Evolution Of The Pumpkins (Part I)
Mark Andrew Hamilton
Part I: "...we used to be a new wave band..." 1988-1990
There has been quite a bit of discussion on this newsgroup as to how the
Pumpkins have been changing and evolving into their present incarnation,
and so I propose a full in-depth conversation on each of the evolutionary
steps that SP have followed -- which ought to keep us occupied until the
new album comes out (if there is enough participation and intelligent
points raised).
Starting off the conversation, is my personal interpretation of the band's
early days in the Chicago underground from 1988, until the beginnings of
the takeoff in 1990. The main purpose of this post is simply to begin
conversation and discussion, simply outlining possible areas for
examination. The moves through musical styles and business decisions
within the band is a particular area that I'm personally interested in.
After facing rejection and complete failure in their early projects (Billy
with The Marked, and James with Snaketrain -- and I don't think Jimmy's
formative group JP And The Cats really did anything extraordinary either)
Billy and James joined forces in 1988. We all know the stories of the
early days: playing with a drum machine, performing at polish bars,
opening for Jane's Addiction, finding Jimmy and D'arcy, etc. etc. etc.
The early musical output of the band seems to be a look-back at what has
gone before -- jumping fully completely into new wave, when the genre was
nearly absent from the airwaves. And doing so in the "Chicago scene",
which wasn't at all condusive to this jumpy little new wave group, it's a
wonder that the band managed to stay together to make it to the next step.
Take a listen to 'With You', 'My Dahlia' or 'Snap (If I Could)', and then
picture Molly Ringwald dancing on the big screen -- the songs fit the
early '80s better than the later part of the decade, and seems like a
flashback.
But there was also another side to the band. The Rawk Monster. And the
first true sign of what is to come appears with the 'I Am One' 7", and the
demo songs 'C'Mon', 'Psychedelic', 'Love' and 'East'. A conflict seems to
begin in Billy's songwriting, torn between 'She' and 'Spiteface'. Rawk
and new-wave. We all know what won out in the long run.
What? Only *two* sides to the Pumpkins? Heck no. A friend of mine has
described this aspect of SP's music as "the pretty side", and it's an apt
label. 'Egg', and 'Mother' fit perfectly -- just Billy and his acoustic,
and IMHO the deepest lyrics of the early demos. In the early years,
Billy's face as a romantic comes through (still 7 years until he screams
that "love is suicide").
The song that sticks out the most on these early tapes, for myself, is
'C'Mon'. Showing that SP's metamorphosis into the "kings of doom" was
transformation begun early in their career, 'C'Mon' also features the
first sign of Billy's misanthropic side -- not everything is love and
Molly Ringwald anymore. And so begins the gradual near-elimination of
outright new wave presented by the Pumpkins -- the Blondie records swiped
aside for Black Sabbath and Judas Priest.
'Nothing And Everything' cements this transformation along with
'Spiteface'. Billy's pissed, and not gonna take it anymore. He's on his
own, and no longer afraid of pussyfooting around about it.
And so, the first major breakthrough (aside by playing with Jane's
Addiction) in the indie music scene -- Sub Pop's offer for a 7" and 12"
with the band. The 'Tristessa' 12" shows all 3 sides of the band on one
slab o' wax. The new Rawk Monster rears it's head on the title track,
while "the Pretty Side" pops up on 'La Dolly Vita'. The bonus
'Honeyspider' shows the band's new-wave roots.
Suddenly, the Pumpkins were cool. They were typically shunned by their
peers in Chicago (not fitting into the WaxTrax! and punk scene), and so
their first foot-in-the-door move fittingly comes from outside of the
city, across the country in Seattle. But now with *three* styles of music
at their disposal.
...And so the stage is set...
Alright, now join on in... Bring up anything regarding the early
pre-'Gish' years that you find fitting to the discussion. Of course there
are going to be varying opinions on the formative years, but let's try and
keep those on a debate level, instead of transforming it into a personal
flame war -- we can't all agree on *everything*, now can we?
So, there it goes...
Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
**Mark Andrew Hamilton**
<maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
<MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
*************Why is it that all non-conformists look the same?************
**I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in rhythm.**
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
ApathyO
lets see... Billy once said he hates C'mon now..
if that means anything to anyone.
jas...@noesis.zone.org
On Sun, 11 May 1997, Mark Andrew Hamilton wrote:
> Part I: "...we used to be a new wave band..." 1988-1990
> and so I propose a full in-depth conversation on each of the evolutionary > steps that SP have followed
let's do it. surprised no one else has jumped into this. very nice
post, mark.
> After facing rejection and complete failure in their early projects >(Billy> with The Marked, and James with Snaketrain
i disagree. i would submit that these bands were *never* meant for
stardom, or even meant to be liked. where they were coming from,
anything(a gig, a demo tape) was success compared to what had previously
come before(nothing). let me give you what i think to be failure in this
musical context:
-your band is signed to a mjaor label -the label promotes the hell out of
you -the record comes out, ads are placed, mtv is actually willing to
show the video -you tour like crazy, you do meet&greets, you do all the
radio promo stuff
and
-still you don't sell any records and are eventually dropped by the label.
*that* to me would be failure. what billy and james were doing at the
time was simply learning, evolving. another example:
-i grew up with jeremy enigk(sunny day real estate). we went to the same
high school(til he dropped out), hung out in the same crowd. i watched
that guy go through about a dozen *really* bad punk rock bands before he
got to sunny day real estate. i watched him play in crappy little halls
and houses all over seattle, screaming his lungs out. because none of
those bands really took off certainly doesn't mean that they were
failures, or that he was a failure. it was all a building block, a
stepping stone towards something greater. and i think that is the way we
should look at billy and james' previous bands.
> early days: playing with a drum machine,
i love that this has come full circle now. it seems too perfect.
> The bonus 'Honeyspider' shows the band's new-wave roots.
ya think? hmm, i don't really think of it as new wave. splittin hairs i
guess though:)
> Suddenly, the Pumpkins were cool. They were typically shunned by their
> peers in Chicago (not fitting into the WaxTrax! and punk scene),
don't forget the touch and go noise scene(jesus lizard etc). those bands
really hated them, i would imagine.
>but let's try and
> keep those on a debate level, instead of transforming it into a personal
> flame war
YEAH!
others?
jason petrait
jas...@noesis.zone.org
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark Andrew Hamilton
On Tue, 13 May 1997 jas...@noesis.zone.org wrote:
> let's do it. surprised no one else has jumped into this. very nice
> post, mark.
>
*sheepish grin* Danke. =) I guess those 'SUBSTANCE' posts got to me, so I
decided to create some of my own...
