Speaking of filler...

[David Kuznick]

Quoting Tony <tony.orourke at TALK21.COM>:

> It's one of those BOC albums that doesn't sound like a BOC album.

Yes, I agree.  I made that point.  I should have been more straightforward and
asked why don't people like the album *musically*, as opposed to why you don't
like it as a BOC fan.

> Half the
> songs were written by people who previously had nothing to do with the band,

See above about "music" vs. "fan".

> it sounds dated and some of the songs are just plain weak.

Uh, to me every BOC album has some songs that are just plain weak.  Doesn't mean
I don't like the album as a whole.  I'll get to the "dated" comment next...

>  Whereas this is
> dated, the first three albums, really right up to Spectres are (to me at
> least) timeless.

Wow!  The early BOC albums *aren't* dated?  You can't be serious!  Whatever
one's opinion of them, you mean to tell me they don't sound like they were made
in the early-mid 70's?

I've generally found "dated" to be one of the most irksome labels to apply to
music, right up there with "pretentious" - convenient and generally meaningless
cliches used most often by rock critics who can't (or in most cases simply
aren't able to) think of anything to actually say about the music.  Very little
music *isn't* dated; music (and art in general) tends to be a product of its
time.  That's part of the point of art.