A juxtaposition 3:35 pm // Friday, July 3, 2009
Posted by jjb in criticism, live, sonic youth.trackback
Frank Yang of Toronto-based indie music blog Chromewaves, September 11, 2007:
I figured there were two types of people who were keen to see The Smashing Pumpkins close out the festival. The folks in my generation who grew up through the alt-rock ’90s and were stoked to relive the soundtrack of their dimming youth – we’ll call them the classic rockers who don’t know they’re classic rockers – and those who were fascinated to see what kind of train wreck Billy Corgan’s hubris and dementia had wrought – we’ll call them the rubberneckers. And by them, I mean me.
I should first say that I was a huge Pumpkins fan circa Siamese Dream. Huge. But they lost me with Mellon Collie when Corgan decided he wanted to be a rock god and the past fourteen years or so have been pretty happily Pumpkins-free but I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t be thrilled to hear “Cherub Rock” live, even if it was played by James and D’Arcy stand-ins. But while I was watching the proceedings with no small amount of cynicism, the mainstage area was teeming with Pumpkins fans who appeared to have kept the flame alive over the past seven years and were now being rewarded for their loyalty… with songs from Zeitgeist. As I expected, they opened with new material – really long, drawn out new material – but I’ll admit that hearing Corgan’s distinctive guitar tone and solos (and nasal vocals) did stir some long-dormant nostalgia.
Frank Yang of Toronto-based indie music blog Chromewaves, July 3, 2009:
I’ve already come clean about being only a casual Sonic Youth fan, but most of that enthusiasm has been built on their most recent records, say from Murray Street up to and definitely including their latest The Eternal as they’ve struck what, to my ears, is the perfect balance of atonality and melody. And having only ever seen them once live before, at Lollapalooza 2006, I was pretty excited to do so again. From the buzz in the hall, it was pretty clear everyone else was excited as well but I suspect that most were much more hardcore than I and thus exponentially more stoked. Takeaway: people were looking forward to the show.
And the long-time fans were catered with the first song, “She Is Not Alone” dating back to the band’s 1982 debut. Of course I didn’t know this song – it and most others were verified via set list – but it was a slow, hypnotic sort of dirge featuring massive guitar freak-out from Thurston Moore that many probably hoped would be a set loaded with classic material. These people would probably be disappointed. With “Sacred Trickster”, the band made it clear that they would not be partaking in any career retrospectives – they were still creative and vital and had eyes dead set forward, and would prove it by playing eleven straight songs from The Eternal.
It is forever saddening to me that the act of attending the more current shows of two (formerly) great bands can now only be described as “rubbernecking”.
This post might be interesting if you did an analysis of the difference between these two bands and why people might react favorably to new material from one but not from the other.
David, the point of this is to show that what Frank Yang is doing is simple rationalization of the favorable/unfavorable views to which he already is committed. He does some good things; I think it’s excellent to start off a review saying “I love this band” or “I don’t like this band”. But then he casts hardcore Pumpkins fans in a negative light and hardcore SY fans in a positive light, casts long Pumpkins songs in a negative light and long SY songs in a positive light, and casts the Pumpkins’ choice to play lots of new material in a negative light and SY’s choice to play lots of new material in a positive light. The juxtaposition exposes all that as rationalization.
Re: “why people might react favorably to new material”: I think it’s largely down to predisposition.
Also, I want to (once again) warn everyone away from generalizing to ‘people’ from ‘indie bloggers’. Indie bloggers are just one segment of the world; major newspaper critics (who have been very favorable to the Pumpkins), for example, would be another.
rC: “Mr Cures”
I noticed while reading those two excerpts that the reviewer doesn’t really even need to explain why he feels Billy’s shows might be a ‘train wreck’ – he alludes to perceived negative happenings from the band’s past (whether musical or otherwise), and basically explains away his dislike for the band by telling us that they “lost him” when Billy “decided he wanted to be a rock god”.
