New Smashing Pumpkins, Critic?

[Koopa W.]

I've always liked the Pumpkins. I'm gonna get this album next time I get iTunes credit. I really like Tarauntula, and Doomsday Clock.

[Luke]

[QUOTE=Ray][QUOTE=Luke]The Smashing Pumpkins without James and D'arcy is like a Beatles reunion with only Paul and Ringo.[/QUOTE]
But without the songwriting of George and John, the Beatles would not be the same.  Billy was/is the songwriter and brains behind everything that the Smashing Pumpkins have put out.  That being said I don't think it matters what the name of the band is; it's always going to be the Billy Corgan show.  He's already done Zwan with Chamberlain, plus his solo album.  He could have called both of them reunion albums if he had wanted to.  [/QUOTE]Which more or less tells me that the only reason this is a Smashing Pumpkins record is because he knew it would sell better. Name recognition.

[VideoGameCritic]

[QUOTE=Ray]  He's already done Zwan with Chamberlain, plus his solo album.  He could have called both of them reunion albums if he had wanted to. 
[/QUOTE]

I don't think so.  Zwan had a really distinct new sound, and Corgan's solo album was very artsy and introspective.  This new one is more guitar driven and mainstream in the tradition of the pumpkins.  I like it so far, but I do wish Darcy and James Iha had returned.

[BanjoPickles1]

Really, though, I don't think either of them would have even if Billy had asked them to. James Iha seems content doing what he's doing and D'arcy is essentially retired so where does that leave Billy and Jimmy? I mean, this new album sounds more like the classic pumpkins than Adore or Machina ever did so that sound really was/is Billy's. Also, this iteration of the Pumpkins MAY even be a bit better, live-wise. Go back and listen to some live clips of them from the 90's and some more recent clips and compare. In the 90's, they seemed to be very sloppy and Billy's vocals were out of tune with the music. Their more recent live work, though, seems very powerful, sharp, and Billy's singing more in tune these days. I think every Pumpkins fan would rather have the full lineup but, realistically, that is never going to happen and it's not all Billy's fault.

[Ray]

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic][QUOTE=Ray]  He's already done Zwan with Chamberlain, plus his solo album.  He could have called both of them reunion albums if he had wanted to. 
[/QUOTE]

I don't think so.  Zwan had a really distinct new sound, and Corgan's solo album was very artsy and introspective.  This new one is more guitar driven and mainstream in the tradition of the pumpkins.  I like it so far, but I do wish Darcy and James Iha had returned.
[/QUOTE]

True, but I don't think the Pumpkins had a traditional distinct style.  Siamese Dream had their traditional layered, guitar heavy sound, but Melloncollie was all over the place and Adore completely eschewed guitars altogether.  I just think that Billy writes what he's in the mood to write, and especially after his solo album tanked I think he felt this was a perfect time to "reunite" the Pumpkins.

[Michael Danehy]

Does anyone wish the Pumpkins had another singer? Corgan's voice is tolerable when it's being drowned out by guitars, but hearing him try to sing a ballad such as "Tonight Tonight" is painful. He can't hit any notes! He sounds like a tortured pig.

[BanjoPickles1]

Michael, I call this the "Bob Dylan" argument. Personally, with very few exceptions, I don't think anybody has touched upon Dylan's original versions, regardless of Dylan's nasally voice. How could the Pumpkins have a new lead singer since Billy essentially OWNS the band and, I'm assuming, the name that band is attached to. That would be like Roger Daltry booting Pete Townshend out of the band for a more outrageous guitar player. He CAN'T, seeing as how P.T. writes 100% of the material! I think Billy's voice works GREAT for the band and the band really plays to his strengths/weaknesses as a vocalist.

[Alienblue]

I find it funny that the one song someone does NOT like from The Terrific huge boobs...smashing pumpkins....is the one and ONLY song I love! "Tonight tonight" is a beautiful song and the video is fantastic (the whole 1920-30's space film thing) BUT I must admit, I am very hard of hearing and can only make out about a third of the words in and song. Like he says "Crucify and.."?
I can't hear the rest. That's why I like CDs that list the lyrics. (A firecracker exploded in my face when I was 16. I have tinitus..a ringing in my ears...and only about 45% of my original hearing.)

So when you write me MAKE SURE I CAN HEAR IT!

Eh, what was that sonny?

[The RPG Critic]

All right, just to add my $0.02, the best Smashing Pumpkins song in my humble opinion is easily Bury Me from the Gish album.

If you don't remember it, go listen now.  The drums are insane.

[Michael Danehy]

[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]

Michael, I call this the "Bob Dylan" argument. Personally, with very few exceptions, I don't think anybody has touched upon Dylan's original versions, regardless of Dylan's nasally voice. How could the Pumpkins have a new lead singer since Billy essentially OWNS the band and, I'm assuming, the name that band is attached to. That would be like Roger Daltry booting Pete Townshend out of the band for a more outrageous guitar player. He CAN'T, seeing as how P.T. writes 100% of the material! I think Billy's voice works GREAT for the band and the band really plays to his strengths/weaknesses as a vocalist.

[/QUOTE]

1.) Bob's voice is still more pleasant than Corgan's. He hits the notes.

2.) Corgan's voice fits the music best when there is a lot of guitar, etc. drowning it out. Or when it is something like "1979" in which his voice is more subdued. When you have a ballad such as "Tonight Tonight" that is supposed to be pretty and where Corgan's caterwauling is made prominent, it doesn't work. It would've been better if they divided the vocal duties with a better singer.