I think they meant that if BOC realised an album that was immediate / easily digested, that would be a let down and I tend to agree with that sentiment.
For example, when I first heard Geogaddi, I didn't like it at all except for a couple of tracks. Took me a full year (I kid you not) of trying, trying, trying before it fully opened itself up to me. Now, as I mentioned above, it's one of my all-time favorite records by anyone, anytime. Same goes for MHTRTC by the way. Actually, that one took me even longer to 'get'.
Equally, sometimes I find that records that I adore straight away - they don't always have the longevity. Those are the ones that come and go.
Moloch wrote:I must say I'm happy that listeners struggle with the new album. It's indeed a good sign, and means their music ain't 'mainstream' or 'fan-service' at all. I personally hate when I ask 'do you know BOC' and I'm being replied 'oh yeah of course, I love Dayvan Cowboy!'
Excuse me, who "struggles" with this album? It's not hard to listen to a track like Cold Earth or Reach for the Dead and hear them for exactly what they are. This isn't some goddamn noise or early industrial record, this is an IDM/ambient techno record from one of the MOST accessible bands in that category (not that this makes them bad by any means).
So effectively, you're happy that listeners are disappointed, as I know nobody who is disappointed because they don't get the record.
Fact is, some harsh noise albums are easier to get into than TH. It's a matter of perception. TH is 'accessible' musically, but that doesn't mean it's an easy album to listen to.
Mexicola wrote:I think they meant that if BOC realised an album that was immediate / easily digested, that would be a let down and I tend to agree with that sentiment.
That's exactly right, everything is relative too. If you discovered their prior album and fell in love with their sound that way and it's still your favorite BoC album, you might have completely different musical tastes than someone like Rodheh does - what one person could consider a "typical" IDM type album might be a very different experience for someone else.
My old roommate LIKES BoC (a couple of years living with me will do that to anyone, I imagine) but I think TCH is probably his favorite album because he feels it's their most accessible. He says he mostly likes TH aside from a couple of tracks, but he says its a much more intense album in his book compared to that. That's not an exception to how he feels about BoC in general, but the rule (TCH is the exception) so it just goes to show that everyone has their own idea of what "accessible" means.
To compare it to fizzy yellow American beer, put a robust double IPA in front of someone who usually just drinks Budweiser. You might love it or appreciate - it might even be a run of the mill or goto beer in your circle, but there's a 99% chance that it won't be immediately palatable to that person.
I understand that message boards are about expressing opinions but it drives me up the wall when opinions are presented as authoritative facts instead of what they are, one person's feelings. Welcome to the internet, I guess. :/
Mexicola wrote:I think they meant that if BOC realised an album that was immediate / easily digested, that would be a let down and I tend to agree with that sentiment.
That's exactly right, everything is relative too. If you discovered their prior album and fell in love with their sound that way and it's still your favorite BoC album, you might have completely different musical tastes than someone like Rodheh does - what one person could consider a "typical" IDM type album might be a very different experience for someone else.
My old roommate LIKES BoC (a couple of years living with me will do that to anyone, I imagine) but I think TCH is probably his favorite album because he feels it's their most accessible. He says he mostly likes TH aside from a couple of tracks, but he says its a much more intense album in his book compared to that. That's not an exception to how he feels about BoC in general, but the rule (TCH is the exception) so it just goes to show that everyone has their own idea of what "accessible" means.
To compare it to fizzy yellow American beer, put a robust double IPA in front of someone who usually just drinks Budweiser. You might love it or appreciate - it might even be a run of the mill or goto beer in your circle, but there's a 99% chance that it won't be immediately palatable to that person.
I understand that message boards are about expressing opinions but it drives me up the wall when opinions are presented as authoritative facts instead of what they are, one person's feelings. Welcome to the internet, I guess. :/
Yes all makes sense, music is very subjective therefore I think the question is a bit pointless, horses for courses and all that..
i'm going with TH but i also love a double-imperial-insanely-hoppy-assed-toe-curling IPA. the earlier comment was also interesting in regards to instantly liking the album or it growing on you. for me i think MHTRTC has been the only exception. i just loved it from listen one. all others took time - ironically TCH took the most, perhaps since it was such a departure from past work. whats neat though is while its not my favorite album as a whole, it contains some of my favorite individual tracks.
