You're right. Eddie wrote some of PJ's best songs but I still feel that original chemistry was never replicated once he was the driving force behind the writing -- and then, when they made it a more democratic process again, it got kinda muddy. But Eddie definitely has the best ear for a hook.
I think it would be almost impossible to classify this album as "metal" based on any existing definition, but I don't think they've moved too far in any one direction from Red or Blue, either (also albums that could possibly be better classified as some form of "hard rock"). The backlash, such as it is, seems misguided to me in that regard. The real question is, have they improved upon what they achieved with those albums?
Nah, I just listen to a lot of metal and used to be editor of this site, so I'll write about metal for Stereogum now and then. I'm a huge fan of Brandon's work, though, and I'm glad to see a positive reaction to metal here!
The issue (as Lowery sees it, as far as I can tell) is not how she has obtained her music to date, exactly, but her admission that paying for music will likely NEVER be a realistic option for her. Frankly I call bullshit on White's "I haven't pirated since Kazaa" claim, but of course you're right -- based on what she's admitted here, she's not even crossed any ethical boundary -- but the lines continue to blur beyond the confines of the radio station.
I actually thought the Beady Eye record was pretty damn good (as I did High Flying Birds). Liam is, however, an outright jackass while Noel is one of the coolest people in music.
I continue to find this character -- the misguided Robin Hood type who allegedly justifies his piracy by claiming he's not stealing from artists but labels -- to be a strawman. Not to say he doesn't exist, but I think most serious listeners (which would include approximately 100 percent of Stereogum readers) recognize that indie labels are usually just one or two people who do a shit-ton of work for no money.
That said, I'm baffled by the notion that buying music through iTunes -- wherein Apple takes a healthy cut of your entertainment buck -- is the equivalent of buying a T-shirt direct from a label -- which would seem to me to be a transaction between fan and artist, more or less. In this environment, I'd rather buy the T-shirt -- which gives to me something tangible, something that addresses a BASIC HUMAN NEED (clothing) and something that also offers, tangentially, collectible resale value -- than the album from iTunes, wherein the artist gets a fraction of my outlay and I get digital files I could have gotten from the Internet, the library or Spotfiy with exactly zero reduction in tangible value.
To that end, the last recorded music I purchased was THIS, which packages a vinyl LP with a limited poster and T-shirt. The record to me, frankly, is kind of inconsequential -- I have the music already on my iPod. But I wanted the T-shirt and the poster. I think more purveyors of music have to adopt such strategies (not to say they haven't tried).
The problem is, Lowery's logic isn't really logic. It's an impassioned plea masked as logic. There's no defined cutoff point at which borrowed music becomes stolen music. In the '80s, you had Home Taping Is Killing Music. In 1993, Garth Brooks (with the backing of several major labels) refused to release his then-new album to any store that sold used CDs, arguing that the used market was cutting too deep into profits. Surely these methods of distribution DID affect the bottom line to some degree, though exactly how much is not quantifiable. But there can be no middle ground in the eyes of the (loosely defined quote-unquote) industry -- if home-taping / used CDs / file-sharing is deemed inconsequential, it is ignored. If it is deemed a discernibly negative influence, it necessarily must be abolished at all levels. It must be! The arguments against don't allow room for nuance -- because how could they? -- they can't explore gray area here. But realistically it's all gray area, which is why these arguments never really stand up (which is unfortunate, IMO).
The best piece I have read on this subject remans THIS ONE, written in the wake of the Oink takedown in 2007. A couple of the author's more compelling points:
"iPods have become synonymous with music - and if I filled my shiny new 160gb iPod up legally, buying each track online at the 99 cents price that the industry has determined, it would cost me about $32,226. How does that make sense? It's the ugly truth the record industry wants to ignore as they struggle to find ways to get people to pay for music in a culture that has already embraced the idea of music being something you collect in large volumes, and trade freely with your friends."
"The point is that no matter how you feel about it on a moral level, it's already happened. It's too late now, and it's not the fault of the pirates, it's the result of technology. Someone invented the internet, someone invented MP3s, someone invented means of distributing MP3s, and all of that has changed the way a new generation thinks about music. I used to think like you, because at first, it really seemed like the wrong thing to do. Ultimately, taking something that someone created just because you can is wrong. But technology changes the marketplace - there was a time when calculators used to cost $100, now they cost ten cents. No one makes fortunes off of typewriters anymore, because computers made them obsolete ... You're right that a lot of people who steal music have the greedy, gimme-gimme mentality and don't support most of the artists they download. But it doesn't matter, because the technology continues to grow, and fighting against that growth has proven futile."
Joey, that's my essential issue with Lowery's argument, and every similar argument I've encountered. They seem to operate under the belief that if everyone -- or even just everyone who REALLY CARES -- chose to recalibrate their moral compasses (and with that, their behavior), the genie could be stuffed back in the bottle. But the genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle! And any argument that pretends otherwise is inherently flawed (IMO).
Good to know I'm not the only Koz fan who pressed his fiance on this issue! "Tupelo Honey" is more-than-worthy stand-in.
Agreed on "Trucker's Atlas." If I remember correctly, that was the first MM song he performed live (and thus the one that kicked off the idea for Tiny Cties), but I may be wrong.
