BOC: Why Columbia insisted on Imaginos being a BOC album

[DFrost8547 at AOL.COM]

The reality is that Albert was given a contract by Columbia to do the solo
album, the company was well aware of what he was doing, and financed it. As a
solo effort, not a BOC one. But regimes at companies-- whether they're
selling insurance or records-- change. And albums get shelved all the time.
They don't usually get pulled out, and have someone else's name slapped on
it, though! And there's another element here-- Pearlman. Who at that time was
Albert's manager, and dealt with the record company, and may have very well
told Albert one thing and the company another.  And he may very well have
thought he was making a Pearlman album! And once the music was
finished--something he could not have done on his own-- he took the ball and
ran with it. Interesting, too, at the time, that many tried to take credit--
they're all equally quick to point the blame for the album's failure. That it
was the company's fault... not really. People here are enthusiastic about the
album (as were musicians-- both Axl Rose and James Hetfield placed it among
their top tens in the year's Rolling Stone). Certainly it was very different
than most stuff of the moment and it seemed like a return to the sound and
spirit of old. But there was also something not quite convincing about it...
and for good reason. You can't fool the public all the time, etc... and there
was no way that this was going to be a huge success, without a real
commitment. C'mon, even when the unconsitituted Pink Floyd ring the division
bell, they pulled out the flying pigs, made an event of it...and of course,
they had some kind of vision about what they were doing, other than using it
as a means to make a very quick buck...
The only interesting thing about Eric's comments about Imaginos, which Steve
noted, is that he seems have forgotten that he originally denied that Albert
had anything to do with it.