www.cbc.ca/Q Smashing Pumpkins torchbearer, Billy Corgan, dispels the illusion of the audience's role in music and postulates on a Smashing Pumpkins without him in this short clip from his feature interview in Studio Q.
People who criticize Billy are flat out inconsiderate. What he's saying is completely logical. As an artist why should he have to give in to the public eye? He should be able to have is own opinions without being scrutinized because people disagree. It's like people who won't go to his show because he is playing his new music. As an artist he has the obligation to move forward and not stand still just because people want that. That's what makes Billy great.
I"m always curious, fascinated and impressed by Billy's music no matter what it is. His creativity and talent blows my mind. Ogilala and Siamese Dream are equally phenomenal and I listen to both just as frequently. It depends on my mood and the atmosphere I want to create.
I think naturally, Billy has difficulty managing his relationship with his fans because it's hard for him to discern the pressure they put on him versus the pressure he puts on himself. This is often what childhood abuse can do. I think he shows strength in his position, and his intensity just means he doesn't feel completely comfortable with his perfectly legitimate choices about the group. This is very human!
You gotta be kidding me. Fans pay his bills? He went out on stage night after night pouring his heart out and making great fucking albums for decades. He earned what he worked for and as a fan I don't feel I have ANY say in what Billy decides to do with the smashing pumpkins. He's an artist, we are passive observers.
Real musicians play for the music. If Billy really loves creating and playing music as much as we can assume, he'd still be doing it whether or not he had any fans.
Simply put Smashing Pumpkins are Billy Corgan's band. Who gives a shit what someone on social media thinks anyway. Just because someone can type something doesn't mean they have power over you.
Billy is the best I’m from the movie industry and it’s the same way with fans of film. I completely agree. I’ve been trying to say this for years and Billy just vocalized and expressed what I’ve been trying to except with music
Corgan has so many good points. He might come off a bit tense in this interview, but check out some of the VIP backstage Q&A's from recent shows, and the interview with Brian Solis and you get to see just how wise and clear he is with respect to music as a business, and to culture in general.
A lot of the comments on this video seem to be of the position that he’s got an obligation almost to keep the original smashing pumpkins together. That he should understand that’s what the hardcore fans want. People saying, “I’m not going to listen to you anymore because the core band is no longer” is crazy. Bands are personalities and sometimes those personalities clash to the point where it doesn’t work. The fans can be disappointed but being angry because 5 guys can’t keep it together to appease fans is crazy. That’s what he’s saying by “fans don’t run the show”....people are taking his statements as a personal attack on them. It’s not about you, it’s about the band members. This is what he means about “10 years of internet culture” where everyone gets to express their grievances.
If you believe an artist must cater to his fans because they go to the shows and buy the albums then I couldn't disagree with you more. He should have the freedom to do what he pleases and there will always be those fans there to support the artist. You can't please all the fans all the time anyway so why even try. He's tried that and it failed miserably. Billy, keep doing what you do. Those fans who fail to see the journey you're on without context ultimately don't know what they're missing.
Think of it this way. If nobody listened , and nobody went to the concerts and nobody bought the albums, where would he be today????? FANS ARE EVERYTHING
He's got a little bit of aggression going on in the way that he expresses himself. but i totally agree with him about musicians being better of following their heart rather satisfying the fans fantasies of seeing the original members play together.
I think that artists make most of their money off touring these days. It's so easy to just take music without paying for it that unless you've created a relationship with your fans I can't see why anyone would pay for what they could get for free. I like the artists you mentioned as well. I was tired of always see concerts from the cheap seats so I splurged. In my opinion it's better at the front but I would never spend that kind of cash again.
I wouldn't be able to justify to myself paying that kinda money to see anybody to be perfectly honest. My favourite band at a push would have to be the Beatles. I saw Bob Dylan and Elvis Costello play a show in Australia and that cost me about 80 bucks. I've always wanted to see Neil Young play, i reckon id pay about 100 bucks max. I think any wealthy artist backed by a major record label should make sure their concert tickets were sold for as cheap as possible. For the fans.
RUSH is popular because lack of other bands ALIVE and or functioning, I am just thinking its always Great to see Original Members , the drummer was kicked out on his head and he came back to join band so another reson for others Hopes to be Higher for former Bassist, also Bands wrote their best music from inner combating, if it was healthy combating i am sure people would agree
What Corgan is saying makes sense. The fanbase doesn't decide what the band does: the fanbase buys the music. It's the same with film and books. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Now, the artist has the responsibility of putting out the best product that they can. That's how they make money. But does the artist have the responsibility of saying, "I'm sorry you didn't like that"? No. Fans vote with their dollars. Artists make money that way. But fans don't decide what the artists create or how.
I agree with what he's saying, but I think he was getting a little over-the-top when he said "fans support a form of death by rather having an original band reunite and be unhappy than the artists evolving on their own". Just because I would love in my fantasy for a Pink Floyd reunion doesn't mean I'd ultimately want Gilmore and Waters to do it if they were forced beyond free will and didn't want to. People get nostalgic to re-see music that changed their life, it doesn't mean their selfish.
