This feels a bit overboard too
August 19th, 2008 by jjbtags: rant, criticism, zeitgeist, live
In the new edition of Portico Publications’ weekly C-ville, Brendan Fitzgerald riffs on the two media-established themes surrounding the Smashing Pumpkins latest tour: (1) It’s really good and (2) it features songs from Zeitgeist. [Editor’s note: Uh, only two of the 21 songs on the tour setlist come from Zeitgeist.]
It feels a bit overboard to praise the Pumpkins so enthusiastically long after their biggest commercial successes, but the band never stopped making great songs; Corgan simply put out a lot of half-baked grunge that obscured the finer material. During the evening’s two-hour set—heavy on material from 2007’s Zeitgeist and a few recent singles—the Pumpkins called up tunes from at least half of their catalogue of albums…
The last line is sure correct, though — the band played at least one song off every one of their albums, which certainly is “at least half”.
Am I being too hard on these reviewers? Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I just can’t remember ever reading a review or preview of a Wilco show or a Neil Young show or (dare I say) a Radiohead show where the critic felt empowered to reinvent the band’s setlist to his or her own satisfaction, and yet with the Smashing Pumpkins it seems to happen frequently (see: here, here, here, here…). The Pumpkins’ setlist in Charlottesville had as many songs off Siamese Dream as off Zeitgeist and more songs from Mellon Collie than from either of those records. What journalist would go to a Radiohead show and claim the setlist was “heavy on material from In Rainbows” if it wasn’t? This would never happen, right?
August 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
There’s a reason these reporters are writing for papers and alt mags in places like Charlottesville and Davenport and not the New York Times, and for that matter, why they’re pop rock critics and not investigative reporters. It’s also indicative of the whole newsroom culture in small markets too.
As for whether it would happen with Radiohead, 1. man, you really need to find another go-to band, and 2. it probably has and will happen to them too.
For that matter, it probably happened to the Pumpkins when they were that popular too.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
pins: There’s a reason these reporters are writing for papers and alt mags in places like Charlottesville and Davenport and not the New York Times, and for that matter, why they’re pop rock critics and not investigative reporters. It’s also indicative of the whole newsroom culture in small markets too.
I understand why they might not know something; what I don’t understand is pretending to know — and then passing it off as fact to thousands of people. Why did they feel compelled to tell people what album a song was off…when they didn’t know the song? Is their idea of getting the facts to ask the guy they were standing next to at the gig? Was it even that much that suggested to them that the songs were off Zeitgeist, or is it typically just wack assumption-making?
Is this all part of the “newsroom culture in small markets”?
August 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Counterpoint: Maybe absolutely none of this has to do with Radiohead or Pitchfork.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Honestly, do you think some reporter knows the difference between MachinaII or Aeroplane material (speed kills, glass’ theme, transformer) and Zeitgeist material? If it wasnt a radio hit between 1993 and 1998, they probably have no idea.
-cara
recaptcha: keifer matthews
August 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Well, the Pumpkins have a huge batch of songs so I anticipate reviewers making these types of mistakes.
More importantly, I think what needs to be addressed is the “voice” and supposed “authority” over material these reviewers bring. For example, that backhanded compliment, “the band never stopped making great songs; Corgan simply put out a lot of half-baked grunge that obscured the finer material” and the claim that the show was “..heavy on material from 2007’s Zeitgeist and a few recent singles”. It has an otherworldly quality to it. So many of the reviews I read seem to be as misinformed and sound the same in tone - it’s hard to believe it all to be coincidence.
If you look at Rolling Stone, there’s definitely a style and certain formula for their reviews but each one of the reviewer’s has a unique and genuine voice. That’s not a comment on the quality of the reviews itself but that Tom Moon sounds nothing like David Fricke, who sounds nothing like Toure or Christian Hoard or Peter Travers. You go to Pitchfork and it’s completely interchangeable. They all seem to be speaking the same alien language in the same way.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
If you look at Rolling Stone, there’s definitely a style and certain formula for their reviews but each one of the reviewer’s has a unique and genuine voice… You go to Pitchfork and it’s completely interchangeable. They all seem to be speaking the same alien language in the same way.
I’d actually make the opposite argument. Rolling Stone’s reviews tend to try and take a generally positive generic slant to me (though I’ll admit I haven’t bothered to read many in recent years, and this could have changed).
