BOC-L Digest - 25 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-32)

[Carl Edlund Anderson]

At 15.49 -0500 25.1.2001, John A. Swartz wrote:
>Promotion, I believe, is not the problem.  The problem is that BOC, as
>other great rock artists, are seen as past their prime/past their time.

IMO, HF did not go very far towards disproving this viewpoint. It had
some moments, but not enough. It sounded like bits and pieces from a
band that was trying to find its feet in terms of recording new
material. Which, I think, was in fact the case.

>Unless they happen to be doing some sort of "reunion" thing a la' KISS
>or The Who, or Black Sabbath (which may also make the assumption that
>the band was at one time HUGE - and I'm not sure BOC ever was in that
>category), then the prevailing logic is that bands that were once
>successful and go away for some period of time (in the sales sense - we
>all know that BOC as a band never really went away) have nothing left to
>offer - that is they went away because they were washed up.

My sense is that BOC were indeed pretty huge "back in the day", at
least as huge as Sabbath were at the time, if not more so. I could be
wrong -- I wasn't really there ;)  But I think a big problem is that
it became trendy to like Sabbath once more, and it has not become
trendy to like BOC. So I doubt that many people would really be
interested in an original line-up BOC tour the way they were in an
original Sabbath line-up tour. You would need several yeras of buzz
in the press, gushing over how cool BOC are and how underrated they
are before any kind of financially remunerative big BOC tour/album
push could even be contemplated.

Don't get me wrong, I love BOC. But I'm not going to cut them any
slack, or curve their exam results ;)

Cheers,
Carl



--
Carl Edlund Anderson
mailto:scylding at carlaz.com
http://www.mp3.com/Scylding/