First things first: Billy Corgan would like it to be known that he does not actually want to piss on Radiohead, despite the interview he gave last week in which he declared, rather matter-of-factly, "I'll piss on Radiohead."

Turns out, most things involving Corgan, the Smashing Pumpkins or anything else Corgan's done over the past 25 years (professional wrestling, Scorpions' concept albums, Zwan) cannot adequately be described as "matter of fact." So here, in the same all-in manner in which he approaches most aspects of his life, is his full explanation of that Radiohead quote and the ensuing fallout it caused.

"Look, if anybody wants any insight into my real character, I'm willing to play the fool, to point out where things are foolish. For example, addressing the Radiohead quote, where the quote was 'I'll piss on Radiohead.' The context of the quote was saying 'I'm willing to poke fun at something because there's so much pomposity around it that it's treated as reverent and holy,' " Corgan told MTV News. "So what ends up happening? The quote ends up getting picked up, which shows [people think] 'How dare anybody criticize the band that's un-criticizable?' And that's really funny; why is a band un-criticizable? I'm an artist who it is apparently OK to criticize, and I've made a career out of playing with that criticism and subverting it.

"One of my main complaints about the music business is that it ignores a lot of music that people really, really like. Heavy metal being particularly one of them. You can say in a crowded room that 'Oh I love Radiohead,' and everyone goes, 'Oh yeah, me too.' But if you say 'I love Iron Maiden,' people go 'What?' " he continued. "That's not cool, and yet, heavy metal bands seem to sell a lot of records and draw a lot of fans. Why are those fans ignored? It's the same high school game ... it's still the same sh--. It's still some guy in a corner with a beard telling me I'm not cool enough, yet I pioneered the very form of music that he's still talking about 20 f---ing years later."

Get it? Good. Corgan wasn't taking a shot at Radiohead but rather the industry that has turned them into sacred cows. And if he sounds bitter, well, that's because he is. After all, unlike most of his alt-rock contemporaries, he's rarely the subject of voluminous praise, and the past decade of his work has, to varying degrees, largely been ignored by the mainstream. Though all of that may change with the Pumpkins' brand-new Oceania album, which, thanks to its voluminous scope, ringing solos and proudly anachronistic aesthetics — hour-plus running time, lack of discernible singles and the like — has critics talking about a full-blown Pumpkins' revival.

And yes, Mr. Corgan finds all of that very amusing indeed.

"Part of the steam and energy behind the new Smashing Pumpkins record is very few people actually thought I'd make a great record again, I'm not oblivious to that," he said. "And it gives very little credit to the fact that I haven't been trying to make great records. I've been trying to make records in a different definition; the cultural zeitgeist version of a great record, I haven't been trying that for a long time. I just don't think there's an upside in it. Where is the upside in making a great record if the critical class isn't going to review it properly, isn't going to give it historical context, and is going to give some guy in his basement who has one good song the Hosanna review, like he's Jesus Christ walking on water. Once you see that system, you just lose interest."

And that truly seems to be the point of Oceania. Corgan isn't interested in making top 10 lists, earning raves or placing singles on modern rock radio. Instead, he just felt the need to make an artistic statement: This is who he is, 25 years into his career, without any regrets. Whether you listen or not is largely up to you; either way, he's content to be misunderstood. In fact, "content" may be an understatement.

"I [used to be] hell-bent before on destroying the bridges that I had just crossed. I don't feel the need to do that anymore. I don't feel the need to honor anything in particular, I don't feel the need to be a certain type of musician, I don't feel the need to exist in a particular culture," he said. "Because as far as I'm concerned, alternative culture on the edges has dismissed me repeatedly for, what, being an artist? That's a really strange thing. And mainstream culture has ignored me repeatedly for not selling enough records, and yet I've managed to sell a lot of records. So, ultimately, what I'd say to anybody is, true independence means you're not going to have the normal people stand up and vote for you. You have to go on your own."

http://www.mtv.com/news/a...rgan.jhtml

He used to be my favorite songwriter.

But then I heard Brilliant Corners by Thelonious Monk and quickly

changed my mind.

