The Smashing Pumpkins - Rage against the Machina



A firm grasp on reality.

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 :astonished:

1 Like

This is ironically what BC has been doing for the last 10+ years

1 Like

For the record I will watch the shit out of ITV’s SP feature length drama and I’m baffled by this whole thing tbqh



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.

Not really.


But reviews are written by individuals

I think Pitchfork is / was really guilty of it.

“music reviewers are part of a shadowy media cabal who intentionally ruin peoples careers for no reason”

Ah, and you want to make the music industry a better, fairer place by removing these awful people and stopping it from happening to anyone else?

“no man, I just want to be a part of their gang”


There’s often an editorial line at publications, and there’s definitely been instances where sores have been adjusted to reflect this (sure it happened on DiS back in the day)

However you have to balance how much this happens against Corgan’s persecution complex and that he’s at least twenty years past his best.


I think part of what bothers me is that a different standard seems to exist for him (part of it is admittedly his fault for going on and on about relevance). Plenty of artists are well past their primes, but they’re not considered failures or jokes for releasing albums that don’t top their best or most successful work.

reckon it’s totally fine to be releasing music past your best if you don’t keep insisting that you’re not and that your albums are only getting marked down for sinister reasons because nobody could possibly dislike them


I just want to meet Billy one day to tell him i have never heard Disarm as i’m sure i read that’s what big Dave Pajo (probably read that in this thread!) did and it caused a big argument :rofl: The thought of that cracks me up for some reason.

They were still pretty massive back in '96 in the UK. I saw them on the arena tour. They were one of the few heavy bands i clung onto as i went a bit indie (shudder) for a few years and i seem to remember them getting favourable write ups in most more indie leaning publications.

None of this is really relevant but i love this thread! @ttf & @TAFH33 are doing an excellent job of sticking up for their heroes and it’s strangely compelling. More so than my Vitriol at this stage.

I fucking love the pumkins by the way - but only up to '97 (and yes i’ve tried a lot of times to get into the albums which “recapture the magic of 90’s pumkins” and they just don’t. Just a bit bland.)

Billy always seemed cool in the 90’s (to a loser like me anyway) - hunted down a ghostbusters jumper after viewphoria - but has been a total chump since. Does that mean he always has been? doubt it.

tl:dr; i used to like the pumkins.

Pixies are obviously a far better band and everyone is pretty happy to tell them that their new music is shite and they shouldn’t tour without Kim ever


most of them who have come back are shite and get told i reckon.

don’t think it helped with billy pissing around with lots of pumkins stuff throughout the years but then making a big comeback of sorts a few years back when most people interested already knew he hadn’t been away.

The only announcement to save him now is a melon collie in full tour :smiley:

1 Like

That’s fair, but I think there’s some truth to what he says. Again I don’t think he’s saying there’s some mass conspiracy. The press obviously treats him like a meme and seems to delight in attacking him.

It’s kind of funny because sometimes he does get positive reviews (Oceania and Zwan and even Ogilala come to mind for the post-2000 material), but that quickly gets swallowed up by “LOL Billy Corgan” and the narrative changes to that it was all bad.