Charlie,
My point was: The last decade -- post-initial breakup -- has not been kind to Billy Corgan. I loved Zwan but that band's breakup was as acrimonious as any I can remember. I liked Zeitgeist but it wasn't exactly an unqualified success. With Teargarden, it seemed he had totally lost the plot, and for many fans, the new Smashing Pumpkins were a million miles removed from the old band -- even though the old band was basically Billy, Jimmy and a couple props. Without Jimmy, it started to look like Billy and three randos.
I say this not to disparage the musicians, but to illustrate public perception. When many people look at the Pumpkins (or Zwan, for that matter), it's not a band; it's Billy, a female bass player, an Asian guitar player, and a white male drummer. The demographic specificity of that equation makes it appear, at least, that Billy assembles lineups based as much on looks as ability (not saying he does this, but it's definitely a theme). It's also worth noting that, aside from Billy, the entire lineup has been turned over pretty regularly:
James --> Jeff
D'Arcy --> Melissa --> Ginger Reyes --> Nicole Fiorentino
Jimmy --> Joey Waronker/Matt Cameron/Kenny Aranoff --> Jimmy --> Mike Byrne
This breakdown doesn't take into account Mary Star Of The Sea or TheFutureEmbrace, both of which -- artistically speaking -- could have been released as The Smashing Pumpkins without much uproar (and have entirely disparate lineups, save for JC). So does anybody besides Billy really matter? I honestly have no idea. Are the new guys contributing more in the studio? If so, excellent! The results are terrific. But to the portion of the fanbase that has drifted since Zeitgeist, the band behind Billy has no real identity. (Again, I say this not to disparage their work! I really like the new album, so whatever they are doing is working.)
Michael Roffman,
I replied to Michael_'s post below, but to address one of your points: Yes, his lyrics are corny as hell, but I've always found that to be the case with his lyrics, so I didn't mention it here. FWIW I didn't notice "The Celestials" to be overly corny (by BC's standards, at least) but I didn't look at lyric sheet, either. I stand by my assessment of the song's catchiness!
Michael_,
In my defense, I didn't say the Pumpkins haven't produced a good song since "1979"; I said "The Celestials" is the "catchiest" song the band has released since "1979" -- not exactly quantifiable, but I stand by it! There are numerous songs on Machina and Zeitgeist that I love (all of which are quite catchy, in fact), but "The Celestials" is catchier still.
Is this not the Pumpkins' best since Mellon Collie? Maybe I'm being too generous. But I look back, and as I see it, it's clearly better than Zeitgeist and Machina II, and IN MY OPINION better than Adore (which I admit in the review may not be a popular opinion, but I really don't like Adore). So for me, it's Machina vs. Oceania ... maybe not a slam dunk, but I think Oceania wins.
I agree with all your points regarding the Pumpkins' lack of identity and Corgan's personality issues, which is maybe why I used so many words up top trying to untangle those things (before getting to the music).
Michael_,
I neither could nor would attempt to replace Tom (who hasn't gone anywhere anyway!). I'm the site's new news editor. I used to edit/write here and here. I know/write more about metal than punk/hardcore but obviously there are lots of places those genres overlap.
I agree that Best New Track seems a little overly generous. I'm not sure how Pitchfork picks and chooses BNM, but as far as metal is concerned, at least, I'd guess they go for music with a broader appeal, hence Torche (whose new album I love) and Baroness and even WITTR, etc. But I'm really impressed by their metal coverage of late, and I'm not exactly surprised that Revenge didn't get a BNM tag.
As I said in my intro, Finally would be at 15 on this list. Of course it should be owned, and it has some very strong moments, but to me there's not much to say about it -- it feels inconsequential in comparison to anything else here.
Yoko, I was disappointed by Pitchfork's Tiny Cities review -- it seemed to treat the project as sacrilege or something -- but I remember other outlets being more open to the album. In any case, I return to that album even now. It is strange but spectacular IMO.
Alex, my favorite Kozelek cover is his version of Genesis' "Follow You Follow Me" from the compilation Shanti Project Collection. Fun (useless) fact: My wife and I danced to that song at our wedding!
(I should say though that, even though it's not my favorite Albarn project, I'd hardly call Gorillaz a "fail." This is an all-time great artist being discussed; even his weaker moments are more essential than many bands' entire catalogs.)
Rob, not at all -- I'm a huge Damon Albarn fan and I ranked these projects as I believed they deserved to be ranked (based on my own tastes). The best Gorillaz songs plainly rank among the best songs Albarn has ever produced. But their catalog as a whole is inconsistent, IMO, while I find Rocket Juice, Mali Music and The Good, The Bad And The Queen to be almost flawless albums. You could just as easily remove Gorillaz from this list entirely, and maybe I should have -- it's inherently unfair to compare six pretty obscure projects that produced one album apiece to one hugely successful project that produced four albums (and remixes).
That was just an appearance in the video, though, right? I was limiting myself to actual musical-performance contributions. (To that end, Scott just pointed out to me that Depp also played on the new Patti Smith album...)
All Around the World is the worst song on Be Here Now, and IMO it's also the song that derailed Oasis's career. Magic Pie is an awful song, too. It's a close race between those two. Fade In-Out is no worse than either (but it's probably the third-worst song on the album).
Comments