so was the pumpkin show THAT bad... ??

[smakawhat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102378.html?hpid=sec-artsliving

[sweetcell]

"YMMV"
 
 i thought it was a great show, definitely in my top 5 for the year so far... but low end of the top 5, might be bumped off depending how the rest of the year goes.  maybe i have more patience then these too-cool-for-school reviewers, but i didn't mind the 3.5 hours length at all... this seemed to be a common complaint.  i liked billy's guitar heroics, another negative in many people's books.  i didn't have a chance to see the pumpkins the first time 'round, so i have nothing to compare this show to.  some nay-sayers said that all the deco and mock-political shinanigans were trite, whereas i thought they added to the evening.  
 
 also, several things i enjoyed about that evening didn't happen on stage.  standing on the sidewalk talking with other fans was fun, and the post-show meet-up downstairs was a friggin' BLAST.
 
 finally, there was several things to not like about this show before a single note was played - it's not a "true reunion", billy is an egomaniac, its a nostalgia tour, yuenglings are $6, blah blah.  i got the impression that some hipsters walked into the club with their minds already made up.

[Bombay Chutney]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
 i got the impression that some hipsters walked into the club with their minds already made up.

ding ding ding.

[Mobius]

No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  That review seems written as an indictment of Corgan with evidence being peripheral things and preconceived notions.  Maybe the reviewer had a bad spot in the club and couldn't immerse himself in the music well enough to overcome his pre-conceived notions.
 
 The most telling thing was his statement that Bullet w/ Butterfly Wings and Zero were lacklaster.  Every 'classic' song other then maybe Today (which seemed more out of context in the current incarnation than) were hit out of the park in my opinion.  But hey, I even enjoyed Gossamer.
 
 Maybe the show was more of a long foreign film than a hollywood blockbuster.  It was exhausting and took patience at times.  Maybe there was an underlying meloncholy - the show was celebrating the release of an album being received with poor reviews and indifference; the scene and, well, the 'zeitgeist' in which band flourished is gone (not to mention two original members).  
 
 But the band was focused, unapologetic, unsentimental.  If you were close enough to the speakers it was easy for the rush of sound to overpower the doubts and the memories.  And like many a good foreign film the show was delivered by auteurs and the end result was a complicated mix of sadness, triumph, glory, disappointment, ennui and excitement and whatever . . . and was certainly a good show in my opinion.

[RustyOrgan]

I thought it was a GREAT show! If you're not into hanging out for 3+ hours then fucking leave already!!

[nkotb]

Fixed    
 
 

Originally posted by sweetcell:
 i got the impression that some fanboys walked into the club with their minds already made up.

Honestly, it really wasn't as bad as the Post review said.  I hate "Bullet with Butterfly Wings" on record, but found the song pretty strong live.  And there were definitely more highlights than the reviewer is letting on.  I thought "United States" was a great opener...it's a fucking pounding song, even if it is a little pointlessly long.  And like I said..."Starla."
 
 That said, I did find the second half of the show pretty trying, if not downright painful.  The new songs just sound like a band soullessly trying to sound like the Pumpkins, which is a shame since their sound is fairly unique (not original, mind you, but you can always tell a Smashing Pumpkins song).  And seriously, I can handle lengthy noodling, but "Gossamer" was honestly painful.
 
 But still, it was worth the money just for brief reliving of my teen years.  And even though the mock political ego trip was like throwing fuel on a fire, IMO, at least the money did get used to make the show an event: flags, shirts, posters, balloons, etc.  Just my two cents...

[walkonby]

i found it amusing that the author droned on about billy's ego like some planned state of outkast, when it was indeed the writer who let his own ego litter the white lines with blank words of a self important idea that "my style is what's important here folks."
 
 that is why writers of fiction despise writers of paper print.  this one needs to go back to the school of creativity and off the train of clinging to a mindset that you think a demographic of readers will cling to.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

God damn that Billy Corgan for charging much less then he could for tickets, having the audacity to give people free shwag and tshirts instead of making them buy it, and then making sure they got as long of a set as they band could play instead of walking off after 75 minutes. Damn you, Billy Corgan, damn you all to hell!