Frank Yang’s job of dissing the Pumpkins as ego-driven, sell-out, lamo, losers has been done for him, over the past 10 or more years, by many other indie-reviewer types who perhaps saw that as the ‘cool’ thing to do. It’s like there’s this unwritten law that if you are writing about the Pumpkins, preconceptions rule, and even if there’s any possible positive slant, turn it into a negative (e.g. “but I’ll admit that hearing Corgan’s distinctive guitar tone and solos (and nasal vocals) did stir some long-dormant nostalgia.” Why was there the need to even mention ‘nasal vocals’ Frank Yang????)
The “Billy Corgan’s a mega-wanker” undertone is all thru that article, and it gives me the mega-shits. I really like seeing those two articles juxtaposed, as it clearly shows, just from one author, how the media and (for want of a better term) positive or negative ‘propaganda’ can influence people’s feelings so much. Frank Yang has been influenced over the years in a negative fashion by how the media in general has portrayed the Pumpkins, and he has been influenced equally by how Sonic Youth have been portrayed – as indie cool, laid back, no turmoil, etc (or at least that’s how I’ve seen them portrayed). I can say with some conviction that the reviewer has been influenced, because we all have to some extent, and I see it in people I meet, who, when informed of my musical leanings, immediately go “oh, you like Smashing Pumpkins? Is that the band with that ego-maniac Billy Corgan, who has a whiny voice??”. Seriously.
So yeah, cool post – My fave bit is how Yang makes out that Sonic Youth’s choice to not play a retrospective set is really fresh and awesome, yet he completely bags the Pumpkins for doing the exact same thing. It just shows how much preconceptions can rule our attitudes and beliefs.
the above juxtaposition is indeed interesting – I certainly didn’t think about what I wrote about the Pumpkins a year and a half ago when writing the Sonic Youth review – but a couple of things need to be mentioned. One, I hadn’t been a Pumpkins fan of any sort since Siamese Dream and have thought Corgan’s musical output, in whatever incarnation you want to mention, has gotten progressively worse over time. Obviously not a popular opinion hereabouts, this being a Pumpkins fansite, but there you go. That’s my opinion, not influenced by general consensus but by the fact that I didn’t like any of it. And the “rubberneckers” comment is more about the rather ridiculous media antics that surrounded the Pumpkins “reunion” – the way Corgan went about it made it a media spectacle, and as such it’s not unreasonable to treat it as such and not just consider the music.
As for Sonic Youth, my position on them is that they’ve gotten progressively better over the years. “The Eternal” is a terrific record – “Zeitgeist” was not. So hearing all of a terrific record live is great, hearing a lot of a not great record is not. If Corgan had played a lot of his last terrific record (“Siamese Dream”, IMO) then I probably would have loved the V Fest show. But he didn’t so I didn’t.
I do appreciate that the comments attached to this post are far more considered than “this guy badmouthed our band, ergo he’s a douche” – certainly a higher level of discourse than most of the music blogosphere. But comparing the SP and SY experiences isn’t really the same thing – at least from the perspective from which those reviews were written.
And it’s interesting how everyone keeps referring to me by my full name.
Yay, Frank. I am totally using this for our About page:
:D
rC: “WQXR mingling”
(I can comment twice in a row…it’s my blog.)
Frank, I’d like to ask your opinion on the rhetoric of music criticism. When I read statements such as “X is a terrific record” or “The X concert was awful”, I personally am turned off. By comparison, statements such as “I like this record” or “I enjoyed the concert” seem more inviting and are every bit as concise. Your opinions on The Eternal and Zeitgeist, no matter how considered, are not representative of a consensus. Yes, ‘everyone knows’ that statements such as those you made about those albums must only be your opinions — but why choose to present them in a form that, in every normal context, is reserved for statements of fact?
