BOC: HW: is John Shirley the BOC Calvert?

[Doug Pearson]

On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:17:23 +1000, Troy Harris <fiskare at WEBCONCEPT.COM.AU>
dared to pose the fascinating question:

>  Much has been said of the lyrics of one John Shirley on both Bad Channels
>and Heaven Forbid.   I must say that I rather like them.

Well, I'm hardly the one to answer, since the only things I know of mr.
Shirley's work are from the lyrical excerpts that have been posted here
over the last couple weeks.  I must admit that I agree with the
"repetitiveness" complaint - I tend to hate choruses that just repeat the
same line over and over (and yes, I write lyrics for a band, so I'm
"qualified" to critique, even though I'll be the first to admit that I'm no
poet and even occasionally guilty of said repetition) - this is probably
the biggest problem I have with Ron Tree's current Hawkwind lyrics.

>It is no use whatsoever to compare them with Pearlman or Meltzer or
>whoever, because 90's BÖC is 90's BÖC, and nothing else.

I would strongly disagree with this statement - after all, 90's BÖC is
still BÖC, not a different band (although this is arguable, given the
absence of Pearlman, Meltzer and the Bouchards), and the lyrics by those
folks definitely contributed to the overall BÖC sound/image/identity.
Which is not to say that a band is not allowed to re-invent/re-work those
aspects of itself from time-to-time (Hawkwind certainly have, to certain
extents), but that doesn't totally disconnect them from their past.

>The modern BÖC has merits that
>stand on their own, apart from a brilliant past.

You are correct in that while it's not necessarily unfair to hold a band up
to the standards it set at its peak, one should be aware when doing so ...

[...]

>   Now I ask you Hawkfans on the list- when Calvert's lyrics became much of
>the centerpiece of the bands work , was he recieved by all as the ultimate
>lyricist or did his ideas take some time to show their true brilliance?

I'm not sure I can answer that question, but I think that, for the most
part, it's only the Hawkfans who, even now, recognize Calvert's brilliance.
 I'm glad that someone in Berlin is doing his best to change that
perception, though!

>   There are some parallels between Calvert and Shirley, but they are by no
>means identical twins.
>    - they both are essentially writers/poets.
>    - they both write(wrote) lyrics for rock groups.
>    - they both pursue(d) their own musical interests.
>    - they both are a little odd.

... and so was Richard Meltzer on all accounts (see below)

>    - they both do quite well at it all, except for their own music, which
>borders on mediocrity.  (Before the church of Calvert excommunicates me-
>hey remember Freq and LLatLships!)

But what about 'Capt. Lockheed' and 'Hype', two albums that are very
strong, musically (although this is because of the other musicians on those
albums, not mr. Calvert himself)?  And although I'll certainly agree that
the musical _performance_ on 'Freq' is pretty thin, I think that the songs
themselves hold up very well, both musically (compare the versions on the
'Live at QE Hall' album, for instance) and lyrically (this is really the
one album where Calvert, instead of taking the persona of the
extraordinary/unusual man, most successfully took on the personality of the
ordinary working man, caught in circumstances far beyond his control
because of economic conditions, politics, labor relations, etc. - I think
that "Work Song" and "All the Machines are Quiet" are up there with "Spirit
of the Age" and "Catch a Falling Starfighter" as some of his most poignant
and emotive lyrics).

>  Now, I am not putting Calvert/Shirley as a head to head standoff for "who
>is best", that would be futile.  I am just saying that perhaps time will
>tell that John Shirley will have the same contribution to BÖC as the late
>great Calvert had for the Hawks.  Who knows?
>  Is John Shirley the BÖC equivelent/version of the late, great Calvert?

Well, I hate to contradict your second statement, but I think that Richard
Meltzer would probably be a closer comparison to Calvert, the only
exception being that Bob was never a rock critic (although I love his take
on the Clash - an initially-good band [including their Pearlman-produced LP
:^)] that f*cked up by falling into the politics=fashion trap that gives us
crap like Rage Against The Machine).  I may like Vom, but I'd never argue
that they were a "great" band.  But like I said, I'm not familiar enough
with John Shirley to comment authoritatively!  Anyone else?

>note: now if this doesnt start some conversation, nothing will.  : )
>also note:  no flames from Calvert fans!

What!? You DARE to question the unmatched genius of Robert Calvert?  The
finest poet ever to command the English language?  I call for permanent
banishment from boc-l and condemnation to listening exclusively to Rod
McKuen albums until you see the error of your ways! :^)

>I LOVE Calvert...and I have witnesses to the fact.....right Sonique?

... seconded ...

        -Doug
         ceres at sirius.com