Smashing Pumpkins - Yay or Nay?

245

  Comments


  • I had never heard anything by them until 1979 started becoming a regular video on MTV/The Box.

    That was the only tune I liked..then I put it on compilation CD I made for myself and find myself constantly forwarding through.

    File under "It was good at the time"

  • KadinkKadink Mainstream hip-hop is losing its street edge 98 Posts
    I Like 'Cherub Rock' and can tolerate a couple others, but that goddamn doorbell song definitely brings up the bile and I, like Frank, wonder who is listening to bald dude grimacing in angst while singing profundities like 'what I choose is my choice' and actually sincerely enjoying it.

  • dukeofdelridgedukeofdelridge urgent.monkey.mice 2,453 Posts
    I use the same face when I sing their "today is the great-est, day I'veeverknown" as when I drop the 4NB'z "ondEYEsayd: HEY EY EY YEAYAHAH (ahwotsgoin on?)"

    I visit Kurt Cobain's bench weekly so I can talk shit on Smashing Pumpkins. Looking back on it, they seem fine, but we had TAD Mudhoney Melvins Nirvana bro Smashing Pumpkins was fourth cousins to Pearl Jam or some shit fuck it fuck you etc

    of course I saw Jane's Addiction a couple times and definitely took acid for one of them comeonbro of course who do you take me fer?

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    i ride for Gish and Siamese Dream. Some of the cuts on Mellon Collie are good, but the rest of the catalog is not celebrated by me.

  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    I can still maybe stand "1979" because it doesn't sound like most of their other stuff but it got played to death everywhere in the 90s.

  • kitchenknightkitchenknight 4,922 Posts
    First two albums are solid, stand-the-test of 20 years albums.

    Same can be said of Jane's. But, to jump off a second- Perry Farrell gave us two GREAT albums, plus two solid Porno for Pyros records and founded Lollapalooza, which has (like or not) become a cultural institution. That is fucking rad.

  • parallaxparallax no-style-having mf'er 1,266 Posts
    1979, but that's it.

    I always felt that the band members were wanky, especially Corrigan and Iha. But yeah, it didn't deter my enjoyment of 1979.

  • HorseleechHorseleech 3,830 Posts
    Never liked 'em, didn't really know anyone who did, though I'm sure plenty of normal people rode.

  • I ride for Gish....


  • Fred_GarvinFred_Garvin The land of wind and ghosts 337 Posts

  • PlantweedPlantweed 394 Posts
    A band for those who felt Nirvana were too "edgy." Room temperature rock with a uniquely painful goo-goo ga-ga vocal style.

  • skelskel You can't cheat karma 5,033 Posts
    Smashing: as in great, smashing, super?
    Or as in beating some poor fucking defenceless (note the c, batches) fruit and/or vegetable to a literal pulp?

    Cos either way it's not good.

  • JimsterJimster Cruffiton.etsy.com 6,919 Posts
    I remember watching "World of Sport" back in the 80s and it had a feature on some Kung Fu masters kicking shit out of a f*ckload of melons which were perched on high poles for target practice.

    It was pretty awesome.

    At this point, a realisation dawned upon me:

    MELONS > Pumpkins.

    I have neither seen nor heard anything to the contrary.

  • vintageinfantsvintageinfants 4,537 Posts
    my pumpkin smashing proclivity has a critical mass. like, ill be into 'tonight, tonight' for like a year, and then ill get sick of it and suddenly 'rocket' starts sounding really good to me. i don't know if this is part of ebb & floe of taste and climate, but history would dictate that i have the capacity for one smashing pumpkins song at any given time.

    b/w. ZWAN LOL

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Plantweed said:
    A band for those who felt Nirvana were too "edgy." Room temperature rock with a uniquely painful goo-goo ga-ga vocal style.

    Serious question....who was edgier....70's Ramones or 90's Nirvana

  • vintageinfantsvintageinfants 4,537 Posts
    ..

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Plantweed said:
    A band for those who felt Nirvana were too "edgy." Room temperature rock with a uniquely painful goo-goo ga-ga vocal style.

    Serious question....who was edgier....70's Ramones or 90's Nirvana

    I don't think the term "edgy" would describe either one.

    Ramones were good, primitive Rock N Roll. Good Rock N Roll is always primitive.

    Nirvana was a fairly tepid fusion of suburban alterno angst pop and some early 70s prog rock. Future classic rock radio.
    Grunge = edgeless glob.

