BOC: re:Heaven Forbid review

[Ted Alger]

I'll probably regret this, but.....

>My review of Heaven Forbid.
>
>Cover art: Horrid. Awful. Low budget. Completely pointless. Even the
>text is the wrong color for the background. Yuck! Album covers
<snip>
>. Marketing makes a difference! Even a photo of the band on
>stage, far away, would have been better.
>

then how do you explain crap like you see on any number of new
releases?  I'm no fan of the cover either, but I'm not arrogant
enough to say that I KNOW it won't sell or such and such would
have been better

>
>However to me it sounds little like Blue Oyster Cult. From this
>point of view, I am disappointed. Where is is the mystery? Where is
>the doom and gloom? Where are the sci-fi/fantasy lyrics? Where are the
>epic story-songs? Even Club Ninja, for all its faults, was truer to
>the Blue Oyster Cult vision. At least it took some chances and had some
>character. But where Club Ninja was too clever for its own good, Heaven
>Forbid is too boneheaded for its own good.
>

your point is?.... as you say, it's been 10 YEARS....I suppose just
about anyone could change a bit of musical direction in that amount
of time.  many would dispute the "character" of CN...

>Although it is obviously not fair to compare Heaven Forbid to Imaginos,
>such a comparision is inevitable considering it was the last original
>BOC studio album. Where Imaginos is lyrically rich, Heaven Forbid is
>lyrically sparse. They try to cover up this deficit through repetition.
>
ok, since you say it's not fair....why do it?  as many on this list
are quick to tell you, Imaginos WASN'T REALLY a BOC album...a comparison
is really just not valid

>Listening to this album I am struck by just how much the band
>lost with the departure of the Bouchard brothers. I listen the
>Brain Surgeons and I hear all sorts of BOC type riffs and lyrics,
>and then I listen to Heaven Forbid and I admire Buck's abilities,
>but I feel something is missing. Not even Buck can fill all the
>space with good music.

funny, I listen to BOC and hear all sorts of BOC riffs. maybe it's
that guy playing them.
>
>First of all, is it my imagination or was this album recorded much louder
>than other albums? Black Sabbath used to do this in the 1990s and it
>really pissed me off when I made mixed tapes, because all of a sudden
>one song was noticably louder than the others.
>
it's called mixing and mastering. CDs having a wider dynamic range than
vinyl....and most decent stereos have faders on them to adjust the output
level of a recording.....what exactly is the point of this comment?

>See You in Black begins auspiciously with some aggressive soloing,
>then settles into a repetitive riff which in itself is not a problem
<snip>
>"He ain't never coming back" or "we'll get that bastard back"...
>Ok those aren't the greatest but it took me 5 minutes. They have had
>10 years!
>
it's pretty easy for someone who hasn't written the song to criticize...
the lyrics....I may not be fond of all of them either, but again, I'm
also not arrogant enough to suggest I could come up with better.
apparently SOMEONE in the band likes Shirley's lyrics, and it's their
song, right?

>Harvest Moon is a good Buck Dharma song, pleasantly spooky but
>unfortunately not very exciting. It is a good choice for second song.
<snip>
>the words "Harvest Moon" sung over and over. Just remove half of those and
>the song would improve. Lots of good guitar work in the middle, though.
>
more or less the same comments...that and being bewildered with how
anyone can call HM "not exciting"....

>Power Underneath Despair was the first song which actually sounded like
>BOC to me. Musically it is rockin' with signature BOC-style riffs, time

<snip more bitching about lyrics>

>the lyrics are awful. The first stanza is good but after that the song
>degenerates into talk of carjacking and 7-11s. But musically I like it.
>It's aggressive and has attitude, like Lips in the Hills.
>
>Damaged begins well with some minimal guitar and vocals, then is soon
>chugging along at a brisk pace with some signature Buck playing. This

<snip yet more bitching about lyrics>   <-----you would prefer "She's as
                                            Beautiful as a Foot" maybe?

>and boring. However, it does qualify as a doom and gloom song (though
>just barely).
>
>Real World is an accousticly driven song about rains of frogs and fish
>and weird happenings. It has the typical Buck Dharma soft rock feel to it.
>While pleasant, it is a poor successor to such great paranormal songs
>as ETI, The Vigil, and Take Me Away. It is too relaxed and needs more
>tension and a hard edge to it. I would have done something sounding
>more like "Don't Turn your Back" and put it as the last track on the
>album.
>
and why does this song have to be compared to any of those songs?
what does it really have in common with any of them?  I think if you
actually read the lyrics, the UFO connection that you suggest
turns out to be tenuous at best

>Live for Me is a sad song, lyrically the strongest on the album. It's
>definitely doom and gloom in the classic BOC style, but tempered with
>a typical Buck Dharma uplifting message. It reminds me of his song Your
<snip more petty gripes>
>that minus In Thee, Heaven Forbid clock in at 41:23, it begins to seem
>like padding. But still, it is a cute way to end the album.
>
>This record would be considered great work by any unknown band. As a BOC
>record, it falls short of their best material. The constant repetition
>was annoying the very first time I heard the music, a bad sign. The sound
>of Heaven Forbid relies less on synthesizers than the later BOC albums
>did, and this is a welcome trend. I am disappointed with most (certainly
>not all) of the lyrics. But on the whole I still like it. I recommend it
>to any fan of Blue Oyster Cult. Do I recommend it to first time BOC
>listeners? No. In my opinion it is neither their best work nor is it
>typical. In my opinion better introductory album would be Imaginos, Fire
>of Unknown Origin, or Workshop of the Telescopes.
>
funny I would never have guessed you liked it
methinks some people are just never satisfied.
while I'm not going to gush like some people do,
I'm also thankful to have music by a talented bunch
of musicians with some (IMHO) really good songs

again, I'll probably regret this in the morning,
but what really is the point of yet another review
of an album that probably most of us have heard and
made up our own minds about by now? especially when
it's full of little bitches about "this could have
been done better" or "I would rather hear this"...
especially when I haven't recently seen any CDs
with the name William Fuller on them?

as Buck said himself..this album represents
where "BOC is at right now"...not where they
were 20 years ago, despite what some people
might wish

I really gotta start going to bed earlier

Ted