Pitchfork, though in recent years has taken great efforts to streamline and provide a more unified voice, still strikes me as far more individualistic review to review. Though nowhere near what it was in the Brett D. days.
Perhaps it’s a matter of visiting either enough to notice writer’s tendencies.
And jjb, what Carapatricia said. It’s not a matter of pretending to know. It’s an easy assumption to make that if I don’t know a song, and haven’t heard the new album, that said song is from that album as opposed to being an obscure 10-year old b-side.
Considering it’s not even mentioning said songs by name but as a general recap of the set (albiet incorrectly) it’s not the intentionally misleading statement you make it out to be.
Given the wealth of information on the Internet though, it’s lazy journalism for sure, given the reviewer can identify the Floyd cover and the setlists are on sp.com. But it’s not a vast indie-rock conspiracy.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
@ pins and ryan:
The reason Radiohead is a good example here is that the reason I can’t imagine any journalist daring to misrepresent Radiohead’s setlist is not only that they know they will be called on it, but that when they are called on it it will be embarrassing to them in the fashionable circles in which they run — and thus they take care not to be so cavalier! With the Pumpkins they seem to feel secure that they can say whatever they want and it won’t matter.
And this is of course similar to reasons that make Radiohead a good example in other contexts. So get used to it :)
August 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
jjb, on a quick scan, I already saw one reviewer from a SF music blog who said Radiohead’s Lolla setlist was heavy on In Rainbows and OK Computer.
The set had 10 In Rainbows songs and 4 OK Computer songs, but also 4 Kid A songs and 3 Hail to the Thief songs.
The idea of journalists running in fashionable circles is entirely laughable too. I think for you to make this debate, there needs to be a distinction between journalists, indie rock bloggers, and inconsequentials (of which your c-ville link would fall into).
August 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
pins, I never said, nor would I say, that it was “intentionally misleading” or that it was a “conspiracy”; it’s neither, it’s just apathy and groupthink. Thankfully, you also deny the claim I actually did make, which was that the journalist was “pretending to know”. But…what is it to publish an unqualified “easy assumption” if not to pretend to know something? Maybe it’s the case that part of himself fooled another part of himself into thinking he knew, but I’ll leave that to the psychologists. I agree with Caged Rat - this is about looking like an authority or expert to one’s editors and readers. But that is not the only way to be a writer! You CAN write around what you don’t know and there ARE many people who do it the right way! Again I would point to Hank Altogether’s excellent piece on the Louisville show as a superior example. (Oh, sorry, is he an “inconsequential”?)
And then… “fashionable”. Music writing is an indulgence for rich white people with time on their hands; whether or not they are dressed in Versace and going to wine tastings, those sorts of people do comprise a group that I certainly consider high-status. But who cares, whether they are “fashionable” people or not doesn’t have anything to do with my point, which was just that music writers have their noses attuned to what’s going on in their social circle. Personally I think the “inconsequentials” are smart enough to figure out the game in their profession, even if they can’t exactly pull off making it all the way to the top. And I guarantee you that you cannot get to the top of the music-writing profession if you’re the kind of fellow who dashes off B.S. about a Radiohead show. Pumpkins, though, you’re probably in more trouble knowing something about them than not knowing anything about them. “You said you’d never heard of them…how cool is that?!”
August 19th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I agree with Caged Rat - this is about looking like an authority or expert to one’s editors and readers.
Yes, a music reviewer is supposed to be an authority on music, a wide range of it. That doesn’t mean they know the inner workings and smallest details of every band they cover, though a good writer would do the necessary research and a good editor should fix many of the errors you talk about. I’m talking legitimate journalists here, not bloggers.
And then… “fashionable”. Music writing is an indulgence for rich white people with time on their hands;
I find that insulting for anyone who is a true journalist and takes their craft seriously.
I know the focus wasn’t on fashionable, but I’d question the groupthink theory you propose with a journalist. The indie-rock blogosphere, maybe, but they’re two distinctly different things if you ask me.
And I guarantee you that you cannot get to the top of the music-writing profession if you’re the kind of fellow who dashes off B.S. about a Radiohead show.
Maybe not the top, but I’ve found 2 other reviews that have false information besides my first example, in about 15 minutes of searching for lollapalooza reviews, which is a much larger scale show than the Pumpkins current tour.