jjb – well, I just phrase things as I feel like phrasing them at any given time. The fact that it is a blog written in first person in a casual and often diaristic fashion, I think, implies that everything is just my opinion and certainly not presented as scientific, quantitative universal fact. If I say something is awful, it should be self-evident that I think it’s awful and that others are free to disagree – anyone who knows me knows that I’m almost the last person to actually think I’m right all the time. I appreciate your position but really don’t think I need to qualify each and every judgement lest someone misinterpret me as speaking for the whole of society.
this is an interesting article, and a lot of good point are presented here.. however there’s also a bit of reality to this situation that i feel may have also influenced this critics opinions:
A) Sonic Youth’s material has increasingly improved over time, especially since the release of murray street.. they make it incredibly enjoyable to listen to their new material. The pumpkins really haven’t, with the acceptation of the new material that started to surface during the 20th anniversary tour, but will probably not see the light of day due to jimmy leaving.. which leads to my next point…
B) Sonic Youth has held on to all of it’s original members (although steve shelly is the second SY drummer, but he has been with them since the mid/late 80′s, and has been a part of some of the bands best recordings). The Pumpkins just can’t seem to get a solid, long standing band together, and yes to an audience that absolutely counts, as was mentioned by the writer (the stand in comments). SP with it’s original line up intact, last for about 8 years.. sonic youth is nearing it’s 30 year mark with ALL 4 ORIGINAL members intact, and because of this they have grown strong in their music, and the audience has enjoyed watching this band continue making great music, and keeping it all real on top of that.
so this really is a bad comparison.. obviously ther is going to be some bias towards Sonic Youth, cause ultimately they are a great band who has kept it honest, and has not taken it’s fans for a ride as far as lineup/name sake it concerned. Though i agree there is that elitist/indie snob attitude present in this article, it was a bad choice to compare it to another article on sonic youth.. about 95% of the reviews being written about SY since the late 90′s to now have been vastly favorable.. from professional critics to the poser critics. why? they are a fantastic band.
and actually, if you really read these articles closely, there really is no bias.
The author has made it clear that he doesn’t like SP’s new material, and hasn’t for the past 14 years (didn’t even enjoy MCIS), where as he has enjoyed Sonic Youth’s material since murray street, and that’s the SY he’s most familiar with. he made it pretty clear what his opinion about zeitgeist was, as well as what his opinion on the eternal was.. so therefore he did not enjoy the pumpkins show (due to it containing material mostly from zeitgeist) where he highly enjoyed SY’s set (containing mostly material from the Eternal).. so where is the issue here? he’s stating his honest opinion.
“they were still creative and vital and had eyes dead set forward, and would prove it by playing eleven straight songs from The Eternal.”
still creative and vital.. something the SP in my opinion was NOT displaying during their zeitgeist/2007 tour. But heck it was a new band, and it took them two years to get their shit together (november 2008 was extremely promising.. but now JIMMY has left the fold.. so out goes that idea).
it was pretty indicative in the SP article that he didn’t feel SP was still creative and vital, therefore he only had interest in seeing Cherub Rock. in all honestly you tried but i think you missed it with this article.. the critic really does not look like a hypocrite.. just someone offering their opinion.
lol didn’t realize the actual critic was posting here as well.. just read his opinions and his insights matched up with what I felt he was honestly thinking.
This is exactly why music/concert reviews are a pointless waste of time. If you don’t like a band, what benefit does it provide to anyone to give your opinion on their concert or album? You’re preaching to the choir of other haters and pissing off people who genuinely like them.
Music is an extremely personal experience. You can’t qualify in words how music makes you feel or why you do or don’t like something. That’s why music exists in the first place. I would take the worst Pumpkins album over the best Sonic Youth album every time. That doesn’t mean Sonic Youth is bad, it just means I don’t care for them. Statements like ““The Eternal” is a terrific record – “Zeitgeist” was not.”, mean absolutely nothing. We have precise language for a reason. Whether it is supposed to be assumed it is your personal opinion or not, it dilutes the precision of the language to use words intended for statements of fact for your own personal opinion. It’s no more difficult, yet significantly more accurate, to say, “I didn’t like Zeitgeist”.
