MACHINA MYSTERY 8 (posted January 3rd, 2000)

Conclusion
The Outcome to the Dream
THE WARNING


God is a reality that cannot reveal Themselves to you because you literally cannot endure the consequences on your own self-image, you have never accepted the natural consequences on your life, accepted that there might be ONE and acted accordingly. So to demonstrate Himself infallibly would be to annihilate you in you own self-reflecting massive personal crisis of guilt, the rendering of the doubt you already bolster in material. Imagine how this will explode, how big your self doubt will instantaneously become, the moment you are faced with a SUPREME ULTIMATELY REALIZED EXISTENCE YOU HAVE SACRIFICED THROUGH IGNORANCE ALL YOUR LIFE. You only see what you allow yourself to see and no more. If you honestly seek God, you will integrate these consequences into your living already, so you may arrive at the point where it may be possible for Them to reveal Themselves, for God could never, ever do this in a way that has the danger of hurting you. GOD IS LOVE. God exists in complete SELF-DENIAL for you, so you may realize your own autonomy in this life, and His consequences may not harm you when you die. That He must continue this protection when you die is what will determine where you end up.

(An exact replica of earth? A shattered one? Endless consuming repetition? The day job? Or are you utterly convinced there is nothing after? Fine that will be it.) Where you arrive when you die is not a consequence of God at all, God would never send you to hell. It is a direct product, and solely the product, of your own self-realization in reality. Whatever you've defined yourself to cope with is what you will get. YOU HAVE JUST BEEN WARNED> OR, HOW FORTUNATE IT WAS ALL JUST A DREAM! Or would you rather play this bet safely? Using your own personal discretion is hardly a big demand to ask of you, it's individualism. I thought this was ideal. What if the relation between Glass and June really does prove God? Dare to ignore this possibility? This should at least shake your reality can enough to make you think in terms of possibilities.

So, I suspect Glass, if he has read anything, may be rather gobsmacked right about now. If he can really believe there's June, anyway. Do you realize that the only thing that would have to happen, for the proof of God to exist, would be for Glass to respond, "Yes, it's true?" (June is real, I've known it all along.)

Perhaps it would take a little longer to support it. Perhaps I would have to take longer with the proof. But I can, you know. I can take all the time it needs. This is the tip of the iceberg, June's internal universe. And she can take all the time it needs.

So the parting understanding is that this exists as a warning, that God has never irrevocably revealed Themselves forcibly to anyone, and that there is a very good reason for this. It is called FREE WILL. Once God exists in a way you can't deny you have no choice about believing in them. Perhaps you can see at this brink that we have come perilously close to proving God, if the only affirmation it needs is 'Yes'. And if I were Glass, I'd say it. I'd say it because it would be the best of ways to have the music industry pissing in their collective boots. I'd say it just to raise a little hell. So, even if he answers 'Yes', you still won't know if it proves there's a God. On the other hand I think the only way God would present proof of Themselves is an existential paradox, a mystery that will remain unsolved. They're nice that way. No solution means no ending. No glaring lights go on. Things get to be normal.

On the other hand if I were Glass, I'd do it just for the controversy, the kick in the collective can, and run like hell. It would be great craic. I'm sure Glass is pissed enough at the industry he might say 'Yes' just for the hell of it, don't you? Whether it's true or not? June would. Cuz June feels just as abused by the industry as he does, in her own way. June is the Dancer. June holds dancing in a nigh sacred place. June danced for her bread in smoky nightclubs, hour after hour. Top 40 shit, the same top 40 shit, night after night after night. Soul abuse. Imagine her thrill at crossing the Atlantic and discovering the same old just became the same old shite. It was then that she concluded Top 40 was one of the most pervasive global monopolies extant. And in terms of how it reduced creativity, inspiration, and our ability to appreciate, she decided it was one of the most disturbing. June has something of a subversive track record. You could say in terms of subversion, she's an old hack, in fact.