regarding TH - as i heard it my eyebrows shot up, ears went back, and (as weird as this sounds) all i could think of was what the teacher in (the original) Red Dawn says as the russian paratroopers were landing outside his classroom: "Well what have we here?"
i didn't think "hey, this great" instead, "this is blowing my fucking mind in real time." no need to reflect upon the listen either. i felt it was something very special and continue trying to get my head around it. despite still not knowing or understanding so much of it - its easily my most favorite BOC all-time.
i think also, it has to do with your place/stage in life as well. when MHTRTC came out i lived to entertain myself. weekends rafting in whitewater, campfires, beers, chicks … it was all about me having fun with no cares. now i have a baby and so much of that is no longer a priority. i worry about his future now but also about inane shit like healthcare, a foreclosure, job-security, politics and so much other kipple. its like MHTRTC is out of context for me right now and TH fits perfectly. the good news is its all cyclical - i know when my little guy starts running around and we go hiking or camping MHTRTC will once again have its place as the soundtrack to my life.
regardless, i agree its the differences in opinion that makes this a discussion. some are reading and thinking "TH best-ever? he's a nutter" … perhaps like i do for the TCH camp. but when i go on to read WHY your favorite is not mine … all too often i find my head nodding as i concede to a well-made point.
Having had a while to take in TH (and with recent rediscovery-though-good-headphones), I can definitely see it becoming a favourite. With the exception of ..Campfire.. & Twoism, every BoC release has taken a while to get into. Which I see as a good thing.
What I do think is different is that I don't see TH having any of my favourite stand-out tunes/moments, I think it works *incredibly* well (perhaps better than anything else they've done) as a single stand-alone piece of work - stick it on at track one and let it go. No going straight to track X, no skipping....
Relistening to TCH right now and it's really an unbelievable album. I think both benefit from the atmosphere you listen to them in. I listened to TH on a jetty surrounded by the ocean with huge waves coming in and it really really resonated. I can't say i *like* one over the other. TCH is great for listening around the house while I feel TH really benefits from playing it somewhere other than your living room.
A_Northern_Soul wrote:Having had a while to take in TH (and with recent rediscovery-though-good-headphones), I can definitely see it becoming a favourite. With the exception of ..Campfire.. & Twoism, every BoC release has taken a while to get into. Which I see as a good thing.
What I do think is different is that I don't see TH having any of my favourite stand-out tunes/moments, I think it works *incredibly* well (perhaps better than anything else they've done) as a single stand-alone piece of work - stick it on at track one and let it go. No going straight to track X, no skipping....
I feel the same way about TH, I always listen to it all the way through but usually lose interest in TCH a little after OSTRE. In my book it has some huge highlights...I think Gemini is the best opening track since Wildlife Analysis...Nothing is Real is legitimate all time top 5 BoC for me...we can talk all day about Reach for the Dead, New Seeds, Cold Earth, and Come to Dust...Uritual sort of feels like a sequel to songs that we're not even supposed to know (House of Abin'adab/Circle)
Speaking of Uritual, it actually has vignettes that are good, as opposed to vignettes for the sake of vignettes like TCH did (imo) - big fan of Telepath too.
The vignettes on TCH sort of seemed to be used to sustain the mood of the album rather than be standout pieces of music like they used to be on prior albums.
I do think it's back heavy whereas TCH was front heavy...everything from Collapse forward is solid gold. I could take or leave Jacquard Causeway and Sick Times (I love the "thank you" sample though) but that's fine...I consider MHTRTC a perfect album even though Rue the Whirl doesn't do too much for me either, so I can give those a pass. They aren't boring or bad to me enough to hit the skip button.
The "Tomorrow's Harvest notes" thread got me thinking about this some more. TCH kind of felt like a fanservice album to me, even down to the title, after living with it for awhile. Like they weren't sure what to do next, so why not try to recapture an aspect of their old feel via through some new instrumentation as to not completely repeat themselves?
I remember people laughing about the title when it was announced, like it was some kind of Star Trek scifi type of thing. I always read it as the summation of that era of their lives, from 1995 to 2002 or so, where they broke through and became known as being sort of hermetic, but hippie-ish - sort of being known for their psychedelicism, after Geogaddi in particular, ie. being a "head".
Somewhere between Geogaddi and TCH Mike had a kid and from what I hear from a lot of friends in similar positions, that whole process can do a 180 on your priorities in life. To me, TCH sort of felt like fitting a square peg in a round hole - from the perspective of their lifestyle, they might not have been tapping into that source that gave their music that intangible "thing" up until then.
