look.sharp.industries

I will have a response for you soon-ish. This is midterms week for me...so my priorities are elsewhere. However, I really liked your post (you provided a lot of clarity) and I find that I'm way more in agreement with you than I originally thought. My reply won't be gigantic like it was last time (there just isn't a need for it this time around) and I don't want to hijack this thread...though I doubt it is probably headed anywhere at this point .

Bold Standard, Thanks for the reply. Since you went more or less line by line, I will try to reply as such. I guess that depends primarily on what you consider to be a boring or not-boring composition. As I said in response to the other gentleman on here, simply utilizing a lot of tools musically is not going to guarantee that your work is good (or even having a lot of tools at your disposal). There are a lot of musical compositions that are really interesting on a musical level that require immense talent and musical training just to play, let alone actually write. However, that doesn't mean the music is necessarily enjoyable or interesting just because it is complex. Take The Mars Volta for example. I realize that a song like "For Martha" off of Adore isn't super complex. The piano could be played by a 9 year old with a year of piano lessons most likely. The rest of the stuff is effects and extraneous stuff. However, the whole tone of that song to me is absolutely amazing. Putting in into context, the song was about Billy's mom Martha who died during the making of Adore. That song is sort of a tribute to her and boy you can tell. It isn't complex, but it is really heartfelt and lyrically solid. If what is required for a song to be interesting composition wise is pure complexity, than I agree. With that being the standard, Adore would not be The Pumpkin's most interest record compositionally speaking. I guess what it comes down to from there is whether or not you are using boring as a descriptive or normative statement. Besides, a good chunk of Madonna's catalog is equally if not more boring. I mean...if a 9 year old could play the piano on "For martha" a monkey could play the keyboard part on "Borderline." For anyone else interested in hearing the song, here is a YouTube Link: O' Father I would say that some of To Sheila definitely studio effects like the cricket-sounding noise in the intro. However, the tones are a direct product of the instruments used (obviously). That isn't completely "studio tricks" or Flood's "black magic voodoo production" (I'm joking here, btw... ). If you really wanted to, you could easily pull out a Piano, a mandolin, and two guitars (an acoustic and electric) and replicate this song completely with little loss in terms of quality (assuming all of the band members were there and Billy was singing, obviously). That song is NOT synth heavy or effects heavy unless you want to count the cricket sounds or perhaps Billy's overdubbed vocals singing harmony with his main vocal line. In which case, you could still preserve the beauty of the song by simply getting a backup singer (like Madonna does). I don't think simply taking away an actual recording of the song would just make it a "boring" folk song. Once again, I think some clarity is in order on the "boring" issue. Whether or not you are doing a simple 3 chord progression using a syn th or doing it on an acoustic guitar changes little about whether or not the actual composition is boring or not. On one hand you do say it is a beautiful song, but studio effects or not, you are saying the actual composition is boring...which leads me to believe you are using the term in a more descriptive sense. As such, I think some explanation of what your own personal musical evaluations come down to. A song in your eyes might be boring, but still beautiful (and in my eyes as well). So when judging whether a Madonna song versus a Smashing Pumpkins song, there might be another element thrown into the mix to determine what you personally think is a better song. I personally think that element isn't simply the recording itself. I can definitely say that there are songs that were done with WAAAAAY less technology available in the 60's or 70's that rival a lot of modern songs (in both composition and in quality) even though the recordings don't sound as hot as the latest Pro-Tools heavy album on the top 40. If you want to boil it down to recording techniques, technology, and studio evolution...I don't think you have much ground to stand on. After all, synthesizers have been around for quite some time. Frank Zappa for example was a music pioneer when it came to recording techniques as far as technology went and he was a bit before even Madonna's time. Even Pro-Tools has even been around since 1987 (though it was originally called "Sound Tools"). I don't think the gap in recording techniques etc is as great as you are making it sound here. As far as "Oh Father" goes musically/composition wise, it is ok I guess. I like the music, but it certainly isn't complex. The bass line is extremely basic (you are looking at like 5 notes repeated over and over). The synthesizer