Billy Corgan Rips Indie a New Asshole

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I know there's a lot of posturing in the indie world, but that doesn't mean every band that isn't mainstream and doesn't want to be is coming from a "sour grapes" position. The mainstream music industry these days is a merciless, corporate machine. It's very, very difficult to be a part of it and not make compromises, and some people simply don't want to do that. Good for them, I say.
 
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel said:

But can somebody PLEASE explain to me when this thought process came around that songs with not-so-deep lyrics should automatically be considered bad? I really don't understand that, and I'd really like to know what exactly is so bad about those kinds of songs. It's totally your right to call them bad, yes, but I just don't get WHY).

Angela

It's not so much that they are automatically bad (although some are certainly godawful :yuck: as are some so-called "deep" songs), it's just that they are the equivelant of candy. You don't eat only candy, in fact it's best to eat only sparingly. And then there are those people who don't like candy at all.

And songs don't have to be lyrically "deep" to be good, hell I like many instrumentals (many which I don't class as "candy songs"), and some very good songs are not terribly "deep." To me a good song should be interesting and timeless, and I don't find much mainstream music that fits that. I don't mind that others like music I don't -- whatever floats your boat is what you should listen to.

I personally only like candy songs very rarely -- now if I could just get my eating habits to match. :rolleyes:
 
One thing that occurs to me - American musicians seem to be very respectful of each others art and don't slag each other off in public too much. Someone posted a picture here of the late Darrell 'Dimebag' with a country musician, I forget her name, a while back. It seemed to me to symbolise this respectful sense of American musicians respecting each others genres.

English musicians seem to have a tendency to bitch about each other, slag each other off, etc - e.g. Ian McCullough of Echo and the Bunnymen and various members of the Stone Roses slagging off Bono and U2 on NUMEROUS occasions, Bret Andersen of Suede and Damon Albarn taking pot-shots at each other, and just recently, I see that Thom Yorke had a go at Coldplay.

The reason I don't like Corgan's comments is that I feel they are unnecessarily personalised and over the top.
 
Has anyone heard Corgan's new CD, i like it but I kinda don't like it. in some songs he overproduces it with like 2353462 layers of synthesizer and it sounds sooo bad when he could have the same chords and same lyrics with just one guitar and one layer of synthesizer.
 
financeguy said:

The reason I don't like Corgan's comments is that I feel they are unnecessarily personalised and over the top.

I do think it pretty apparent he has his shorts in a twist. ;)
 
financeguy said:
The reason I don't like Corgan's comments is that I feel they are unnecessarily personalised and over the top.

I wonder if maybe the reason the other musicians in Zwan didn't want to work with Corgan anymore didn't have so much to do with their supposed "underground loyalties" as it did with Corgan's pissy, whiny attitude.
 
I think all the other members just woke up one day, realized they're in a band called fucking ZWAN, and decided the money wasn't that good anyway.
 
unosdostres14 said:
Has anyone heard Corgan's new CD, i like it but I kinda don't like it. in some songs he overproduces it with like 2353462 layers of synthesizer and it sounds sooo bad when he could have the same chords and same lyrics with just one guitar and one layer of synthesizer.

yeah, he dropped the ball there

I do hear potential here..some songs like DIA are pretty good...but after hearing the exact same thing in every song it gets a bit much
 
typhoon said:
I think all the other members just woke up one day, realized they're in a band called fucking ZWAN, and decided the money wasn't that good anyway.

:) hahaha. That is a riot!!.........and possibly true.

I wonder if maybe the reason the other musicians in Zwan didn't want to work with Corgan anymore didn't have so much to do with their supposed "underground loyalties" as it did with Corgan's pissy, whiny attitude.

This too. LOL.

Anyway I'm just bumping this thread because I thought it was an amusing read.
 
He tells it like it is. I remember when he bashed the crap out of James Iha after the Pumpkins broke up - the quote was something like "James Iha broke up The Smashing Pumpkins" .

He's tall and can beat up most pussy rock types, so he speaks his mind.
 
MumblingBono said:
He tells it like it is. I remember when he bashed the crap out of James Iha after the Pumpkins broke up - the quote was something like "James Iha broke up The Smashing Pumpkins" .

He's tall and can beat up most pussy rock types, so he speaks his mind.