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
  God damn that Billy Corgan for charging much less then he could for tickets, having the audacity to give people free shwag and tshirts instead of making them buy it, and then making sure they got as long of a set as they band could play instead of walking off after 75 minutes. Damn you, Billy Corgan, damn you all to hell!

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.

This is all double speak. It's clear the writer did not like Smashing Pumpkins going in. If Interpol came to town and played for an hour, you'd blast the hell out of them for that. But the Pumpkins come and play for three hours and don't jack up ticket prices and they're "indulgent." It's so ridiculous - "the band played too long." Yes, because that's a complaint we hear so often.    :roll:  
 
 Even you have to see the absurdity about complaining about an arena band playing a club show, giving away free shirts and shwag to their fans, shaking a bunch of people's hands, and then playing for 3+ hours at a relatively low ticket price, regardless of their motives behind it.

[skevin007]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.
 
 
   

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
  God damn that Billy Corgan for charging much less then he could for tickets, having the audacity to give people free shwag and tshirts instead of making them buy it, and then making sure they got as long of a set as they band could play instead of walking off after 75 minutes. Damn you, Billy Corgan, damn you all to hell!

[/b]

Don't be a prick. How many bands of their magnitude would play 9 shows at the Orange peel and another 10 or so at Fillmore? They could have easily substituted these shows for much larger venues and MUCH higher ticket prices. I dont buy your publicity story...

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by Kevin Craig:
 Don't be a prick.

i take it you're new around here...
 
 after a while, one comes to appreciate this man's acidic humor and observations.  sorta.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Kevin Craig:
  Don't be a prick.

Telling Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer to not be a prick is like telling the Atlantic Ocean to not be so wet. If you hang around for a while, you'll come to appreciate that.    :p  
 
   

Originally posted by Kevin Craig:
 How many bands of their magnitude would play 9 shows at the Orange peel and another 10 or so at Fillmore? They could have easily substituted these shows for much larger venues and MUCH higher ticket prices. I dont buy your publicity story...

I'm sure the band is partially motivated by publicity. I think the low ticket prices ($20 in asheville with $1.60 ticket fees) are a goodwill gesture toward the fans, but at the same time, the mock rally was clearly to try and get some free press/marketing/etc. But the fact they are getting some publicity out of it doesn't make it a bad thing for the fans who DID get some benefit out of it - namely: posters, signs, tshirts, buttons, flags, etc.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Ok, I see your points. Good job.
 
 What writer doesn't have preconceived notions, either positive or negative, about a popular band going into a show?
 
 Regarding length of show: I've been to some 60 minute shows that seemed just about the right length in time. Other 60 minute shows have left me feeling ripped off.
 
 Very few bands can pull off a 3 hour show and not have it seem "indulgent". Even bands whose two hour shows I love. In this case, perhaps it was playing a 20 minute unreleased (if I read right) that stretched the show to 3 hours that was the indulgence.
 
 

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
   

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.

This is all double speak. It's clear the writer did not like Smashing Pumpkins going in. If Interpol came to town and played for an hour, you'd blast the hell out of them for that. But the Pumpkins come and play for three hours and don't jack up ticket prices and they're "indulgent." It's so ridiculous - "the band played too long." Yes, because that's a complaint we hear so often.     :roll:    
 
 Even you have to see the absurdity about complaining about an arena band playing a club show, giving away free shirts and shwag to their fans, shaking a bunch of people's hands, and then playing for 3+ hours at a relatively low ticket price, regardless of their motives behind it. [/b]

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Regarding length of show: I've been to some 60 minute shows that seemed just about the right length in time. Other 60 minute shows have left me feeling ripped off.
 
 Very few bands can pull off a 3 hour show and not have it seem "indulgent". Even bands whose two hour shows I love. In this case, perhaps it was playing a 20 minute unreleased (if I read right) that stretched the show to 3 hours that was the indulgence.

I see your point, but if a band only plays 45-60 minutes and people want more, tough. If a band plays 3 hours, and you want less, hey, you can leave. It's not as though they were holding back hit singles until after Gossamer (which, I'll admit, was my personal lowpoint of the evening).