Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived discussion page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents

[edit] Images

Over the last couple of days, I took the liberty of updating all the SP covers to higher res, clearer ones, including MACHINA II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music which had the wrong cover (the EP one instead of the LP), and continued to put the rest of the thumbnails for the covers next to the appropriate section as was already done with w/ Siamese Dream, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness and MACHINA/The Machines of God.. I also added Corgan's ad in the Chicago Tribune.. It kind of changes the look of the page.. but I think in a good way, i hope you agree

---

Hey, not sure how we can edit this, but can we use a different picture to represent the band? http://ww.my-mistake.net/infinitepics has a lot of pictures to choose from. I really don't like the picture shown.

Some suggestions:

http://www.my-mistake.net/infinitepics/band/band447.jpg

http://www.my-mistake.net/infinitepics/band/band092.jpg

http://www.my-mistake.net/infinitepics/band/band106.jpg

http://www.my-mistake.net/infinitepics/band/band478.jpg

http://www.my-mistake.net/infinitepics/band/band500.jpg

Effloresce

Replying to Effloresce, I think that it would be a good idea to replace the band pic.. only replace it one of the current SP line-up, which at this point in time is unknown..
jerkmonkee 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever is done with regard to images must be done within the site policy, specifically Wikipedia:Image use policy. I would recommend reading that very carefully first, so as to avoid your efforts getting reverted. Specifically, you can't just throw any pictures you like on the site. Also, you might want to undo your hi-res work on the album covers, as it seems to expressly violate fair use rationales. Sorry, but dem's the breaks... Girolamo Savonarola 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In regards to to Girolamo Savonarola, I actually posted all the cover art on Wikipedia, and I don't agree that it all "seems to expressly violate fair use rationales", infact most of them are barely over the 300x300px range, which is just barely over the 200x200px size that Wikipedia uses in the album infobox, so yea, i have to disagree..
jerkmonkee 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any open-source, free to use anywhere images of the band? I think one of those could help out, but I don't know where to find one.

[edit] Grunge

I took the liberty to add the musical element of Grunge to the list at the beginning at the article. When I first read the opening paragraph, I made sure to read it twice, since I almost couldn't believe the reference was missing. Why do you ask? Apart from a big part their music which reflects the Seattle sound of the early 90s, they even started out on the sub pop label just as oh-so-many other Grunge bands. I also sorted the first items alphabetically. I hope you all approve. --Johnnyw 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

comment - , rather than 'Corgan looped up to 40 heavily distorted guitars, a technique that critics thought could not be reproduced live' I'd say 'Corgan looped up to 40 heavily distorted guitars, a technique that was criticised because it could not be reproduced live' because it couldn't be reproduced live, right?


Grunge is not a style of music, its just somthing the music press made up in the early 1990s.

67.71.44.163, please sign your posts. Also, what? So then.... what do you call the movement and how do you classify the many bands that fall under that label? Folkor 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Grunge is a movement, not a style of music. The bands that were considered "Grunge", well Nirvana was basicly a punk band, ect. I would classify the Pumpkins as New Rock, Alt Rock.

The Smashing Pumpkins are NOT grunge. As said above, grunge is an image movement (ie. don't care about your image) and not a style of music. The Pumpkins were VERY image conscious from the get-go (cf. Caroline/Virgin debacle). Danny Lilithborne 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, okay, that makes sense. However, if this is the case, why does the Grunge music page exist and completely contradict what you are saying? If you want to make the argument you are making, the Grunge page needs to agree with your concept of Grunge. Now, I'm not really a fan of most "grunge", but still, I'm looking for some consistency. I wouldn't actually really call the Smashing Pumpkins grunge, although at times they were grouped as such. Folkor 07:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's one large and unfortunate article... what is described as "grunge" there is basically a name given to alternative rock when it was too popular to be alternative. I don't really agree with the name at all, but I'm not sure what to do about the article. Danny Lilithborne 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Pumpkins article just reads "containing elements of...". Currently I am not convinced that they did not contain elements of grunge, even if grunge is just an image thing, especially due to their sub pop connection. --Johnnyw 10:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say that I agree with Johnnyw, although I wouldn't be too upset if the reference was removed from the page. However, that doesn't change the Grunge article. However, what you (Danny Lilithborne) say is probably legitimate. Then again, I don't know. It does contradict what I've heard and read before. Folkor 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Grunge is a definite style, not the least because Sub Pop pursued and promoted bands with certain musical traits. However, after its breakthrough, basically any alternative band with loud, distorted guitars was termed grunge (including Smashing Pumpkins) because Nirvana at that time was more influenced by groups like Dinosaur Jr, Sonic Youth, R.E.M., and the Pixies than the traditional Mudhoney/Green River/Soundgarden grunge approach; Nirvana determined the mass conception of what grunge sounded like even though before they became huge they were not its flagship band. WesleyDodds 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the post above...also the Pumpkins are absolutely NOT grunge, they are alternative rock...in the early nineties almost everything came out of the underground and had success was labelled grunge (Melvins, Pixies, who were successful long before grunge, but were thus labelled nonethless, Sonic Youth...)Sickboy3883 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Smashing Pumpkins" vs. "The Smashing Pumpkins"

I believe the name of the band is just "Smashing Pumpkins", not *The* Smashing Pumpkins.

I think you're right. I'm going to move it. -- Zoe
There is no clear consensus (among fans or the band itself) on what the "proper" name for the band is. I can say from first-hand experience that in the early days of the band at least one bandmember was adamant that there was no "The" in the name -- that "smashing" was intended as a verb not an adjective. As has been pointed out, at some point they must have relented on this stance as later releases had "The" in the text. I don't think it much matters how the article is titled so long as a proper redirect exists. I may try to add a bit to the article acknowledging the ambiguousness of the name. (I'm posting this to both talk pages, BTW) Jgm 15:45, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is Smashing Pumpkins... even though tons of people (and magazines) say The Smashing Pumpkins. The band was quoted remarking on this.