Billboard alleges the same drawing heavily from OK Computer miscue I pointed out above, and also states a song “Reckoner” was played in the encore when it was not.
Chart Attack though, not a setlist inaccuracy, is far worse in stating that Radiohead wanted to play Grant Park previously, only to have the city turn them down, when in fact, as you know jjb, they did play there in 2001. That’s a pretty big fallacy in passing something off as fact to thousands of people which would never happen to a band of Radiohead’s critical acclaim, only to the always slighted Pumpkins, right?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
me: And then… “fashionable”. Music writing is an indulgence for rich white people with time on their hands;
pins: I find that insulting for anyone who is a true journalist and takes their craft seriously.
It is, and I shouldn’t have said it — and of course, ANYONE should write about music for fun if they have the time and desire, not just “white” people (yuck, I’m sorry for that). But these debates we have (and music writing in general) are among the first things to go when times get tough or more serious news comes along. No one cares about the Smashing Pumpkins vs. Radiohead in the wake of a social crisis — and that goes even for the music writers who take their craft with the utmost seriousness. I very much respect the great critics (I didn’t really have them in mind when I wrote that), but only a very rich, stable society can afford the services of an entire class of music journalists as well as a bunch of people with oodles of free time to blog.
As for the rest of what you say, I appreciate the pushback — I asked for it, after all! I am not sure the examples you found rise to the same level of magnitude/severity as the Pumpkins ones, but you did find them quickly. It would be hard to quantify the differences.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:05 am
My general fear here is that any serious form of Pumpkins writing, of which I think before this blog you really couldn’t find… or at least I never had any luck over the course of a decade… will inevitably be cursed with “towing the corgan line” for lack of a better term. I mean, I’m pretty sure none of this Radiohead stuff started popping up until BC was quoted slightly dissing them months ago. When it seemed in years prior the man would compliment them whenever he could in the press as being one of his fellow good guys.
The same thing is happening on the Pajo end, as I’d imagine any time Slint gets brought up on a thread on a board anytime post-Zwan, there will inevitably be comments about indie/pitchfork/snob-rock or whatever. When there’s all those interviews when the band was getting together about how fucking into Spiderland BC and JC have always been, and how they were amazed he even wanted to play with them. Now the consensus internet is just he’s a huge snobby asshole. Despite the fact he sang a song once directly to Jimmy’s newborn baby.
That and there’s an entire generation of SP fans who probably think Pavement is unlistenable noise-rock, when in retrospect it nowadays sounds like the most consistent catalog of well-crafted POP SONGS of the 90s.
I just don’t want this to keep happening over and over again because our frontman has uh… issues. to leave it at that.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Ryan: I mean, I’m pretty sure none of this Radiohead stuff started popping up until BC was quoted slightly dissing them months ago.
That’s not true as far as this blog is concerned. Also, we haven’t been negative about Radiohead on the whole; we consider them a measuring stick, a comparison point — that’s complimentary! I like them, Jill likes them, and as a Pumpkins fan I envy their fanbase’s tolerance for their exploration. I wish the Pumpkins received the music-focused attention Radiohead gets from a lot of music writers and sites.
When it seemed in years prior the man would compliment them whenever he could in the press as being one of his fellow good guys.
Yes, as I pointed out when I argued that what he said about the In Rainbows release wasn’t even a “slight diss”. (Also, at the Charlottesville show Billy said something from the stage about Radiohead being “really good”.)
The same thing is happening on the Pajo end, as I’d imagine any time Slint gets brought up on a thread on a board anytime post-Zwan, there will inevitably be comments about indie/pitchfork/snob-rock or whatever. When there’s all those interviews when the band was getting together about how fucking into Spiderland BC and JC have always been, and how they were amazed he even wanted to play with them. Now the consensus internet is just he’s a huge snobby asshole. Despite the fact he sang a song once directly to Jimmy’s newborn baby.
That and there’s an entire generation of SP fans who probably think Pavement is unlistenable noise-rock, when in retrospect it nowadays sounds like the most consistent catalog of well-crafted POP SONGS of the 90s.
