Imaginos remakes and outtakes

[John A Swartz]

A few comments on Al's statements:

> That's one reason why the remake
of BOC is better, because I used all of Sp's lyrics and found their rhyme
rather than squashing them into a little guitar riff.

Ah, but what a riff! :-)  Well, I like both versions alot.  The original
version, especially as played on OYFOOYK sounds really cool - very
psychadelic-sounding, and the keyboard and guitar solos in it compliment
it well.  The Imaginos version has a completely different character, so
I can't really make a direct comparision.  But, lyrically it is definitely
better, and is a clearer as far as the meaning of the song goes.  Also,
it is more elaborate and "grandiose" (for lack of a better term to pop
into my head at the moment) - almost orchestral, and has different parts
to it (whereas "The Subhuman" is a single riff over and over again, "Blue
Oyster Cult" has different sections with different feels to them).

A few other thoughts on this song ("Blue Oyster Cult"):

1.  I really like the splitting of the lead vocals between Al and Buck
on this one - perhaps it helps emphasize the different sections.  And,
as in "Les Invisibles", Buck's vocals seem to fit well against a steady
driving guitar rhythm.

2.  When I first heard this song, I sort of felt very nostalgic and thought
that this was the end of BOC, and they were in some way revealing themselves
to the world for what they were - "we understand, we understand - Blue
Oyster Cult - we understand, we understand . . ."  Sort of like a twisted
version the reprise to the Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club
Band" - you know, "we hope you have enjoyed the show . . ."  Oh man, and
I thought I didn't damage any brain cells in college . . .


>On vinyl vs. CD:
        I like digital because it's a lot easier to work with. It's a more
durable format. LPs and tapes gett worn and messed up after awhile.


I agree, and hopefully all those stories of "CD Rot" won't come true
since I've invested so much time and effort into getting alot of music
I like (like the entire BOC catalog) on CD.  However, since tapes don't
last forever, hopefully this will be cheaper than having to keep replacing
tapes -- case in point is that I bought every BOC album on tape at least
twice becuase after about a dozen or so plays the sound quality got
pretty bad - Columbia as a company seemed especially notorious for
turning out low-quality cassettes.

The thing about digital as oppossed to analog is that with digital, you
can get a pretty good sound quickly, and these days relatively cheaply,
but to really get good quality that faithfully reproduces all the nuances
of good analog (including those statements about it being "warmer" than
digital) - that can be difficult.  It's sort of like getting 90% there
is easy, and then it's twice as hard (and expensive) to get to 95%, and
10 times as hard to get to like 96% or 97%, and we're really not yet
sure how to get to 98% or 99%.

BUT - the use of digital, depending on how well you use it, can produce
either very good or not so good results.  Check out the Brain Surgeons'
stuff for examples of how good stuff can sound with digital.  But, many
have complained about the sound that digital gave *Cult Classic* (sure,
the performance of the band may have had something to do with that, but
I'm just referring to the "thin" sound in spots).

John