He sounds completely reasonable to me. I love Radiohead and he's not dissing them personally.

It just seems kinda silly to me that he's bitter that he doesn't the respect he feels he deserves (a la Radiohead or PJ Harvey) when he's pretty much responsible for how the public views him. Its not like someone else has directed his career for him.

And how he rails on "pomposity" in the music appreciation arena. C'mon, how can you rail on people being pompous when you describe yourself as a musical "tetrahedron"?? Or when you put out a 44 song concept album?

If he really wants to be respected for the musician and songwriter he is he should do less interviews like this one and make more breakthrough music that earns him said respect. I haven't heard Oceania yet, but I'm gonna check it out.

He was on the Stern show this morning. From the little bit I've heard (so far), he seemed to be trying to come across as regretful about the way Pumpkins fell apart, but also seemed like a condescending douchebag at the same time.

I wonder when he cut his long hair off years ago, did he cut off 85% of his humility too?

He's d*ckish, it's true. But he's got a point...the industry does decide what's cool and what's not. Some people are untouchable and others are targets, regardless of if they help move the bulls eye along. Why are Kurt Cobain and Thom Yorke untouchable but Billy Corgan is dismissable?

Oh, and by the way...Oceania is the f@cking bomb record!

Timmy84 said:

I wonder when he cut his long hair off years ago, did he cut off 85% of his humility too?

Premature Male Pattern Humility Loss

rainman1985 said:

Timmy84 said:

I wonder when he cut his long hair off years ago, did he cut off 85% of his humility too?

Premature Male Pattern Humility Loss

Basically.

he's got a point. and it would come across better if he'd actually released good music the

past 10 years.

i don't care however he explains his music in a cultural reference frame, or whatever, it

is still a fact that Zeitgeist was a horrible album and Zwan was only so-so.

part of what he's saying about the focus of media attention is absolutely right, but it's also

due to the fact that some people truly are very very good at what they do.

people can't wait to kick radiohead off their throne, believe me, but as long as they don't

put out a really bad album, no one will. much in the same way that kurt cobain (another

musician corgan mentions here) didn't release any shit songs or at least didn't live long

enough to decline as a writer.

so it's a 2 sided kind of thing.

corgan feels ignored or ridiculed. ok. but he's got himself to blame for a huge amount of

that. his liveshows during the Zeitgeist era were so painful to watch that I walked away

after 4 songs. his attitude often just stinks to high heaven. and the songs don't do anything

to divert your attention from that.

oceania, admitting, is a bit better. the first half is still only so so, imo. the second half of the

disc is pretty good and solid. he seems to be getting some of his mojo back. good for him.

but at this point i'll be content and happy if i'll be able to distill a good, or even great, album

of about 14 songs out of the entire 44 song teargarden by kaleidoscope project once it's all

been released.

i guess that's how most former fans feel. and that's not the media's fault, that's corgans.

His attitude kinda reminds me of some other guy...

[Edited 6/20/12 8:13am]

errant said:

He was on the Stern show this morning. From the little bit I've heard (so far), he seemed to be trying to come across as regretful about the way Pumpkins fell apart, but also seemed like a condescending douchebag at the same time.

I'm revising my statements here. Heard the whole thing. I had only heard a brief bit of his comments about James and Darcy. He actually comes across as pretty honest, and you can kind of see his point about how they acted.

He's still looking good.

Billy Corgan loves Radiohead.

Billy Corgan loves a lot of music, passionately.

Newsflash! Billy Corgan is a grumpy, dour, slightly depressed and INCREDIBLY OPINIONATED. He's been that way since, oh, I don't know.... FOREVER!

If you ask Billy Corgan a question he will unapologetically tell you what he really thinks, even if it's grumpy, dour and slightly depressed. This is also the way he's been from day one. Personally, I find it refreshing to know that somebody out there is still willing to speak their mind without worrying about Perez Hilton or some other internet douche taking everything they say out of context.

The current Smashing Pumpkins lineup is VERY solid. Honestly, they're probably the best group of musicians he's ever worked with in total. They'd be better with Jimmy on the kit, but Mike is a VERY solid second place and he's still growing all the time. But Jeff and Nicole are better than D'arcy and James. And this is coming from somebody who owns everything they've ever released. The magic was all the way there the last time I saw them live.

