BOC: Imaginos, parts 2 and 9 (or that's what it was)

[Jon Jarrett]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Johnny Firic wrote:

> I don't know, I'm getting repetitive, I think, with all this. My views on
> the whole saga are as they are in the essay, and not likely to change. I'm
> *especially* 100% certain on the final part, "and the joke's on you", and
> that the "point", if a coherent one is to be made after all, is that we're
> all here flogging a dead horse, in a way.

        Get up, Dobbin etc. I agree we've probably covered all the ground
where either of our views is likely to change, but I don't agree with that
bit, however much I agree with lots else that you said. A matter of
opinion when all's said and done. So regard the quibbles below as the
picking of the last bits of meat off the bones of an excellent meal :-)

> My canon: Again, look at what happened to "Subhuman". The lyrics got twice
> as big. Who can tell what would've happened to ME 262 - the significance of
> which I don't understand as yet. Also, "Dominance & Submission" was never,
> as far as I know, considered a part of the Imaginos cycle.
>
> Let me try to explain this a bit more. Now, knowing all we know, look at the
> 1974 "Subhuman"text. Sure, it makes perfect sense - "Oyster boys are
> swimming for me, just one deal is what we made now". But did it make sense
> it 1974? The whole thing had to be expanded, explained - imagine a
> discussion like this in 1974 - I presume many folks suspected Secreta
> Treaties ;-) was a concept album. Hell, I remember some guy a couple of
> months ago on alt.music.blueoystercult asking if it was one! But imagine
> what kind of wild interpretations they could've made in 1974, based on the
> lyrics and the Rossignol bit. So basically my point is that you are doing
> just this, you are comparing the well-explained and 'documented' (in view of
> liner notes) Imaginos songs proper, and other songs that may or may not
> (D&S) even be a part of the story!

        Your points about `Subhuamn' are well made, but I'd argue that
that song, being a riff and a chorus and little more, had a lot of room
for expansion; I'm not sure the much tighter `ME262' does. We might have
expected a new instrumentation of it as we got for `Astronomy' but I
suspect that like that one the words are already fairly fixed, especially
since they have a fairly clear narrative progression hich is more than you
can say for `Subhuman' or indeed `B.O.C.' Nonetheless, I think that the
possibility for expansion doesn't rule these songs out, it just makes them
more obscure. Thus I think to exclude them utterly is flawed methodology -
it's like leaving out large parts of Eliot's `Wasteland' because they're
not very clear. I think that the textual links, like the recurrence of
Susie prove they're part of the story. I agree that some of the songs Al
envisaged as being in the full cycle were nothing to do with it in origin,
but against that I'd argue that the Pearlman-written ones certainly were,
since we know from the existence of `Subhuman' that the concept had a
form even back in '74. I don't think refusing their evidence is a sensible
method.

> Whenever I get excited like this, I think "... and  the joke's on you", and
> I imagine Sandy Pearlman as a lurker here, laughing his ass off.

        I'm absolutely sure that Al does thoroughly enjoy us winding
ourselves into twists over it, but what the hell, he's entertained me a
great deal, I'm happy if I can return the favour even slightly :-)

> Now, the Rossignol bit: first of all, it has two or three sentences. It says
> -very- little. The Ambassadors from Plutonia - who could they be if not the
> Oyster Boys? But, as I said, who knows what the conception behind these few
> sentences was, in 1974. A lot could have changed from then to 1988. (Of
> course there is "Astronomy" for counter evidence, but that song was fairly
> vague to begin with, and still is, despite my efforts.)

        Well, that's it, you see, I think the core of the story is
probably formed by '74 because `Subhuman' really doesn't have any sense
without a supporting concept. Of course the changes made to it might
reflect that this had changed too but I don't think there's anything in
the full version which conflicts with the earlier one. The Rossignol line
also seems to refer to a concept, although it could just be randomly
thrown in to perplex and bamboozle. I prefer to think that there
was something behind it, and its reference to Plutonia make me think that
it's the same thing as is being referred to on _Imaginos_.

> The BOC (the actual band) as a reincarnation of Imaginos: I refuse to honor
> this idea with further discussion.

        Ooh, well, that's shown me then hasn't it? Explain `R U ready to
Rock' as part of the cycle any other way, go on...

> WoTT as a conversation: read my bit on WoTT again. It all makes perfect
> sense to me, especially the infamous line "by salamander drake and the power
> that was undine" fits in nicely.

        It does make sense and it is a coherent interpretation, it's just
based on your assigning what I think is unjustified significance to Dee
and extracting Elizabeth from that, whom I think has no place in the songs
at all. I'm not arguing with the internal factors, they're well
thought-out and Im arvel at your coming up with it, I just happen to think
that it doesn't touch the rest of the cycle any way at all in your
interpretation. You're making WotT part of your canon on shaky grounds. I
do think it has to be included, though I don't quite see how you first
came to that conclusion, but if so I prefer to see it as directly
connected, not on an otherwise unmentioned tangent.

> ET phone home: it's not an West-and-East issue, but a
> young-and-in_their_prime_years issue. I was born in 1982. Is that the year
> of ET?
>
> These kids of today, they *really* have no repect.... huh?

        I'll give you six years and call you a whippersnapper, sir. I'm
well past my prime.

> >I see the third act as Desdinova trying to get the aliens or
> >whatever to reclaim him and, disappointed, setting out on his own to
> >wreak vengeance on a slavish Earth. That, to me, is why `the joke's on
> >you'.
>
> this is interesting. but, as I said, there are too many gaps in the 2nd and
> 3rd parts for this to be more then a guess, or that's what I think anyway.

        Indeed, especially given the amount of material they
borrow. That's just my guess. But as I say, I can't explain RUR2R any
other way so I stick to it.

> ps Aldebaran is sone star?! A "follower" of the Pleiades (!?). Probably some
> alien reference...  "2000 l.y. from home", though, contains some Imaginosey
> stuff - "red deserts turn to dark / energy here in every part" - there's a
> lot of 'energy' talk in "Half-life time"... I don't know. I'm tired...

        Aldebaran is in Taurus, I believe, as are the Pleiades. The
Pleiades is of course to the naked eye a _seven_-star cluster but there
are a great many more "Invisibles" ones... But I'm just playing... Yours,

Jon

--
     Jon Jarrett (01223 741219)       jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk
   =====================================================================
        "There's nothin' more dangerous than a wounded mosquito."