See discussion just above. Whatever the band might have said at one time or another, I don't think we can call it "incorrect" when later releases had The Smashing Pumpkins on the record cover. Jgm 11:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The band was titled Smashing Pumpkins until the 1995 release of Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness when they added "The" to the name. All subsequent SP releases have "The Smashing Pumpkins" printed as the artists. I recall Billy Corgan saying he decided to change the name because "too many people were making Pumpkin jokes, and were bringing pumpkins to concerts to smash them". On another note, the original logo for the Pumpkins was the letters SP inside a heart. In 2000, the band released a new logo which was the letters SP between a crucifix so it looked more like TSP.
MrHate 06:34, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the new logo looks more like STP http://www.smashingbootlegs.friko.pl/b-logo-sp.gif. –MementoVivere 08:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Billy Corgan said it was called "The Smashing Pumpkins". He got tired of the British joke. Danny Lilithborne 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I was always under the opinion that the name changed just before the album adore. I assumed this was to do with the firing of Jimmy, thus legally speaking they could not release under the name "smashing pumpkins", thus changed it to "the smashing pumpkins". However this maybe completely wrong! (Alex) 19 Feb 06

  • Mellon Collie was the first with the "the". And being unable to release material under a name made before Jimmy even joined doesn't make sense. Folkor 07:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
One of their first demo tapes was called The Smashing Pumpkins, which was way back in 1988, so I believe that smashing was always an adjective. Also, I believe the first official use of the in their catalog began with the Rocket single. Elvrum 00:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's make this a featured article

I just came upon this article, and it seems to have great potential. If anyone has any appropriate/non-copyvio pictures, we'll need 'em. Also, the intro section should be expanded (IMO). For more info on featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Timbo ( t a l k ) 22:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • There are some good pictures here. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in images/copyvios could see if we could use any. Timbo ( t a l k ) 22:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Id be glad to help bring this article to Featured article status Jobe6 22:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discography - Promotional releases

The discography of Smashing Pumpkins is quite prolific. I believe there should be a section on this site that displays the promotional releases of the band [1].

I have found a site which displays artworks for many (if not, all, however they are not labelled) of the promotional items the band has released. [2] (and click on the Album Artwork link). Paranoid-andrew 06:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Update/edit: I have added a page for The Everlasting Gaze, as a first page for promotional releases from the band. Please let me know what you think (this is mny first attempt at creating a page on Wikipedia!) Paranoid-andrew 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name?

How did Smashing Pumpkins get its name? Was it named this from its conception, or could it have had anything to do with SPISPOPD? - Brian Kendig 23:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Billy corgan once said that there was really nothing special about it, to think of it in the british sense of smashing, like those blokes look smashing. well there are The Smashing Pumpkins. "It could have been any vegitable, really"-BC --CastAStone 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Pumpkins had their name long before DOOM was created, although they were certainly fans of the game (cf. the explosion sample in Where Boys Fear to Tread and liner notes in one of the album which refer to their extensive playing of DOOM on the road). I read somewhere than Billy Corgan had a dream once in which some rock singer (Alice Cooper? maybe) referred to another singer as "like a pumpkin, smashed and drunken"). Not sure where that came from or how true it is, although it was certainly accepted as truth amongst the Pumpkins fans I knew (c. 1995) RobLinwood 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It was actually Gene Simmons. Billy told that story in an interview, though I don't remember any information about who it was with or when it was. 142.59.153.99 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Billy Corgan has said in the past that the name came to him in a dream. In a post-breakup interview, D'arcy Wretzky said that Billy Corgan had basically just wanted a band called Smashing Pumpkins and really didn't have a reason for it. --Kahlfin 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering how eager D'arcy is to contradict Billy Corgan, I'd go with Billy's version. Danny Lilithborne 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Sorry if this is informal, but why isn't the'Aeroplane Flies High' box set listed for sales? It is listed by the RIAA as silver, or maybe it was even platinum, I can't remember. I'm also surprised nothing about the Smashing Pumpkins high unit sale by the RIAA was listed. The RIAA has Mellon Collie at near 10 million sales because it counts the two disc set individually.


Billy came up with the name before he met any of the other members, when people asked him if he was in a band he'd say "yeah ... smashing pumpkins". He actually said this to James and upon finding out that this band didn't exist, they decided it would actually be a really cool name and went with it. Billy has also been quoted as saying that he wanted to be in a band whose name was an adjective. (Alex 19th Feb 06)


According to spfc.org, and d'arcy, it was an inside joke of billy's long before he met any of the members. he just always wanted to be in a band called "smashing pumpkins". - end of argument. --Flvg94 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completeness of discography?

How complete is the discography information intended to be? I have _Adore_ on vinyl, and that format isn't listed; my _Siamese Dream_ vinyl is orange not red. I suppose this isn't the place for a complete indepth listing of every single release right down to the various label colours, but is it worth even mentioning that certain albums were released on LP if the list isn't accurate/complete? The Gilly 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If I had it my way, I'd only list the albums and leave it to more devoted sites to lay down the law as to which pressings are available. Danny Lilithborne 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Or at the least, leave the details to each item's own page. No need to clutter it up here. Girolamo Savonarola 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reunion

Please do not add speculation to the article regarding the band's possible reunion, unless you can provide a verifiable source. ~MDD4696 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed whole heartedly. I have deleted most of it, and if you have a problem with this, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically part 3: The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it. Please respect this and do not revert these deletions unless you can back the info up as per the policy guideline. This site is not a rumor mill, nor do we score any points for scoops. As an encyclopedic article, the goal is accuracy and references to back that up. Girolamo Savonarola 23:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank God there are now verifiable sources, like Billy Corgan himself! - J hicks1984 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Billy has said many times that he was getting the Pumpkins back together.

Source: Billy Corgan's Myspace Account (www.myspace.com/billycorgan)

"I'm sure you are all well aware of my unpredictable behavior by now with my random disappearances, but I have once again returned. Although I do leave for long spurts of time, I always come back, and I promise you I will always come back with a fucken bang! Just trust me this once and you shall soon see what I have in store for all of you.........

love/bc"

I got that off of blamo.org, the Smashing Pumpkins' official fan site. I also recall Q101 news saying that they would continue to make a CD with or without the unjoined members of the band. --Aptitude 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record sales

I went to Billboard.com and it said the Smashing Pumpkins have sold over 18 million albums, rather than the 12 million that was listed. I took the liberty to change this.