He might tell it like he thinks it is. When the Pumpkins broke up, he also blamed Britney Spears. Yeah, Billy's a real tough guy.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Hmmm...funny, my sister listens to a lot of Justin Timberlake, Eminem, and "American Idol" stuff, and yet she also likes many a deeper, lesser-known artist, too. I distinctly remember her saying she liked a couple of Radiohead songs, she likes U2's music (they're not lesser-known, but they've certainly had many a deep song), she likes a lot of classic rock songs, etc., etc. Why assume that just because somebody listens to Justin Timberlake they're automatically a stupid person who won't get the deeper lyrics from another artist?

Sorry, I just personally think musical elitism is rather silly. I hate the idea of putting music into little cliques and saying so-and-so can't hang out with/listen to this artist because they aren't from their genre, their music isn't "deep enough" (and yet again I bring up this argument: I love songs with deep lyrics as much as the next person. I think a great deal of my music collection is full of artists who have depth to their lyrics.

But can somebody PLEASE explain to me when this thought process came around that songs with not-so-deep lyrics should automatically be considered bad? I really don't understand that, and I'd really like to know what exactly is so bad about those kinds of songs. It's totally your right to call them bad, yes, but I just don't get WHY).

And besides that, if you think that the popular music people are listening to now is so stupid, I would think you'd WANT your favorite artists to become more exposed, so that people can listen to something intellectual for a change.

You're totally entitled to your opinions. I just personally don't agree at all with the idea of musical elitism and the stuff that comes along with it. And I don't like the idea of stereotyping people based on the music they listen to, either.

Angela

Just some nitpicking to begin with, Radiohead is not indie and have not been indie for a while. Classic rock is one of the farthest things from indie. Liking a few songs does not mean anything. Its like saying "Oh I like some Van Goghs and one or two Pollocks".

Ok now onto more serious things. Lyrics are not what I was referring at least esxclusively when I said that they would not understand the subtleness to songs. It goes beyond lyrics but into the actual craft of the song, the instruments, the rhythym, the sounds, the thought process behind the song, etc. Those who listen to your Eminems and Justin Timberlakes will not understand these things. Thats why I don't want them to take my music and make it into their own little call in request show with Carson Daly.

My elitism has nothing to do with genre. There is good "indie" rap. There is good "indie" country, "indie" jazz, and "indie" rock. My elitism has to do with quality. I like the analogy of candy. Those songs by people like Destiny's Child and Marroon 5 are candy, perhaps delicious to many but devoid of anything that actually matters. They can have their candy but leave me my filet.

What is bad about those songs is they are often times not even written by the artist. Not just the lyrics but the music as well. The "artist" becomes more of an instrument of the producer or pr department. The music loses any spirit. Its made to appeal to a certain demographic that will spend so much money on shirts, magazines, cds and tour tickets. The songs are often almost exact copies of other songs already heating up the charts. Its so formulaic that it is blatantly insulting to the public. But the public eats it up.

Listening to a few songs from Modest Mouse or Bloc Party isn't going to change someone's well shaped taste in music. Now Modest Mouse is played side by side with Green Day. Its the same with fashion, the indie style started to get popular and then everyone had to have it but without the edge and meaning so now you have all the American Eagle trucker hats and clever Old Navy T-shirts.

Don't worry I stereotype people by more than their music.
 
MumblingBono said:
He tells it like it is. I remember when he bashed the crap out of James Iha after the Pumpkins broke up - the quote was something like "James Iha broke up The Smashing Pumpkins" .

He's tall and can beat up most pussy rock types, so he speaks his mind.


He's just pissed because he hasn't done anything of consequence in a decade. He's one of the perfect examples of fame gone wrong. He pushed so hard to be popular that he failed. Now all he wants to do is to be popular again and he'll blame anyway he thinks is in his way. He should actually listen to Mary Star of the Sea and maybe he'll realize just how shitty Zwan was. He's a hasbeen. And to see Billy Corgan beat anyone up would be an incredible sight. He's the biggest wimp emo non-emo despite trying to be emo but in a way that he can deny he's emo kid.

whew, done.
 
Last edited:
TheRooster said:
Just some nitpicking to begin with, Radiohead is not indie and have not been indie for a while. Classic rock is one of the farthest things from indie. Liking a few songs does not mean anything. Its like saying "Oh I like some Van Goghs and one or two Pollocks".

I know that. I was just trying to say that she does listen to artists with deeper meaning to their lyrics, is all. I wasn't necessarily calling any of those people/genres indie..I know full well that's not true. And there's other artists she likes more than a couple of songs from that have deeper lyrics, too. Radiohead was just one of the first bands that popped into my mind.

