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

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

True enough. I reckon I'd rather have a band error on the long side than the short side anyway.
 
 

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
   

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). [/b]

[nkotb]

That's hitting the nail on the head.  Had they skipped that song entirely, filling in another 4-5 tracks instead, it would've been a much better flow.  But the jamming wasn't even really inventive or intriguing, IMO.  
 
 My other problem regarding length was just a personal one.  Back in the day, the Pumpkins weren't much of a marathon band; hell, Billy would lose much of his voice early on.  I just left feeling like the band were playing the songs because they had to rather than wanting to.  Granted, I'm not a huge fan of "Fuck You" on record, but it should've killed live.  Instead, it just seemed to be paint by numbers.  
 
 Maybe it was the intense touring they're on (9 shows at the same place, then moving on to 10 shows out west), but by the end, they just seemed worn out.  But as I've said...that's just me.
 
 

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
 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.

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
  It's clear the writer did not like Smashing Pumpkins going in.

not really ... what IS clear is that all the fanboys around here were going to LOVE the show (BEST SHOW EVAH!!) no matter what happened ... i'm sure the critic's preconceived notions trended much closer towards the objective side than everyone else's here, which is why i appreciated his take on the evening

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  not really ... what IS clear is that all the fanboys around here were going to LOVE the show (BEST SHOW EVAH!!) no matter what happened ... i'm sure the critic's preconceived notions trended much closer towards the objective side than everyone else's here, which is why i appreciated his take on the evening

In my mind, "they band played too long" is not a valid argument. I hate Phish, but in my litany of complaints against Phish, I don't include, "man, their shows are indulgently long."

[Mobius]

Few, if any, people here said it was the best show evah.  And the Post article seems just as bad as it is biased in the opposite direction.  I think you like the article b/c it summed up what you hoped the show would be when you justified not going.  
 
 I'm not saying any opinion isn't ok or right, and others agree with you (and the Post) but how can you say the article is right on if you weren't there?  It didn't reflect what I experience or what any of the people I was with experienced.

[nkotb]

Seriously Hoya, who are you...Rhett?!?!    
 
 I KID!
 
 

Originally posted by Mobius:
 how can you say the article is right on if you weren't there?

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

That all may be true, but I think the Post write did a better job of explaining why the show sucked than anybody on here did of explaining why is was "fan-fucking-tastic". I guess that's why he's getting paid to write his review and we're wasting our work time writing about it on this board.
 
 

Originally posted by Mobius:
  Few, if any, people here said it was the best show evah.  And the Post article seems just as bad as it is biased in the opposite direction.  I think you like the article b/c it summed up what you hoped the show would be when you justified not going.  
 
 

[Bombay Chutney]

Maybe - just maybe - they did the whole political rally thing because they thought it might be kind of fun.  And if it was for publicity..well...good for them.  It was their big cd-release party.  What's wrong with a little marketing on the day of your first cd release in many years?  Especially if everyone involved gets to have a little fun.  Jeez - Lighten up people.
 
 It wasn't the greatest show of all time.  It was far from the worst.  It was definitely a really fun time.

[walkonby]

since i myself am one, i feel the pumpkins fan base should be called the army of drama queens, following the leadership skills of the head practitioner himself.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I wasn't criticizing their marketing techniques (though it all reads rather corny to me personally), rather I was criticising the disingenuous of saying how the whole show was one big gift to the fans.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
  Maybe - just maybe - they did the whole political rally thing because they thought it might be kind of fun.  And if it was for publicity..well...good for them.  It was their big cd-release party.  What's wrong with a little marketing on the day of your first cd release in many years?  Especially if everyone involved gets to have a little fun.  Jeez - Lighten up people.
 
 It wasn't the greatest show of all time.  It was far from the worst.  It was definitely a really fun time.

[Shadrach]

That write up definitely made me question how The Post, or any other publication, decides who to send out to do the reviews for what shows. Clearly you couldn't send an uber fan because in their eyes the band could do no wrong. That said I would think you should at the very least send someone who has some level of appreciation for the band they are reviewing. When reading that write up is was pretty clear that the writer had some negative preconceived notions about the band, their music and Billy Corgan himself. So why did he bother coming? Just to confirm his distaste for The Pumpkins? Makes no sense to me.
 