I think he's trying to say his loyalty is with Music first, maybe it's patronizing saying this after making much currency of the fanatics, If he's saying fanatics don't run the show and Industry also and it's about how stupid the concept of owning sound is then I agree!
I wouldn't go and see the pumpkins without Billy. What I would like at this point is a Brian Wilson type of thing with 15 people onstage perfectly recreating the sound of the album. And change up the setlist. I want hits, but rotate them and I want album tracks and b sides and rotate them too. It makes sense to play 10 songs every night from the MCIS - SD era, but different songs! We don't need to hear Bullet with butterfly wings and Cherub rock at every show.
Yeah...Maynard James Keenan, Rivers Cuomo, AXL Rose, and this nozzle here. Funny how close in age they all are, and their overall distain for their own fanbase... I think David Lee Roth probably has more appreciation for his fans.
It's a negotiation, which both artists and fan(boys?) don't seem to get sometimes. When either side doesn't realize it/forgets it, they become jaded and pissed off.
Unfortunately, the band is mostly associated with the original lineup, which where nearly all their best songs originated. Nothing can or will compare to the live chemistry of that lineup. In saying that i think its good that he has kept on making music
Interesting interview. I'd never pay $800 to see the Stones. I payed about that to see Sting 3rd row and I was surrounded by the walking dead. I was into the music and dancing and Annie Lennox opened for him and was great so I was so getting into it while everyone around me was as stiff and a board. The lady behind me tapped me on the shoulder and asked "How old to you think Annie is?" This conversation should be continued in schools churches and parliaments around the world.Why r we here?
$800 for a ticket is about $600 more than I would pay for any act. Saw the stones on the voodoo lounge tour, $55.00 for 5th row centre floor. Great show, now that was back in the mid 90's and they really have not wrote anything worthwhile since that time. If I was to see them again it would be like seeing and hearing the same show played again, not my cup of tea. Too many other bands out there writing and performing new music to see.
Billy is really articulate and entertaining but it is really sad the way he downplays the value of his fans. Where would he, or anyone in this business, be without them?
Keith Richards can afford to "not give a shit"... monetarily and emotionally... but he seems to still love to play, if he didn't then I wouldn't give a shit (not that I really do either way)
Billy would want to write some songs we can enjoy once in a while. the stuff he is coming out with is middle of the road at best, and lacks all of the spirit he once held. By the way, your FANS call the shots, because if they don't turn up to see you, or make that purchase, you don't exist Billy.
well, the beatles didn't follow kiddy fantasies, and we got a lot of great albums,because of it. maybe you should stick with in sync. or maybe you think the beatles where at there best doing covers?
your right. this is what happens when wealthy arrogant artists forget that it's called the music BUSINESS. based on his enormous ego and bitter attitude, i expect that he will soon be OUT OF BUSINESS.
Talking about having the right to use the name "Smashing Pumpkins" for other projects is a great way to avoid justifying it. And I think the real reason is pretty obvious. Corgan's using the familiar moniker to draw attention to his new work which, to be frank, no one has much interest in. Yes, he has the right, but that does not make it a good idea. You have the right to do a lot of stuff that just doesn't make any sense.
"AXL Rose Jr."...all-day. I like how the interviewer destroyed him with the Townshend question, to the point where he started blathering about PETA and "the circus"... "Healthy music"?? Hell, Slipknot's members used to have brawls onstage, and they still sold tickets and albums...for a reason. No wonder Paz Lenchantin couldn't even work with this toolbag. Well, he IS from Chicago, afterall....
Corgan is (again) totally ignorant. A person selling a product, which his music is, must adhere to excellent customer service. It’s about treating your fans with respect.
Corgan's argument lacks internal consistency. A band cannot represent something 'greater' if they are too far removed musically from their past. Rush would not mean dick now if they had a revolving door lineup, or if they stopped releasing quality music 25 years ago. The only reason Stones can charge whatever they want for tickets is because their classic lineup is basically intact. In fact, Stones are a terrible example because Jagger and Richards don't really like each other much and money seems to be a huge motivation for them. It's the 'kiddie fantasy' that Corgan derides that fuels their current success. Corgan just needs to accept that fans really stop giving a shit about new music after a certain point from their old favourites, and even if they do like it, they probably don't like it as much as the old stuff, hence to some degree the longer a band sticks around, the more likely that they will become a nostalgia act, whether partially or fully. It's almost inevitable.
dios bananos A band like Rush or Smashing Pumpkins would work with a revolving door lineup, as long as they are trained/represented/endorsed officially by the original bandmates. I think that's the point Corgan is making. However, that may only benefit the 2nd generation of the band directly in contact with the original member(s). Corgan would probably delude himself by saying something like, "Well, if in 300 years the Smashing Pumpkins turn out to be a mainstream pop band, that was just the natural succession!"
did he just reference the pumpkins in the same category as the stones, the who and rush? wow, that's completely delusional. i like most musicians but this guy really has a bitter unpleasantness about him. and that art-eeest scarf is totally pretentious.
