He kicked him out because his drug habit was going to kill him otherwise, it wasn’t an ego move or a “we don’t need a drummer” move at all.
Adore is a beautiful and special album. While I personally don’t think any other band has released an album better, I don’t expect others to feel that way but think it should at the very least be considered up there with the other sad classics of 1998 like XO, Good Morning Spider, and Electro-shock Blues.
I just figured Adore was for them a bit like Kid A was for Radiohead, an album that swerved from the rock music they were known for.
As such you get a backlash, it happens to any artist that changes sound, just as Bob “Judas” Dylan.
It’s not my sort of sound really and until I saw it live I was fairly unsure about most of Kid A too if I’m honest. These days I enjoy it but still it’s way down my RH list because I’m still fundamentally more into their rock sounds (and while I appreciate the Warp sound I think RH’s interpretation isn’t that amazing).
Looking at the NME end of year lists from 1993 and 1995 it seems clear that Mellon Collie simply suffered because it was released at the height of Britpop. At the time anything with a hint of prog influence was regarded with suspicion. As said above though, I remember Pearl Jam bore the brunt of the grunge/alt-rock backlash in the UK.
The most surprising thing about these lists is the position of In Utero
I like Monuments but it’s my least favorite release of theirs. It’s a quick, catchy sugar rush but I think he’s at his best when making something massive and emotionally charged. I’ve always considered that quote to be kind of snapping at something small / the wrong thing after years of mistreatment.
Two more things on that subject:
It’s 2014 Billy Corgan. Very different from 1987-2000 (and even 2000-2008) Billy Corgan. I think it’s important to separate the two in these discussions, he turned into a completely different person. If I’m remembering correctly, that was basically him at his worst.
I don’t think he’s deeply arrogant. He’s constantly pointing out mistakes he’s made and criticizing himself and elevating other artists. I think he’s proud of his work and wishes it were properly acknowledged, which I think is a very naturally human and reasonable thing.
He’s 100% right, I thought this was fairly accepted and a common criticism of music journalism. I think given the nature of the question, you’re kind of "LIsa’s going to marry a carrot"ing him. Certain publications like certain artists and dislike others, and the reviews they write are written accordingly. And then by the end of the year pretty much all of the same albums are on everyone’s lists.
I don’t think is unique to the Pumpkins at all, and it happens both on the positive and negative side. A few years ago everyone basically had gotten it into their heads that Tame Imapala “had made the leap” and it felt like everyone consequently reviewed the album that they had in their head rather than the album that existed. Pitchfork transparently hates Eels - do you think when he releases a new album that they’re reviewing it in good faith? That they’re not ready and excited to shit on it before hearing it?
Music journalists have biases and narratives are created, and certain bands get pushed and other bands get buried. I don’t think that’s controversial at all.