wasn't THAT good. It was okay, much better than the critic thought it was, but still a deception... The Smashing Pumpkins wasn't a band, it was Billy Corgan not capable to let other people do their part THEIR way.

And if he was capable of that we would not have Siamese Dream.

Anyway, Adore WAS that good, it was just a completely different sort of good to MCIS or SD, IMO anyway. It's unreasonable to judge Adore as a rock record, which i think is what most critics did...I still can't understand how Radiohead got away with the change...IMO Adore's just as good as Kid A. Uh anyway,

trippingmartian Originally Posted by trippingmartian:
How does a band like Smashing Pumpkins go from Mellon Collie to Adore?


Fixed.

The whole "life falling apart" thing, I'd say.

It was a good change anyway...I would not have wanted an MCIS 2...MCIS was a pretentious record, but only to the point where it still added to the quality of the record, as opposed to taking away. I don't think another MCIS would have stayed within that boundary.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

GAF has upgraded my distaste for the Smashing Pumpkins from "most overrated band ever" to "they fucking suck ass."

Yeah, they suck ass.

 

[Optimistic]

You think so? Well if sucking arse is that good...

It would be nice if the words, "Smashing Pumpkins" and "Tool" were censored. We can't go a day without a thread starting up that references either band.

Well, they are two of the greatest bands of the '90s. What the fuck do you expect?

 

[Sirpopopop]

You think so? Well if sucking arse is that good...



Well, they are two of the greatest bands of the '90s. What the fuck do you expect?

If you get rid of about a 100 other bands then you could say the Smashing Pumpkins are one of the greatest bands of the '90s. If you get rid of about a 1000 other bands then you could say Tool is one of the greatest bands of the '90s. That's my opinion in any case, but for the most part, the Tool fans I've met outside of the GAF are a bunch of gut bearing meatheads or braindead kids whom have never heard of bands like the Talking Heads. That's what I call one mighty credibility destroyer - don't care who you are, if you've never heard of the Talking Heads before the age of 18 (at the latest) you lose your right to critique music.

 

[Optimistic]

Oh look, I agree, most Tool fans are, quite fittingly, a bunch of fucking tools - but this does not detract from the quality of their music. And a 100 better '90s bands than the Smashing Pumpkins!? AHAHAHHAHAHAHA!! Even looking at it from a purely objective point of view (as in, arrangement, instrumental skill, etc), the Pumpkins would still be in the top 100 '90s bands (same goes for Tool), I'd bet. Oh, and I've heard of The Talking Heads, and have heard some of their music...but then, that doesn't mean a thing, because all you're doing is setting your own deluded fanboy qualifications to determine who has the "right" to judge whether or not a band is good.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Oh look, I agree, most Tool fans are, quite fittingly, a bunch of fucking tools - but this does not detract from the quality of their music. And a 100 better '90s bands than the Smashing Pumpkins!? AHAHAHHAHAHAHA!! Even looking at it from a purely objective point of view (as in, arrangement, instrumental skill, etc), the Pumpkins would still be in the top 100 '90s bands (same goes for Tool), I'd bet. Oh, and I've heard of The Talking Heads, and have heard some of their music...but then, that doesn't mean a thing, because all you're doing is setting your own deluded fanboy qualifications to determine who has the "right" to judge whether or not a band is good.

The Talking Heads = one of the most famous and influential bands of all time. I can forgive someone for not knowing who the Velvet Underground were, but the Talking Heads - no way. Hell, I bet every single hip hop head on this forum knows who the Talking Heads are, and I could definitely forgive them for not knowing who they were. (seeing as their influence on hip hop was minimal)

I used to think the same way you did, subscribe to the theory of relativity in terms of music (and for most things in life). But, if you subscribe to that theory then there are no right answers and no wrong answers and hence no reason to argue. It's also a theory that justifies the existence of music that is devoid of any intellectual thought in the process of its development - such as most modern rock. To put it simply, such music should not be tolerated because it lacks thought in every single facet you could name, a horrendous flop for both instrumental and lyrical geeks. I also believe that most of the horrible drek we get as entertainment shouldn't be accepted, because there are no redeemable qualities in most of what we see on television or in the movie theaters on any level.

