BOC: Lots More o' Stuff

[Stephan Forstner]

I opined...

>> Although I can somewhat understand it, I have to put up a (small)
>> protest to the slagging Mirrors occasionally takes here. Sure, it's
>> got its share of dogs (Dr. Music) and somewhat boring stuff (Moon
>> Crazy, Lonely Teardrops) ...

and chuck replied...

> Yikes! 3 reasons why I like Mirrors!  I can remember it well...when
> Mirrors first came out, I loved it and played it as much as I am Curse
> of the Hidden Mirror now.  To me, the weakest tracks on Mirrors were
> In Thee and Mirrors.

I put them together...

So I like the tracks you think are weak, and you like the ones I think are
nothing special - together that's 1 vote for Mirrors!

while John sighed...

>Sigh - anytime Mirrors, Revolution By Night, or (esp.) Club Ninja gets
>degraded in any way (even if IN JEST!!!), someone always rushes to its
>defense.  There IS good stuff on the album - even the tracks you
>mentioned not liking (Dr. Music, Moon Crazy, Lonely Teardrops) are
>enjoyable to me - but as a whole the album has its problems.  Bolle has
>said that Mirrors nearly singlehandedly destroyed the fanclub in the 70s
>- not his words, but he did say that the "membership" dropped WAY off
>after Mirrors came out.

I certainly understand your opinion, and I would guess its probably shared
by the majority, but I'll expand a little on my feelings here so you know
where I'm coming from - first I have to explain that I was introduced to BOC
in the early 80's by a friend who had all their previous material, and
though I did get my first listens to them more or less in order, the effect
on me would definitely be different from that on someone who had been
waiting each year for the newest release as they came out. I've previously
bored you with my distinction between albums and collections of songs - when
I listened to the 1st 3 releases I pretty much felt  them to be a unit - not
only did I consider each one to be an album but all 3 worked together as a
sort of meta-album. Then with Agents, Spectres, and Mirrors, it seemed to me
that lots of different ideas from different people were being tossed in as
discrete songs with different approaches and no real attempt made to create
a unified whole. (The liner notes for the re-release of AoF just out
actually seem to agree with me here and indicate this was due to the advent
of home-recording equipment allowing everyone to more fully form their ideas
in a solo setting before presenting it to the band - a pretty interesting
read, and also a nice explanation for what I was hearing). This effect did
become more pronounced with each succeeding album, but I was suddenly
thinking that, hey, AoF, Spectres, and Mirrors actually sort of hung
together as a meta-album in their own right even if none of them could
individually be called an album - the odd mix of musical styles, subjects,
and lyrical approaches is carried along over all 3 releases. I find it hard
to imagine someone liking only 1 of the 1st 3 albums, or dislking 1 and not
the others, and I had a similar feeling about these 3 - how could you like
Spectres but not Mirrors? Or vice-versa? It would come down to whether you
liked specific songs - and since the songs were so varied it would end up
being a sort of tote-board deal where the total number of
likes/take-it-or-leave-its/dislikes would end up tipping your opinion of the
whole release either somewhat positive or somewhat negative. If the fan-club
membership suddenly dropped after Mirrors, I would offer as a possible
explanation that it was not because Mirrors was suddenly a whole lot worse
than the previous releases, but that people who had been holding on and
hoping for a return to the 'good old days' suddenly decided that 'nope, they
werent coming back, this proves it, lets get out' - the overall count for
the last 2 or 3 releases had begun to tip too much negative.

Jason adds here...

>What sticks out in my head about the Schism between Mirrors and what
>passed before is that the production of the album is much less....
>what's the word, "slithery" and stark...... (the first 5 studio LPs,
>and fortified image/expectation wise by OYF and SEE's Astronomy
>especially). but with Mirrors, it was Stripppppped down, man......
>To be fair  though, I think what was problematic for Mirrors is that it had
>to come after the scope of the band's playing and compositional skills had
>greatly expanded into what Spectres had on it, and having to deal with the
>question "OK  where do we go from here?"

I agree with what you say but think the real break in terms of both
production/sound and songwriting/presentation was at Agents, and I hear both
Spectres and Mirrors as intensifications of what started there. If you look
at it this way, then for some, Mirrors may have been the stalk(forrest) of
dried grass that irreparably damaged the dromedary's hump.

and I cover my rear...

I can certainly see the differing points of view, and don't forget to stick
a big IMHO in front of everything I said above. And if you choose to degrade
Club Ninja I won't be rushing to its defense.

Stephan