This was mostly likely due to the RIAA unit sales system. Mellon Collie actually sold about 5,000,000 copies, but since it is a double CD it is credited with around 10,000,000. The difference between the additional million may be do to updating.--Aptitude 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Music Project evaluation

The Smashing Pumpkins has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensiveness - Pictures - Audio - References
The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.
  • Comprehensiveness: More on musical styles, influences and legacy
  • Pictures: Needs fair use rationales
  • Audio: Only one
  • References: Insufficient
  • Discography okay, but is awfully complex; some info would be better in a comprehensive subarticle
  • There shouldn't be any empty section headings (like "History")
How is the discography complex? Those releases are all important one way or another... I can't really imagine removing or changing it and calling it an improvement... and "There shouldn't be any empty section headings"? I have no idea what you're talking about. Could someone clear this up for me? -- Underwater 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of to do for Musical Influence would be maybe to mention the fact that the album Queen II by Queen is Billy Corgan fav. album. Also according to him the Smashing Pumpkins were originally supposed to be a type of New Wave group(accourding to Narraration by Billy on the DVD Vieuphoria. Also with albums the only thing that I don't like is the list of bootlegs, I personally do not feel that they have a place being listed in an encyclopedia. Lastly the enternal links area may need to be cut down a little, if you ask me (Revo 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Okay, then, should we just remove the bootleg section, or give it it's own artical? -- Underwater 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about the lack of mention of influences. We have the Queen quote, and in Guitar World he talked about how Black Sabbath's Master of Reality and Judas Priest's Screaming for Vengeance were great albums. As evidenced by his stint in the Marked and the later direction of the Pumpkins, he grew up listening to a lot of post-punk and goth. They've covered the Cure and Depeche Mode as b-sides, and covered Joy Division's "Transmission" in concert; Billy Corgan even appeared as part of the induction video for Joy Division/New Order into the UK Music Hall of Fame last year. Hell, "1979" sounds like it could be a New Order song.

They were also open to contemporary influence, most notably the influence My Bloody Valentine's Loveless had on the production of Siamese Dream. They certainly picked a few things up from Nirvana and during the Gish era they were compared to Jane's Addiction. Also, the psychedelic tinge to Gish and its heavy guitars were in part a reaction to a lot of bands in the alternative/indie scene at the time.

Thee's way more to include, but that's a start. WesleyDodds 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Smashing Pumpkins were" vs. "The Smashing Pumpkins was"

Collective nouns such as team and staff may be either singular or plural depending on their use in the sentence. In the case of the first sentence of the article, it involves several individuals coming together to form a collective. So it may be considered more proper to use the plural (were). Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Band names are collective proper noun. "The Smashing Pumpkins was" is correct. All the members make up one band. The Smashing Pumpkins is a single entity. I have confirmed this with my university English professor. —RJN 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter wether "was" or "were" is correct. But, I agree with Girolamo Savonarola that "were" could be correct since the name has the letter "s" at the end of the word "Pumpkins". Without the "s" it would be was. Mike Garcia 00:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because a band's name ends with "s" does not make them plural. Since the noun as a collective is singular, the proper verbs to use are "is" and "was", not "are" and "were". If your last name is Williams, you are still one person. Therefore the sentence would be, "Mr. Williams has three pets." not "Mr. Williams have three pets." Do you understand the use of collective proper nouns? —RJN 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain the issue is so clear cut to begin with. Again, the verb usage of the same collective noun will vary depending on the usage within the sentence. And the Brits and the Americans have some differences with their relative use of it as well, so your professor isn't really an ultimate reference. It all depends on the context. See these links: http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/collective_nouns.html, http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/collectivenoun.htm, http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nouncollective.htm, http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm.
Let me also add that I don't really have a preference either way (well, I guess I do think "were" sounds better), at least I'm not really going to care much whichever way it gets decided. But, I have noticed that this is a copy edit that goes back and forth and back and forth on this page, and perhaps it's just for the best to sit down, make a decision, and stick to it. At least to end a frivolous continual edit reversion every few weeks that someone stumbles by and decides to change it to whichever they prefer (and whether or not anyone else notices immediately). Girolamo Savonarola 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd definitely go for "was". As I am not a native speaker, I might be less qualified to voice my opinion on this matter. Nevertheless, since this article is about a US-band, the American english use of collective nouns seems appropriate to me. --Johnnyw 02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment from another stickler for grammar: "was" is correct because band names are collective nouns. The only way the plural "were" would be appropriate is if you weren't talking about a band, but rather, multiple literal pumpkins that happened to be smashing. --Cyde Weys 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again...in light of the recent reversions, I looked up The Elements of Style, which says that for certain collective nouns it's singular (e.g. "The Republican Headquarters is located there"), while for others (e.g. "The general's quarters are located there") it's plural. Elements goes on to say that you follow whatever the popular idiom is. So I looked at several articles for big bands like The Beatles, The Doors, and The Rolling Stones. They all seem to believe that the proper verb is were/are, not was/is. I'm not going to re-edit the article, bc I have no interest in getting into a silly revert war, but I thought it is worth pointing out. Girolamo Savonarola 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is also what's recommened in the peer review for this article. WesleyDodds 19:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to point this out for all the new/anonymous users out there. This is pointed out in the peer review as WesleyDodds mentioned. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars outlines that in British English, the correct form would be The Smashing Pumpkins are. Yet in American English, it would be proper to say The Smashing Pumpkins is. So quote from the peer review, "...since this is an American band, the first sentence should read The Smashing Pumpkins is a popular American alternative rock band". I hope this clarifies this ridiculous edit war, and prevents something catastrophic like what happened on the Angels and Airwaves article. --Reaper X 19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Girolamo Savonarola has hit the nail on the head. I don't buy this idea that it's a British–American difference. Saying "the Smashing Pumpkins are" is just the natural way of using English when "Pumpkins" is plural and there are several people in the band. While there seems to have been a bit of an argument about the opening sentence, no one seems to have noticed that throughout the article the plural is used! Second paragraph: "the Pumpkins have". Third paragraph: "the Smashing Pumpkins were". Further down: "The Smashing Pumpkins were originally", "They played their first gig as a trio", "the Smashing Pumpkins were poised for major commercial success", and so on right the way through the article. I've changed the first sentence to match this for consistency. This is the usual way of talking about bands on Wikipedia (look at some articles), and indeed anywhere! Cortha 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Im going to agree with "The Smashing Pumpkins are". I checked out a few other "The" bands like The Cure, The Strokes, The Who, The Killers, The Smiths, The White Stripes, The Misfits, The Raconteurs, The Used, and The Dresden Dolls. They all continue the trend of are/were as opposed to is/was. But I do believe it COULD also be on a case to case basis, but The Smashing Pumpkins are just seems far more natural. I even edited it once long ago before I had an account because I thought it was such an obvious error. Perhaps some people just see it differently...Lamentingvampire09 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we could try: "The Smashing Pumpkins[1],a popular American alternative rock band which formed in Chicago in 1988." that way everyone (or no one..) is happy ;) 124.168.166.109 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar-wise, that is not written coreckitacly. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPISPOPD

Is it really important enough to be a related article? I could see maybe some of their influences, but not a DOOM refrence that happened to have the words "Smashing Pumpkins". I.Mills 16:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adore sales

From the Adore section--

...the album sold only 3 million copies...

Granted, Mellon Collie and Siamese Dream sold several times that, but is 3x platinum really a bad run? This section discusses Adore as though it were a major commercial flop. 68.13.248.151 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I redid the section. While Adore has sold 3 million copies by now, at the time sales were sluggish. So I put in a new figure in order to put the reaction to Adore in a contemporary context.WesleyDodds

[edit] Influences

I've collected some resources in order to try and get the SP article to Featured status. Right now I'm having a dilemma on where to put information regarding their influences. So far I've been able to get The Cure in there, but important influences like Black Sabbath, Queen, Joy Division, and My Bloody Valentine still need to be cited (especially MBV, who basically inspired the sound of Gish and Siamese Dream). Should I create a separate section, or work the relevant information and quotes throughout the article, or stick them in the early years section?

I'm also wondering how much information belongs on Billy's page as opposed to the one for the band. WesleyDodds 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love for the Pumpkins to become a featured article but everything has to be cited with clear rationals for anything included, especially the photos. Unless the quote is relevent to the topic at hand all quotes should be incuded in Wikiquote. There is a lot of resouces out there listed on the Information section and getting there help would be amazing. As for the influnces I would recommend to check out other featured articles and see how they resolved it. Just remember cite everything (c:= -- UKPhoenix79 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm mainly talking about integrating reference material, although I do have a few really good direct quotes. There's one about how Husker Du's Zen Arcade influenced the band's dynamics and quite a few about the influence of the production of MBV's Loveless on the sound of the albums. WesleyDodds 09:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
oooh sounds interusting! -- UKPhoenix79 10:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

The page is at 36 kb now, so it's best that the discography be split into a separate page. The list of singles should also be turned into a chart. WesleyDodds 02:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've just cut and pasted it into a new article which is linked off of this page where it used to be. Looks damn ugly now, but hopefully it'll get a nice makeover shortly... ;) Girolamo Savonarola 20:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mashed Potatoes

The link by the end of the article is terribly out of date. Since then, 5 CDs worth of material have been leaked. 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starchildren

Starchildren is on the orphan article list because nothing links to it. It claims to be a Billy Corgan side project. Can someone check it out and if true, link to it from some appropriate pages? Also add any good info, etc. Thanks. Thatcher131 19:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Eric Avery

I'm not very keen on the rumor that Jane's Addiction bassist Eric Avery may be in the new line-up. It seems to me like it is just a fansite creating hype as it is just a claimed response email in plain text, but that is only my opinion, so I will not touch it. What are your guys' thoughts? Do you really think we can put sketchy speculation like this in the article? --Reaper X 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The original rumor seemed like more than a fansite, but it's a moot point now as Avery is reportedly no longer working with the band. Unless we're going to report everyone who dabbles with the band, should the Avery information be deleted at this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.253.92 (talk • contribs)

[edit] MACHINA edit

The current version of the MACHINA paragraph I feel is full of POV details and details in general better reserved for the album's page. I'd like to change it back to the previous version. Thoughts? WesleyDodds 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Cut and paste to the album's article - it's less aggressive and leaves the POV debate to editors concerned with that page (which may also include you). Girolamo Savonarola 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batterie interview

I removed this text from the Reunion section:

Jimmy Chamberlin was recently interviewed by French Magazine Batterie([3]). When asked if James Iha and D'Arcy Wretzky would be returning to the band, Jimmy replied (translated from French to English): "To be honest, I don't want to talk about this subject. We have the songs, and we're preparing a new record. Please, let's leave it as this and talk about something else."
More information from the interview also reveals that they began their work last year discreetly, and that they got back on track very well and are having fun writing new songs and playing. He also says that at least 50 songs have been written.
It is also possible that the band may be touring this year: towards the end of the interview, when asked if he is coming back to France, Jimmy says (translated from French to English): "With The Smashing Pumpkins, I'll be back during the year, that's for sure."