I feel like I’m being pedantic, but think about how easily we pronounce things to be “terrible”, or “awful” when what we really mean is that we personally don’t like it. I don’t like country music, but to proclaim country music to be terrible is more than a little insulting to people who do like it.
It’s unfortunate how quick people can be to shit on things and expect other people to agree, or more accurately, *need* other people to agree. My best friend got in a huge argument with another Pumpkins fan she had just met who, upon finding out she had gone to the NY 20th Anniversary shows, asked “How terrible was that show?” or something to that effect. The guy was completely baffled when she responded that she thought the shows were awesome.
He was like, “You don’t understand, I’ve been a huge Pumpkins fan since Siamese Dream, I had tickets to the show right after Jonathan Melvoin died, etc.etc.” insinuating that his opinion was more valid because he was a bigger fan, not realizing that she was at least as big a fan if not moreso, matching him on every one of his Pumpkins-cred tales and topping him as well. (“I waited online 15 hours to see them do a 45 minute set the day Machina came out”) It really upset this guy that someone who was obviously a big fan could’ve actually liked the show.
And that’s what I can’t stand. People who, for whatever reason stop liking a band, tend to put the blame on the band instead of acknowledging that maybe it’s themselves that have changed, then by implication suggest that anyone else who still likes the band must be retarded.
The Pumpkins have legions of ex-fans like that. “I liked them until Mellon Collie”, “They lost me after Adore”, “I stuck with them through Adore but Machina was terrible” and now Zeitgeist is no different, but even more pronounced because there was a 7 year gap between it and Machina.
I have no doubt that come the release of future material we’ll have fans who “even liked Zeitgeist” and will use that as their justification as to why we should trust their judgement that the new material is truly awful.
Adam for the record. Sonic Youth blows. What a bunch of racket.
though i consider jjb and yang both as “casual buds,” yang pwns this round.
skullivan, that is everything I’ve been thinking about music journalism for the past several years summed up. Thank you.
+1 for skullivan.
All I can say is “fair enough”!! lol! I’m really not a Sonic Youth followers, so I can’t really compare the two bands and their progression throughout the years. :-)
rC: chewiest Hor.
(that was a funneh recaptcha!)
PS – your full name is friggen awesome! It just sounds cool – hence the full quotation! I didn’t really think about it until u mentioned it… :-P
lots of ignorance towards sonic youth in this thread… such a shame.
you know, this was a band Billy cited as a heavy influence back in the gish, SD days.. he even went as far as to say they were to most important band happening for the guitars progression.
I just started getting into Sonic Youth recently. They are really guitar driven which is a lot why i like SP. I did not know Billy was influenced back in the day but that would make a lot of sense. I think there is just a negative view on the pumpkins which is somewhat justified but mostly unfair. Both these bands require an acquired taste, but they are definitely both highly skilled musicians and songwriters… ya know, they dont “necessarily” fall into the category of radio friendly musicians that follow standard formulas and formats with their music. I respect both these artists equally and to a high degree.
2009 SP was way better than 2007 SP. Mainly because they were together and progressing. It seems like SP’s progression is always tragically hindered by misfortunes.. like jimmys departure. Sonic Youth seems to be constantly progressing as they are a stable band thats been consistent for 30 years. I think Billy knows that this is the key to success and progression, hence his ever-loving tweeting BS. SP needs a solid line up! But still i think Billy has always delivered musically and is ever evolving which is cool. He still knows how to make shit work in one way or the other. Its hard to compare SP to anyone else.
I thought of another juxtaposition today: I was listening to Wilco in my car and it hit me that Jeff Tweedy and the bass player are the only “original” members of the band. They’ve had all kind of line-up changes over the years. But nobody cares! Have you ever heard anyone say, “Jeff Tweedy’s an egomaniac, impossible to work with,”… “It’s not really Wilco, just Tweedy and a bunch of stand-ins for Jay Bennet and Ken Coomer.”