>
> i disagree. i would submit that these bands were *never* meant for
> stardom, or even meant to be liked. where they were coming from,
> anything(a gig, a demo tape) was success compared to what had previously
> come before(nothing). let me give you what i think to be failure in this
> musical context:
>
[some slight snippage]
> those bands really took off certainly doesn't mean that they were
> failures, or that he was a failure. it was all a building block, a
> stepping stone towards something greater. and i think that is the way we
> should look at billy and james' previous bands.
>
I suppose that you have a point with this, but after hearing the demos for
Snaketrain, and Billy's own comments on The Marked, I don't think there
was really *any* success at all (and not speaking about commercially here
-- but artistically). Listening to the earliest recordings known of the
band, it is sometimes surprising that they have become the musical
geniuses of today. A bit of the early SP demo material simply plods along
without very much substance (eg. 'Sun'), so think of the artistic
"failures" (maybe too harsh of a word, I suppose... sorry! :-) from even
*before* these... But yes, you are correct about the early days being the
stepping stones to what we have now -- pretty much my whole intention of
beginning this discussion was to describe and explain exactly *how* they
came to this musical point. (Such as how 'Apathy's Last Kiss' leads to
'Glynis' which leads to 'Whir', etc...)
>
> i love that this has come full circle now. it seems too perfect.
>
*exactly* what I thought about 'Eye' when I first heard it. It's New
Wave, _not_ techno! It's just a return back to the very beginnings of the
band. And what a better time to do so! After the events of last summer,
a return to the start-off musical point (with a *drum machine*, remember)
is oddly fitting.
>
> ya think? hmm, i don't really think of it as new wave. splittin hairs i
> guess though:)
>
I suppose. :) But it definitely does contain some elements of new wave in
its presentation and structure. (Mark, Music PhD. ;-)
>
> don't forget the touch and go noise scene(jesus lizard etc). those bands
> really hated them, i would imagine.
>
*that's* the name... I just couldn't for the life of me think of that
label's name... Yes, definitely. The whole "3 minute" pop-punk scene of
Chicago wouldn't be a very condusive environment to Billy's epic musings.
"Hey Pumpkins! In the time it takes you to play 'Starla', we're done our
entire album!"
>
> YEAH!
>
> others?
>
Yeah... C'mon! Any time now... =) Getting the response I've gotten about
this post already has been nice, but it would be 10X better if you all
jumped into the conversation as well... =)
Andrew Miller
In article <8635133...@dejanews.com>, <jas...@noesis.zone.org> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 11 May 1997, Mark Andrew Hamilton wrote:
>> After facing rejection and complete failure in their early projects >(Billy> with The Marked, and James with Snaketrain
>
>stardom, or even meant to be liked. where they were coming from,
>anything(a gig, a demo tape) was success compared to what had previously
>come before(nothing). let me give you what i think to be failure in this
>musical context:
well, i don't know if the marked was meant for failure. think back to the
time period. billy has just graduated from glenbard north and despite the
fact that he was smart enough to go to college, decides to pack up his
guitar and head down to tampa florida to live out what he probably perceived
as his ultimate fantasy at the time. to borrow from cake, he hoped to
live "the rock'n'roll lifestyle" he had probably been daydreaming about
since he realized he could play the guitar. to say that billy never believed
the marked was going to go anywhere is silly. it didn't go anywhere, the band
broke up and billy moved back to chicago.
the marked was a learning experience, no doubt. after a time billy came
back to chicago with his tail between his legs and moved in with his
dad. certainly the lessons he gained from his time with the marked as he
bided his time waiting for the right opportunity to come along. no doubt
his "failure" with the marked was a big influence on the formative stages
of the smashing pumpkins.
>
>-your band is signed to a mjaor label -the label promotes the hell out of
>you -the record comes out, ads are placed, mtv is actually willing to
>show the video -you tour like crazy, you do meet&greets, you do all the
>radio promo stuff
>
>and
>
>-still you don't sell any records and are eventually dropped by the label.
that's a much different type of failure. obviously the fear of this kind
of failure led to billy's breakdown during the recording of siamese dream.
the stakes are ever so much higher when you a signed band with expectations
of sales than when you are a bar band with a four track demo tape that you give
away after shows.
(just a thought...do you suppose marked demos still exist in billy's fabled
box o' stuff? it would be such a trip to hear them...)
>-i grew up with jeremy enigk(sunny day real estate). we went to the same
>high school(til he dropped out), hung out in the same crowd. i watched
>that guy go through about a dozen *really* bad punk rock bands before he
>got to sunny day real estate. i watched him play in crappy little halls
>and houses all over seattle, screaming his lungs out. because none of
>those bands really took off certainly doesn't mean that they were
>failures, or that he was a failure. it was all a building block, a
>stepping stone towards something greater. and i think that is the way we
>should look at billy and james' previous bands.
wow, you know a rock star, petrait? you're so cool. :)
anyhow, it certainly says a lot about jeremy that he kept the dream alive
through a dozen bad punk bands. each time he quit one band to join the
next he probably did it with the hope that "this'll be the one that'll do
something more than play bars and frat houses".
this brings to mind that new michael jordan, inc. commercial i saw over the
weekend while i was watching the playoffs. basically the gist of the
commercial is "I've missed X shots, I've missed X last second shots...blah
blah blah. I succeed because I've failed." we all learn something from
our failures. life is one big learning experience for some of us. and
so while billy and michael jordan and all of us have failed in the past,
we learn from that failure and use that knowledge the next time the same
situation presents itself. we fail, we learn, we try again.
i guess the biggest tragedy is when we give up after we fail. just think if
billy had decided rock'n'roll was never going to get him anywhere after
the marked. well, i wouldn't be writing this, for one...
andy
you and i high in the sky
--
* email: and...@tdl.com
* homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm + know it + use it + love it
* The Official Listessa Homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm/listessa
* "The bitterness of one who's left alone" -- Smashing Pumpkins - "Disarm"
jas...@noesis.zone.org
On Tue, 13 May 1997, Mark Andrew Hamilton wrote:
>Listening to the earliest recordings known of the
> band, it is sometimes surprising that they have become the musical
> geniuses of today. A bit of the early SP demo material simply plods >along without very much substance (eg. 'Sun'),
some of it? i really can't listen to any of it. it all seems pretty
subpar to me, but that's just personal opinion, i realize. these demos
are interesting, for me, as a reference point, but not as songs that i'd
really put on and listen to.
i think the real turning point for the band was the demo that included
daydream, i am one, and rhinoceros. i can just imagine it(and i love
to): one day something inside billy just CLICKED, and he's never looked
back since. it's like something just happened(god come down to him in a
dream? sell his soul to the devil? make a deal with the angels of rock n
roll?). it's a great image, and really, he's written amazing music ever
since. everything before that is interesting as history, but nothing
more.
please stamp a big IMHO over that last paragraph.