There's two main problems with this: Firstly, it's not cited in the proper format; what we have here is a scan of a page that's linked to as a reference. That's not going to do. Secondly, it's translated by the editor from French to English. I don't think that's adequate, and some of the information is already stated in the article. If someone wants to re-add the info, please cite it properly, or better yet, find an English equivalent to cite. WesleyDodds 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Why is it not going to do? Anyone that knows French will read that and easily see that there is nothing wrong with the translation. Where else in the Wiki article does it say that 50 songs have been written and that they may tour by the end of the year? Consider the weight of the things discussed in the article. Run single sentences through an Internet translator for confirmation, even if sloppy, to help confirm that the tranlsation given is accurate. You're being awfully harsh on two critical pieces of information that you really can't read anywhere else yet. Other than that, I can't see what else makes it so very redundant that it's worth debunking. It's rather unfair to a source that, even if not technically cited properly, is presented to you clearly as a scan directly from the magazine. There's actual scans of it. I'm rather new to Wikipedia, therefore explaining why it was not cited properly. If that's what's holding you back, I implore you add it back in yourself and cite it properly. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I added otherwise. Effloresce 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't cite it because I don't know who wrote it or the publication date. You would have that information. WesleyDodds 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So you think the scan and the interview is just completely made up? Let me try to contact the source who provided this information and perhaps he can help us. It's a legitimate interview. Effloresce 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not debating the source. It's just for the purposes of citing things properly we need a proper reference. Also, this is the English language Wiki, so it would be best if our information comes from English language sources. WesleyDodds 03:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
So even if we can cite it properly, you still don't want it just because the text is in French? That's ridiculous! That interview has a couple pieces of info that make this Wiki entry stand out even more. I don't understand. Effloresce 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bit at the end of the "Official Announcement" section that states there is no new information, because there is. Just because it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia doesn't imply that this information does not exist. Effloresce 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metro 1988-10-05

I'm of the opinion that this should be treated as an official release. Even on the discography page it's listed as a bootleg instead of a live album. Seeing as it was released by the band with art from James, I think it should be considered an official live album release. Cjosefy 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former members

Any reason why Melissa is a former member, but Matt Walker isn't? Cjosefy 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Was he ever an official member? Melissa appeared in promo material; Matt Walker didn't. During the Adore period the band portrayed itself as a trio. WesleyDodds 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly Melissa was more pronounced as a member, but it's hard to say whether there was any promo material around the end of the Mellon Collie tour/Batman time period that featured Matt. He appeared in the TEITBITE video. I wonder if he got a Grammy for it as well? Cjosefy 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He never was considered as a band member..i'm pretty sure about that...i followed all the (italian) interviews since MCATIS, and he never appeared...Melissa did, and they extensively talked about her being a new band member (no references though...just tons of magazines i've read...don't know if that counts...)Sickboy3883 23:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D'arcy Mugshot

Personally, I don't feel that it is right to have D'arcy's mugshot up on the page. Focus on her work with The Smashing Pumpkins, not on arrests after she left. Not to mention it really is a terrible picture of her, and makes her seem like an ordinary crack addict rather than the bass for The Smashing Pumpkins. I don't see a problem mentioning it on her personal page (However, a picture isn't needed), but it is not appropriate for this wiki. I have removed the image for now, but I have let the text remain.

Well, it is the most notable thing she has done since leaving the band. And definitley don't remove it from her page; that's a biography and it fits in context. WesleyDodds 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from a wikibreak, and I noticed the mugshot has been removed yet again. ...Reasons? Wesley, can we put it back? -- Reaper X 13:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. If you want, go ahead. WesleyDodds 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah screw it, save it for her page. Unless we can find pictures for "the most notable thing" that each member has done since the 2000 breakup, (ie. Chamberlin w/ the Jimmy Chamberlin Complex, Corgan helping Courtney Love or somethin etc.). I think it would be nice to have a 4 picture panel like that. Just having D'arcy's mugshot seems incomplete. -- Reaper X 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, a picture of Zwan would probably be acceptable, given that two Pumpkins members were in it. WesleyDodds 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am currently attempting to work on it. Here's the blueprint:
  • Jimmy Chamberlin: pic of work in Jimmy Chamberlin Complex, I've seen an image around of him playing in the studio, try and obtain that if I can find and get permission.
  • D'arcy Wretzky: the dreaded mugshot that whoever was fussin' about.
  • Melissa Auf der Maur: Her solo work and album, maybe its cover.
Thoughts and opinions are always welcome. -- Reaper X 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel the pictures should be limited to the four primary members; we can do without a pic of Auf der Maur in this section. And I feel by using a Zwan pic you can kill two birds (Corgan, Chamberlin) with one stone. Remember to have fair use rationales with whatever pictures you use. WesleyDodds 10:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get a picture of Zwan for Corgan (if I can find one, help anyone?), but I will want a picture of Jimmy with the JCC, as that was his project that he led. Also, I think we should have Melissa as part of this, after all, she may be the bassist for the Pumpkins reunion, especially since that whole Mark Avery thing got blown out of the water[4] ("just a fansite creating hype", as I said above). I'll put it on soon, I'm still not satisfied with it. -- Reaper X 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a picture of Melissa, I dont see anyone else who could possibly take the spot besides her(D'arcy is highly unlikely). That or we keep D'arcy's mugshot off and we could just leave their pics for their respected pages. Lamentingvampire09 06:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have finally completed the damn thing after much delay. What do you think? -- Reaper X 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to be brutally honest and say that I think the entire section has little to no relevance to The Smashing Pumpkins. Sure it's all members/former members of the band, but how does it really contribute to someone's understanding of the band? I'm not denying that these facts are significant and worthy information for wikipedia, but I also feel that they have way more relevance to the individuals than to the band. These things are already covered in the articles regarding the individuals, so why add a tangental section to an article that is already bordering on too large?
Please don't take this as an attack though. I know it was added in good faith, and I'm sure many people do want to know what has become of the members since the breakup. However, I think most people will have the good sense to look in the individual articles themselves rather than in the SP article. - Phorque 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