Once again, Billy gets shit for something any other band could easily get away with. Just throwing that out there.
B.D., regarding Tweedy, given that Wilco’s never had the same lineup record consecutive albums until these last two, I think that’s the reason nobody cares. Hard to claim a “classic” lineup when there’s never been one (though people certainly complain about the band’s shift from their “classic” era).
And jjb, biggest reason for the disparity in these reviews is, again, the reunion factor. Sonic Youth’s always been around and progressing, and you can argue over whether they’re better or worse, but they’re given more reign to grow and create.
The 7-year layoff with the Pumpkins forces people into the mentality that they’re more of a nostalgia act and not currently vital, because, why else would you get the band back together?
Pins — why would people assume any band is not ‘vital’? I find that a really odd adjective to jump to conclusions about, especially a contemporary performance art form… can you explain? :)
Or were you just avoiding the use of ‘relevant’ because I’d get all ‘relevant’ on yo’ azz?
wilco does get a lot of shit for it’s lineup changes.. however they got it right (in my opinion) when they asked glenn kotche, then later on nels cline to join in the lineups.
but lots of people still have their heads up their asses over jay bennett.
Jilly, I meant moreso that when a band breaks up, then reunites at any point, people don’t usually look to them to be making new music (let alone good or “vital” new music), and many reformed bands don’t focus on doing so. Case in point, Jane’s Addiction is together and headlining Lollapalooza, but I wouldn’t describe them as “vital” anymore than I would A Flock of Seagulls…the focus is not on creating new good music.
To take the route the Pumpkins took is a challenge to what people expect. Which is of course something the band thrives on doing, but is also a reason the past few years have been rough in terms of reception.
Pins, I find it plausible — though bizarre — that there’s this ‘Reunion Band’ switch in some critics’ heads, so that the same sorts of critics who generally would never even think about advising a band to stop trying to be creative find themselves explicitly supporting cash-in moves such as playing old albums straight through, saying things like “there’ll hopefully be no pretending that they’re still a relevant artistic force.”
+2 for skullivan
Thanks for the nods guys:)
I’d also like to clarify that I’ve since become friends with the guy mentioned in my story above and have had a few good Pumpkins conversations with him. It’s not every day one gets to discuss with someone you’ve just met how awesome the 1979 single was/is. It’s like, “Wow, someone who’s actually heard Set the Ray to Jerry!”
In regards to lineup changes and the ire they inspire, I’ve found it particularly humorous that all throughout their career the press loved to paint Billy as the megalomaniacal svengali (probably the only time I’ve ever seen that word used is in articles about BC, where it would be used every damn time) who recorded everything himself and wouldn’t even let James and D’arcy think about touching their instruments. Yet they all cried foul that it couldn’t possibly be the Pumpkins without James and D’arcy despite the fact that the two albums they had the least input on are the two that critics hail as the “band’s” best work. And no one had a problem when they had temporary drummers and bassists. Melissa auf der Maur was the touring bassist for about 5 minutes and she was accepted as if she were a full fledged member. So as long as you’re still considered “vital” and “relevant” you can do whatever you want. But once you lose that fickly bestowed mantle, anything you do is just going to draw scorn.
Critics always half-jokingly referred to the Pumpkins as Billy’s solo project. Now that it truly is, they can’t accept it. I personally don’t care whether the Pumpkins are ever “artistically relevant” again. Near as I can tell, that’s just a euphemism for “popular”. As long as they are making music I enjoy I’ll keep listening. What I can’t understand is why it’s so important for these critics that the band never be relevant again. If they aren’t relevant, stop writing about them and write about Kanye or Lady GaGa. After all, we all know Kanye is the voice of this decade.
HU sure has a tough job about giving a shit about everything.