So how does this high-minded blather translate into vive la revolution? Well, (thanks to Sauresnas' advice), it goes something like this:

June is a dynamic that illustrates several things about the nature of inspiration. The form of her existence in itself, as a multifaceted work of art, demonstrates that inspiration is not a million shards, it is an interconnected web within humanity. This is whether she is what she claims to be, Art rendered by a Consciousness, or not. June's existence proves there is a universal unconscious sea we are all inspired in and all involved in. And it shows that the patterns of inspiration are impossible to trace or fathom. Look at what has been happening under the collective music industry's noses! In terms of grasping the trend, or 'the movement', or what listeners are really into, they completely missed the boat! But it says a good deal more than that...

It says there is spirit. Spirit within the music. If we can trace a Femina this grand and this fantastic, it means there is something in it that can never be isolated, harnessed, or reduced. Just the structure in itself, the extent of the connected concept, is ample demonstration of that.
June's existence proves something else, it proves that TRUTH IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, not the artist. This is not to take inspiration, to steal the highest interpretation, or anything like that. What it shows is that what the recipient sees in the work, can be much, much more than what is given. June thinks her writing is proof enough of this. She figures a book would seal the case. If the truth lies within the recipients, us, the audience, that means that what we perceive can never be taken away from us, no matter how much they rob and control the music. We will always see more in it, we will always know there is more in it. We can always change and subvert it.

We save the soul of rock 'n' roll. And when it comes to saving souls, with June we can say this is really true, cuz June is Grace within the music. It saved her soul, it saved theirs. By saving June, who is so extensive a concept through out, Glass literally did save the soul of rock 'n' roll. Or else we proved these things could be done, and that the music (or some of it), literally does have a soul. Either that or the analogy is so extensive it provides this demonstration of itself.

June's existence says more. It says, if you will take the full value she gives it, that Inspiration belongs to God, and will always belong to God. And this can never, ever, be controlled. In fact June's patterns are proof that all things highest and best regarded within the music are God's. The rest is pretty much mulch. We leave them to their mulch. It is such a limiting monopoly, don't you think?

If truth is in the eye of the beholder, that means the vampires of inspiration can never harness what is in the music. They are, at best, emperors parading with no clothes. If you want an immediate analogy for this, let's look at something like Nsync and apply it:

Nsync is harnessing something they don't understand. I know we sort of detest all the little girls for hysteria, for going absolutely nuts over a bunch of prats. But this is a direct product of harnessing inspiration. Of there being nothing else to appreciate. No one really knows why the girls go as crazy as they do. Admit it, ever since Elvis it has not made a great deal of sense.
The thing is, it's never going to, because this is about there being something more, and truth may reside in the eye of the beholder. Now in this instance, I was a girl who was once silly enough to see Revival, the Bride and Groom, and a universal union inside one rock concert on 'cid one night, and I was never, ever, the same. It is what the beholder sees that makes it more. I'm sure the singer probably had no clue of what he was doing. I'm still trying to find one that does.

In terms of the girls, it's a funny age. It's when they are just beginning to develop sexually but still thinking of love abstractly. It makes them vulnerable. I'd say they're vulnerable to Alpha, but Alpha is just an idea here for something that's not understood. They're seeing something spiritual in the sappiest of love songs, no matter how sappy they try and make it. Think about it, to be harnessing a bunch of little girls' burgeoning sexual energy is hardly manly, is it? It's rather a joke, like an emperor parading with no clothes. Like you'd do this for a profit? The real joke is they have no comprehension of what they're harnessing, or more accurately, what they're reducing, cuz that energy has a much greater potential. June proves that it does. June proves you can transform the world with it. Makes reducing it that much more of a joke.

So June thinks it's The Spy's fault. Jim's Spy.
"I'm a spy, in the house of love
I know the dreams, that you're dreaming of
I know the words, that you long to hear
I know your deepest secret fear"

The Spy is the Backdoor man:
"I'm a backdoor man,
You don't know, but your little girls, understand . . . ."

And the little girls always do. No matter how the industry tries to harness it.
Vive la revolution.

Because if it can live on in this most insipid of ways, it can live on in anything.

Preamble to Ken Wilbur's Inteview with Reb Marc (Integral Naked

"In this dialogue, Reb Marc and Ken delve into the often-misunderstood relationship between individual existence and absolute Spirit. The great spiritual traditions have myriad ways of articulating this relationship. Particularly in the East, it is common to find expressions through which human and God are identified as one: Atman is Brahman; Thou art That; Form is not other than Emptiness, and Emptiness is not other than Form. This realization of divine unity is often called the Supreme Identity. This does not mean a particular human is God, but that each human's (indeed, each sentient being's) consciousness and Spirit's intersect at infinity.