Pretty much all the non-album images on this page have been tagged for removal recently due to lack of soucre/copyright information. Could someone please provide this, or barring that, put up some suitable free or fair use substitutes? WesleyDodds 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the sources on Image:SmashingPumpkins-MCISera.jpg and Image:Sp1991.jpg. I've contacted the users who uploaded them, and I'm also surfing the web trying to investigate. I have at least added proper summaries, and {{promophoto}} to them. This still leaves the Billy Corgan Tribune ad very vulnerable though. -- Reaper X 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, I took care of the ad. -- Reaper X 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I'm thinking of adding a brief footnote explaining the whole "Smashing Pumpkins"/"The Smashing Pumpkins" naming shift. Thoughts? WesleyDodds 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. Just make it a minor note though. Maybe a paragraph but no more, it doesnt need much more than that. Lamentingvampire09 06:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Is there any way we can get a fair use screenshot from Vieuphoria to complement the new "Musical style and influences" section I've created? I'm particularly thinking of the footage from the recording sessions for Siamese Dream. WesleyDodds 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Heya Wesley. I took two screenies of Vieuphoria that I can't say I particularly like, but I guess they might illustrate the "relentless touring" in the Mainstream success section. They are here and here. The pumpkins really had a thing for bright lights and smoke in those days, so it was really hard to get a decent shot. As for the Musical influences, I can take a screenie of the (otherwise unreleased?) Cherub Rock video off my Greatest Hits DVD which would show their psychadelic influences nicely. I'll listen to the commentary again for an idea of how to caption the image. - Phorque 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I also thought that a screenshot of the pumpkins playing Geek USA on the Greatest Hits with the 50 clowns onstage might be a better illustrator of the "relentless touring" just how big things were getting for them. I think my Vieuphoria screenies are really pretty crappy. - Phorque 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have the DVD version of Vieuphoria? That has an hour of Lollapalooza footage as a bonus. WesleyDodds 07:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Only the VHS, sorry! - Phorque 09:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Then yeah, go with the clowns. Because clowns are funny. WesleyDodds 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we could go for the clown vibe with the rock 'n roll vibe. - Phorque 23:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machina II cover

Does anyone object to the removal of the MACHINA II cover from the article? I want to make room for the eventual posting of a soundclip from Adore, and since MACHINA II exists primarily as fans' burned copies, the cover to the 25 vinyl copies that were made doesn't really matter in my opinion. WesleyDodds 06:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All official albums have a picture on the page. If we are considering Machina II as a studio album, then the picture should remain. Cjosefy 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Some people have problems with any album covers at all appearing in the album... so I wouldn't see it as a bad idea. It's likely the FAC commenters will urge you to remove all of them. - Phorque 16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
We have all of them at The Smashing Pumpkins discography already, so why not? The only thing I would worry about is, well, a lack of images thereafter. Only Image:Sp1991.jpg in the infobox, and the Billy Corgan Tribune ad would be left, not suitable for the article size in my opinion. We had some band pictures before, but I believe they all got deleted because they had no source. So I'd have to say remove them all like Phorque said above, but only once we have more promo photos. -- Reaper X 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose a good example of the use of album covers in a recent rock band FA is Genesis, where they only show up for commentary. Although Pink Floyd has several covers and audio clips. WesleyDodds 21:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is true. I also noticed that Miles Davis' article has album covers as decoration. None the less, I think the FA scrutiny has increased since those were featured. - Phorque 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the samples are in boxes

Wikipedia:Music samples puts this forward as the guideline and here's why I agree:

  • People who scrutinize FA candidates want the samples in boxes. (I've been down this road with the Elliott Smith article)
  • I feel it looks neater
  • The descriptions provide a platform to show additional information and justify why the reader should listen to the sample. It's not fair use to just include a sample for every song you name-drop in the article with no reason as to why that song is significant.

So there you have it. Change them back to inline samples if you must, but don't expect it to go down well. ;) - Phorque 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aljohnston's creation of SP song-related articles.

  • Aljohnston seems to be creating an article for every SP song on Siamese Dream and MCIS. I think this flies in the face of WP:MUSIC; but I also am fairly sure there's nothing malicious about it. I have to go to bed now, so I can't tag the articles myself. Anyone care to help; or perhaps we could discuss the articles themselves and if they have a place here? Danny Lilithborne 09:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More picture ideas

Does anyone have any live pics to suggest? I'm thinking Lollapalooza and so forht. How about magazine covers? I'm betting they appeared on Rolling Stone and I know they were chosen as Band of the Year by Spin in 1994, but did they ever appear on the cover of a major news publication like Time or Newsweek? WesleyDodds 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Magazine covers are fine, but only if absolutely necessary. It is argued that it is not fair use to include a magazine cover to illustrate what is on it rather than the magazine itself. In the case of Elliott Smith, we used a magazine cover or two because those were some of the only photos showing his appearance at the magazine's publication. - Phorque 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think that this sentence "This marked perhaps the moment of the band's greatest popularity. With considerable play on MTV, "Zero" shirts commonly sold in malls, and awards from major organizations, the band was considered one the most dominant and popular bands of the time" from the Mellon Collie section could probably be worked into the lead section. WesleyDodds 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic discography for main article

I know that the Pumpkins have a huge discography, but most artists pages on Wikipedia have the basic discography (main studio albums only, no singles or EPs) with a link at the top to a separate article with their complete discography (see Elliott Smith for an example of this). I purpose that we do this for this article. I'm going to start working on it, unless there's some sort of objection. Shamrox 01:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It varies. Genesis does fine without its discography listed on the main page. WesleyDodds 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Same with Nirvana. Why list the same info twice anyway? -- Reaper X 18:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Most artists pages on Wikipedia have the basic discography with studio albums, singles and EPs on the main page. I think it is great how it is and should not be change. -- Janadore 19:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that someone wants to add one more of this, and a bit of that, and the next thing you know we have the same giant mess that caused the article to be split to begin with. The article itself makes a clear enough chronology of all the albums and major releases; anyone interested in more will either see the footer template at the bottom or click the discography link. Girolamo Savonarola 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you guys are right. It's looks better. -- Janadore 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why you make it a "Selected discography" and leave an HTML comment saying "DON'T EXPAND THIS YOU FOOLS! IT'S LIKE THIS FOR A REASON" but in nicer words. =P - Phorque 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Tag

I added the cleanup tag to the discography because it was sloppy and unrefrenced ,But someone has made a simpler album section therefore I don't think it needs one now. As for the The Smashing Pumpkins discography itself does still need the tag until it is cleaned up. SOADLuver 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early days paragraph

I edited this because the new version has specific details that in a sense veer towards fancruft; who cares besides Smashing Pumpkins fans? It's more concise and to the point. Plus everything about the paragraph was referenced from the same source as the quote cited at the end. 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History headings

While I can appreciate wanting to try and standardize on a format for all bands, this standard does not exist. It very well may be that a lot of band articles have another style of headings, but it is still a matter of opinion right now. Feel free to provide a link to where some real, meanigful consensus has been reached on this issue. For now I feel it is better to leave it as it is, which is modelled after a number of featured articles on modern bands. If the current style is good enough to become featured several different times, I feel confident in it on this page. Cjosefy 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, point taken. I guess there is no... standart, though I am more used to do this in my work. Nevertheless, I can not impose my views, so I am backing off.

