As an old-time Smashing Pumpkins fanatic ... i spent a large portion of my income between 1993 and 1995 on Pumpkins CDs, posters, bootlegs, and so on ... i really have to take exception to the current "reunion". Naturally, part of this discontent can be attributed to my falling out with the band circa Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. However, i believe i do have a genuine qualm with Corgan's marketing scheme. Examining the "reunion", we find that only two of the original SP members, Corgan and drummer Jimmy Chamberlin, are represented. Guitarist James Iha and bassist D'arcy are absent, as is less-requisite replacement bassist Melissa auf der Maur. Now considering that Chamberlin played wtih Corgan on both his recent solo project as well as his side-band Zwan, how does the current incarnation qualify as a "reunion"? (I feel obligated to apply quotation marks whenever using the word "reunion") Corgan disciples will point out that Billy essentially was the Pumpkins ... much the same as the Cure wouldn't exist without Robert Smith. Corgan wrote all the songs, so the party line goes he IS the Pumpkins. That's all fine and good. But then why all the hullabaloo about a "reunion"? It's no more a "reunion" than Zwan was or Corgan's solo record was. Billy can call it whatever he likes, but that doesn't make it so. Imagine if Trent Reznor decided to stop recording as Nine Inch Nails and put out a few albums under his own name, and perhaps a few as something else (just for fun, say, Keloid). Then five years later he traipses around trumpeting a NIN "reunion". Would that make any freaking sense?

Another random iTunes hit ... the Zincs. Jangly, almost rockabilly aesthetic but with a decidedly mopey feel. Enjoying something like this every once in a while makes the manifest destiny-type expansion of my music library worthwhile.