> pretty much my whole intention of
> beginning this discussion was to describe and explain exactly *how* they
> came to this musical point. (Such as how 'Apathy's Last Kiss' leads to
> 'Glynis' which leads to 'Whir', etc...)
oh yeah, let's do that.
the songs in this grouping:
-obscured, whir, glynis, apathy's last kiss
any others?
what we know:
that obscured was written before the fall of 91(it was played 9.91). we
could possibly even deduce that it was written earlier, or the lyrics
were around in some form, because of the lull inside cover.
which song do you(anyone) think went first? how do these songs fit
together? are these most brilliant 4 songs ever or what?
>The whole "3 minute" pop-punk scene of
> Chicago wouldn't be a very condusive environment to Billy's epic >musings.
> "Hey Pumpkins! In the time it takes you to play 'Starla', we're done >our entire album!"
i've been living in san diego for about 3 months now, and where i live
there is this serious connection to chicago. out of all the cities in
the world chicago has the highest amount of people in this building(there
are about 30 people where i live/work in this communal environment). i
met a hiphop white girl rap chick, a couple of old-time ravers, a punk
rocker, a studio nerd, and somebody else who's uncatagorizable right now.
what do all these chicago people have in common? they all HATE the
smashing pumpkins. pretty funny. and i'm this boy from seattle who's
supposed to like soundgarder and alice in chains, and i of ocurse love
the sp and don't like my hometown bands...funny, innit?
jason petrait
jas...@noesis.zone.org
On 14 May 1997, Andrew Miller wrote:
> fact that he was smart enough to go to college, decides to pack up his
> guitar and head down to tampa florida to live out what he probably >perceived >as his ultimate fantasy at the time.
i wonder why tampa. did he have family there or something. i (thank
god) haven't memorized the "billy life story" yet, so this one makes
little sense. i mean, what, "Tampa bay, rock and roll hotbed" ? odd...
>to say that billy never believed
> the marked was going to go anywhere is silly. it didn't go anywhere, >the >band broke up and billy moved back to chicago.
i think the thing we're forgetting here is that he indeed had a 19 year
old mentality. any 19 year old who sits around dreaming of the day
s/he's successful and rich instead of working on their songs is
absolutely and fatally doomed. the songs. that's where i'm sure, at
that point, he put all his energy. they needed a hell of a lot more work
than his "career." :)
the kind of bands that have that mentality from the start either end up
angry and broken up or they move to LA and become a hair metal band. i'm
not saying that later billy didn't start thinking about succeeding, but
around the time he was 20 he had more important things to keep in
mind(like not sucking royally).
> wow, you know a rock star, petrait? you're so cool. :)
actually, i know three, but i will make no more mention of them, for fear
of sounding like you-know-who, someone we all know and love. let's just
say i went to THE rock and roll highschool of all time.
> each time he quit one band to join the
> next he probably did it with the hope that "this'll be the one that'll >do >something more than play bars and frat houses".
i would say that instead jeremy, or billy, or whoever, instead thinks,
"this'll be the one where i write songs that are full and complete and
cathartic and change people's lives and are remembered for years to come.
and maybe i'll stop playing in frats too."
it's a jinx if you only think commercially first, though i'll be the
first to admit that i have framed this discussion in mostly commercial
terms, esp w/ example 1.
> i guess the biggest tragedy is when we give up after we fail.
well put.
John Mulhausen
if you ask me, all the '89 songs generally tend to plain fucking suck,
and seem almost too premature to even contemplate. i stick by laura
ann's "crawl before you walk" explanation. to pick apart those old songs
is like trying to determine how a fetus is going to behave after it is
born and turns 13. the only reason we can even do it at all is because
we know the ending.
-john
--
webpage url:
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/johnqrs/
email address:
joh...@sprynet.com
John Mulhausen
Mark Andrew Hamilton wrote:
>
> ...But you can still see how 'C'Mon'-type riffage and musical structure
> have been expanded by Billy & Co. throughout the years... no?
>
> Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
>
> **Mark Andrew Hamilton**
> <maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
> <MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
>
> *************Why is it that all non-conformists look the same?************
> **I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in rhythm.**
> *****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
>
>
> > lets see... Billy once said he hates C'mon now..
> > if that means anything to anyone.
PS:
nice addition to the conversation, onica.
Mark Andrew Hamilton
...Kind of like how I'm sure he now *despises* the big "MTV hits", eh? =)
Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
**Mark Andrew Hamilton**
<maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
<MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
*************Why is it that all non-conformists look the same?************
**I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in rhythm.**
*********Jackboot: The SP Boot Page - spaa.simplenet.com/jackboot*********
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
On 14 May 1997, ApathyO wrote:
> i can see it... but thats what he said.. artist's are real funny that way
>
>
Johan van den Dorpe
dOn Tue, 13 May 1997, Mark Andrew Hamilton wrote:
> > i love that this has come full circle now. it seems too perfect.
> *exactly* what I thought about 'Eye' when I first heard it. It's New
> Wave, _not_ techno! It's just a return back to the very beginnings of the
> band. And what a better time to do so! After the events of last summer,
> a return to the start-off musical point (with a *drum machine*, remember)
This is kinda cool... I remember in one of the vast and illustrious
post-MCIS release interviews with Billy talking about what they wanted to
do next, and getting bored with the rock thing, they feel like they're
about to do something exciting, they felt like they were around Gish, a
powerful dynamic musical unit (rock unit in the case of Gish) ... He also
made the analogy of it being like having one foot nailed to the floor ...
"And as the walls come down and as I look in your eyes,
My fear begins to fade, recalling all of the times I have died and will die.
It's all right.. I don't mind." - tool, H
Chris Taylor
>-obscured, whir, glynis, apathy's last kiss
>any others?
Sweet Sweet?
