Reply To: The early history of the Pumpkins rewritten by SPfreaks!
On 2007.08.05 at 11:56 pm Arthur wrote:
i agree with points 4 and 5.
there’s no reason to conclude that this early song is the smashing pumpkins. saying the pumpkins started in 1987 is just a matter of taste, i guess. but if even billy/the band consider 1988 to be the birthyear of the smashing pumpkins, why should we disagree with that?
you can discuss this, but i think it’s pointless. hope was recorded in 1986, but officially released on still becoming apart, clearly a smashing pumpkins release. should we change it to 1986-2000, then?
and i agree that this is no breaking news, and that no history is rewritten.[/quote:bhsm5j16]
Just a quick reply to this, because it’s a very interesting point of view. Which I still don’t agree, but that’s because I’m becoming a fundamentalist in this. Kidding, seriously now. I have just returned home from a long trip, so I’m tired and I wanna sleep. OK who cares. Here we go.
1. There are 3 reasons to conclude this recorded song is part of the early history of the Smashing Pumpkins. I mentioned them before. For me (and not only me, several people agree on this, and it was not even me who brought this up, but I agreed immediately) the most important reason is: Billy puts it on a tape with the name Smashing Pumpkins on it. He wants it to be part of the early Pumpkins legacy, whatever he says about when the bandname came up. Technically the Smashing Pumpkins exist since December 1987, and I’m (almost) sure Billy would agree on that when being asked about it.
2. Hope will indeed get a 1986 recording date in our database, and 1986 will be visible in the Tour & Recording History (yes I let it being renamed to stop confusion in that section which was called Tour History first) when we get to that Hope track which was released in 2000. We just started in 1987/1988, working on 1989 and 1990 now. Rest till 2000 to follow after that, might take a while. But it’s indeed an interesting thing you bring up here Cool As Ice Cream, far more interesting then the Spiteface & Sun comparison Smiley brought up. Is it Smashing Pumpkins part I 1986-2000 then in my opinion? No. Hope was a Billy solo track (if I’m right) in a period that The Marked still existed, James Iha was not around yet and it was never played by the band live as far I know. Spank me hard when I’m wrong here, I do this by head now. For sure Billy had good creative reasons to put it on this promo CD that came with Machina, and indeed he made it part of the Pumpkins legacy by doing so. But it’s too far away from the early days to my humble opinion. I Fall is not however.
3. It is breaking news when some people have a clear opinion & want to start a discussion about it. And to create a bit of a fuzz, this is the way to play the game. Disagreeing doesn’t make it less breaking news. But that’s another discussion far from this one, so I leave it if you don’t mind.
Besides, tons of people don’t have this I Fall 1987 recording and Billy’s confessions about it on top of their mind, instead they get no listings about I Fall or even misinformation everywhere about "1988" when "Billy met James Iha". Which sux. Another reason to call it breaking news.
4. Which brings me to another, kinda philosophical, question. When was Smashing Pumpkins restarted? June 2005, when Billy announced he wants his dreams and band back? The day Jimmy Chamberlin said "I’m game Billy!"? 2006, when the Pumpkins website came back to live? When the rehearsels with the new bandmembers started, or when the recording sessions for Zeitgeist started? 22 May 2007 Paris, first time playing live?
My first shot would be: Smashing Pumpkins is a band concept, and a band needs more than 1 person to exist (that’s another reason why Hope can never make the startdate of the Pumpkins). So when Jimmy said yes to Billy the Pumpkins were reborn, in my opinion. Who knows when this was exactly, by the way? Probably already in 2005 somewhere? And are there people with other opinions?