Furthermore, in terms of relativity someone could justify saying that Steve Vai can't play the guitar for a lick with the comment, "It's all relative." Well, qhile I'm not a big fan of Vai's work, I can't deny the man has skill, because skill is based on how well you slide up & down that guitar and the amount of diverse tunes you can pump out of that guitar - things which I know Vai can do, and has the potential to do when he's prompted to.

Furthermore, there is more to music than the arrangement and the instrumental skill of a band. As a matter of fact that's one of the last things I look for in a band. Now, I can respect you for having a different opinion on this matter, because in music, people who view music in terms of shredders are followers of a different school of thought than the indie kids. However, if you are going to judge music in terms of instrumentation , all you need to do is look in genres such as black metal, post rock, and neo-prog to find a 100 bands which were better than the Smashing Pumpkins in this department. While I can't say the same for Tool (in terms of instrumentals they were a good band), all I can offer is my opinion on the band: They have written some of the most horrendous lyrics my ears have ever heard. I mean, "Hooker with a Penis" a song that's hailed by Tool fans as a brilliant work is to be blunt, a piece of shit lyrically. Were Maynard's creative juices so spent that all he could do was use the word "fuck" a gazillion times when other words could have sufficed? Where are the creative metaphors, delightful puns, or interplay with the instrumentation? Nonexistant. That's not the work of someone who is good at writing lyrics. It's the work of a hack.

 

[Diablos]

I'm not going to get mad, because Machina is pretty lacking. About half the songs are good, the rest aren't. The way the album was produced is horrible. That's the other half of the problem. Songs like Blue Skies Bring Tears were GREAT, like old Gish songs with better lyrics. Then, two versions later the song sounds like crap.

Every band has a really shitty record, and SP's last happened to be it. Thankfully, it was their last official commerical release. Machina 2 came out afterwards, and it makes up for every crappy aspect of Machina 1. There's an awful lot of good songs and covers on that album. Sure it has a couple crappy demos but who cares. Every band does. And they'd need to have a lot more crappy demos to ruin their history of amazing b-sides and other demos from the past. So they ended strong and gave to their fans for free. Can't say that about most other bands.

Adore wasn't THAT good. It was okay, much better than the critic thought it was, but still a deception... The Smashing Pumpkins wasn't a band, it was Billy Corgan not capable to let other people do their part THEIR way.

Eh I wouldn't say 100%. Siamese Dream was really the only time the band had no input whatsoever during the recording process (except for Jimmy). Corgan is a good song/riff writer and they knew that, but the other band members improvised more than you may think. Just because Corgan wrote it doesn't mean his bandmates didn't make contributions, they just aren't that evident because Corgan wrote most of the music. Geek USA was a tame ass, lame ass song until Jimmy Chamberlin started fucking around with a syncopated drum beat and the song took on a whole new direction, a lot more progressive. Now it's my favorite alternative rock song ever, go figure. Darcy really pushed for 1979 to be finished and put on MCIS. If it wasn't, it would have been the extremely cheesy demo known as Fools We Are. I love it, but the mainstream wouldn't have.

Have you paid attention to how much Corgan's music has gone down the drain since SP ended? Clearly there was something in the band that made them special beyond Corgan's talent.

I hate Tool fans as much as the next guy. I can't fathom how one can think they're the Pink Floyd of my generation. That band is called Radiohead.

Popopop:

black metal, post rock, and neo-prog

Black Metal = No melody or real song - but we can hit the same chord and hit a drum at lightning fast speed, and scream over it too. And even if I'm wrong here no metal band has ever really held my attention for that long. It gets way too redundant.

Post Rock = Great. But I still have not heard a post rock band do a song as compelling to me as Geek USA, or Ruby and Porcelina played live, or Behold! The Nightmare. I could go on. I'll agree that Post Rock bands are on top of the world right now when it comes to BANDS writing GOOD MUSIC, but that doesn't always mean they were "better than" SP.

Neo Prog = Stop with the pretentious bullshit dode. Good bands I guess but same point as above.

 

[IJoel]

I have the opposite opinion.

I loved Machina and just didn't like Adore much.

 

[Incognito]

I've always been a bigger fan of Tool than SP. Something about SP just doesn't sit with me well. Oh yeah, it's Corgan screeching, nasal voice.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Popopop:



Black Metal = No melody or real song - but we can hit the same chord and hit a drum at lightning fast speed, and scream over it too. And even if I'm wrong here no metal band has ever really held my attention for that long. It gets way too redundant.