TheRooster said:
Ok now onto more serious things. Lyrics are not what I was referring at least esxclusively when I said that they would not understand the subtleness to songs. It goes beyond lyrics but into the actual craft of the song, the instruments, the rhythym, the sounds, the thought process behind the song, etc. Those who listen to your Eminems and Justin Timberlakes will not understand these things. Thats why I don't want them to take my music and make it into their own little call in request show with Carson Daly.

And I'm just wondering how exactly you know that about those who listen to that kind of music. Again, my sister likes those artists, and yet is still fully able to appreciate the sort of thing you're talking about. There's adults here who like some of the pop artists along the lines of Justin Timberlake and them, and yet they still listen to a ton of the kinds of artists you enjoy, and still fully appreciate that stuff, too. How do you explain that?

Originally posted by TheRooster
My elitism has nothing to do with genre. There is good "indie" rap. There is good "indie" country, "indie" jazz, and "indie" rock. My elitism has to do with quality. I like the analogy of candy. Those songs by people like Destiny's Child and Marroon 5 are candy, perhaps delicious to many but devoid of anything that actually matters. They can have their candy but leave me my filet.

What is bad about those songs is they are often times not even written by the artist. Not just the lyrics but the music as well. The "artist" becomes more of an instrument of the producer or pr department. The music loses any spirit. Its made to appeal to a certain demographic that will spend so much money on shirts, magazines, cds and tour tickets. The songs are often almost exact copies of other songs already heating up the charts. Its so formulaic that it is blatantly insulting to the public. But the public eats it up.

Listening to a few songs from Modest Mouse or Bloc Party isn't going to change someone's well shaped taste in music. Now Modest Mouse is played side by side with Green Day. Its the same with fashion, the indie style started to get popular and then everyone had to have it but without the edge and meaning so now you have all the American Eagle trucker hats and clever Old Navy T-shirts.

Don't worry I stereotype people by more than their music.

Well, I don't like the idea of stereotyping, period. And while I do understand what you're getting at with the formulaic aspect of it all, at the same time, while songs that deal with stuff that matters are definitely great and worth having around, at the same time, we need the kinds of artists like the Maroon 5s and them just to let loose and have some fun and take a break from the serious side of life for a while. There needs to be a balance of both-you shouldn't just ignore any music with a message, nor should you just ignore any music that doesn't have one.

Angela
 
I guess The Rooster and I are the only people here who don't think the term "indie snob" is a slur. :D
 
VertigoGal said:
indie is the most annoying term since progressive.

:wave:

But when you add snob it becomes oh so delightful. :)

Besides, for me indie is merely a statement of fact -- a band or musician is unsigned and putting out their own work, or is signed to a truly independent label (preferable with independent distribution as well).


I need an indie snob smilie..... :hmm:
 
lol, i dont know why i edited my original post...:shrug:

indie might refer to an unsigned band, but following that logic there should be another lump term for all signed bands...ooh, maybe we should start defining artists by which record company they're signed to!

good music is good music. in some cases, bad music is good music (candy:drool: )
 
VertigoGal said:
lol, i dont know why i edited my original post...:shrug:

indie might refer to an unsigned band, but following that logic there should be another lump term for all signed bands...ooh, maybe we should start defining artists by which record company they're signed to!

good music is good music. in some cases, bad music is good music (candy:drool: )

It's not just unsigned...it's unsigned or signed to an independent label. And there is a term for bands signed to major labels -- mainstream. :)
 
indra said:


It's not just unsigned...it's unsigned or signed to an independent label. And there is a term for bands signed to major labels -- mainstream. :)

yeah but those terms have very little to do with the music. many of the bands i like are signed to major labels, but if someone asked me what type of music i listen to,i wouldnt say "mainstream music." :huh:
 
VertigoGal said:


yeah but those terms have very little to do with the music. many of the bands i like are signed to major labels, but if someone asked me what type of music i listen to,i wouldnt say "mainstream music." :huh:

Indie has nothing to do with the sound of the music either. Indie means independent. There are people who give it other meanings, but they are wrong. So there. :D

I think TheRooster noted in one of his posts that there can be indie rock, indie country, indie jazz, indie rap...certainly those aren't all going to sound alike.

