WaPo: Pumpkins once held ‘anti-commercial notions’, now don’t
October 4th, 2008 by jjbtags: G.L.O.W., record labels, criticism
Lavanya Ramanathan of the Washington Post announces the upcoming visit of the Smashing Pumpkins to that city:
Who exactly are the Pumpkins these days? Only Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlin continue; gone are James Iha and D’Arcy Wretzky, replaced by performers whose faces haven’t been on the cover of Rolling Stone. And gone, too, are some of the great anti-commercial notions of 1990s rock: The upcoming Pumpkins single will be released via . . . Guitar Hero.
So releasing albums via Virgin Records and videos to MTV, playing Lollapalooza, and, yes, appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone: anti-commercial. Not being on a record label and releasing a song through a video game: commercial.
If you don’t understand that, apparently you just aren’t sophisticated enough to be reading the Washington Post, are you?
October 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
love is suicide
bridge fuchs
October 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The writer of this article obviously wasn’t a fan in the early 90’s. The writer also probably didn’t have any friends that were indie snobs at the time either… Oh the hell I caught. As a journalist in training, I must say BRAVO.
lol rC: helps degree
October 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I love how most articles like this are so obviously just towing the must crap on Billy Corgan line while they regurgitate ignorant crap.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Ok, so SP 1.0’s main tenet wasn’t “anti-commercialism” a la Radiohead per se. But every action was heavily trying to protect the music as art, and the music was infused with a “fuck the norm” kind of attitude. This is what I feel this writer is trying to get at.
From my perspective, SP 2.0 doesnt have the best track record of being “anti-commercial”. But then again, I understand that being free agents, they have to make sure their ventures, at very least, break-even.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Job, SP have never really been “anti-commercial.” The band always wanted to be on rock stars, put out their records on a major, headline the arenas, have their vids played on MTV, etc.
What can you say about that? Well, unlike a lot of the bands from the 90s, they weren’t hypocrites about it. They weren’t ranting about how it sucked to be mainstream, go pose for their Rolling Stone cover and go on MTV.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Job: Ok, so SP 1.0’s main tenet wasn’t “anti-commercialism” a la Radiohead per se. But every action was heavily trying to protect the music as art, and the music was infused with a “fuck the norm” kind of attitude. This is what I feel this writer is trying to get at.
From my perspective, SP 2.0 doesnt have the best track record of being “anti-commercial”. But then again, I understand that being free agents, they have to make sure their ventures, at very least, break-even.
So to paraphrase you, SP 1.0 not anti-commercial but music had “fuck the norm” attitude; SP 2.0 also not anti-commercial, but you fail to address directly the question of whether their music still has that “fuck the norm” attitude.
I agree with you that the band has never been anti-commercial, but I would say that “fuck the norm” attitude is very obviously still in their music and their actions.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I resent this line in specific, “…replaced by performers whose faces haven’t been on the cover of Rolling Stone”.
So?
October 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
jjb: Ya, I see what you’re saying. What Im trying to get at is that I can understand the need for SP 2.0 to be more commercially driven. There too though, I would qualify that by saying that it seemed to be more prominent around the release of Zeitgeist. Id say the last few months have reinstated my faith in SP being able to push boundaries. Im not sure whether they really have, but I feel the potential much more than year 1 of SP 2.0.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“Id say the last few months have reinstated my faith in SP being able to push boundaries. Im not sure whether they really have, but I feel the potential much more than year 1 of SP 2.0.”
There’s a big difference between being on a major label (i.e. year one) v. being off a major label (year two).
October 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Moronic
October 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
They were so anti-commercial they were on The simpsons for crying out loud. ;)
October 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
And also doesn’t the heart T-Shirt basically say we’re selling out so come get some or something like that on the back?
October 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
If the Pumpkins have always been commercial, why so much hooplah over the several covers of Zeitgeist?
*confused
October 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Me too Sam, me too.
Given that many artists have done the exact same thing before (song exclusives) makes it even more of a head-scratcher.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
when i saw the once again generic-wanna-be-kinda-neutral article posted by the 2008-hipsternessunited - i don’t know, this recent explanation on a similar subject came to mind:
“A small circle of poets and conscious do-gooders are not enough to effect the change necessary to shift our planet in peril. We must enlist people from all walks of life, people not accustomed to questioning the norm, people who may simply want to dance uninterrupted without message or slogan. I see no glory in ‘preaching to the converted’. Furthermore, I believe fully in the power of music and have branded my work with it’s own conscientious stamp and stomp of attitude fueled to steal the show in the face of the nonsensical. Quite simply, it was clear to me that people would not be rushing to the store to buy Nikes after seeing that commercial, but rather rushing to youtube or itunes to hear or download the song. I even imagined those who would be rushing to blogs to question how I could allow this to happen and the subsequent discussion of the ethical treatment of factory workers and how new minds would be informed and enlisted in the struggle for ethical change.” - saul williams
http://www.ill-literacy.com/news/2008/08/12/saul-williams-is-hecka-smart/#more-606
not that this is at all what the smashing pumpkins or billy corgan may or may not have thinking, but one can always hope…..