 This paragraph in his article clearly spells out that he already has a serious dislike for Smashing Pumpkins: "The inclusion of a six-song mini-set of acoustic material was as inevitable as it was intolerable. Corgan's nasal wail is tough enough to take when it's accompanied by massive guitars and thundering drums -- and that's on record, with the assistance of studio trickery. In a live setting, with nothing but an acoustic guitar to accompany his voice and embarrassing lyrics ("This is the song I've been singing my whole life / I've been waiting like a knife / To cut open your heart / And bleed my soul to you" -- there are so, so many more where that came from), it was borderline torturous. Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."

[ggw]

Originally posted by Shadrach:
 "Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."

That was a great line.
 
 I thought he should have coined a fancy sub-genre name with it:
 
 Noriega-Rock
 
 Psych-ops-Rock

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

But can't you have a level of appreciation for a band AND have negative preconceived notions about the band?
 
 I appreciate the mark Led Zeppelin left on the music world. And I appreciate the fact that they're better than many bands that followed their trail.
 
 Yet, I fucking hate Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant's annoying wail of a voice and his whole squeeze the juice from my lemon legs schtick. You couldn't pay me enough to see them live, either now, or five years after their last show.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Shadrach:
  That write up definitely made me question how The Post, or any other publication, decides who to send out to do the reviews for what shows. Clearly you couldn't send an uber fan because in their eyes the band could do no wrong. That said I would think you should at the very least send someone who has some level of appreciation for the band they are reviewing. When reading that write up is was pretty clear that the writer had some negative preconceived notions about the band, their music and Billy Corgan himself. So why did he bother coming? Just to confirm his distaste for The Pumpkins? Makes no sense to me.
 
 This paragraph in his article clearly spells out that he already has a serious dislike for Smashing Pumpkins: "The inclusion of a six-song mini-set of acoustic material was as inevitable as it was intolerable. Corgan's nasal wail is tough enough to take when it's accompanied by massive guitars and thundering drums -- and that's on record, with the assistance of studio trickery. In a live setting, with nothing but an acoustic guitar to accompany his voice and embarrassing lyrics ("This is the song I've been singing my whole life / I've been waiting like a knife / To cut open your heart / And bleed my soul to you" -- there are so, so many more where that came from), it was borderline torturous. Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."

[Brian_Wallace]

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
  ...complaining about an arena band...

Arena?  Really?  In 2007?  Slow down.  Let's wait until first week sales come in for "Zeitgeist." Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  I'm sure 1997-era Smashing Pumpkins was a thrilling experience in an arena (you know back when they had the blonde on bass and the guiarist who...) but ten years on...?
 
 Actually, I just came up with a great idea.  Why don't the Smashing Pumpkings and Marilyn Manson headline an arena tour together!  They both have new albums out!
 
 And they could set it up like dueling political conventions.  Corgan vs. Manson.  Each with their own set and their own "delegates."  Flags, placards, buttons. CSNBC could cover it...

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Mobius:
 I think you like the article b/c it summed up what you hoped the show would be when you justified not going.

i justified not going to the show because i don't really like much that billy corgan (excuse me, the smashing pumpkins) has created in the last 12 years or so
 
 i liked the article because it was well-written, snarky, immensely funny, and an antidote to the recent flood of fawning posts
 
 

Originally posted by Mobius:
 I'm not saying any opinion isn't ok or right, and others agree with you (and the Post) but how can you say the article is right on if you weren't there?  It didn't reflect what I experience or what any of the people I was with experienced.

you're putting words in my mouth ... i never said the concert review was "right on", just that i enjoyed it ... i did say a little while ago that STE's fantastic defenestration of 'zeitgeist' was "right on," but that's because i've (unfortunately) listened to the album
 
 the whole setup of the concert was created for die-hard fans, which is totally and utterly cool (honestly, i'm not shitting on you for liking the pumpkins) and which is why the washpost review didn't jibe with your fellow concert-goers
 
 i was just happy to hear about the concert from someone who had even the slightest possibility of objectivity after spending a week reading this board, that's all.