The Judaeo-Christian traditions, on the other hand, have tended to keep human and God separate, at times even punishing anyone who crossed that transcendental (and political) line. Witness the case of Giordano Bruno—burned at the stake. If you weren't Jesus the Christ, then not only were you not allowed to be essentially (or in essence) one with God, but your only means to God was via the mediation of the Church, which was a legal not a transcendental identity.

Ken is quick to point out that this denial was not necessarily malevolent, but was often simply the result of a pre/trans or pre/post fallacy (namely, confusing pre-conventional moral development with post-conventional moral development simply because both of them are non-conventional). Organized religion, in both Judaism and Christianity, was often attempting to replace pre-conventional, egocentric, impulsive moral behaviour with conventional moral commandments and rules, which was often a necessary social good. But it often confused post-conventional mysticism with pre-conventional consciousness, and in attempting to move beyond pre-rational awareness ended up suppressing trans-rational awareness, which was a spiritual catastrophe of the first magnitude.

A further complication arises from the fact that the state of mystical union is often characterized as beyond good and evil—in fact, beyond duality altogether—but that state of being beyond good and evil is most definitely post-conventional, not pre-conventional, which cannot distinguish good and evil in the first place and thus often arrives at Charles Manson's disastrous conclusion: "If all is one, nothing is wrong."

Marc and Ken frame their discussion within a very generalized three-level scheme of moral development where level 1 equals pre-ethical, egoic, unenlightened action; level 2 equals ethical, conformist, dualistic action; and level 3 equals trans-ethical, trans-egoic, enlightened action and being.

The problem arises when level 1 is confused with level 3. Level 2 has a legitimate interest in suppressing the horrors of level 1. But it is indeed a catastrophe when level 2 also tries to suppress level 3, which is none other than its very own highest, not-yet-realized Self.

The other unfortunately wide-spread trap is the New Age move, which takes level-1 pre-ethical action to be the equivalent of level-3 trans-ethical action, embracing egoic forms of impulsiveness as if they were truly spontaneous mystical states. But a true level-3 realization includes ethics as foundation, even while going beyond it. In other words, level 3 represents an integral embrace of the levels beneath it, without being limited to them."

At the John Hancock 11/04/02

Depeche Mode, Poe, "Exciter" Tour, 07/28/01, Pacific Coliseum

So I’m going to tell you a little bit about Depeche Mode – the concert, that is. Let’s begin with it was the closest, ever, the entry search, that I’ve been to being busted . . . and yea, just the vibe walking in tells me, yes indeed, the DEA have set up camp in Vancouver (office a month or two ago) – you can feel it just from the heat.
I’m not going to tell you a great deal about this it’s been a while and no longer fresh but I will, of course, digress to Poe . . . this is no big deal but I will say, it has happened before but not quite like this, not so distinct and not in a stadium.
It was in a dream many years ago, I dreamed of it happening with yours truly, and actually, he walked right up to my seat and asked for my name. Felt like a cornered rabbit and nearly bolted when I saw what was up, because naturally I can see it coming much sooner than that . . . but anyway the dream was a very long time ago . . .
I’m not afraid of this anymore. Before if I felt a vibe like this, I’d deliberately screen it, pretty much. It scared me a lot. I only got caught once. That was local. He really did address me as the moon containing the secrets of the sun and blather blather (sorry, he was Extremely eloquent) –but I pretended I didn’t know who he was talking to, never moved. My friend who was with me knew, tho. (that was the closest he ever got.)
Dear Poe played some lovely things I know are new, actually put her stamp on the ‘forever’ roster, I think. She also played some staples we all know her well for, like ‘angry johnny’. (Chapter 4) –and sometimes I think the cycle introduced by the starting band, is intentional, it was very much like the last time but a different band –(stabbing westward) – the proverbial grill, but first, it was sort of a lure. Anyway Poe ended up singing in just one direction, and I’m like mmm, yes, this is getting pretty familiar –and she will not digress. So this time I just absorb it without qualm, like, oh, hang it, and she turns up the amps. I mean Then she decides on a serious wallop – which I just absorb. And conclude the thing by just standing up and giving a nod, small bow. very shortly she stage dives.
Now I am way, way, way up on the side section just a few rows from the main isle, and I tell myself ‘no way!’. –but she did – she does. She straddled the rail and came ALL the way up. And I’m just standing there and everyone’s getting confused and the security, well,
-but at the same time chaos ensues on both fronts and ushers are in front of me in confusion over the seats and nevermind but anyways, she concluded her travels on the right row, you see, stood facing and what not, she was one section away. Whew. 


