A FINE MADNESS
Smashing Pumpkins picks up the pieces and assembles a second act
Rock resurrections are hard. Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan is aware they're especially tricky when you're viewed as the one who let it crumble the first time around nearly 20 years ago.
But done right, a second coming can yield more creatively fulfilling music, dare we say even better than the first time around.
“I would liken it to that moment in your life when you do realize that you do need your family,” Corgan, 53, says in a phone interview from Chicago. “They might make you crazy, but they're there for you in a way that someone you've met somewhere along the way isn't or can't be. I think we've reached that point in life.”
On a break from recording, Corgan spoke about why this go around with the Pumpkins is more special, appreciating the band's legacy and why being snubbed by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame doesn't bother him.
Q Listening to the Cyr album reminded me of my experience first hearing the Pumpkins' Adore. The band seems to be willing to push the envelope musically and experiment with a lot of different sounds.
A We chased whatever was the most exciting idea, however far it went. Almost to a point of discomfort. We wanted to reach a place where you don't really know what you're doing and then, hopefully, our instincts would kick in from there.
Q Cyr is accompanied by a new five-part animated series called In Ashes. Is there an overarching theme to the record?
A I wrote it before all this madness, but in many ways, it seems to be reflective of the madness. I don't know if it was prescient or what. I guess it deals with some form of dystopia — one soul against the world sort of stuff — but that's been a running theme for many years.
Q We're a few years into the reboot. When did you know that the early magic between you and James (Iha) was back?
A When I brought the band back in 2006, the main question was always, `Why? What does it mean to have a band that's named this if it's not the same people?' The music couldn't just be heard; it was always heard through the prism of who was there or who wasn't there. Something about us being back together lifted that cloud and maybe re-established that idea of going back to how we first approached music.
Q Was it hard to wrestle with the legacy of the band during those intervening years as you tried to craft a new version of the Pumpkins?
A It was and I didn't think it would be. If you sat me down in 2002 and said, `OK, you're out of the band. How much of a problem is this going to be in your daily life?' I would have said, `10 per cent.' Somehow it became a 50 per cent problem. Part of that is me and my reluctance to see why it was important to people. If you've ever seen the documentary, If It All Goes Wrong, you'll see that we were playing long jams and the audience didn't react well to those and we were totally shocked.
Q With the band's second act in full swing, how have you kept that spark alive?
A I think we have a greater appreciation of what we all bring to the table. It's a real deep recognition. We've reached a point where we need each other and we can lean on each other and that's OK. There's something there that's more important than the band and that's the foundation upon which all the craziness of what happened at the beginning was built on.
Q Not too many other bands from the '90s are still around. Have you been able to appreciate your artistic longevity?
A Very much so. I've not always been the most appreciative person in public because I think I was always chasing the next thing. But I've reached the point where I'm touched by it.
Maybe it's because I have children, but I have a greater appreciation for time and generational change and how people's memories form … when you realize you're part of someone's memory or part of their life experience and you mean something to them it's really humbling.
Q I assumed the band was enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and they're not. Have you wondered why?
A That's a weird question to answer because I don't agree with the process by which they're making their decisions.
So, if you don't agree with something then it's kind of hard to complain if you're not chosen in that process. It took them 15 years to put Kiss in. Kiss, to me, is a no brainer.
They're like the fifth-highest selling band of all time and they've been making music since 1974. How the f--- did it take Kiss that long to get in? Judas Priest still isn't in, how are they not in? … The people making decisions on what's cool are making those decisions based on criteria that I don't agree with. What's the criteria? Is it taste? Is it impact? Is it sales? Is it longevity? No one can tell you.
In my world, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Kiss, Deep Purple and Rush are all first ballot hallof-famers without even blinking.
But the history of the institution says that they're not.