Regards: Painbearer 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

I made a list of a few tasks that need to be performed on this page. The album sales are easy enough to cite, but I'm wondering where that total of 40 million albums sold worldwide came from. I removed it because I couldn't find a source, but it would be helpful if someone could.

An important aspect to fulfilling the scope criteria for a featured article is noting what subsequent influence the band has had, if any. Can anyone find some notable bands that are verifiably influenced by the Smashing Pumpkins? I think Muse has mentioned an influence, but I'm not sure. WesleyDodds 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Pumpkins song

I signed in to Myspace today and realized that Billy Corgan's personal page has turned into a Smashing Pumpkins music page, complete with a new song called "C'Mon". Is there any news about this we can cite?

P.S.: I'd say don't bother checking out the song itself. It's very cock-rock. WesleyDodds 04:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

By new, you mean 1989? Girolamo Savonarola 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm slightly relieved now. I still fear the new album might be crap, though. WesleyDodds 05:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk

What's up with that line that says the Smashing Pumpkins were less punk-inspired than their contemporaries? I may be confused and mistaken, but I do believe they covered "Venus in Furs" by the Velvet Underground and Joy Division's "Isolation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by InSpades (talk • contribs)

Neither of those are properly punk. VU is protopunk while Joy Division is post-punk. There's also an interview where Billy Corgan says he was never really into punk rock. In comparison to Nirvana and Pearl Jam, they had less-traditional alt-rock influences. They were probably the only band at the time to talk about how awesome ELO and Judas Priest were. WesleyDodds 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's still a statement without proper qualifiers. Remove it. P.S. stay away from the punk rock articles too.
We can't remove it just because you don't like it. And I do work on punk articles as well. WesleyDodds 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, but I can remove it because it doesn't make any fucking sense and, as I said before, LACKS QUALIFIERS. HELLO. LACKS QUALIFIERS.
If you are going to engage in personal attacks, I am happy to refer your IP to an admin. Stay cool. Girolamo Savonarola 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed to say JUST LISTEN TO THE DAMN THING!!! It's the less punk-inspired band in the early nineties! Does that need references? I think they could be actually found, 'cause Corgan HATES punk rock... i have a small book with interviews where Corgan says it hated Dead Kennedys and their fans...let me know if that qualifies as a reference...however, this is a talk page, not a fucking pub, be nice to other users and sign yourself, too...Sickboy3883 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

References are especially needed where less objective assertions are made. Feel free to add any if you have them at your disposal. :) Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the AllMusic SP summary said something to that effect and it is reference shortly afterward... so yeah. I changed the line to say "are considered less punk-inspired..." so that should be fine. - Phorque 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure but I believe Wikipedia frowns on terms like "considered." 71.68.4.19 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like what you say so I'm going to tell on you! Qualifiers are needed despite the fact that I think you're a tool, fix it

Please act with civility. WesleyDodds 02:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Please act with rationality. When Sickboy, who agrees with you, cursed at me you were pretty quiet. Look dude I'm sorry your self-concept is tied to this article, but don't hide behind Wikipedia's red tape because it's transparent. Oh and by the way the Dead Kennedys are not properly punk Sickboy. 71.68.4.19 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
To the above anon, don't screw around with the article to make a point; that kind of thing is frowned upon here. Danny Lilithborne 00:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We're not standing on indie credibility, we don't have punk-rock roots, [emphasis mine] we don't have anything political to uphold. That's not to say that personally we don't have those things, but we've always felt that the band had to be the purest thing to sit at the top of the mountain. - Billy Corgan [5] Any other questions? Girolamo Savonarola 01:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
But why, why, why is that line there anyway? It just seems so irrelevant.

Hey Girolamo Savogranola, check out Wikipedia's article on Cheap Trick, one of Billy Corgan's biggest influences. I think I see "punk rock" in there. I'm going to go ahead and say this...I will probably be hated for it, but, Billy Corgan was not accurately describing punk, based on your own conclusions. Either that or you guys are not accurately describing punk. Whatever. I don't want the line to be changed to "Considered influenced by punk rock..." I just want it removed. It is irrelevant and flimsy. 71.68.4.19 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article now cites the punk mention. Can you find a reliable source that considers them to have a respectable amount of punk influence? Of course, the major problem is: how are you defining punk? But without some sort of citation (and being that the current one is cited from the mouth of Corgan himself), you will have a great difficulty finding any consensus for your desired edit here. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Girolamo Savonarola 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I know I was a little rough around the edges and I took inappropriate action to prove my point, but I believe the point has been made. What I'm saying is that you can cite either view. In turn they negate eachother making it useless to include one or the other. I don't believe either, as I don't care. We do know this: Billy Corgan was clearly influenced by Joy Division, The Velvet Underground, Cheap Trick, and who knows how much more. He said he hated the Dead Kennedys and their fans, he was not punk-inspired, yadda yadda. Throughout this, punk wasn't defined because frankly nobody can do it. That is why I believe this "less inspired by" crap is arbitrary and preventing this from being a better article.71.68.15.163 15:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That ad picture

Is there any reason this article actualy need to keep this image arouncd :Image:Billy Corgan - Tribune Ad.jpg? If so the thumbnail version is pointles, there should be only one copy of the image and reducing the image in size to comply with the fair use policy is pointles if we are going to keep the high-resolution version around anyway. I think the article will be just fine just describing the gist of the ad without the need to have the full text available so I tagged the big one as orphanded. If anyone have a compelling reason for why beeing eable to read the full text of the add is crutial to this article please bake it into a fair use rationale and use the big one directly. Personaly I don't think it's needed though, the ad is basicaly just another source and there is no need to quote it in entierty inline. --Sherool (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the larger image with full text is unnecessary. I do feel that the thumbnail is useful in conveying the visual striking-ness of the ad, because the ad is just so over the top and unusual. Perhaps a link to an external version at hi-res with legible text would allow the truly interested to get their fill of Billy Corgan's crazy-talk. :P - Phorque 12:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy's Love Letters