  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Frank said:

    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    Yes, no edge to it at all...








  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    HarveyCanal said:
    Frank said:

    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    Yes, no edge to it at all...


    No, not at all. I've seen every single one of these bands live early on in the careers except Dickless who are by far the best of this bunch but still not too memorable and the vocals get kind of old halfway into the song. I'm unfamiliar with the rest of their catalog but from the clip you posted I'd prefer Silverfish for a similar style and better execution.

  • PlantweedPlantweed 394 Posts
    Hmmm. In the context of their times, I think Ramones would get the edge. Coming from Captain and Tenille and ELP it was a jolt to the system. Nirvana had many musical precedents. But they were both rock bands who wrote mostly traditional pop songs with "heavy" guitars. Like many NYC-area bands, Ramones embraced their Jewish/Italian doowop roots. Nirvana (while I like a few songs here and there) mostly reminded me of a watered-down Dinosaur Jr. if they were from Olympia instead of Amherst. Their popularity was wildly out of proportion to their talent and significance in the underground hierarchy. But the best bands don't usually make it big as they are ahead of their times. Someone else down the road cashes in.

  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Frank said:
    HarveyCanal said:
    Frank said:

    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    Yes, no edge to it at all...


    No, not at all. I've seen every single one of these bands live early on in the careers except Dickless who are by far the best of this bunch but still not too memorable and the vocals get kind of old halfway into the song. I'm unfamiliar with the rest of their catalog but from the clip you posted I'd prefer Silverfish for a similar style and better execution.

    Right, you have a different preference, grew up in a different place, had different influences, etc.

    But of course that gives you the right to excessively insult anyone who isn't lockstep with you.

    And trust me, you have every right. Just realize how much of a dick it makes you look like.

  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Plantweed said:
    Nirvana (while I like a few songs here and there) mostly reminded me of a watered-down Dinosaur Jr. if they were from Olympia instead of Amherst. Their popularity was wildly out of proportion to their talent and significance in the underground hierarchy. But the best bands don't usually make it big as they are ahead of their times. Someone else down the road cashes in.

    Where are y'all coming up with this bs?

    Yeah, people heard Nirvana...and I'm talking before Nevermind here...and loved them.

    They had already/simultaneously heard Dinosaur Jr. plenty and loved them too, but really not to the same widespread degree.

    But of course that is just some mistake of history...smh.

    It didn't really, you know, like actually happen.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Frank said:


    Nirvana was a fairly tepid fusion of suburban alterno angst pop and some early 70s prog rock. Future classic rock radio.
    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    I don't have a horse in this race, but how can any grunge band be considered prog rock?
    Or I should say, what elements of prog do you hear in grunge?

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    The line 'here we are now, entertain us' perfectly captured the moment.
    I would think any working dj could relate.

  • PlantweedPlantweed 394 Posts
    At first Nirvana weren't much more popular than label mates Mudhoney or even The Fluid (!) in real terms. They had an LP and a couple of singles that got press, but so did Tad. It wasn't until they were on Geffen that they hit it big. Thus, not underground anymore. Cobain even said himself that they were a pop band so it wasn't surprising to become popular, where if, say, Jesus Lizard got big that would really be significant. I don't care either way what people like, to each their own, but Nirvana has to hold responsibility for replacing Trixter, Danger Danger, and Jackyl with Bush, Creed, Stain'd...and Smashing Pumpkins.

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    HarveyCanal said:
    Frank said:
    HarveyCanal said:
    Frank said:

    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    Yes, no edge to it at all...


    No, not at all. I've seen every single one of these bands live early on in the careers except Dickless who are by far the best of this bunch but still not too memorable and the vocals get kind of old halfway into the song. I'm unfamiliar with the rest of their catalog but from the clip you posted I'd prefer Silverfish for a similar style and better execution.

    Right, you have a different preference, grew up in a different place, had different influences, etc.

    But of course that gives you the right to excessively insult anyone who isn't lockstep with you.

    And trust me, you have every right. Just realize how much of a dick it makes you look like.