Chris
Listening to: Nine Inch Nails - I Do Not Want This
"I raise my glass to the B-Side," - Sloan
"The naked mole rats will rule the world," - Billy Corgan
- The Smashing Pumpkins Presentation Page -
http://members.tripod.com/~ChrisTaylor/index.htm
Andrew Miller
In article <337BE4...@sprynet.com>,
John Mulhausen <joh...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>if you ask me, all the '89 songs generally tend to plain fucking suck,
>and seem almost too premature to even contemplate. i stick by laura
>ann's "crawl before you walk" explanation. to pick apart those old songs
>is like trying to determine how a fetus is going to behave after it is
>born and turns 13. the only reason we can even do it at all is because
>we know the ending.
yeah, we do know the ending and that's why this is fun to think about
and to discuss. i wouldn't put a blanket over the pre-Gish stuff and
say, this all sucks and is completely negligible. i can't get excited
by 90% of the pre-Gish stuff, in fact, i don't even own any pre-Gish stuff
except for East & Spiteface which i stuck on the end of the original '95
Reading Fest boot after eric agnew let me tape his copy. the rest i listen
to occasionally when i'm at work thanks to provost's archive and the T1
connection i enjoy there.
okay, lets take Sun. i'm not quite sure where this song fits in the
timeline, but to me it sounds like one of the originals, written round the
time of My Dahlia, She, etc. when i listen to Sun, i can hear a musical
theme that leads to East and then Rhinoceros. i'm not a musician, so i
can't explain this better than it just feels like there is a progression
in those three songs. maybe its the bass line, maybe its the spacey feel
that dominates all three. i don't know. maybe Sun does suck, and i wouldn't
take a bullet defending the genius of Sun, but in my mind, within Sun is
a glimmer of what is to come.
but lets say that in actuality, i'm right and that billy wrote Sun first,
then after playing it for a period of time, wrote another song in the same
vein and called it East and then took that and wrote what in my opinion is
the first great corgan masterpiece, Rhinoceros. if this is the case then
there is a lot that can gained by looking at the past and how it led to
the pumpkins as they appeared on Gish.
Gish wasn't made in a vacuum....all the sucky pre-Gish stuff led to the
Gish stuff...maybe not all of it...obviously the Pumpkins pretty much
rejected the new wavey stylings of She and My Dahlia by 1991, but other
early stuff is very much in tune with what we hear on Gish. as billy says
on vieuphoria, "we _used_ to be a new wave band". what is most interesting
about the pre-Gish era is to trace the roots of the pumpkins sound we
have all come to know and love. the "pumpkins sound" wasn't born out of a
vacuum inside Smart Studios on East Washington Ave in Madison, Wisconsin
during the winter of '91 and that's why the subject of this thread is the
_Evolution_ of the Pumpkins, not the Spontaneous Generation of the Pumpkins.
andy
you and i high in the sky
--
* email: and...@tdl.com
* homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm + know it + use it + love it
* The Official Listessa Homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm/listessa
* "Damn TV!! Ruined my...um...um..." -- Bart Simpson
Mark Andrew Hamilton
...By golly you're right... Don't know how we missed that one. There
seems to be a bit of a 'Cherub Rock' lineage as well... (but we'll get to
that later).
Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
**Mark Andrew Hamilton**
<maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
<MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
*************Why is it that all non-conformists look the same?************
**I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in rhythm.**
*********Jackboot: The SP Boot Page - spaa.simplenet.com/jackboot*********
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Chris Taylor wrote:
> >-obscured, whir, glynis, apathy's last kiss
>
> Sweet Sweet?
Mark Andrew Hamilton
...I differ somewhat slightly on the demos. Sure, some of it ain't too
great, but there is some highly interesting stuff there in the early days.
And these songs are the foundation for 'Gish', so they can't just be
entirely thrown out.
It's also where *that sound* comes from... The way Billy rolls his notes
on the guitar (eg. 'Egg') would become a main SP, uh, trademark in these
later years...
And I still think that 'C'Mon' and 'East' would have fit in perfectly on
'Gish'. Go ahead, give it a listen -- play those two in-between songs on
'Gish', and the flow still remains.
Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
**Mark Andrew Hamilton**
<maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
<MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
*************Why is it that all non-conformists look the same?************
**I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in rhythm.**
*********Jackboot: The SP Boot Page - spaa.simplenet.com/jackboot*********
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
tommy
A friend of mine e-mailed me and said that he saw and met Billy at the
Asheville Civic
Center in Asheville NC. He mentioned only that Billy was there doing some
kind
of a publicity thingy. (End of letter.) Does anyone have any idea what my
friend
was talking about? He happens to be incommucado for a few days and I'm
unable
to get a full answer from him.
Scarlette
can't help anything beyond ourselves
Mark Andrew Hamilton <maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.96.970517...@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> ...By golly you're right... Don't know how we missed that one. There
> seems to be a bit of a 'Cherub Rock' lineage as well... (but we'll get to
> that later).
>
>
> Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
>
> **Mark Andrew Hamilton**
> <maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
> <MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
>
> *************Why is it that all non-conformists look the
same?************
> **I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in
rhythm.**
> *********Jackboot: The SP Boot Page -
spaa.simplenet.com/jackboot*********
>
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
>
John Mulhausen
> >if you ask me, all the '89 songs generally tend to plain fucking suck,
> >and seem almost too premature to even contemplate. i stick by laura
> >ann's "crawl before you walk" explanation. to pick apart those old songs
> >is like trying to determine how a fetus is going to behave after it is
> >born and turns 13. the only reason we can even do it at all is because
> >we know the ending.
>
> and to discuss. i wouldn't put a blanket over the pre-Gish stuff and
> say, this all sucks and is completely negligible. i can't get excited
> by 90% of the pre-Gish stuff, in fact, i don't even own any pre-Gish stuff
> except for East & Spiteface which i stuck on the end of the original '95
> Reading Fest boot after eric agnew let me tape his copy. the rest i listen
> to occasionally when i'm at work thanks to provost's archive and the T1
> connection i enjoy there.
ironically, you're probably listening to the .mp3s of the old songs that
I myself uploaded to 'provost's archive.'
but enough of that, i just thought that was weird.
to reply to the basic gist of what you wrote...yes, there's some
foreshadowing in the old songs...Sun is the best example, if you ask me.
the most pumpkins-y of the non-pumpkins pumpkins.
but i see a major, and sudden, turnaround right at 1989. they became a
rock band. to look at My Dahlia and try to fabricate some correlation is
just a waste of time. My Dahlia could be classified as new wave, pop,
goth, but it sure as hell isn't Rock. now, maybe the more 'rock' songs
can be discussed. i think honey spider isn't that far from window paine,
i think sun east isn't far from tristessa.
if you're talking about songs like that...then fine - a lot of gish
songs were already written by that time, mid-to-late '89. makes sense.
early '89, and '88, there's nothing. it's a completely different
songwriting mind. there is new-wave pumpkins, and there is rock
pumpkins. to seriously bring up "she" or "my dahlia" and try and go..