I don't like all independent music -- some just doesn't appeal to me, and some is utterly dreadful. And I don't hate all mainstream music either. However, the vast majority of music I like enough to actually purchase is truly indie (independent label or no label). If it makes you feel any better I did buy three Wilco cds this year (on 2 on Nonesuch; 1 on Reprise -- both are subsidiaries of Warner Brothers), so I don't totally boycott the "biggies." :)

And sometimes I just like to tease the "indie is bad, bad, bad" guys here. :D
 
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel said:
at the same time, we need the kinds of artists like the Maroon 5s and them just to let loose and have some fun and take a break from the serious side of life for a while.

But there are plenty of indie (or not-so-mainstream) artists who record joyful, life-affirming music, and aren't serious and dead set in their ways. And their stuff to me is better than so many of these hacks the record companies funnel to us.

I do agree with you that we need Maroon 5 and your Kelly Clarksons and Clay Aikens, but not for the same reason you have stated.

We need them to bring home the bacon to the record companies so they can continue to allow less (financially) successful artists to grow and develop.

Apart from that, I don't care what people elect to listen to. They can like whomever as much as I'm entitled to think their taste is hideous. Whatever floats your boat.
 
yeah, the idea that indie musicians are all ultra serious brooders is wrong. In fact, a great many of them are the opposite. Especially as of late with the rise in freak folk and wacky hipsters like Animal Collective, Bunky, Steven Malkmus, and the Flaming Lips

than you have the very joyful pop stylings of The Shins and A.C. Newman

actually, there's a hell of a lot of more people having fun in the independant scene than the mainstream.
 
anitram said:
But there are plenty of indie (or not-so-mainstream) artists who record joyful, life-affirming music, and aren't serious and dead set in their ways. And their stuff to me is better than so many of these hacks the record companies funnel to us.

Quite true. Didn't mean to make it sound like they don't sing about that stuff, as I certainly know many can and do sing about that stuff. I guess what I meant to say earlier and wasn't able to fully get out, as I had to hurry my response, is that sure the mainstream pop stuff isn't exactly brain food, no, but the teenybopper pop stuff was never really something I'd expect lyrical/musical brilliance from to begin with, so I just take it as it is, and if I happen to find it fun, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

Originally posted by anitram
I do agree with you that we need Maroon 5 and your Kelly Clarksons and Clay Aikens, but not for the same reason you have stated.

We need them to bring home the bacon to the record companies so they can continue to allow less (financially) successful artists to grow and develop.

Makes sense.

Originally posted by anitram
Apart from that, I don't care what people elect to listen to. They can like whomever as much as I'm entitled to think their taste is hideous. Whatever floats your boat.

Exactly. I may make a good-natured joke here and there about an artist someone enjoys that I don't, or I may voice my personal dislike of said artist, but at the end of the day, if their music makes somebody happy, that's all that really matters to me. I just don't like the idea of thinking less of someone because of the music they listen to, is all. Maybe it's 'cause I was once listening to that kind of thing myself on a regular basis and got much flak for it and found it a bit annoying after a while. I dunno.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


I know that. I was just trying to say that she does listen to artists with deeper meaning to their lyrics, is all...And there's other artists she likes more than a couple of songs from that have deeper lyrics, too.

And I'm just wondering how exactly you know that about those who listen to that kind of music...There's adults here who like some of the pop artists along the lines of Justin Timberlake and them, and yet they still listen to a ton of the kinds of artists you enjoy, and still fully appreciate that stuff, too. How do you explain that?

And while I do understand what you're getting at with the formulaic aspect of it all, at the same time, while songs that deal with stuff that matters are definitely great and worth having around, at the same time, we need the kinds of artists like the Maroon 5s and them just to let loose and have some fun and take a break from the serious side of life for a while. There needs to be a balance of both-you shouldn't just ignore any music with a message, nor should you just ignore any music that doesn't have one.

Angela

I think you are misunderstanding my language. When I say a song has deeper meaning or meaning period, I'm not just referring to lyrics. I'm referring to the soul of a song. Meaningful songs, songs with a spirit and soul, can be fun and carefree. I love stuff like that, its very difficult to write a happy song both lyrically and musically. However the artists like Destiny's Child and the American Idol crowd create songs without a soul. Literally devoid of any merit. That is my problem with them and why I don't want any of my bands to get popular less they go down that route which unfortunately many have.

You may know people who like both Marroon 5 type candy music and other indie music and you may know people that can understand and full appreciate good music, however I have never met a person who can truly appreciate a My Bloody Valentine song and like Justin Timberlake. All the people I have met in my life and there have been many I have never met anyone like that. That is why I say what I do.
 
Back
Top Bottom