    I've been going to alternative rock (how much I hate this term) shows since around '83. Back then pretty much every single US band that was even halfway relevant would tour Europe. Due to relatively high demand and short travel distances this was actually more lucrative to most than touring the US. The town I grew up in had a very active scene and whatever didn't make it into our neck of the woods we'd drive to Zurich, Munich, Frankfurt etc. If nobody else was going it wasn't uncommon for me to go spend most of my weekend on the train traveling up to Hamburg or to Berlin just to see a band that meant something to me at the time. I've seen mostly all of the earlier so called grunge bands and also most of the bands they frequently cited as their main influences so no, I don't think you can dismiss my opinion as misinformed. You may have a different taste and I'm sure a shit ton of squares who jumped onto the grunge wagon would vehemently disagree with me but in my opinion besides a few bands that incorrectly get lumped in with the so called grunge scene (like the for example the Melvins), none of this shit ever meant anything to me and to a lot of other people who've been following underground rock music since the early 80s.

  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Plantweed said:
    At first Nirvana weren't much more popular than label mates Mudhoney or even The Fluid (!) in real terms. They had an LP and a couple of singles that got press, but so did Tad. It wasn't until they were on Geffen that they hit it big. Thus, not underground anymore. Cobain even said himself that they were a pop band so it wasn't surprising to become popular, where if, say, Jesus Lizard got big that would really be significant. I don't care either way what people like, to each their own, but Nirvana has to hold responsibility for replacing Trixter, Danger Danger, and Jackyl with Bush, Creed, Stain'd...and Smashing Pumpkins.

    Bleach was plenty big. Again, while my circles loved them some Mudhoney very intensely, Nirvana struck a significantly bigger cord with their first album alone. Yeah, the next Geffen album was more pop produced and it brought in pop fans, but it's still got something like Territorial Pissings on it which is very much still in the pocket. Then with In Utero, they purposefully moved back toward edgier grounds. How you blame Nirvana for anything bad, let alone those horrible groups you mentioned is beyond me.

    Y'all kinda suck this week, more than usual.

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    LaserWolf said:
    Frank said:


    Nirvana was a fairly tepid fusion of suburban alterno angst pop and some early 70s prog rock. Future classic rock radio.
    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    I don't have a horse in this race, but how can any grunge band be considered prog rock?
    Or I should say, what elements of prog do you hear in grunge?

    Soundgarden to me sound like an inept low rent version of Led Zep while Pearl Jam (I have to go dis-infect my hands after typing their name) would be their involuntary parody.

  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Frank said:
    HarveyCanal said:
    Frank said:
    HarveyCanal said:
    Frank said:

    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    Yes, no edge to it at all...


    No, not at all. I've seen every single one of these bands live early on in the careers except Dickless who are by far the best of this bunch but still not too memorable and the vocals get kind of old halfway into the song. I'm unfamiliar with the rest of their catalog but from the clip you posted I'd prefer Silverfish for a similar style and better execution.

    Right, you have a different preference, grew up in a different place, had different influences, etc.

    But of course that gives you the right to excessively insult anyone who isn't lockstep with you.

    And trust me, you have every right. Just realize how much of a dick it makes you look like.

    I've been going to alternative rock (how much I hate this term) shows since around '83. Back then pretty much every single US band that was even halfway relevant would tour Europe. Due to relatively high demand and short travel distances this was actually more lucrative to most than touring the US. The town I grew up in had a very active scene and whatever didn't make it into our neck of the woods we'd drive to Zurich, Munich, Frankfurt etc. If nobody else was going it wasn't uncommon for me to go spend most of my weekend on the train traveling up to Hamburg or to Berlin just to see a band that meant something to me at the time. I've seen mostly all of the earlier so called grunge bands and also most of the bands they frequently cited as their main influences so no, I don't think you can dismiss my opinion as misinformed. You may have a different taste and I'm sure a shit ton of squares who jumped onto the grunge wagon would vehemently disagree with me but in my opinion besides a few bands that incorrectly get lumped in with the so called grunge scene (like the for example the Melvins), none of this shit ever meant anything to me and to a lot of other people who've been following underground rock music since the early 80s.

    Yes, everyone who liked grunge was a square. Thanks for playing.

  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Frank said:
    LaserWolf said:
    Frank said:


    Nirvana was a fairly tepid fusion of suburban alterno angst pop and some early 70s prog rock. Future classic rock radio.
    Grunge = edgeless glob.

    I don't have a horse in this race, but how can any grunge band be considered prog rock?
    Or I should say, what elements of prog do you hear in grunge?

    Soundgarden to me sound like an inept low rent version of Led Zep.

    Yes, they were inept. Anyone who liked them was an obvious retard. Thanks for playing.
Sign In or Register to comment.