I can only speak for myself, but I gave both the music of Pajo and Pavement a chance, and it turned out I don’t care for either. Where you hear “well-crafted POP SONGS” I hear a guy who can’t even be bothered to try to sing — which is a complaint I also have about Slint. And seriously, Pajo was kind to a baby and that earns him good-guy points?! By that standard, the current U.S. President should prepare himself for sainthood!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
remember that although we know american gothic as american gothic, if you go to iTunes it says that it’s part of zeitgeist. those are just 4 bonus songs at the end of it. i’m not sure if it says it’s it’s own release yet or not…
August 20th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
You make perfectly agreeable points I can’t really mess with. I was just making a general statement about my like… malaise and shit… in the context of replying to this post. I have all sorts of unresolved fanbase-issues I go crazy on at the drop of a hat. Sorry to lump you in with the nonsensical message board biz. I had completely forgotten about the shitty Rolling Stone interview-editing. And baby stories are touching. Anyway, my point is, yeah… discourse! whoo!
August 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Ryan, to clarify: Were/are you more concerned that any serious Pumpkins-related writing will toe the Corgan line, or will be accused of toeing the Corgan line?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
A little bit of both. Though my original intention was to say I was concerned it will always toe the line. I’m so used to most folk just going along with whatever the band dictates, even if its nonsensical from time to time. So maybe I’m subliminally saying I’m personally trapped to second-guess anything that even comes close to accepting whatever the corgz manifesto is at any given moment.
Maybe I’m just too close to it, but its always seemed to be such an anxiety-ridden and sub-divided fanbase. Which could be argued is a product of being fans of a band with such a massive output, and the band itself being so anxiety-ridden and sub-divided over the years. It makes it very hard to diagnose what the general temperature of the fan-base is at any given moment. So when you have a site like this that is finally sensible and logical, I suppose I just don’t want to see something like it slip into not vetoing any Corgan bill that comes across the desks.
So my post was a product of this anxiety. Obviously post-modern.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:33 am
Ryan: I suppose I just don’t want to see something like [HU] slip into not vetoing any Corgan bill that comes across the desks.
I always place the initial burden of proof on Billy’s critics, because he’s made my life a lot better and they really have not. That said, of course, sometimes they do provide the proof…but even then I think it’s very important to remember that Billy’s sins are small in the broad sweep of life. Seriously, what’s the worst thing he’s ever done — be an ambitious hardass? Release a disappointing album? Personally, I’m way over either of those…and I can’t really imagine what he could do from this point forward (barring something truly bizarre and awful) that would come close to outweighing the joy he’s brought me. So I don’t personally really care to “veto any Corgan bill”, but that’s not saying I’m going to endorse every “Corgan bill”, either. I want to keep my judgment proportional to the crime and, largely, in reserve.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:55 am
[…] Boys’ album To the 5 Boroughs, a piece that was later blasted by Pitchfork editors for…wait for it…making stuff up about Radiohead.) So, now what did he think of the not-really-reunited […]
August 21st, 2008 at 9:52 am
but even then I think it’s very important to remember that Billy’s sins are small in the broad sweep of life.
The same could be said about random music critics…
August 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Ah, but they haven’t done anything good to balance it out ;)
August 21st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I can’t think of the last time I genuinely read a critic to actually decide whether I would listen to a new band or album or not. It’s usually just for entertainment. When they take themselves so seriously, the lose me…
I alway liked Zappa’s take on it all, “Rock journalism is people who can’t write interviewing people who can’t talk for people who can’t read.”.
Also, love how pins selectively edited this part out of my quote, “That’s not a comment on the quality of the reviews itself but that Tom Moon sounds nothing like David Fricke, who sounds nothing like Toure or Christian Hoard or Peter Travers. You go to Pitchfork and it’s completely interchangeable”.
Good job. Nice argument, for sure.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Also, love how pins selectively edited this part out of my quote, “That’s not a comment on the quality of the reviews itself but that Tom Moon sounds nothing like David Fricke, who sounds nothing like Toure or Christian Hoard or Peter Travers. You go to Pitchfork and it’s completely interchangeable”.
Good job. Nice argument, for sure.
Wasn’t trying to argue, and didn’t see the need for the fully detailed quote. All I said was my opinion was the opposite was more true, with the caveat that I haven’t actually picked up a RS in more than a few years. Just that I felt RS reviews tended to read like the were toeing the corporate bottom line and losing the writer’s voices in the process.
I’ll freely admit my opinion may be misguided at this point in time, but I wasn’t trying to pull any chicanery.