Generous, open-hearted music blogger Evan LeVine writes that Billy Corgan played last night with psychedelic rockers Ya Ho Wha 13 in Los Angeles:

The Great Pumpkin himself made a surprise guest appearance at last night’s Ya Ho Wa 13 concert in Silverlake. It was the most nauseating spectacle I’ve seen since that time he had a speaking part in an SNL sketch with Cameron Diaz. Oh god, Billy Corgan, you totally ruined what should have been a really cool time.

Notably, LeVine uses the word for “Smashing Pumpkins concert” recently popularized by Pitchfork, though he innovates by using it in a non-compound variant:

Ya Ho Wa 13 played for about an hour, spoke about fire water and air, and generally sounded like they were making things up on the spot. I’ve seen tons of shows like that, but this one appeared to be the most realistic. Why? Because parts of it sounded really bad, like they had no idea what they were doing, and then a few minutes later they clicked and it sounded really cool. This of course, stands in contrast to other bands who claim to be improvising but can be seen talking things over with each other before they take the stage.

So, yeah. Then the shit show started. Sunflower approached the microphone and stated that the band was going to be joined on stage by a good friend. “Oh fuck, no, no no!” I screamed inside.

Making a fashionably late appearance to the tizzy around the Smashing Pumpkins’ recent interview is Rock Town Hall; their byline: “governing the discourse of rock since 2007.”  Their mission statement is equally hilarious: “Rock Town Hall is a place to discuss - and debate - self-important topics in the world of rock ‘n roll…”  Not to put the cart before the strategic marketing horse, but if it’s one thing to which we can claim expertise, it’s self-indulgence — so these guys must be right up our alley.

RTH Blogger “Oats” presents an article today titled “Billy Corgan: The Limits of Winner Rock” and asks two fine questions about the Kot interview:

Is this what happens when you treat every single musical endeavor like you’re entering the ring? Is Corgan emulating post-game press conference-speak to an almost ridiculous level here?

This article on “Winner Rock” is a must-read for context.  Also, blogger “Mr. Moderator”’s comments couldn’t resonate more strongly:

By “winning,” in these terms, I mean things like “being all that one can be”; trying to live up to some ideal rock model; believing that what you are doing is approaching par with rock’s highest achievements, even if it’s wholly delusional. And yes, it’s also about winning over an audience, but not in commercial terms.

Poor setlist choices, awful-sounding music, and confounding sartorial decisions mixed with heavy doses of audience mockery: These are the reports we’ve been getting about the Smashing Pumpkins‘ “20th Anniversary Tour”, and guesses at Billy Corgan’s motivations can only confuse and infuriate.

That would be Pitchfork’s Dave Maher, hyperlinking his way into an hilariously intense fury at Billy Corgan instead of walking down the street to cover the Chicago Theatre shows. After (maybe) watching a YouTube clip and (probably) reading the Rolling Stone and Fluxblog concert reviews, Maher denounced the tour as a “shitshow” (what?), claimed that Corgan had “lashed out at his band’s fans” with an “outburst”, called Zeitgeist “mediocre”, said the band was “meandering into formless noise jams”, accused Corgan of “ruining people’s nostalgic fondness” for the Pumpkins, said Corgan was “cashing in”, and called Corgan “crazy”.

Can you explain this, Dave? Why all the anger?

Personally, I don’t buy that this intentional audience befuddling is some kind of pure pursuit of an artistic muse. It seems like the flailing around of an artist who has declined and is unwilling to face that truth even when his own fans proclaim it so by their reactions to his art.

You may be on to something there… (more…)

This week we took a look at some of Billy’s recent statements about the band and tried to make some sense of them, and we got some breaking news hours before record time that we were able to squeeze into the show.

Listen to the whole show (46:30)

(download)(iTunes)

This week’s topics:

Panelists
-Chris, Jason, and Andrew

News
-Amazon.com posts a listing and release date for the Fillmore DVD.  Will it really be 271 minutes long, and if so what kind of content will fill all of that time? (3:43)

-Billy proffers a reclassification of Smashing Pumpkins music: American Gothic.  Is this the musical equivalent of choosing ones own nickname?  Is this an accurate genre for the totality of the Pumpkins’ catalog? (6:44)

-G.L.O.W. is announced as a Guitar Hero: World Tour exclusive (at least at first).  Fans are not outraged, but a certain online music blog is… (5:47)

In-Depth Discussion
-Billy made some comments about the difficulties of straddling the line between the mainstream and the hardcore in terms of songwriting.  Would a song like Mayonaise be appreciated today the same way it was in 1993?  Does Billy intentionally write songs for different audiences? (20:36)

This Week in Pumpkins History
-Zwan “officially” dissolves.  Where were we the day the music died? (1:41)

Song of the Week
-Thru the Eyes of Ruby, May 3rd, 1996

Next week we’ll be tackling a topic that is near and dear to all of our hearts: The Machina Mystery!