-as for DM I enjoyed it extremely and just enjoyed it, no perks whatsoever . . .

-and there was a funny little twigger on dancing technique on both counts, both poe and dave used it. Meaning they were derivative of the same movements I used for years. Just a little bit, they’d just refer to it, and I thought, I guess I should start dancing again.

-as for DM I can no longer make pointers on the song list, obviously. The reason I enjoyed it so very much is because as you know, or have you noticed, the most danceable DM songs actually have very slow, slow beats that almost make them undanceable? –but!!! Whotta drummer!!! And they’ve doubled or syncopated All their beats!!! Yahoo!!! Whot can I say? It was a ripping grand old time. There was plenty of space where I was and I dance through all of them, the songs they’d changed. And it just got better and better. I couldn’t BELIEVE no one practically anywhere was dancing it was so good. And here I was worried about an ambient new album –but they brought all those complex quiet beats way into the fore. It is great to be in the hands of true professionals. What can I say!?!
Oh, yes, visuals. Were so great! But the one that sticks, of course, were the two little goldfish, and the shark, below . . . for In your Room. Now how apt is that?!?!?
Firstly, IYR has so many great levels, but it has one very direct, real one, I don’t think I should even belabour the point . . . but of course it is one of those Reveal songs, one of the strongest . . . can you see it delineates so clearly the entrapment that exists in the form of the feedback loop – of course then, he thought this was her fault!
-so how cool is it for the little goldfish to be joined, then, by a second one, after the shark has made its presence . . . how apt even after Seattle . . . nevermind.
-among other amusements: the song Black Celebration (which I hadn’t actually seen them do before, and Oh OH OH!!! – they did CLEAN!!!! (smiles all over) –that was the first time I’d seen them perform Clean –worth the wait, my sister was So disappointed, after all, she didn’t come, (but she couldn’t afford it). I mean that’s an eight year wait . . .
back to BC – that’s my point, they reversed the song (actually underlying interpretation) – by jacking this one full of iconography (the question is only of when and where with them) – I simply mean white crosses – but you can understand my amusement at having the massive block initials BC flashing over and over and over (what’s that!?!? – oh, the title, right . . .) –still it’s amusing. As amusing as last time when their film screen/sole stage prop was actually a perfect stage for a silhouette dancer, never used for such. Ah well. You see the point.

Quote from Faster Louder interview of Billy Corgan (04/26/12)

From that interview:

Do you feel like you have to pissed off at something in order to make good music?
Billy: “No, I don’t honestly, between you and me [chuckles] I don’t believe in that theory. I don’t believe the best art is made by depressed people. The greatest creation ever is what God made of this world, Australia’s one of the most beautiful places on Earth, there was no depression there, when whomever made that place. So, I don’t believe that. The greatest things don’t come out of depression, the greatest things come out of love. And the greatest things in life oftentimes go unnoticed. It’s the little things that happen between people who love each other. Things like albums and stuff, those are postcards, little postcards in life. They’re fine, and they seem important, but they’ll all end up in the dust like everything else.”