is pretty basic too. The drumming isn't really complex either for that matter. This song has boat loads of whole notes. If you can't keep the rhythm to this song by tapping your leg, well...you are probably a stereotypical white guy (also joking). Seriously though, the song is good and I like it. The subject is interesting (child abuse), the music is very pretty, and Madonna's vocals are great (Madonna as a vocalist is amazing as she has boatloads of vocal talent). However compositionally this song isn't really interesting on a purely musical level either (at least based on the way I'm reading your use of the term "interesting."). Yes, I acknowledged that Landslide was a cover. The point of even putting it up there was to show how Billy as a musician has a significant ability to even improve on a non-original work. Compare to the original Steve Nick's version Here As far as recording techniques? Some clarity here would definitely be in order. What sort of differences or gaps do you think are really important between the 80's and mid 90's? Keep in mind Madonna released 7 original studio albums from 1992 up until the present versus 6 original works (I'm not counting "hits" collections on either end) prior to 1992. The song "Oh Father" is from Like A Prayer which was released in 1989. The Smashing Pumpkin's first album came out in 1991. So for over HALF of Madonna's career she had access to the same technology and recording techniques (more so actually, since she was one of the biggest artists in the world in 1991). Well Madonna didn't write anything approaching "Oh Father" or "Material Girl" either (musically speaking). That is my point. Like A Prayer was co-written by Patrick Leonard and Steven Bray. Madonna had really nothing to do with the music there. Both actual musicians. Madonna is a vocalist who writes lyrics (I'm not even sure if her lyrics are always entirely written by her or not). She does not write music. Madonna poses as a solo artist when really that isn't a remotely accurate picture. When she goes on tour, she has her "touring band" to play the music that other people wrote. Compositionally, Madonna is capable of putting out stuff like Borderline. Material Girl wasn't even composed by Madonna! It was written by Peter Brown and Robert Rans. Once again, the terms "interesting" and "boring" seem remarkably arbitrary the way you are using them.The sort of bopping music of Material Girl is NOT musically complex whatsoever. I'm not saying Billy Corgan or The Smashing Pumpkins are like Beethoven, but neither is early Madonna. Material Girl certainly isn't complex or or interesting melodically (if you are using interesting to mean complex, difficult, or even all that unique). If you want to pick 80's musicians, why oh why did you have to go with Madonna? Why not Pat Bennetar or Blondie...or...ANYONE other than someone who doesn't actually compose (Madonna *cough cough*). Btw, I actually really love 80's music. I think most of it beats the hell out of 90's stuff, to be honest. I just don't think Madonna is really all that impressive musically or even lyrically. Perhaps I just find The Smashing Pumpkins to be a lot more meaningful lyrically and aesthetically precisely because they do write their own lyrics and music. It seems a bit less contrived really. I guess that does come down to personal preference and I admit that freely. So you mean like half of the producers, writers, etc of the 80's and 90's versus The Smashing Pumpkins then? Gotcha. My main issue with your post was your choice of Madonna. I personally think that Prince (talent wise musically speaking) kicks the crap out of Madonna (not entity-Madonna but individual Madonna... ) as do most of the people she worked with. My issue was more with your example as it relates to The Smashing Pumpkins because Madonna is just such a horrible example in my opinion. I'm a huge Pumpkins fan, but I definitely can concede that there were definitely superior musicians (pop and otherwise) in the 80's and 90's. Madonna though or songs in her catalog? Not in my book, Mr. As far as the image thing goes, grunge was definitely an important aspect of The Pumpkin's success. I'm not disputing that. However, Madonna as an individual (not entity-Madonna) sold records nearly exclusively off of the talent of other people and by peddling sex and controversy. I'm also aware of Billy and Marilyn's relationship. He advised Manson on Manson's "Mechanical Animals" album and both have worked together on various projects (like the Lost Highway soundtrack for example). However, take the shock rock aspect out of Marilyn Manson and you have an interesting, yet mediocre rock band. Same with Madonna. Take the grunge image out of The Smashing Pumpkins and put them into normal clothes and you still have a great band. Whether or not Billy Corgan was wearing a "Zero" T-shirt with Darcy 's blue hair all over the place in the Bullet With Butterfly Wings video is largely irrelevant to the music or the fact that grunge was a *sound* separate from the image. Take away Madonna humping the floor of Radio City Music Hall during the first ever MTV Video Music Awards...and you have a mediocre pop act based on the talent of other people. That is why I don't really like your choice of Madonna nor do I think the image thing between Madonna and Marilyn versus The Smashing Pumpkins is really accurate. You still have a fairly decent group of talent individual musicians/composers even if you have them in suits and ties. *sighs.