"oh yeah..you know...they both..have guitar...and...a lead part..."
is pointless.
and yes, i'm speaking from this position:
there is a definite division in song types on the boots which archive
the old demos. i'm willing to contend that the new-wavey songs were done
sometime earlier, and the rock songs sometime later. to state examples,
my dahlia, she, with you, jennifer ever would be examples of new wave
songs...sun, east, psychodelic are examples of the rock songs.
now, maybe they were recorded all at once. i can accept that - they were
realeased all at once. that we know. but i don't see them being written
at the same time. when billy says, flat out "we used to be a new wave
band, then we became a rock band." ...and then i hear a collection of
new wave songs, grouped with rock songs, i tend to go "...these were
done earlier, those were done later." and... to even begin to analyze
the earlier songs, as i said - is to try to make connections between
unrelated ideas. i don't care if the same person was involved - i'm a
living example of how easy it is to write in completely different
genres, settings, etc. - and if anyone has demonstrated an ability to
craft all kinds of songs, it's billy.
there are intuitive patterns that he goes towards, always, always,
always. but you're skipping that altogether and comparing the song
styles. i don't see how this can seriously be done with a great deal of
the songs. especially 88 songs. and why should we try?
you call it 'putting a blanket' over the discussion - it's not about
that. it's about the major change that happened in their style around
that time, and how the songs before that change can not be reasonably
stylisticly compared to what they eventually became. so why compare them
in terms of similarity? there IS NO similarity. if i'm going to compare
these songs with each other, all i can say is "they are damn different,
they changed, there is no constant, there is no underlying creative
objective - these are two different bands we're hearing." ..then i'd
fast foward 8 months and see what i could see. ok?
i don't seek to disinclude the songs from any discussion whatsoever,
only as a coherent, connected, logical piece of the puzzle. that was a
separate world. i say, draw a dividing line, don't waste your time
trying to make one idea flow into the next. they dropped it, and
changed, that's how it went down. ok? no offense to trying to make a
cohesive history of their 'evolution' - but that really was an unrelated
freakshow. if you ask me, anyway.
i know my original post was disincluding it because it all indeed
"sucked" ..because i think even after they became a rock band billy
really wasn't writing very maturely. not in terms of some arbitrary idea
like 'quality' but objective terms like dynamics that are exhibited in
each song, drumline complexities, etc. (plus billy obviously had little
sense of what sounds were aesthetically pleasing to the ear - even after
much reworking and correction, those demos just sound ridiculous. i
guess that's no sin - because he didnt' have a label paying for his
studio time at that point, nor was he working with geniuses like butch
vig. (as much of a dork as he is - my god, can he fit instruments
together in a song).)
but, i realize that maturity aside, stylistic similarities can exist
even after years of 'progression' and there's nothing wrong with
discussing them...
but if they really drop a way of thinking, a way of creating...who are
we to compare? it's like comparing picasso's still lifes to his cubist
works. the forms are represented in a completely different manner, the
emotions expressed through entirely different means. i guess you can
always see brushstroke similarities, just as you might hear a solo or
drum fill that sounds like something in later-era pumpkins song...and
maybe the emotions that the art is coming from is the same...but how can
we possibly correlate the styles?
i'll close with this:
go for it if you want...*i'm* not going to. i don't think it's there.
and i dare you to prove me wrong. :)
-john, who is glad to NOT see a (jh) in the subject of this thread.
Derek Rambeau
jas...@noesis.zone.org wrote:
>
> On 14 May 1997, Andrew Miller wrote:
> > fact that he was smart enough to go to college, decides to pack up his
> > guitar and head down to tampa florida to live out what he probably >perceived >as his ultimate fantasy at the time.
> i wonder why tampa. did he have family there or something. i (thank
> god) haven't memorized the "billy life story" yet, so this one makes
> little sense. i mean, what, "Tampa bay, rock and roll hotbed" ? odd...
I think it was because of the "goth scene" in Florida during the
mid-80s. From what Billy says in Vieuphoria, the Marked was essentially
a goth band, so moving to Florida would seem natural. I do know for a
fact that Marilyn Manson formed in Florida, so maybe I'm right. Of
course, I could be totally wrong, considering I was about 6 years old in
the mid-80s.
+Derek+
Mark Andrew Hamilton
....Ooh fun... [reply below]
Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
**Mark Andrew Hamilton**
<maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
<MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
*************Why is it that all non-conformists look the same?************
**I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in rhythm.**
*********Jackboot: The SP Boot Page - spaa.simplenet.com/jackboot*********
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779*****************
On Sun, 18 May 1997, John Mulhausen wrote:
> to reply to the basic gist of what you wrote...yes, there's some
> foreshadowing in the old songs...Sun is the best example, if you ask me.
> the most pumpkins-y of the non-pumpkins pumpkins.
>
Ugh... The *only* SP song that I positively despise -- 'Sun', just seems
to go and go... and go...
> but i see a major, and sudden, turnaround right at 1989. they became a
> rock band. to look at My Dahlia and try to fabricate some correlation is
> just a waste of time. My Dahlia could be classified as new wave, pop,
> goth, but it sure as hell isn't Rock. now, maybe the more 'rock' songs
> can be discussed. i think honey spider isn't that far from window paine,
> i think sun east isn't far from tristessa.
Sure, you're right about this, but it still doesn't make a complete
toss-out of the "new-wave" material acceptable. Now that they're going
electronic, are we supposed to throw out 'Siamese Dream' (which, even
though it was incredibly doctored in the studio feels organic)? Is 'We
Only Come Out At Night' rock? I'd say no. It's *all* Smashing Pumpkins.
> if you're talking about songs like that...then fine - a lot of gish
> songs were already written by that time, mid-to-late '89. makes sense.
Definitely, yet a few "new-wave" songs were still being cranked out at the
same time...
> early '89, and '88, there's nothing. it's a completely different
> songwriting mind. there is new-wave pumpkins, and there is rock
> pumpkins. to seriously bring up "she" or "my dahlia" and try and go..
> "oh yeah..you know...they both..have guitar...and...a lead part..."
> is pointless.
I don't really think so. There's always something there that lets you
know that it's SP. Sure, I'll agree with you that it's positively a
different band, but the SP of today wouldn't exist without the SP of 1988
having existed in the first place. The Beatles underwent a *major major
major* change with 'Sgt. Pepper and The Lonely Heart's Club Band', so are
we to throw out everything before that as "nothing"? No.