Last week, fellow SP.com writer Hack published a piece about Elemental Labs’ light wall which Billy Corgan featured on his solo tour prior to the reformation of the Smashing Pumpkins.  It seems his inspiration for the piece was a heads-up at Netphoria about this short documentary on Pitchfork.tv regarding Chiptunes, a genre which previously escaped my attention.

Oh.  My.

I know I’ve recently been on the record about how I admire the Pumpkins for taking new distribution routes and using gaming technology for the greater good.  But hacking your Gameboy?  Using it as a synthesizer and a sequencer?

Oh, I am so torn.  I want to love, but I want to mock.  Mock or love?

1. As shown above, the Smashing Pumpkins have moved to apply retroactively their new self-assigned genre. (Also, apparently the fall tour is now set to mark the band’s 21st anniversary…)

2. An interesting remark in the blog that I did not highlight previously: “For me, that was the most exciting tour I’ve been on since before Jimmy left in 1996.” That would classify, in terms of excitement for Billy, the August tour as having exceeded notable tours such as the Adore charity tour with multiple percussionists, the “Arising!” tour of April 1999, last year’s comeback tour in Europe, and…is he including Zwan?!

3. “Alternative Music has been hijacked by poseurs. No mystery there as to why.” Perhaps no mystery as to why, Billy, but we could use a good by whom…it’s no fun when you toss off that line without dropping a name (Hinder? Bloc Party?) around which we may coordinate our derision-slash-amusement.

Who gives the names to musical genres? I am not an expert on this question, but I imagine that generally it has not been the bands themselves. Regardless, Smashing Pumpkins leader Billy Corgan gives self-classification a go today in a new blog posting:

…I’ve found a label for our music that fits. And that is that we play ‘American Gothic’ music. Yes, I know that’s the name of our e.p. that came out, but its not meant as a self serving self reference. I was attracted to the idea of an American Gothic movement musically because it embodies both the English ideal of gothic music and the decay of Americana. So that’s us for now on. We play American Gothic music. Please use that label, its one I hope sticks :)

There’s a lot to parse in Billy’s four paragraphs; I imagine that we will have more thoughts about it later in the week.

In advance of Sunday’s Smashing Pumpkins concert in Raleigh, Robbie Mackey of North Carolina’s Independent Weekly discusses the influence of Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness on “the rise of ‘mainstream indie rock’”:

These bands share Corgan’s principal flaws—over-indulgence, a lack of critical perspective, records that are too long and noticeably lacking in focus. But they also share some of his strong points, too: When they’re good, they’re rich and rewarding in their denseness. Hyperactive collagists Evangelicals, the grandiose pop crew of Manchester Orchestra, Oxford, Miss.’s Colour Revolt, and our very own Annuals might not champion the sonic value of the Pumpkins, but they most certainly appreciate the aesthetic. Indeed, the shadow of Corgan still looms, convincing an entire generation, with the world at their keyboard tips, and weaned on Dawn, Dusk, Twilight and Starlight, to just fucking go for it. For better, or for worse.

Music critic David Lindquist of the Indianapolis Star describes what happened at a radio-station festival outside that city this weekend:

Thankfully, at the end of a daylong parade of dumbed-down macho swagger and numbing bass riffs, redemption arrived with one of the bands that made the first half of the 1990s a golden era for inventive rock.

Consider similar comments by music blogger Matthew Perpetua:

The most basic appeal of the Smashing Pumpkins comes from the way Billy Corgan strips out the dull machismo from hard rock and replaces it with sensitive androgyny and ecstatic spirituality. Like a majority of the rock stars of the early ’90s, Corgan rebelled against the dude-ness of his own genre, but thanks to the unavoidable femininity of his voice and his soft baby face, he was able to depart from tradition more dramatically than the more obviously masculine likes of Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder.

I find in these remarks the essence of what was “alternative” about “alternative rock”; it’s precisely on point to remember that it supplanted atop the charts (i.e., it was an alternative to) what its supporters often derided as “cock rock”.