* It only sold like 70,000 copies. It didn't even remotely approach a gold record last I heard. I highly doubt sales will pick up as most of the sales were probably off of the hype generated about a Billy Corgan project. Reviews of the album were pretty mixed as well. People either loved it or had a generally lukewarm opinion of it as well. At this point I don't think there is much interest in the album. Poor initial sellers seem to rarely re-pick up steam after the original promotional hype surrounding the release unless another project is released to vast commercial success. If Billy made another solo album and it became the most critically acclaimed album of 2006 or 2007, then people would probably go back and start buying the album just because the would see it as being "worth their time" to hear the earlier work themselves. Gish for example wasn't a hot initial seller. It originally only peaked at #195 on the billboard chart. However, due to the success of Siamese Dream and subsequent Pumpkins albums, sales ended up totaling just over platinum because people became interested and wanted to go back and check out the album. Unless something drastic happens to boost Corgan's popularity or visibility, I doubt The Future Embrace will ever remain more than a flop. Personally it is one of my favorite albums of 2005. I highly recommend it. In fact...the Corgan cover of the seminal Bee Gee's song "To Love Somebody" features (guess who?!!!) ROBERT SMITH on backing vocals! Woo! How frickin' cool is that? btw...on a separate note, I can't wait for the new Smashing Pumpkins album out in '07. I hope it is decent and I hope Corgan actually brought James Iha back on board. Darcy wasn't that hot of a bassist (Melissa Auf Der Maur could fill in just fine) but it would be cool if she was back. To be it just seems hasty and a commercial move to claim that The Pumpkins are reunited if James Iha isn't at least involved. I guess we will see, right? Fair enough. GAHHHHH. Except for the fact that they don't write their own frickin' songs half of the time. Lol. Comparing The Smashing Pumpkins to Christina Aguilera is comparing 4 core musicians and song writers to a whole host of individual writers for any given Christina Aguilera song. Like...one of Christina's most critically acclaimed songs was written by Linda Perry. So when you say, "compare Christina Aguilera's songwriting to The Smashing Pumpkins" you are saying Compare like 10 different musicians and people with one band all under the banner of Christina Aguilera. To me that seems a bit unfair. Well...catchy doesn't necessarily equal good. Just having a song stuck in your head doesn't necessarily mean quality. I don't mean to sound presumptuous here, but I'm willing to lay odds that most of us in life that listen to music with any frequency or depth have had a crappy song stuck in one's head that one doesn't really "like" per-se. A hooky chorus or repetitive phrase that gets stuck in one's head might be completely inane and uninteresting. That alone doesn't say much. As far as being more melodic? I think that is debatable. If you are using melodic in the sense that the music is happy, up-tempo, and relatively upbeat in most cases, sure. Madonna is the major key queen and you can even say that The Smashing Pumpkins sure do love their minor key melodies. Comparing who is "more" melodic is certainly tricky business. I certainly wouldn't say that The Smashing Pumpkins lack melodic lines in their music at all. Let's look at the definition of melody from Wiki: I think if you want to argue that Madonna is more melodic, I think you have a bit of work to do on fleshing that out. Most of her songs don't have more than 2 independent melodic lines. You have a main theme that is concurrent with most of the instruments at hand. You don't have a violin doing one thing in the background and some crazy Jethro Tull-esque flute doing something totally different in the foreground followed by vocals (another melodic line). Even if you DID though, more melody doesn't necessarily automatically equal better music. You are using melodic in a more normative and not descriptive sense which is where I think our conflict is being generated here. As far as the spectrum issue? Simply covering a lot of emotional ground isn't a good measure in my book for quality. You can cover a lot of ground emotionally (happiness, sadness, anger, frustration, being in love, etc) and do it in a mediocre fashion for example. I'm sure if you look at Brittney Spears, you can find different emotions she sings about, but that doesn't make the compositions quality compositions or her a quality artist even if she covers that ground (even assuming she writes her own stuff). I like an artist that has breadth and depth. Some of Madonna's happier