BOC New Album and Past Popularity

[John A. Swartz]

> Yet other 'old' bands like the [ugh] Stones and ZZ Top continue to
> thrive.  True the Stones are an institution, for want of a better
> term,
> and ZZ Top had the good sense to tap into MTV and exploit it for their
> benefit.  I really think BOC's problem lies in its management [can I
> get an amen!] and the fact that they never escaped the doldrums
> they entered when Al left, taking a lot of fertile songwriting sense
> with
> him.  The creative void that opened ca. Club Ninja has somehow
> paralyzed the group.  Or maybe their audience just changed tastes
> and moved on to something else?

A few opinions from me on this:

1. The Stones and ZZ Top at their peaks, were bigger, I believe, from a
record selling perspective than BOC ever was.  ZZ Top also benefitted
from MTV whereas BOC never did.

2. BOC's management is no doubt a problem.  Easy for me to criticize,
but I definitely think they should have done some things differently.
Would it have made a difference?  I don't know, but it probably couldn't
have hurt.

3. While it is no doubt popular here to think that it all went downhill
for BOC after Al left, and as much as I respect Al and his contributions
to BOC and tBS, I think that is too easy.  A more careful look will show
that by the time Al left, BOC was in decline (starting with at least
*Mirrors* - and *Cultosaurus Erectus* sold even worse, despite it's
reture to the harder-edged BOC) despite "Burnin' For You" (a song that
was supposed to be on *Flat Out*, and not even on a BOC album) giving
the band a temporary lift.  When I say "decline", I'm really talking
about album sales.  I think BOC was still a big live act.

4. I think that a few factors led to the group's continued decline after
Al left.  Certainly a void in the song-writing department was created,
but I think that the band had enough old material that could have been
revived to have stemmed this more than they did.  I think the band
doubted their own abilities in this area somewhat, relying on outside
writers, esp. for *Club Ninja*.  Releasing another live album in '82
(*ETL*) really didn't help things (a good album in many ways, badly put
together in others, and somewhat unnecessary in the grand scheme of
things), and not having a new release until '84 (*Revolution By Night*)
slowed the band's output to potential fans.  Meanwhile, the MTV
generation was in full swing.  At a time that BOC needed exposure, they
were doing less than in years previous.  Also, and I recall the band
discussing this, there was a changing of the guard over at CBS Records,
and the new executives were not of the mind to promote a band they say
as old news.  The fact that many BOC fans were turned of by the contents
of *Club Ninja*, and then the departure of Joe (with Allen already gone,
but that would be temporary) certainly only made matters worse.


> > 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 ;)
>
> BOC was indeed huge, esp here in the northeast.  I saw them
> headline at football stadiums, racetracks--giant festivals, and they
> truly ruled the world at that time, from, say, 1976 to oh, 1980 or so.
> It is truly surprising how fast they fell off the radar...


See my above comments.  Despite the fact that they were big live, and
had a loyal, if not somewhat rabid fanbase, BOC was not, compared to
other bands, "huge".  I don't have numbers, but I do not believe that
their album sales were on par with the big bands of the 70s and 80s.
They had few hit singles, and most of those were songs that were
somewhat unrepresentative of the band's overall sound and image.


>  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.
>
> YES!!!  You've hit it on the head!!

Hmm... well, also recall that Sabbath were always regarded as "pioneers"
of heavy metal (along with Deep Purple and Led Zepplin).  In the U.S.,
BOC were up there a bit, but quickly got eclipsed (again, in terms of
album sales) by bands such as KISS, and later Van Halen.  As far as I
know, BOC was hardly ever really a "household name" such as other bands
may have been.  They were sort of like the underground band that just
happened to have millions of fans.


>  > Don't get me wrong, I love BOC. But I'm not going to cut them any
> > slack, or curve their exam results ;)
> >
> As it should be.  I thought HF was a good effort, and better than I
> expected.  But compared to the first 3 albums, it pales by comparison.

I wouldn't be as harsh, but I would also think that you can't
necessarily hold them to that standard - I mean, most people don't hold
albums like *Agents of Fortune* to that standard, yet it was BOC's
biggest seller, and the one that put them (at least temporarily) in the
mainstream public eye.  Other albums that came later certainly had
killer stuff, but many of us will still look at those first 3 (*Secret
Treaties* in particular) and say, "It's good, but it ain't ____".
*Heaven Forbid* is somewhat uneven (at least in the sense that I don't
think the songs all necessarily fit together), but it has some great
stuff, and will always hold a special place for me since it was such a
long time coming.

> To reclaim their mantle, BOC have to really make a knockout record.

If only it were that easy.  And if it were, most of us here might say
that The Brain Surgeons should be selling out stadiums.


If any of my previous comments sound harsh, they are not meant to be.  I
like the band as much as I ever have, but over time I guess have learned
to accept certain realities.


>
> Or, were they trying to shift gears?  But for what purpose?  Did the
> band think their fortunes lay in the high-school jock crowd?  Never
> the BOC province.  Or, given the absence of Albert's songwriting,
> were they simply desperate, and latched onto the first thing coming
> across the desk?  I find it interesting that, at about the same time,
> Halligan was also supplying songs for Judas Priest, another
> Columbia act, albeit with different results for JP.  Maybe someone at
> the label was applying heat to use Halligan?
>
> I suppose it's in the FAQ!

Nope, I can't say it is.


>  I would be nice if they would put Wings of Mercury on the new album.

Al will be their drummer again before this happens...  ;-)


Enough ramblings for now...


John