bands that aren't bands, c/d

I don't really mean singular people who go by a name that makes it look they are a band, I mean people who have bands but for whatever reason (my guess for Corgan is Eminem sized ego, but that's my personal disdain) do most of the stuff themselves.

Right, cuz he's a musical genius and all.

usually when someone goes by their own name, i.e. a "solo artist", they're usually pop singers or singer/songwriter types, and it becomes a very all-about-me thing, and if there are other people involved in the creative process, they're backing bands, or 'behind the scenes' roles. whereas if you're just one guy who's basically doing it all yourself, with maybe other people who are really just play the stuff you wrote, but it's all under the umbrella of a bandname (i.e. a real band in name, but a 'backing' band in truth), so that it's kind of an illusion of democracy and punk-ness (i.e., songwriter X = band Y, in the true creative sense, but, control-freak-tyrant though he may be, he's at least nice enough to spread the credit around and let the other 3 guys grab some glory/take the pressure of him).

however, there is a small part of me that likes the idea of making very strange abstract not-at-all-singer/songwriter-y music, and then releasing under one's own given name, no alias or illusory 'band'. just to kind of flip the convention. i mean, think of how differently a lot of artists would be percieved if they'd started out taking full credit, i.e. if J Mascis had been performing as just J Mascis since '85 or whenever.

i think Naga's use of the phrase "to keep the SP image" is very key here - Corgan/Pumpkins entered into a musical scene/climate ruled by bands, not individuals, so that even if one is a creative individual who doesn't truly collaborate or work by committee when writing songs, it was (is?) just more acceptable/credible at the time to be in a band, than to be a singer/songwriter who makes indie/punk/alternative music.

which begs the question: was there a paradigm shift, sometime since the 80's/early 90's? it seems like there are a lot more 'indie' solo artists performing under their given names now than 10 years ago, and a lot of them are ex-members of bands that were together/popular back then, that have since broken up...so if they started out now, would they have still started a 'band', or just go solo right away, because it's more acceptable now? or is 'going solo' just the logical next step for them to take after the band/collaborative partnership dissolves, and they would start in a band either way?

No, it does not. The only Pumpkins release that this almost applies to is Siamese Dream, but that greatly diminishes the role of Jimmy Chamberlain's drumming, which a lot of people would agree is a crucial part of that record. Nevertheless, James Iha and D'arcy Wretzky did play on that album, even if it was in a greatly diminished capacity compared to Corgan himself.

Iha and Wretzky performed on all of the Pumpkins records, and the absence of Chamberlain on the Adore LP is very conspicuous and is part of why that record is so painfully hit or miss.

Let's make no mistake about it though - Corgan is a rampant egomaniac, and definitely sidelined Wretzky and Iha mostly because they didn't have his chops. Corgan seems to be pretty aware that he needs Chamberlain though, hence rehiring the guy and continuing on with him in Zwan.

first of all, that's not begging the question, that's raising it
second, having interviewed many of these people, a big reason wuz cuz of name recognition, something that could get lost if the posters read "BIG FAT BAND (feat. Jim Longdong of Pappawawa). Better to go "JIM LONGDONG (form. of Pappawawa).

or does Chamberlain have dirt on Corgan? I mean Chamberlain killed a dude (unintentionally, but still...)?!?

James and D'arcy spent about 15 minutes in the studio for SD... but I suppose that's some contribution nonetheless

Ever heard Richard Cheese? Ever heard his cover of "Smack My Bitch Up", where he introduces the members of his "band", and "they" each take a solo? TOTALLY CLASSIC.

As both Chamberlain and that album are brilliant, your statement does not compute. ;-)

I'm glad that Adore happened though - it was good for Corgan to be forced to work a little harder without Chamberlain, and a lot of his experiments from that era worked out rather well. I can't say that I'm a big fan of the Billy's quasi-goth persona from that era though - that was the beginning of the end for his public image. He's still reeling from a lot of very poorly considered fashion choices from 1998-2000. He wore some things that even a young Peter Gabriel would get a good chuckle from...

Then you get in the whole fake-person-as-band-name-as-solo-project a la Barry Black and Drake Tungsten.

BTW, I think fake bands are classic. Much less egotistic than using your name for a project, even if it can be lame in that pseudo-mysterious way. Besides, isn't it par-for-the-course for electronic artists up and down the line?