songs or more upbeat stuff just seem sort of fluffy to me. When Billy does a happy song (the whole Zwan album is a pretty decent example), he does it pretty well. Like the lead single off of Mary Star of the Sea, "Honestly" which you can listen to here if you haven't heard it before. That being said, I don't like bands that only sing about the same stuff or in the same emotional mood the whole time. That gets pretty boring. That is why I'm not a huge fan of Billy's grungier stuff. It has its place in my collection and I even really like some of those songs. However, had TSP not evolved into Mellon Collie's more mellow territory followed by Adore and Machina, I probably wouldn't like them as much as a band. When Billy branched out musically, he stuff sounds more different song to song even on a given album. Like "Pug" sounds really different than "For Martha". Versus Cherub Rock, Quiet, Siva, and those sorts of songs sounding really similar musically. Take Madonna's song "Boderline." That song seems to be (lyrically) about romantic frusteration...yet it is poppy, upbeat, and leaves one with the feeling of being happy. I mean...I have been romantically unhappy before and I don't feel like going out and busting a fresh dance move in a club (ha ha). That sort of "fitting the mood with the music" thing seems a bit more intuitive to people who write their music themselves and generate lyrics in a more organic process versus fitting words to music (mo matter what that might be). I'm not saying one has to be uber-cliché and scream loudly in a song if you are angry. However, it seems a bit superficial to have lyrics that speak of deep pain or anger and sing that song with a slow tempo but pop songs just seem to often lack that depth. Like..."Oh Father" is about child abuse and it seems sort of wistful and melancholy in a sort of fleeting and ethereal way. Take "Spaceboy" off of Siamese Dream and you are looking at a song about Billy's brother who was physically handicapped (and both were actually abused by their crappy parents). Billy ended up taking care of his brother and trying to watch out for him and that song covers some of that territory. If you didn't know the background, would you necessarily think that? However, you can totally feel that really emotionally tormented vibe that just a bit more real. Perhaps that is just me though. If you are going to compare two bands and say one is better because of X,Y, and Z reasons...you need some justification for using those as criteria. I'm open and totally receptive to arguments on behalf of more melody being an intrinsicly good thing. Maybe it is. I want to hear your arguments on that though or at least get a better picture on what it is you personally use (and why) to make musical aesthetic judgments. To be that is far more elucidating, productive, and interesting than simply just stating criteria. I want to make it clear that I'm *not* playing devil's advocate here or trying to just be a contentious jerk. You have some really interesting things to say which is why I'm asking for more clarity. If I didn't think you had anything worthwhile to say, I wouldn't have gone into the depth that I am going into and I certainly wouldn't be asking the question I am. I hope you understand that. I'm with you on The Cure versus The Smashing Pumpkins in most areas...though I think TSP could write some amazing stuff that rivals The Cure on a match up basis. Overall, though...I agree. As far as Madonna V. The Cure? I don't think that even the people that wrote for Madonna can't match the intensity of stuff like "If Only Tonight We could Sleep" or "Friday I'm in Love" in my book. The Cure is dark, no doubt. They are prototypically Romantic in every way and I mean romantic in the literal art-history sense, not the Objectivist re-definition. Even so, you end up with stark images and lyrics that pain t some very dark pictures, but with depth versus the fluffiness of a lot of Madonna's catalog. Also keep in mind that I don't think that she is bad. I guess I should have made that clear a long time ago. Much in the same way that you are a Smashing Pumpkins fan, I like Madonna as well and respect her much in the same way you respect TSP. I think she has boat loads of talent and pulls off some amazing songs. Like "Ray of Light" for example (I know it is a techno dance song, but it is pulled off brilliantly). Anyway... dear lord this post is huge and it is 7:00 AM. My apologies. lol. -Evan

I actuall did mention To Sheila at the top of my post with a link too. Thanks, though. I also agree with your assesment of Christina Aguilera. I was a bit hasty in making it clear how I was saying she (and hers like her) were not musicians. Even in rock bands there are lots of vocalists that don't play instruments. There is a ton that goes into really good singing including sight reading/singing, music theory, etc if you really want to be good. So I should have made it clear where I was going. Thanks for gettin' me square on that one. I also agree with your assessment of more simplistic music. If it sounds good and is memorable (and is a brilliant work of art) and fits your personal sense of life...who cares if it isn't Andres Segovia on guitar or Itzak Pearlmen (or however you spell his name) on violin? Musicians of those calibers have way more tools in their tool box to create with, but it doesn't mean that they will create a better work. -E