Oceania is quite good, possibly great. It's out now, I can't recommend enough that people try to listen to it with an open mind.

lezama said:

It just seems kinda silly to me that he's bitter that he doesn't the respect he feels he deserves (a la Radiohead or PJ Harvey) when he's pretty much responsible for how the public views him. Its not like someone else has directed his career for him.

And how he rails on "pomposity" in the music appreciation arena. C'mon, how can you rail on people being pompous when you describe yourself as a musical "tetrahedron"?? Or when you put out a 44 song concept album?

If he really wants to be respected for the musician and songwriter he is he should do less interviews like this one and make more breakthrough music that earns him said respect. I haven't heard Oceania yet, but I'm gonna check it out.

Here is his response to people who took those comments out of context...

“It’s not Radiohead that’s pompous; in fact, I think Radiohead is a great band. It’s the pomposity that surrounds Radiohead in a culture that needs to celebrate them to reaffirm their own value system. Like, “Isn’t it cool that Thom Yorke just rolls out of bed, puts on his hat, and doesn’t care?” That’s people reflecting their own values back to themselves. That’s the pomposity. That’s what I said in that quote.

A band like Radiohead is incredibly important; it should be that way. They’re a great band; they should have their audience; they should headline the festivals. The reviewers should write the four pages of reviews while they comb through Thom’s lyrics. They’re deserved of that. It’s the culture around that, that same culture that turns around and says my new release is worthy of a one-paragraph thing that dismisses me and says he hasn’t done anything good since ’93. Am I receiving the same level of critical review? No. They need to put people like me in that box to make their other box look brighter. That’s my point. It’s football players; it’s jocks and stoners and nerds all over again. And now the nerds are running the fucking show?”

errant said:

errant said:

He was on the Stern show this morning. From the little bit I've heard (so far), he seemed to be trying to come across as regretful about the way Pumpkins fell apart, but also seemed like a condescending douchebag at the same time.

I'm revising my statements here. Heard the whole thing. I had only heard a brief bit of his comments about James and Darcy. He actually comes across as pretty honest, and you can kind of see his point about how they acted.

I'd be interested in hearing this. Is there a link? He wasn't so happy to talk about all that stuff for a long time, and when he did it wasn't from a very objective place. I think he's finally comfortable with the current Smashing Pumpkins (it only took over a decade) and that's allowing him to discuss the past more honestly.

IstenSzek said:

his liveshows during the Zeitgeist era were so painful to watch that I walked away

after 4 songs.

his attitude often just stinks to high heaven.

Not sure what shows you went to. I went to a majority of the Fillmore run and every show was stellar. Far beyond what I was expecting, actually.

Yes, it does. But that ain't nothin' new. At least he's consistent.

Cerebus said:

errant said:

I'm revising my statements here. Heard the whole thing. I had only heard a brief bit of his comments about James and Darcy. He actually comes across as pretty honest, and you can kind of see his point about how they acted.

I'd be interested in hearing this. Is there a link? He wasn't so happy to talk about all that stuff for a long time, and when he did it wasn't from a very objective place. I think he's finally comfortable with the current Smashing Pumpkins (it only took over a decade) and that's allowing him to discuss the past more honestly.

Jump ahead to about 1:37:00

Here's an interesting quote from the interview. Billy talking about James Iha's solo album Let It Come Down. To put it in context Billy was surprised that James had never mentioned that he was recording a solo album and never asked for Billy's opinions or input on the songs.

I guess it never occurred to Billy that there was a reason why James never told him about the songs he was writing for his solo album. Maybe Billy was genuinely interested in helping his friend but it kind of sounds like he wanted to take control of the album.

To give credit where it is due I stole this quote from the comments section of youtube. pancakerepairman was the one that transcribed the quote.

Cerebus said:

lezama said:

It just seems kinda silly to me that he's bitter that he doesn't the respect he feels he deserves (a la Radiohead or PJ Harvey) when he's pretty much responsible for how the public views him. Its not like someone else has directed his career for him.

