Back in March we pondered the question of whether it was right for Billy Corgan to carry on playing under the name of the Smashing Pumpkins given that he is the sole surviving member from their classic line-up. Now Mr Corgan himself has defended his decision on the Pumpkins website. The singer-guitairist admits that, "the idea of identity is a strange one to tackle. For many years, I treated the idea of the band named The Smashing Pumpkins as an existential concept that existed away from my being and body." Corgan goes on to explain, "The music I am making sounds like The Smashing Pumpkins. It doesn't sound like solo work, I can assure you of that." He also notes, "I've never been happier about being in SP, or a part of SP, than I am now." The comparative nature of the latter statement may provoke a wry smile from longtime Corgan-watchers, given that even on his happiest days the man still seems to be as miserable-as-sin.
So, are you convinced by Corgan's reasoning? Or do you think this is just another case of someone realizing that there is more money to be made from a familiar band/brand name than from playing solo? Is it ever right for just one person to carry on under the group banner (see also: Guns N' Roses) or following the departure/demise of a crucial member (see the Jerry Garcia-less "The Dead")?
More from EW's Music Mix:
Lady GaGa makes history
Live Aid 1985 photo gallery: What's your favorite?
Michael Jackson and the history of the Moonwalk: YouTube explains it all!
So You Think You Can Dance top-12 stomp to the White Stripes "Seven Nation Army"; What's next?
Which city has inspired the best songs?
addCredit("Lee Roth/Roth Stock/Retna Ltd")