> and yes, i'm speaking from this position:
> there is a definite division in song types on the boots which archive
> the old demos. i'm willing to contend that the new-wavey songs were done
> sometime earlier, and the rock songs sometime later. to state examples,
> my dahlia, she, with you, jennifer ever would be examples of new wave
> songs...sun, east, psychodelic are examples of the rock songs.
>
And I'm speaking from the other side (just the kind of conversation I
wanted to bring on, here at amsp). 'I Am One' was written around the same
time as 'Jennifer Ever', so why is 'Jennifer' thrown to the curb, but 'I
Am One' kept around for examination? (Just a slight tangent here: Wasn't
'I Am One' the first song Billy and James wrote together? My own personal
hypothesis is that maybe it was James who brought Billy into the arms of
the Rawk Monster... who knows? Interesting idea though). It can easily
be argued that 'Psychodelic' is in fact a new-wave song, and the same goes
for a few others which I'm sure you classify as rock. Why? As with every
genre of music, there are differing opinions on exactly how to classify
it. If 'Psychodelic' appeared in the middle of a full new-wave album by
SP, would it still be rock, or just another new-waver? It differs to your
perspective. Personally, I think Billy is *still* writing the occasional
new-wave tune (most recent example -- 'Eye' -- can you classify this as
rock? No, definitely not), but when grouped under the name of 'The
Smashing Pumpkins', it's immediately under the 'rawk' umbrella.
> now, maybe they were recorded all at once. i can accept that - they were
> realeased all at once. that we know. but i don't see them being written
> at the same time. when billy says, flat out "we used to be a new wave
> band, then we became a rock band." ...and then i hear a collection of
> new wave songs, grouped with rock songs, i tend to go "...these were
> done earlier, those were done later." and... to even begin to analyze
> the earlier songs, as i said - is to try to make connections between
> unrelated ideas. i don't care if the same person was involved - i'm a
> living example of how easy it is to write in completely different
> genres, settings, etc. - and if anyone has demonstrated an ability to
> craft all kinds of songs, it's billy.
You're correct about Billy's ability, but I still don't see how *snap*
Billy could completely change his song-writing style. Between the two
early tapes, there's a pretty even mixture of rock and new-wave, side by
side. Bands in SP's early position wouldn't have very much time in the
studio. When something was recorded -- and especially with self-released
tapes -- it's released. In your own musical position John, do you record
a song, and release it a year and a half later, even though you're
planning to release something in month? I just can't see SP recording a
tune, and then instead of trying to get it out there at the shows
immediately and release it to the record companies, holding onto it for
over a year for the next tape. And you argue that Billy constantly goes
between styles and genres -- so why couldn't he have done the same 9 years
ago?
> there are intuitive patterns that he goes towards, always, always,
> always. but you're skipping that altogether and comparing the song
> styles. i don't see how this can seriously be done with a great deal of
> the songs. especially 88 songs. and why should we try?
Why should we try? Because it's the foundation. The early days of a band
will provide *completely* different material than the later years. Can
'Boy' be compared to 'Pop'? Yes it can, because it is still the *same*
band. 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' ain't no 'Tomorrow Never Knows', but it's
still just as important all the same.
> you call it 'putting a blanket' over the discussion - it's not about
> that. it's about the major change that happened in their style around
> that time, and how the songs before that change can not be reasonably
> stylisticly compared to what they eventually became. so why compare them
> in terms of similarity? there IS NO similarity. if i'm going to compare
> these songs with each other, all i can say is "they are damn different,
> they changed, there is no constant, there is no underlying creative
> objective - these are two different bands we're hearing." ..then i'd
> fast foward 8 months and see what i could see. ok?
>
Sure. I prefer to take a closer look at the earliest days, since these
are the days we know the least about. Just because they have changed,
doesn't mean that the earliest tapes hold no bearing over what we have
now. What about the covers in 'TAFH'? Would you throw those out
completely for being new-wave? I know you personally despise 'Eye', so
does that mean we're not to discuss that too? Fast forwarding 8 months
brings us more music -- but doesn't erase the early songs. There was some
discussion whether or not 'East' would make it onto 'Gish', which, of
course, it didn't -- and the reason was because the band wanted a "new
sound". 'East' is still important though.
> i don't seek to disinclude the songs from any discussion whatsoever,
> only as a coherent, connected, logical piece of the puzzle. that was a
> separate world. i say, draw a dividing line, don't waste your time
> trying to make one idea flow into the next. they dropped it, and
> changed, that's how it went down. ok? no offense to trying to make a
> cohesive history of their 'evolution' - but that really was an unrelated
> freakshow. if you ask me, anyway.
>
And, of course, this is your own personal opinion. There's 3 or 4
conversations on this thread going on right now, and this is just one of
them. I find it fascinating how songs seem to lead to other songs --
lyrics popping up later in newer material, chord changes adapted in newer
riffs. And there *is* some corelation between the early songs and what we
have now. 'TEITBITE', for instance, contains some structures which were
worked on in the early days. The typical-early "loud" songs all seem to
contain a quiet section 3/4 of the way through, as does 'TEITBITE' (and
many other SP songs, such as 'Geek USA', and 'Blue'), just proving that
there is still some bearing here.
> i know my original post was disincluding it because it all indeed
> "sucked" ..because i think even after they became a rock band billy
> really wasn't writing very maturely. not in terms of some arbitrary idea
> like 'quality' but objective terms like dynamics that are exhibited in
> each song, drumline complexities, etc. (plus billy obviously had little
> sense of what sounds were aesthetically pleasing to the ear - even after
> much reworking and correction, those demos just sound ridiculous. i
> guess that's no sin - because he didnt' have a label paying for his
> studio time at that point, nor was he working with geniuses like butch
> vig. (as much of a dork as he is - my god, can he fit instruments
> together in a song).)
>
You're right on this point though -- but this is exactly why I titled the
original post the "evolution of the pumpkins". Billy's songwriting has
matured over the years from his early roots in The Marked (and even there
can some connections be found -- as in the occasional periods in which the
band completely vamps it up), but that doesn't make the very beginnings
pointless. It's like life. When you finally become the real you however
many years into your life, do you just throw away your childhood? We are
each what we are now because of our colourfully checkered past. And SP is
the same.
> but, i realize that maturity aside, stylistic similarities can exist
> even after years of 'progression' and there's nothing wrong with
> discussing them...
Yahoo... =) Whoa John, it's hard keeping up with you... But I love a good
debate... ;)
> but if they really drop a way of thinking, a way of creating...who are
> we to compare? it's like comparing picasso's still lifes to his cubist
> works. the forms are represented in a completely different manner, the
> emotions expressed through entirely different means. i guess you can
> always see brushstroke similarities, just as you might hear a solo or
> drum fill that sounds like something in later-era pumpkins song...and
> maybe the emotions that the art is coming from is the same...but how can
> we possibly correlate the styles?