If anyone has been following the band on their Myspace they will realise that Jimmy has been posting information of the bands progress on the new album. I was going to add a little bit of this onto the page but I thought I woudl clarify with everyone to see whether it is relevant or not. Debaser23 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really not, since it's basically a "Here's what we did today in making the album" kind of thing. WesleyDodds 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or do those posts sound nothing like Jimmy? Compared to the way he spoke on Vieuphoria and on the Greatest Hits commentary, it's like two different people. When did he get into all this "cosmic journey" shit? Maybe he has been spending too much time with Billy lately. - Phorque 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe it is Billy...Debaser23 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It probably is, given that that page used to be his personal page. He likes to fuck around on MySpace. WesleyDodds 10:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Shit... I love the Smashing Pumpkins, theatricality and all, but Billy is just such a n00b sometimes. XD - Phorque 10:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starchildren

There doesn't appear to be any mention of Corgan's side project from 1994 entitled Starchildren. Is there any were a reference to this could be put in? Debaser23 13:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of this. I put in in associated acts, and beyond that I'm not sure there's any necessity to mention them elsewhere. - Phorque 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I had almost forgotten about this. Which is funny because not even a few months ago I was playing a friend the "Isolation" cover from the Joy Division tribute album and cajoling her into guessing who it was. WesleyDodds 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth a very small mention either here on in the Mellon Collie article, as some of the tracks they played live were later recorded and released for MCIS and TAFH. Girolamo Savonarola 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably the Mellon Collie article, then. WesleyDodds 11:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muzzle as single?

I've always thought that Muzzle was never officially released as a single; I think if it was it would have had it's own b-sides or be an EP like the rest. Regardless, an unregistered user has put into the article that it was a single.

Is this legitimate? piper108 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piper108 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Well it would be acceptable, if it was a promo single like he says. Can anyone else verify this? -- Reaper X 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not the same thing - a promo is a limited release for industry professionals, while a single is an official public release of a track. Muzzle is a promo. It likely was vetted to be the next single, but clearly the momentum had passed before it was able to release as a single. Girolamo Savonarola 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yelena Yemchuk isn't D'Arcy Wretzky

Am I the only person who realizes this?

Some goon keeps posting Yemchuk's "mugshot" alongside D'Arcy's amendment to the "aftermath" section of the article. --MadameArsenic 13:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I never noticed that before... Do you know who has been doing it? Debaser23 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second the "mugshot" has dissappeared. Why? Debaser23 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Because MadameArsenic here removed it. I asked the uploader to identify the source, and this is the response it got:

Re: D'arcy Mug Shot
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up to date with Wikipedia very much lately...I believe that I found the D'arcy mug shot on a "celebrity mug shot"-type website several years ago. I couldn't give you an exact URL though. It was one of those pictures where when I saw it, I saved it, and then found it in the deep annals of my computer years later. It is for certain D'arcy, though. Definitely not Yelena. Hope this helps in some sort of way... Shamrox 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So uh, I dont think that helps us much, unless we go hunting on one of these "celebrity mug shot-type websites"... -- Reaper X 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about this... its just a really really horrible "mugshot" which isn't really a mugshot at all. Anyway, reverting.. sorry about that guys. --MadameArsenic 08:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We should just get a picture of D'arcy playing rather than the mug shot because its not really very nice anyways but I'll stop now... Debaser23 09:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Its been done. MadameArsenic put up the "soda-display" pic, and it looks good. -- Reaper X 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about that image... it's uploaded by a user who has just slapped the "public domain" tag onto the image without asserting that they are the rightful owner of the image. I left a comment on their talk page in the hopes they will explain. Have any SP fansite frequenters ever seen this pic before? - Phorque 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siamese Dream Sound Clips

Okay I posted this in on the Siamese Dream discussion page but with no luck of reply so I thought that I would try on here. At the end of a few Siamese Dream tracks there are short sound clips. Does anyone know what they are? The most notable songs you can hear the sound clips clearly on are Spaceboy and Soma. Debaser23 09:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They're just random snippets of stuff. Corgan never elaborated on exactly what they are because he didn't want to get sued for useing stuff he apparently got off of TV. WesleyDodds 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh that makes sense. It's weird when you've listened to Siamese Dream as much as I have you notice all these little things. The other day I noticed at the very end of Disarm there is a breif sound bite of a choir singing then it fades out. Debaser23 14:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half (11 out of 22) of The Smashing Pumpkins' "charted songs" have titles which are not sung in the lyrics.

Half (11 out of 22) of The Smashing Pumpkins' "charted songs" have titles which are not sung in the lyrics. (Rhinoceros, Cherub Rock, Rocket, Bullet With Butterfly Wings, Muzzle, Thirty-Three, Eye, The End Is The Beginning Is The End, Ava Adore, Try Try Try, Untitled). I think this is a somewhat unprecendented practice for a rock band. 61.68.161.49 11:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Liam

It's also not that weird and could be construed as original research. And if I'm not mistaken there are backing vocals in "Try, Try, Try" which go "Try... Try... Try..." ;P - Phorque 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
New Order, one of the band's biggest influences, did the same thing, but even more often. There's even a list on Wikipedia devoted to it. WesleyDodds 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Big Deal. -- Reaper X 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, that was exactly my point. WesleyDodds 07:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought it was interesting that Pumpkins' songs were like that, but -- based solely upon my own observations/rememberances -- I thought not having the song title in the song was something indicative of the whole 90s alternative movement as a whole. Or it seemed a lot of other bands did it, too, at least. --piper108 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this ages ago but its not exactly notable... As piper108 said above it was something indicative of the whole 90s movement. Debaser23 12:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is an archived discussion page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.