The week of March 21st, 1999

Last night she had a beautiful dream: It was very positive in terms of [a long-standing friend who I’d just spoken to; the friend’s name was Anthony. In the dream they were both born with a symbol on their skin (lower arm) that marked them as being from the same Godly tribe. And] then after that long association was over, I was lying on a living room couch that was my bed, acknowledging the web that is my own desire and keenly aware of myself. I had been up all through the night, for the dawn light was near breaking, and when I looked out the dining room window there winked in the sliver of the new moon through an opening enclave of clouds. It shimmered and glanced, and the envelope pushed wider. I was thinking, this must be a vision, for the clouds are opening for the moon. And then the moon was caught in light, for over its face, even that which was concealed, there pulsed a lattice of shimmering light, twice. At this the clouds darkened and roiled, forming their own intricate patterns as they coiled away from the sliver of a silver moon. Don’t close your eyes, for it is a vision, given to you if you are open, and if you close your eyes it may vanish from sight. I strained but then I blinked and when my eyes opened, I was awake in my own bed.        

[That night] I walked out the door and when I did, the clouds opened over a sliver of a moon. So be at peace with yourself, little one, for no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Pitchfork/Julianne Shepherd interview w. Billy Corgan, 06/13/95

 Billy Corgan's The Future Embrace is technically his first solo album, but anyone who's followed his career knows he's been writing all the music (and playing all the instruments in the studio) since he started soft-focus alt-rockers Smashing Pumpkins in 1988. The album-- all Billy, all the time-- is cloaked in reverb and flange, a bit industrial and compressed like a smashed aluminum can, blown up again with studio fireworks, dotted with glitch and the occasional ballad. It's heavily processed, but Corgan's lyrics are as simple and literal as the poetry in his book Blinking With Fists; all the impressionistic musings and parables that made up the bulk of SP lyrics are cleared away for blunt language up in the confessional: "We can change the world," he promises on "All Things Change". It marks the change in his life: Free of the terrible weight of Zwan-- his flopped and troubled rock band with Matt Sweeney, Paz Lenchantin and Dave Pajo-- heavy into spirituality and trying to evolve, Corgan is an early entrée in the running for most emo (not emo) rock star in 2005.
Billy Corgan is publishing his autobiography on his website billycorgan.com, with the Buddhist-sounding agenda to promote "loving compassion." It's an interesting way to both strip himself of his celebrity and perpetuate it-- in Buddhism, letting go is akin to self-empowerment; the less you have, the less you have to lose. He's opening the door on his honeymoon, divorce, his band demise, making good on the strange megaphonic intimacy of the internet, and baring his entire life in the most public media form ever-- a concept, incidentally, popularized by his ex and colleague Courtney Love back in the 1990s, through her proto-livejournal emails and confessional newsgroup posts. Corgan's wounds are riding the crest of This Moment in Emo. But he invented this moment, too; Smashing Pumpkins, the soul-baring arena rockers, set the stage for today's SoundScan-topping emo bands as much as the Cure or Weezer did.
I meet Cowboy Bill at 10 in the morning, so I'm jacked on coffee, and his pale bald head looks particularly soft and fragile.
Pitchfork: You've been doing this for close to 20 years. Do you ever get sick of interviews?
Billy Corgan: Yeah. Because you're either talking about somebody else's reference points, or they're talking about yours. If they're talking about mine, I'm really interested 'cause there are all sorts of variations and ideas; if they're talking about theirs, it's really kind of narrow and overdone.
Pitchfork: Well, what do you mean? What are your reference points?
BC: Okay, your basic person wants to talk about material culture, internet culture, you know, "What do you think of this band?" I think about God, cats, nature. You know what I mean?
Pitchfork: I was actually gonna ask you about God. [Your publicist] Brian and I were actually just talking about astrology...we were talking about going through our Saturn Return.
BC: How old are you?
Pitchfork: I'm 29.
BC: Oh, that's the tough one. Twenty-eight to 31 is the tough period.
Pitchfork: Really? Great.
BC: You have to be really careful because it's so cataclysmic, so life-altering. People do really dramatic things like get married, or they'll get divorced. Your chances of committing suicide go way up. It's basically psychic death. You see the signs of it around 27, and you're still on the out-end of it around 31. Everyone I've talked to who's gone through that and come out the other side walks out of it like, "MY LIFE IS GREAT."
Pitchfork: Like a molting process.