>
Yet while discussing Picasso, we still bring in *both* styles, do we not?
I believe it was his time in the Spanish civil war that changed his
artistic viewpoint -- (yes, I am stretching a comparison here, but try
playing along) -- and created the original and startling cubist creations
of the rest of his artistic career. But he occasionally went back. There
are a few paintings from later on in his career, which match up to his
earliest realist style. Similar as to how 'Eye' is a look-back to the
beginnings of SP's musical odyssey.
> i'll close with this:
> go for it if you want...*i'm* not going to. i don't think it's there.
> and i dare you to prove me wrong. :)
>
Opinions can't be broken, but it would be interesting to have your input
on this particular thread. There is no way to "prove you wrong" on
something like this, as it's impossible to do so. Whatever the individual
reader/poster thinks is what they will consider correct, yes? (I can
picture the response already... oh no, I'm doomed ;)
> -john, who is glad to NOT see a (jh) in the subject of this thread.
>
-mark, who didn't put one there intentionally. It's pretty pathetic when
a newsgroup needs a give-away to come up with something interesting to
discuss...
me
aww/ he woulda said the same thing to you tooo... dont be green
In <337BE4...@sprynet.com> John Mulhausen <joh...@sprynet.com>
writes:
>
>Mark Andrew Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> ...But you can still see how 'C'Mon'-type riffage and musical
structure
>> have been expanded by Billy & Co. throughout the years... no?
>>
>> Lazy, Hazy, Maybe Crazy...
>>
>> **Mark Andrew Hamilton**
>> <maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
>> <MarkAH...@smashing-pumpkins.com>
>>
>> *************Why is it that all non-conformists look the
same?************
>> **I learned to clap in time, because my parents would beat me in
rhythm.**
>>
*****************www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8779**************
**
>>
>> On 12 May 1997, ApathyO wrote:
>>
>> > lets see... Billy once said he hates C'mon now..
>> > if that means anything to anyone.
>
>PS:
>nice addition to the conversation, onica.
>-john
>
Andrew Miller
In article <Pine.A41.3.96.970518...@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Mark Andrew Hamilton <maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>And I'm speaking from the other side (just the kind of conversation I
>wanted to bring on, here at amsp). 'I Am One' was written around the same
>time as 'Jennifer Ever', so why is 'Jennifer' thrown to the curb, but 'I
>Am One' kept around for examination? (Just a slight tangent here: Wasn't
>'I Am One' the first song Billy and James wrote together? My own personal
>hypothesis is that maybe it was James who brought Billy into the arms of
>the Rawk Monster... who knows? Interesting idea though). It can easily
>be argued that 'Psychodelic' is in fact a new-wave song, and the same goes
>for a few others which I'm sure you classify as rock. Why? As with every
>genre of music, there are differing opinions on exactly how to classify
>it. If 'Psychodelic' appeared in the middle of a full new-wave album by
>SP, would it still be rock, or just another new-waver? It differs to your
>perspective. Personally, I think Billy is *still* writing the occasional
>new-wave tune (most recent example -- 'Eye' -- can you classify this as
>rock? No, definitely not), but when grouped under the name of 'The
>Smashing Pumpkins', it's immediately under the 'rawk' umbrella.
what needs to be brought into this conversion is some idea of the pumpkins
timeline. unfortunately, of all the periods in the pumpkins history, its
the early days that is the least well documented.
anyhow, i remember when Billy went on Q101 in chicago after MCIS came out
and did an interview thing he stated that 'My Dahlia' was the first
pumpkins songs. given the fact that he said on vieuphoria that the initial
wave of pumpkins songs were co-written by james and he, i guess we can put
MD as a definite 1988 song. however, there is precious little else that we
can definitely attribute to the original song writing period except by
guessing on how "new wavey" a song sounds.
1989 was a busy year for the pumpkins. there original official release, the
Limited Potential I Am One 7" with Not Worth Asking on the b-side. I Am One,
a rocker and Not Worth Asking, a definite new wave rooted song.
then there is the matter of all the demo work that is floating around from
this fabled year. first off, the Eye & Moon demos, which according to the
discography, were given away after shows.
Eye's tracklist: Daydream / Egg / My Dahlia / Nothing and Everything /
Psychodelic / With You / Rhinoceros / Stars Falling / Sun
<track order is "uncertain" according to the discography>
Moon's tracklist: Jennifer Ever / East / Nothing & Everything / Sun (remix)
/ She (live) / Spiteface
since the Sun on Moon (hehe) is a "remix", one would have to put the Eye
demo as the original demo with Moon as the followup.
well, what do we have here? two gish tracks, and then an equal measure of
songs that sound like what ended up on gish and new wave pumpkins. certainly
this undercuts John's thesis. (uh-oh...)
and a thought question: Did Billy entitle the new song "Eye" as a reference
to that original demo? hmmm. its a possibility, i think...
i am one and not worth asking doesn't appear on either demo, and this begs
the question, when exactly in 1989 was the Limited Potential 7" released?
this brings into the conversion the cuts we know as "the Gish Basement
Tapes". the version of I Am One on this grouping of songs sounds suspiciously
as if it was recorded with a drum machine. this would suggest it was
recorded before Jimmy, which would mean pre 4/10/88. as people have mentioned
before, the drums on I Am One are taken off a Casio keyboard. so yes, I Am
One is an early song even though it doesn't appear on Eye or Moon. i
wonder why...
were the rest of the basement tapes recorded pre-jimmy? i don't think so.
even though the basement tapes have been given the illusion over time that
they are a unit, recorded all at once in an actual basement, their exact
origins are uncertain.
i'd be remiss if i didn't bring up the Sounds of Turnips demo. the title
is the name of a bootleg. the discography simply lists this as Demo '89.
of all the pre-Gish stuff, this is the strangest...just where exactly did
this puppy come from? it includes Honey Spider / Daughter / Snap (If I
Could) / Love / East (alt.) / Mother / C'mon along with other stuff from
earlier demo tapes. if this was really a self-contained, self-released
demo, why all the spanish stuff? but anyhow, by this demo tape, it is
quite apparent which direction the pumpkins are taking, the new wave stuff is
being pushed into the background.
this change is further backed up by the Tristessa / La Dolly Vita single
released by Sub Pop in 1990 and the few live shows that have survived from
this period.
so what conclusion do i draw from all of this? in my mind, the pumpkins were
never a complete, total new wave band. despite the fact that they sound
pretty new wavey during the 4/10/88 show, i am one obviously dates to this
time as well despite the fact that it takes awhile for it to appear. as
the band gained steam and most importantly i think, as jimmy began to be more
and more a part of the band in an equal in everyway sense billy began to
realize that the band worked much better as a rock band.
and so a new question to ponder...was jimmy the cause of the band's
transformation by himself, or was it billy realization that he had a master
level drummer on this hands and that as a new wave band he was not playing
to jimmy's strengths?
andy
you and i high in the sky
--
* email: and...@tdl.com
* homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm + know it + use it + love it
* The Official Listessa Homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm/listessa
* "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -- Jebidiah Springfield
Andrew Miller
In article <5lsmd8$5...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Dave Asselin <see.a...@end.of.message> wrote:
>In article <5lrfgm$e58$1...@www.tdl.com>, and...@www.tdl.com says...