TH almost feels like their "deal with it" album - the blotter and mushies have been forgotten and nihilism has taken their place. I feel like I'm in a similar place in my life, despite not having any children of my own. Yeah I still like going "there" every so often but as time has gone on and as infrequent as those visits might be, you can sense the diminishing returns. It's enriched my life, but it feels like there's only so many times that you can go back to the well. Funnily enough, I'm about the same age that they were circa TCH. I can feel myself having a more concrete and less mystical view of the world, even though I might not necessarily want that. So the whole fatherhood thing aside, this is probably a natural progression for anyone as they grow older, but maybe that experience refocuses your priorities in a more immediate way.
I think having partaken in psychedelics 2-3 times a year for most of my 20s and the first half of my 30s, you eventually reach the "when you get the message, hang up the phone" stage of your journey. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happened to them, especially when fatherhood entered the picture.
It's obvious to me that they are still passionate about creating new music, and they do seem revitalized. However, there is probably a disconnect between the average fan expectations and where they personally want to be as artists.
In the future, if you really want to make the fans happy, the success of TH has shown that we will keep checking out your new ideas, but throw us a bone every now and then and give us some new old tunes too. Your legacy is locked down, no one will ever think of you as a nostalgia act. You might not remember the immediacy of what some of your old stuff meant to you 20 years ago, but we'd love to discover it for ourselves all the same.
Last edited by Opothecary on Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Moloch wrote:I must say I'm happy that listeners struggle with the new album. It's indeed a good sign, and means their music ain't 'mainstream' or 'fan-service' at all. I personally hate when I ask 'do you know BOC' and I'm being replied 'oh yeah of course, I love Dayvan Cowboy!'
Excuse me, who "struggles" with this album? It's not hard to listen to a track like Cold Earth or Reach for the Dead and hear them for exactly what they are. This isn't some goddamn noise or early industrial record, this is an IDM/ambient techno record from one of the MOST accessible bands in that category (not that this makes them bad by any means).
So effectively, you're happy that listeners are disappointed, as I know nobody who is disappointed because they don't get the record.
Fact is, some harsh noise albums are easier to get into than TH. It's a matter of perception. TH is 'accessible' musically, but that doesn't mean it's an easy album to listen to.
Well that's a totally different statement. It's not easy to listen to an entire Lady Gaga record either. Is your point entirely "I'm glad they aren't mainstream regardless of the album quality" then? I don't see why that would make a difference.
Fredd-E wrote:Love both albums. Love TH a bit more I think tbh.
To all the TH-haters: how can you hate "nothing is real"? That's pure classic boc bliss.
Because it repeats the same notes over and over again, it's probably the most repetitive track on the album and after about 3 listens enjoyment declines DRASTICALLY because of this for some people.
I don't know why it has to be "you hate this" if you dislike/have complaints about something.
I wonder if it's an age thing? I'm over 40 and to me, Harvest has so many sounds of my youth, from the mid 70's to early 80's. It sounds so much more mature than Campfire, which sounds more like a standardized version of today's electronic influences, and I feel it's the least creative BOC album. Harvest feels like a throwback to a thematic sound not heard a lot anymore, but still influential and emotional to those like me who lived through those eerie musical periods.
I still like TCH a lot, but it remains their lowest to me if I were to rank the 4 albums.
TontoExpands wrote:I wonder if it's an age thing? I'm over 40 and to me, Harvest has so many sounds of my youth, from the mid 70's to early 80's. It sounds so much more mature than Campfire, which sounds more like a standardized version of today's electronic influences, and I feel it's the least creative BOC album. Harvest feels like a throwback to a thematic sound not heard a lot anymore, but still influential and emotional to those like me who lived through those eerie musical periods.
I still like TCH a lot, but it remains their lowest to me if I were to rank the 4 albums.
I don't if it's age so much as experience. I know the things they're referencing with the aesthetics and the sounds of Tomorrow's Harvest, I've seen those movies, heard those soundtracks, etc.
But I feel no nostalgia from it, so if it's a nostalgia driven album then it's their first and it will be impossible for some to enjoy it. Because while MHTRTC and Geogaddi invoke nostalgia it's generalized nostalgia of childhood, whereas this is more specific. Both of those also stand just fine without the nostalgia factor.