BC: Absolutely, but it's really beautiful. And you see people who don't go through their Saturn Return properly-- my ex-bandmate D'Arcy is a classic example-- and they're like, trapped in hell. They're like in a suspended state; they freeze, because they won't go through the act. They'll do anything to avoid the psychic death. But you have to go through it.
That's why 14 and 15 are such terrible times. Saturn Return is just the return of your planets to their original position.
Pitchfork: Then it happens again when you're 56.
BC: Yeah, midlife crisis. I'm happy to have gone through that, but it was really terrible. In my Saturn Return period, my mom died and I got a divorce.
Pitchfork: It seems like it's been harder for the men I know, honestly.
BC: It could have something to do with the fact that women are sort of more emotional beings while men are kind of like, still working out the, "Well, do I fuck lots of girls, or do I get committed?" They're still on the fundamental primal concepts, while I think women are more apt to deal with those things early.
Pitchfork: So what happened with yours?
BC: Mine occurred at the absolute peak of my career. Smashing Pumpkins were running around playing 200 concerts a year-- making money, lotta babes-- and there was the irony of the high with the low.
Pitchfork: So you were just like, dealing with your psychic turmoil while all this stuff was happening?
BC: Well, I didn't deal with it; that was sort of the problem. Like any form of death, at some point you just have to get up and say yeah I'll take it, whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen and sorta chop your head off. It's easy to avoid all that...there's always another moment, another girl, another high, another drug, there's always something to distract you.
My mom's death was the big head-crusher, because I could no longer deny what was going on...symbolically, it was the moment.
Pitchfork: You had to face your life.
BC: Well yeah, 'cause I didn't grow up with my mother, and so losing her for real was like, some sort of latent childhood, some sort of unresolved issue. When she left for real, it was sort of like, I was done. We were playing two shows at the Anaheim Pond. We played one show, and when we came off stage, I could see in everybody's body language they were sort of braced, and they said, "Your mom died." She was ill, so it wasn't unexpected, it was like, "Okay." Very calm. They just looked at me. I played the next night, and after we were done I got on a plane, flew to Chicago, went to the funeral, and then was just back on tour. Didn't take a week off, didn't breathe, just suspended it. So the remedial...it kind of hit me later.
And I've always been spiritual but I've never had a proper context, and it took me awhile to find the proper context. It's hard to realize you can have any kind of relationship with God you want...and so I now have a punk rock relationship with God.
Pitchfork: What do you mean?
BC: It's like how I approach music fundamentally for my own end; like, I was into Black Sabbath and it just wasn't cool, but I didn't give a shit, my band was going to sound like Black Sabbath because I fucking wanted it to and I didn't give a shit what some idiot fuck thought. You know, that kind of thing. So it took me a long time to realize that wow, I can have that same kind of relationship with God. I don't have to play by these rules or do these things...I can actually have my own kind of version of it. And that's been great.
Pitchfork: Were you raised to believe you had to be rigid about religion?
BC: Well, I was brought up Roman Catholic. That's very like, "You're going to hell" and you don't do this and you don't do that and I was like, "I'm already like, 400 sins past that," so do I keep going? I'm not even baptized, by the way.
Pitchfork: Dios mio! Oh my goodness! [laughter]
BC: Yeah, totally! [Makes sound effect to mimic lightning striking from above.]
This is sort of an apocryphal tale, but I walked away from going to church when I was eight. Just turned to my stepmother and said, "I don't want to go," and she said OK. So I didn't set foot in another church until I was 28.
Pitchfork: Why'd you return?
BC: I'm the type of person who's like, if I have resistance to something, it means there's something wrong. It's the classic thing, when you're talking about religion with someone and they go, "Fuck Christianity, fuck, fuck my parents, fuck fuck." The resistance to me is a sign of fear. Whereas someone who doesn't have a problem will go, "Yeah, you know, my parents are into that; it's really not my thing." It's the energy of the resistance.
So for me to sort of not go into a church means there's something there that I'm afraid of. So to me, I would just say, "Ok I'm going into a church and I'm gonna make my peace with it, so it's not this thing of all oh yeah, I don't go into churches. I hate people like that. What difference does it make if you do or you don't? I try to go head first into things I have resistance to because I find out that I'm hiding from something or there's something that needs to be resolved, or I just don't give a shit and maybe I'm just on some old idea.
Pitchfork: Along those lines, on your website you wrote something about not wanting to obscure meaning or emotion in your music anymore. Does that relate?