Has the label “alternative rock” truly lost that meaning over the last 10 years?  Jill says it has, but I am not so sure. Certainly, as with any phrase that becomes generally associated with something good and successful, attempts have been made to use it where it might not be applicable. However, I more often hear the term “modern rock” being applied to today’s…I don’t think I can call them “today’s cock-rockers”, because they always strike me as too pathetic. (Shall I propose “bum rock” as a term? That would evoke not only their lousy long-term career prospects as the beneficiaries of “short money”, but also it would suggest the erogenous zone to which the purveyors of hopeless misogyny may ultimately need to direct their attentions.) I don’t recall seeing any serious person using the phrase “alternative rock” to describe the work of Hinder or Buckcherry.

Wikipedia defines indie rock as such:

Indie rock is a music genre denoting rock artists signed to independent (indie) record labels, often equated with alternative rock. Reasons for remaining with indie labels as opposed to major labels varies from artist to artist, whether it be a desire to retain complete editorial control over one’s work, loyalty to the underground DIY culture from which independent labels grow, or an anti-corporate ideology espoused by the artist and a desire not to contribute to the financial interests of corporate-owned major labels.

This has been on my mind a lot this week, as I caught a very talented singer-songwriter from Nashville named Brooke Waggoner last Wednesday night, waited in line for bagels with Sufjan Stevens on Friday morning at my local deli, and watched Blonde Redhead, LCD Soundsystem, and Arcade Fire tear up Randall’s Island last night (along with 30,000 other fans). What exactly defines indie? How do the Pumpkins fit into this equation now and in the past?

To the best of my ability, I can’t really see how the Pumpkins (ideologically) deviate from the above definition of indie rock, except their affiliation with a big label. I’d argue that their continued affiliation is a holdover from the early ’90s when there really were few alternative ways to achieve success in the independent realm, but I digress.

I know that big-label affiliation is one of the tenets of being independent (and supporting home-grown ventures of kids who think starting their own record label is a good idea), but I would imagine Billy Corgan would refuse to make more music if he didn’t retain complete editorial control over his work. I also don’t think they’re pro-corporate as Trent Reznor has alleged in the past; They just try to get their music Out There. And I think because of their long history in the music industry, they have a much more sophisticated view of the marketing engine that’s available to them. With this sophistication also comes susceptibility to skepticism over their methods since they have achieved historical success (e.g. multiple releases of Zeitgeist for multiple retailers makes them look… greedy when I really don’t think they are).

On the other hand, bands like Arcade Fire take the benign, non-confrontational, starry-eyed approach of “Hi, we’re from Canada. We hope you like our music even though it’s evident there are tens of thousands of you out there!” I don’t doubt the naivete is authentic, but … it’s certainly not evidence of twenty years in The Biz. And they’ve also achieved such success that they devote full-time staff to manning the merch booth in the back for thousands of swarming fans who want their latest disc or babydoll t-shirt. Isn’t commercial success in the “Gray’s Anatomy Era” for indie bands more of a sell-out than what Trent Reznor was criticizing?? Should LCD Soundsystem be criticized for being part of a big Nike promotional campaign?

Now, I think that much like “alternative rock” grew to mean something very different from when it first debuted as a savior to our starving Midwestern suburbanized hearts, “indie” has taken on a much different meaning than in the days of Slint and Chavez. From Wikipedia again:

In recent years, however, the word “indie” has been appropriated as something of a marketing term used by major labels and music magazines to refer to any artists of the alternative rock genre. However, in the traditional sense of the word, indie rock is not a “genre”, but rather a status, indicating the rock artists of independent music.

So, how does this clause spin how we look at the Pumpkins? Does the marketing application of “indie” eschew or attribute specific traits to a band? I might argue that being “indie” makes a band more accessible. There seems to be an obsessive indebtedness to fans in the “indie” community that we never saw in the ’90s. Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were never apologetic to their critics. Kurt Cobain wasn’t accessible to his fans — he did a swell job of preventing future accessiblity too. These bands became icons to a generation that craved empathy — their lives were miserable and there was nothing you could do about it except bring the rock. For what and for whom are current indie bands icons??

Sure, the alt-rock gods achieved great success on the books, much like Arcade Fire is doing at this very instant. I’ve never seen the Pumpkins play a show bigger than 25,000, but that’s precisely what happened at Randall’s Island last night. And if you want to attribute that to its location being NYC, I happen to also know Arcade Fire played to an 8,000-person venue at Starlight Theatre in Kansas City. Success in the “Indie Community” is pervasive, but how does it differ to the Pumpkins’ continued success?