I think while the first three albums invoke nostalgia, they don't exactly sound nostalgic. There are too many modern drum beats in the main tracks to sound is if they could come from the past, so to me, the interludes (from all the albums) sound more like vintage music than anything.
Besides the interludes from all the albums, TH is the one album as a whole that has a complete nostalgic sound.
I get 0 nostalgia from TH because I grew up in the 90s. I still enjoy it much more than TCH though and I agree with Tonto that TH is much more creative. That's just my opinion but I wouldn't just write it off as being all about nostalgia, and if you don't connect it to your childhood then there's nothing else good about it, since I get no nostalgia from it but still enjoy it very much.
Rodheh wrote:
Because it repeats the same notes over and over again, it's probably the most repetitive track on the album and after about 3 listens enjoyment declines DRASTICALLY because of this for some people.
Don't you think though that given the repetition, your ear is drawn to all the things that DO change in the track as it goes on, the things in the background, the ebb and flow of the sound? It's sort of like acid in that way - lots of stuff repeating but each repeat is like distance markers on a long road, yeah?
Totally agree with the original post that TH and TCH seem to have gained more criticism than any other BoC albums.
To make a small aside here, I should point out that, for me, my least adored (though, of *course* still VERY MUCH adored..) album is Geogaddi. I know that seems unpopular compared to so many others who have this thing with Geogaddi. I'm thinking maybe G will either just take *even longer* to click with me, or it never will - that is, as completely as the other albums.
TCH / TH is a tough choice... I think mainly because TCH has had far longer to sink in, tbh. But I think I sway towards TH as something I feel I possibly have greater appreciation for... (or will have, in future).
TCH came out during an interesting point in my life, and in retrospect it is coloured by this period; new surroundings, new people, new studies, work, life choices etc. When I hear the opening melodies of some of the early tracks, it just hearkens back so many memories of the time (more like ideas of memories; colours, feelings, faces, philosophies, vibes etc). I remember, in particular, I was living in this kind-of cabin thing.... and I remember this one afternoon near the end of summer (the first summer after it was released) with the windows fully open on the cabin, and a group of us hanging outside as the light began to fall, with TCH flowing through the soundsystem from inside and into the night. And this was even among a group of people who mainly weren't into BoC or similar at the time; but the music wasn't challenged (as would likely happen among a group of early-20s guys with all their favourite tunes to want to blast). I think this is because of how much it just fit the moment, and others like it, perfectly.
I say this all just to illustrate this moment that can only be fully realised in retrospect, for all its quality, colours and particularities.
TH will have to wait a few years before it can be seen or heard through that similar lens...
But what I *can say* is that there are things happening within TH; melodies, narratives, 'DEEP' layers, suggestions and hints that are starting to paint some really interesting pictures, for me. And, in comparison to my take on Geogaddi, I would say that these 'depths' within TH are much more.... mature, seasoned and subtle. This is one reason I find it far more compelling.
Rodheh wrote:TCH is far better IMO. While I don't feel TCH was as good as Geogaddi or MHTRTC, it was a BoC album at its core with a lot to digest and many minor details. It still felt cohesive and textural, whereas TH does not, with the textural part being mainly an artistic choice (the VHS tape sort of thing, something I don't care for). It wasn't insanely repetitive and although it had some filler, it had nowhere near as much as TH has.
TH harvest is the only BoC album I'd give a negative review to. From the track structure, sounds, instrumentation, ordering, mixing and mastering, lessened use of stereo, more minimalistic but without strong melodies or beats to carry the album without all those little details, moments that are really cool but die off way too fast, absolute filler tracks (Collapse being by far the worst), at least one really sloppy track that sounds like it was done in one take, tracks that seem really derivative and uninspired, and tracks that simply just don't go anywhere when they should, I feel it's quite a mess and probably the biggest disappointment musically I've ever heard, though Random Access Memories is a strong competitor for that. Of course, this is all just me. Some people really like TH (typically the kind of people who love the really old back catalog stuff, which while I like some tracks from Old Tunes I am not really one of those people) and I'm fine with that. Unfortunately I have to add this little bit because in the past my opinion of the album has actually upset people to the extent that someone told me to "let it go" and that I was "one of the few people who did not enjoy TH", as though having an opinion that isn't positive is not worth expressing and as though there wasn't a whole lot of people who felt TH was a let down. In fact, that person might have been you but I'm not positive.