BC: I think it relates in the sense where we've all been in the position where, let's say we really love somebody, and we wanna tell them but we just can't. We're not capable of fully going into the emotion because of fear of being rejected. So I think I kind of approached music with this sort of, like, weird thing where I kinda set myself up where I could kinda be myself but not really. I kinda had a backdoor out. So if you criticized me, I kinda had my defenses working. And the problem is that some people seize on that as inauthenticity, which is understandable. So that's painful because it's not that you're being inauthentic...there's a difference between being a poseur and being someone who's so emotionally challenged they're kind of just doing their best to show you what they've got.
Pitchfork: Oh, totally.
BC: And the only transformative difference between the first [Gish] and the second album [Siamese Dream] was that after the first album, I became completely suicidal. It was an eight-month depression, give or take a month, and I was pretty suicidal for about two or three months. And I made this sort of weird fundamental choice, which was "Well, I'm kind of at the bottom and there's nothing else to live for, so I might as well make the music I really wanna make." It was the beginning of the change in my life, that's when I started writing stuff like "Disarm" and "Today", which for me were like, literally ripping my guts out. And to actually have them be successful, and to play the songs live and have four or five thousand people sing these words back...it was like, wow, it just did my head in.
Pitchfork: How did that affect you?
BC: It created a dual bind. It now sealed me to the concept that confessing and being open was where the energy was, but at the same time, it was like holding my head underwater because now I couldn't retreat. So what I did was I sort of amped up other parts of my personality as a diversionary tactic.
This interviewer said the other day, "God, you have a horrible reputation...you get on the internet and you read about you, but then I pick up your albums and read these lyrics and it's this beautiful stuff, very feminine, you know? How do I correlate these two visions?"
And I said, "Well, it's pretty simple. When you're so wide open that you can't deal with the vulnerability but you know that's where you have to be, you create a lot of smoke and shit over here." Because then they're fighting about what you said about rock and roll. And they're really not on the point. For someone who's had the level of success I've had, there's been very little critical review of my work, which is pretty fascinating.
Think about it. I mean, there are books on Radiohead, theories. As far as a theoretical point of view for my generation, I'm probably the most successful theoretician. I mean, double albums and concepts and dresses and major disasters and wonderful successes and yet you don't see the critical review of my work. Why? Because it's all focused on the persona. Billy Corgan. But I get to sort of jump in and be Billy Corgan. But then I get to sort of jump back out and be like, sensitive man in the corner.
Pitchfork: Well, that's true. There aren't really any smart books about Smashing Pumpkins as a concept.
BC: But see what I'm saying? I created a paradigm by which I could succeed, and up until recently it was the only way I could do it. I could not take the brunt of standing in the light of my own work. There was a Faustian bargain I could not make. I could have you mock me for wearing funny clothes that I could deal with. But I couldn't deal with actually standing in the light of my own musical power. That's the difference now. It's like, okay, no more of that, you're done.
Pitchfork: With your book, your blog, and the lyrics on your new record being all first-person, it seems like you're just not obscuring anything anymore.
BC: It's like, this is a horrible analogy but it's the first thing that comes to mind: Say you know a girl and you think she's cute and she's wearing lots of make-up and funny clothes, you still like her, and then one day you come over to her house early and she's wearing a t-shirt and jeans and no make-up and you think, "My god, this person's beautiful." That's kind of my whole thing. I'm tired of dressing up. It doesn't mean I never will again. But there just comes a point as a man, and as a human being, you must stand and be who you are and stop the game playing. Because the game-playing-- although it's been a survival technique in a way for me to operate within the music business-- has been very painful for me, because ultimately, it's taking energy away from the thing that really drives this which is the words.
It's painful to me as an artist because then you don't really get to do, so you have this crazy legion of fans who get it, and who scratch their heads and are like, what's all the smoke about, we're good with the music. And then you have this other group who's like "What is his fuckin' deal, man? We can't take that shit." You have this crazy dichotomy and somehow I've placed myself in the middle. And for years I sort of rode on the edge of that: they don't understand, you understand. But that gets boring too. Maybe this is some sort of vague new age attempt at integration. The point is, it's an old model. It's a system that no longer works for me.