I read more than a couple reviews of the Smashing Pumpkins’ Zeitgeist today, and for awhile they had me in a near panic. About 4 out of 5 thought the piece was better-than-expected-if-still-not-great, and the remaining 1 of 5 would think it was crap-crap-crap. Then I wikipediad some reviews on The Future Embrace and felt a lot better. I thought that The Future Embrace was an anachronism – it really did belong in the mid-80s – but it was also a fine album that stretched Corgan’s abilities both forwards and backwards. If the critics could think it was crap, and they liked Zeitgeist more, than maybe my concern is premature.
This is a strange situation for me, by which I mean that I am so biased via the Smashing Pumpkins that I don’t feel that I can offer much objectivity whatsoever. In general, I don’t take a pomo hard line… I think that with a concerted effort bias can be mitigated (or even overcompensated for) and that it is possible to situate oneself at least relative to different object. But that relativity means that there have to be exceptions. In the case of the Smashing Pumpkins, I have been using their music, their albums, as a concrete model for emulation for over a decade now. If I like their new album, I am clearly making a extraordinary effort to suck as much out of it as I can. If I don’t like it, it is clearly very, very personal. It is, perhaps, appropriate for me to talk about all of this ahead of time, because I can make these statements independent of the music itself. Consider it to be me getting the baggage out in the open.
So, some generalizations:
- The reviews seemed to have massive spread in terms of the songs they liked. When I say that, I mean that almost every review named some songs as being equal to the Pumpkins’ earlier work, and other songs as sub-par or sucking. The thing was, they couldn’t agree on which songs. This is very encouraging to me. I went back last week and read a bunch of Rolling Stone reviews of Rolling Stone albums, and all of the big ones got five stars. And yet, I can’t imagine that, in the day, Sticky Fingers and Beggar’s Banquet and Let It Bleed were all fifteen for fifteen, just as Rolling Stone magazine gave Mellon Collie (I think) a rough three-and-a-half out of five in 1995. Music reviews seem to be ridiculously inconsistent. Hindsight may be twenty-twenty, but foresight from likes as austere/admired as Rolling Stone and Spin are at best ten-twenty (twenty-forty? I forget.) Point being: If all the reviews had agreed that the same songs sucked, then that speaks of an album that is one-half black coffee and one half sour cream. Differing opinions from reputable sources suggest at worst disarray among reviewers, but at best it suggests and album that challenges listeners. That leads listeners in new directions. When I listen to Zeitgeist tomorrow, I’m going to listen for the latter.
- There is a lot of talk about Smashing Pumpkins Redux, but I will be a hard sell on the fact of recapitulation. Two of the three most prominent approaches to this album speak to this fact. First is the actual subject matter of the album. That is, a lot of the reviews attacked (while a few lauded) the Pumpkins’ new political bent. While I admittedly don’t have high expectations for a trenchant analysis of American values or a repudiation/plea of/for American realpolitik, Corgan had to realize that the 100,000ish units he does regularly sell is all from his dedicated fan-base. (It wasn’t newcomers who walked into Virgin and walked out with Zwan or The Future Embrace.) As much as his famous ego and pretension is now (and always will be) a part of his projects, this is a risky departure. Contrary to reviewers who always speak of Corgan’s megalomania as coexisting with commercial savvy, I can only see it as an extension – and possibly an overextension – of artistic integrity. In fact, Corgan will probably never get the credit he is due for this. And yet the political direction of Zeitgeist is so at odds with the earlier material the Pumpkins recorded that I do believe they are challenging themselves artistically. That is a great reassurance.
- Lastly, I was talking with my friend alan1 (who no matter what you say is not me, I promise so please stop emailing and asking about it), and I said that I am looking forward to their next album more than Zeitgeist. I didn’t do a good job putting this into words, but he said:
In a sense, he is relaunching a brand as opposed to reforming a band, and while I think that helps in terms of having already defined the aestetic and direction of the project, in terms of developing a sort of creative momentum, or what I might call a favorable creative context, there is a lot of work to be done. Bands rarely find their stride on their first record (and I think for these purposes we can consider this a first record), and the ones that do tend to not go on to a second. There are obviously a large number of exceptions, but I think that (and I hate to put it this way) Billy Corgan needs to prove that the Pumpkins are still a viable business model, both literally in terms of sustaining interest and profitability and figuratively in terms of sustaining creative energy. In short, this will either be a swan song (unfortunate) or a transitional work on the way to something… great
That pretty much how I feel about this album. It isn’t Smashing Pumpkins’ first album, and it has more in common with Gish then Machina II. Hopefully it will be their self-titled Fleetwood Mac album (Landslide included), or even better, their Their Satanic Majesties Request.
Essentially, I’m cautiously optimistic about this new Smashing Pumpkins thing. I doubt it will be their best work, but I do expect to hear something new, and at the very least, I admire the integrity and creativity with which Corgan has invested this project. Far from his critics who sometimes accuse him of lacking in creativity or vision, if anything, I think that he applies them to a fault.
But I’ll write more when I’ve actually heard the stuff.