BOC: re:Heaven Forbid review

[Matthew Braun]

Ted Alger <talger at PIPELINE.COM> writes:
>I'll probably regret this, but.....
And I this... :-)

>>My review of Heaven Forbid.
(Attribution, please?  It was William Fuller <fswof at AURORA.ALASKA.EDU> you
were whomping there...)

>>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.
>ok, since you say it's not fair....why do it?
Ummm...because to him it is "inevitable" that a band's any two consecutive
albums be compared to discuss how the band has changed/improved?

>as many on this list are quick to tell you, Imaginos WASN'T REALLY a BOC
>album...a comparison is really just not valid

I agree with you, Ted, that the comparison isn't valid, but for a different
reason: IMHO "Bad Channels" was their last original studio album.  Yeah, I
know, it had only two "songs" on it, and the rest of it was incidental music
snippets, and it added nothing to "the mythology".  On the other hand A) it
had the band's name on it, and B) from the sounds of things, "Bad Channels"
and HF's BOC isn't the mythological one of Meltzer and Perlman's world.

Regardless of these arguments, I would say that it is primarily because of
Buck's statement you included at the end of your posting that "Bad Channels"
must be considered to be the previous BOC album, that is: "Bad Channels" was
the last album because it was representative of BOC circa 1993.

>>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?

I *think* the point might have been to suggest that BOC was substituting
volume for quality, or something like that.  One trick of audio equipment
salesmen is to play something on system A, and then play it on (the more
expensive) system B slightly louder.  This can trick people into thinking
system B sounds better because "you can hear more".

Or else it was just a random gripe.  (I agree, "So what".)

>>"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....
So it's unfair (unjust? whatever) for anyone except the author of the
song to criticize the lyrics?  That doesn't seem right.

>>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.
>funny I would never have guessed you liked it
He didn't like the lyrics.

>methinks some people are just never satisfied.
Some people had higher hopes.

>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
I'm sure Mr. Fuller would agree.

>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?
Because if we ain't gonna talk about the album (in reviews or whatever)
what's the point of the !@#$#@ing list?  We finally have a new album to
talk about!  I'd be surprised if it wasn't a "given" that all of the BOC
fans on the list are going to buy the album.  I don't think the point of the
review was to persuade/dissuade anyone from buying it--it was to put forth
his views of it.

>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?
I'm afraid I couldn't see Mr. Fuller's so-called arrogance as you did, and
must admit slight puzzlement to the degree with which you took him to task.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions.

Ironically, his review mirrored the album: just as he perceived the lyrics
to be repetitious, you perceived his "bitchings" about them to be. :-)

>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

Except for those cases where it represents where they were six or seven
years ago, since a few of the songs were first done in concert back then. :-)
(Sorry--I'll stop now.)

                                        m@

                                        who, believe it or not, is in fact
        glad that after 7 years of whining, BOC has finally put out an album
        with "Harvest Moon" on it, so he doesn't have to regret quite so
        deeply not recording the show he first heard it at back in 1991.