And how he rails on "pomposity" in the music appreciation arena. C'mon, how can you rail on people being pompous when you describe yourself as a musical "tetrahedron"?? Or when you put out a 44 song concept album?

If he really wants to be respected for the musician and songwriter he is he should do less interviews like this one and make more breakthrough music that earns him said respect. I haven't heard Oceania yet, but I'm gonna check it out.

Here is his response to people who took those comments out of context...

“It’s not Radiohead that’s pompous; in fact, I think Radiohead is a great band. It’s the pomposity that surrounds Radiohead in a culture that needs to celebrate them to reaffirm their own value system. Like, “Isn’t it cool that Thom Yorke just rolls out of bed, puts on his hat, and doesn’t care?” That’s people reflecting their own values back to themselves. That’s the pomposity. That’s what I said in that quote.

A band like Radiohead is incredibly important; it should be that way. They’re a great band; they should have their audience; they should headline the festivals. The reviewers should write the four pages of reviews while they comb through Thom’s lyrics. They’re deserved of that. It’s the culture around that, that same culture that turns around and says my new release is worthy of a one-paragraph thing that dismisses me and says he hasn’t done anything good since ’93. Am I receiving the same level of critical review? No. They need to put people like me in that box to make their other box look brighter. That’s my point. It’s football players; it’s jocks and stoners and nerds all over again. And now the nerds are running the fucking show?”

I understand all of that, but its the opposition to pomposity itself which I find a bit hypocritical. At base is the whole notion of being misunderstood as an artist and not fairly respected. Well, everyone and their mother feels misunderstood and not fairly recognized, c'mon, there's nothing special about him in that regard. And I respect him as a songwriter and musician, but like many a recording artist he's not the most mature person in the world. I mean, he's no where near as bad as someone like John Mayer or Morrissey when he opens his mouth, but sometimes less is more in interviews. I prefer when artists/musicians let their music do the talking and leave interviews for really specific statements, specific responses to questions and leave the rambling at home. The more they ramble, the more they're likely to say things that turn people off.

2020 said:

His attitude kinda reminds me of some other guy...

[Edited 6/20/12 8:13am]

How so. I have not heard P say he wanted to take a piss on another artist or band. Even when Rick James was ripping in the media back in the day.

The truth is the music media picks groups to crown the kings of music. Even if the output is spoty and their overall populairty is questionable.

We know that P sold a shit load of records and still puts on well attended and kick ass concerts.

He always comes across as believing he is way more important than he actually is.

Nice interview on Stern.

Nice and honest guy.

Love alot of his music.

He looks like Pierre Woodman.

Is Oceania out in the states yet? I'm going to get it today.

I think he's completely reasonable and can talk as much as he likes, he's more than talented enough to back it up. Zeitgeist was a major failure in the mixing department, but anyone who takes a swipe at Zwan gets an automatic douche point from me. That record is the second best thing he's ever done and not that far behind Siamese Dream. It's fantastic.

I really think I understand where Billy is coming from - he's using SP as an example but really that's where he's getting himself misunderstood because he comes off as looking whiny and bitter.

But he's been talking about this kind of thing with other bands for years. On the documentary that came out on Rush a couple years ago, he was prominently featured, talking about how great they were, and how they weren't "cool" enough to be taken seriously by the rock press and "intelligensia". There are certain bands and artists that fall out of favor for a variety of reasons and it IS like high school all over again. I think it has little reflection on the actual quality of the music in many instances.

Despite all he's paid, he is still just a brat in a rage.

[Edited 6/22/12 14:59pm]

MendesCity said:

Despite all he's paid, he is still just a brat in a rage.

That made me laugh, but it doesn't really matter. Rich folk still got opinions.

I am still interested in there new album....

Zeitgiest had some good lyrics.. but omg the murky guitar sounds on there. And they way the guitars where recorded sound so

And the one by one song release.............

Gunsnhalen said:

And the one by one song release.............

One by one, FOR FREE? Come on now, man. You can't HONESTLY be complaining about something he was doing for FREE? Can you?