Bold Standard: HOLY SMOKES. I saw that and about swallowed my teeth. I know this wasn't even targeted at me, but I feel driven to respond. My answer? Hell yes their compositions are way better than Madonna. I would stack ANYTHING off of Adore against anything Madonna could put forth.Have you ever heard To Sheila?If you haven't...please watch this home made music video (video is good) set to the song: That is just one example. Adore is an absolutely amazing album. Even if you look past that and go to their grungier stuff (which I don't like nearly so much as I do from Adore onwards), you have a phenomenal catalog to draw on. Let me give you an example from each album: From Gish = Rhinocerus From Siamese Dream = Luna From Mellon Collie = 1979 From Adore = and one of my favorite love songs (from an Objectivist standpoint, lyrically it reminds me a lot of Francisco and Dagny) = Daphne Descends (unfortunately the Daphne Descends video is not a real music video as there never was an actual music video made for this song. Instead the video is a crappy Anime Music Video, so if you want, just click on the link and let it play in the background or something.) From Machina = Another one of my favorite love songs of all time (look up the lyrics if you want). I went with another AMV because the real video was done really poorly. Just listen to the song and look up some lyrics. Ignore the CG video unless you really want to watch it. (other great songs off of Machina = I Of The Mourning, Raindrops + Sunshowers, For Machina 2 I would have used "Let Me give The world to You" as an example, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Instead I'm going to use The Smashing Pumpkins' cover of Stevie Nicks' "Landslide" which in my opinion is better than the original version and that stupid Dixie Chick's version. Landslide I know that is a lot of music to digest, but my point is that as far as a composer, Billy Corgan kicks the crap out of Madonna. Besides, it isn't even like she can even take credit for the actual music. She was a dancer who teamed up with people who did music for her (starting with dance music and progressing into more serious pop as she matured). I'm not saying she isn't immensely talented, but she had better people than her writing beats and music (like PRINCE for example). Madonna has been way more about image as well. She was the pop equivalent of a waaaaaaaay toned down Alice Cooper or Marilyn Manson with her videos and in-your face- sexuality as well whether it was in provocative videos like, "Justify My Love" or releasing her racy pornoesque book "Sex." A lot of Madonna operates completely outside of music and is involved in performance aspects (dancing), movies, controversy, etc. If you are just looking at Madonna musicially for what SHE personally composed versus Billy Corgan...well...that is kind of laughable. Even take Billy's remarkable flop "The Future Embrace" (his solo CD released in '05) and the songs on THAT are singularly better composed and more interesting. Take the song A100 for example which you can listen to here: http://www.myspace.com/thefuturembrace As such, it might (and I'm willing to concede this) not even be fair to really try to compare Madonna and The Smashing Pumpkins because one is pop and one is rock. There is definitely a difference...even when the rock in question is popular rock like the Smashing Pumpkins (despite being in the "Alternative" category, TSP sold quite a few albums obviously). How could you ever really fairly compare someone like Brittney Spears or Christina Aguilera with a group like The Smashing Pumpkins or The Cure (to use an analogy). Those two (like Madonna) are peformers who happen to have vocal and dance talent. They are vocalists and sometimes lyricists at best, not musicians in the sense that they play instruments and actually compose music. The only real reason why I bothered providing examples at all was because if you seriously do compare Madonna and The Smashing Pumpkins it seems glaringly obvious who the actual musicians are and who the better compositions come from on a musical, lyrical, and overall level. At least it seemed obvious to me. Since it wasn't to you (Bold Standard), I figured I would provide some examples in case you weren't familar with The Smashing Pumpkins' work or were only familiar with stuff like, "Zero" or "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" or "Today." The Smashing Pumpkins are so much more than those songs and for anyone looking to pick up a phenomenal album, I highly recommend checking out Adore. Check out those songs first though from Adore so you aren't just taking me on faith. -Evan btw...speaking of The Cure, if you want some 80's pop-rock that really pummels Madonna in the face in terms of quality...that would do it. If you guys haven't ever heard "Just Like Heaven" for example, check it out :