Post Rock = Great. But I still have not heard a post rock band do a song as compelling to me as Geek USA, or Ruby and Porcelina played live, or Behold! The Nightmare. I could go on. I'll agree that Post Rock bands are on top of the world right now when it comes to BANDS writing GOOD MUSIC, but that doesn't always mean they were "better than" SP.

Neo Prog = Stop with the pretentious bullshit dode. Good bands I guess but same point as above.

I was talking about the values that Optimistic holds. You might not like these genres(heck, I don't like any of these genres) but in terms of arrangement, and instrumentation many bands in these genres are pretty much the foremost in those two aspects of music(at least in terms of rock). For that matter, I could also put up math rock as an example of another genre where you will find bands who excel in those two aspects of music.

 

[Diablos]

You're getting too pretentious here. A good band is a good band, a good song is a good song. Yeah it is important to seperate good work from bad work, indie from mainstream, but you are getting way too carried away here. You don't even LIKE some of the genres yourself.

I've always been a bigger fan of Tool than SP. Something about SP just doesn't sit with me well. Oh yeah, it's Corgan screeching, nasal voice.

You listen to Kanye West. Does your opinion matter? No.

 

[karasu]

The Everlasting Gaze is awesome.

 

[Incognito]

You're getting too pretentious here...........



You listen to Kanye West. Does your opinion matter? No.

Nice one, Diablos. Spot the contradiction, will 'ya?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Diablos - I'm not talking about my opinion here, I'm talking about Optimistic. I'm talking about grading music on those standards (instrumentation and the like), and not my own standards (where I rate instrumentation and arrangement as unimportant). My post was directed towards him, not you. While you can comment on my post, you also shouldn't distort my words by placing them in the context of an argument that was different than the one I was presenting.

 

[Diablos]

Janus, it's still important to seperate manufactured mainstream music from real music.

I don't believe in genres called "Post Prog," sue me. I didn't put words in your mouth, Popo. I'm just not used to debating like you do, you treat it like you would treat debating for a PhD

 

[fart]

adore to machina is where they lost chamberlain right? i think that pretty much explains it.

 

[Diablos]

Adore is when they didn't have Jimmy, he came back for Machina 1 and 2 and the drumming kicked ass. But a lot of the songs on Machina 1 did not. Plus he was out of the loop for a while, the band's chemistry was not as good as it used to be.

 

[IJoel]

adore to machina is where they lost chamberlain right? i think that pretty much explains it.

No.

Adore: No Chamberlain
Machina: Chamberlain

 

[fart]

color me corrected.

well, as far as i can tell both albums pretty much suck, so take it as you will.

 

[dem]

Im so glad Im out of that 16 yr old music elitist phase...

<pops in blink182>
Come here young girlies!

 

[Diablos]

I love fart's attitude. He gets all interested and then he's like "well it sucks anyway." Haha.

 

[fart]

Im so glad Im out of that 16 yr old music elitist phase...

<pops in blink182>
Come here young girlies!

hello, nurse!


yah diablos, i have more imporant things to think about, like how much mountain dew i can drink in an hour (A LOT) and how much i hate spiderman 2 (A LOT). and that's just a brief glimpse at my puzzle-wrapped-in-an-enigma mind

 

[Optimistic]

Diablos - I'm not talking about my opinion here, I'm talking about Optimistic. I'm talking about grading music on those standards (instrumentation and the like), and not my own standards (where I rate instrumentation and arrangement as unimportant).

You missed my point. I personally couldn't care less about instrumentation etc either, I just pointed them out because they are characteristics one can rate somewhat objectively. Arguing about anything else is pointless because it's much more subjective. I couldn't really see where you were coming from for the rest of your post, though.

 

[Sirpopopop]

You missed my point. I personally couldn't care less about instrumentation etc either, I just pointed them out because they are characteristics one can rate somewhat objectively. Arguing about anything else is pointless because it's much more subjective.

As I clarified in my second post in response to Diablos - I was arguing about SP being a top 100 band of the 90's on the basis of the criteria you listed .

I couldn't really see where you were coming from for the rest of your post, though.

Ok, I was discussing the Talking Heads, and their relevance to modern music (through a comparison to the Velvet Underground) - In effect defending my 'elitist' comment ( which is not as elitist as laughing at someone's views by the way.) After that, I started discussing the part of your post where you talked about the subjectivity of music, and I went into a rant about relativity.