>
>>then there is the matter of all the demo work that is floating
>>around from this fabled year. first off, the Eye & Moon demos,
>>which according to the discography, were given away after shows.
>
>the listing of demo material, sources, etc.
>
eek. i guess the old Roger Janssen discography is hopeless wrong. that's
where i got all my information from. there's a link to a "new, vastly
improved" discography maintained by Dave on the discography page on Luna
but the link is out of date. thanks for putting up the updated URL.
dave's information does clear up the pumpkins early period. it is still
quite apparent that during 1989 billy and the pumpkins were releasing both
new wave and rock songs as well as the quiet acoustic stuff which billy
still does to this day.
>xx.xx.89 "The Smashing Pumpkins" (1st Tape)
>
> Jennifer Ever | East | Nothing and Everything | Sun (Remix)
> She (live) | Spiteface
>
>We can assume this tape was released after 3/89, as the original "Sun"
>was released on 03.17.89 on the Light into Dark album.
let's see. Jennifer Ever, N&E, and She on the new wave side; East, Sun, and
Spiteface on the rock side
>xx.xx.89 "Moon" (2nd Tape)
>
> Honey Spider (alternate) | With You | Egg | Rhinoceros (alternate)
> Bye June | Stars Falling | Daughter | Daydream | Psychodelic
> (This tape includes the Spanish spoken word)
>
>These tracklists are from the actual tapes (which I own, and never tire
>of telling everyone :) the band sold in 1989. We can also assume these
>were both produced prior to 9/89, as the pre-Siamese Dream newsletter
>mentions a show around this time where the tapes were for sale.
okay, a definite shift to the rock side here. plus the first of the billy
and his acoustic songs.
>I have not found anyone to coroborrate anything called the "Eye" demo.
>What most people list as "Eye" is just a compilation of tracks from the
>first two tapes. There *are*, however, several tracks from this period
>that are unaccounted for:
>
> Snap (If I Could) | Love | Mother | C'mon | East (Alternate)
> I Am One Pt 2
again, these leftovers are definitely on the rock side.
> I believe the first 2 are true demos, but NWA is actually from the
>LimP 7", which was not released in 1989, but May of 1990. (The Tristessa
>7" was in Dec of '90)
so I Am One wasn't released until 5/90. still, the question remains, does
the "Gish Basement" version of I Am One date to the pre-Jimmy period. and
if it does date to this time, why didn't it show up on the demo tapes? this
is the big wild card. it seems to plainly show that from the earliest
stages the band was never totally new wave despite what the 4/10/88 show
seems to show.
>Where this leaves your conclusions I can't say, but it's clear that in
>1989, BCs style was fluctuating wildly, and he released a lot of
>different types of songs in a period of about 6 months.
i don't think the corrected timeline affects what i wrote before. if you
take billy's vieuphoria words for gospel and the pumpkins were originally
a new wave band, it seems like this period lasted only a very short time.
if it wasn't for the 4/10/88 show, we'd have only a smattering of early
demos that were new wave in style. by the time they started to release
material in 1989 the transformation to a rock band was already well underway.
if only we had more live material from the pre 1990 period perhaps we could
trace this transformation a lot better. sadly, as time goes on the chances
that tapes from this period will surface gets smaller and smaller.
but then billy reportedly has every show ever on tape so maybe, just maybe
he'll let an early show get out into circulation one way or another. we
can only hope...
andy
you and i high in the sky
--
* email: and...@tdl.com
* homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm + know it + use it + love it
* The Official Listessa Homepage: http://www.tdl.com/~andrewm/listessa
* "My dad's a pretty big wheel down at the cracker factory!" -- Milhouse
Paladine
>
> I may be wrong on this part, but I thought I remember reading that I Am
> One was the first song Billy and James wrote together.
>
Billy once said that when James DID contribute to a song, it was just a
beginning idea that Billy himself expanded into a song (like Mayonnaise,
where James just came up with the acoustic intro/outro. This was not too
long after Gish, so my guess is that this is the case with I am One.
Just, uh, wanted to say that.
John Mulhausen
onica wrote:
>aww/ he woulda said the same thing to you tooo.. dont be green
gee, onica. could you typify your reputation a little more?
mark: 'i see leanings towards gish in C'mon'
onica: 'billy hates c'mon'
john: '...that contributed NOTHING to an otherwise interesting
conversation.'
onica: 'billy would say the same thing about what you said! and you're
jealous!'
moron.
John Mulhausen
Phil Oliver wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 May 1997 22:36:07 -0600, Mark Andrew Hamilton
> <maha...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> >Sure, I'll agree with you that it's positively a
> >different band, but the SP of today wouldn't exist without the SP of 1988
> >having existed in the first place. The Beatles underwent a *major major
> >major* change with 'Sgt. Pepper and The Lonely Heart's Club Band', so are
> >we to throw out everything before that as "nothing"? No.
>
> "SPLHCB"? Although a great record, I don't think it was a huge
> step from Revolver. Aside from SPLHCB being a concept record,
> I don't see anything vastly different.
agreed. just as i don't see much of a difference between teitbite and,
say, bodies.
> >> -john, who is glad to NOT see a (jh) in the subject of this thread.
> >>
> >-mark, who didn't put one there intentionally. It's pretty pathetic when
> >a newsgroup needs a give-away to come up with something interesting to
> >discuss...
>
> I think it's more pathetic that they're trying to impress some moron
> who can't even come up with a witty flame. "You're a dumbass",
> "You're gay", well that's a wit for you.
yeah, too bad joshua "sherman was pretending but i'm the real 12 year
old named josh around here" hoffman hasn't been posting as much lately.
punching bags are entertaining.
-john