____twoism

overlaying the high res against the 200x200 jpeg album art that's been around forever, I noticed something odd- the ".97" on the camcorder/vcr timestamp seems to have been doctored out on the album art in every individual photo that features it. Whether this should be interpreted as another reason to be skeptical of the album's existence I'm not entirely sure of yet, it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

donq wrote:...it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

Grade A detective work donq!

This makes me want to invent non-existent albums to put on my resume!

donq wrote:
overlaying the high res against the 200x200 jpeg album art that's been around forever, I noticed something odd- the ".97" on the camcorder/vcr timestamp seems to have been doctored out on the album art in every individual photo that features it. Whether this should be interpreted as another reason to be skeptical of the album's existence I'm not entirely sure of yet, it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

Good find, but maybe they didn't want to tie their album artwork to a specific date and time, since a large part of their mission statement has been to create music that is "timeless" if that makes sense - even if they don't say that themselves, it's fair to say that they want their work to mean something personal to everyone who listens to it, and the less concrete specifics known about the music or artwork, the better. I'd think they'd try to remove references to specific years in that case, for sure.

I've always felt that these very small private represses of Catalog 3/Closes Vol. 1 were to commemorate being signed to Warp. Knowing that these photos are from the second half of 1997 really ties into that idea.

Let's try to fill in the blanks (as people tend to do when all the facts aren't known) but I'm sure that they had quite a Redmoon party with their friends and family in late summer or fall of 1997 once the deal was done, or at least imminent, you know? I feel like that's a pretty good guess as to why these exist. It would not surprise me at all if Catalog 3, Acid Memories and Closes Vol. 1 all had very rudimentary OT style artwork in their original cassette incarnations.

Cupz wrote:

donq wrote:...it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

Grade A detective work donq!

This makes me want to invent non-existent albums to put on my resume!

The newfound skepticism about this release is pretty amusing to me. They've got a big 80 minute pile of music that no one seems to know anything about, doesn't it make sense that a bunch of it is from this album?

Opothecary wrote:

Cupz wrote:

donq wrote:...it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

Grade A detective work donq!

This makes me want to invent non-existent albums to put on my resume!

The newfound skepticism about this release is pretty amusing to me. They've got a big 80 minute pile of music that no one seems to know anything about, doesn't it make sense that a bunch of it is from this album?

I was just being cheeky.

donq wrote:http://puu.sh/b5Vm8/a4fac521c0.gif
overlaying the high res against the 200x200 jpeg album art that's been around forever, I noticed something odd- the ".97" on the camcorder/vcr timestamp seems to have been doctored out on the album art in every individual photo that features it. Whether this should be interpreted as another reason to be skeptical of the album's existence I'm not entirely sure of yet, it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

Good find. I noticed the 97 was missing in the top-right image, but didn't think to check the other images for differences. The fact they went through all this effort to obscure just the year and not the complete date for what is supposedly a family/close friends only release seems a quite a bit odd.

Opothecary wrote:The newfound skepticism about this release is pretty amusing to me. They've got a big 80 minute pile of music that no one seems to know anything about, doesn't it make sense that a bunch of it is from this album?

And how exactly are you so sure that "a bunch of it" is from Closes Vol. 1? Fact is that we'll never know unless a kind person who can actually ID those tunes will spare us from all this pointless speculating.

Maybe someone should ask Peter about this artwork and its connection to the band. He has been amicable in the past. There is no reason to believe he won't be this time.

zeoevil wrote:Maybe someone should ask Peter about this artwork and its connection to the band. He has been amicable in the past. There is no reason to believe he won't be this time.

I think you're confusing PIC (Peter Iain Campbell) with MDG (Mark David Garett) who are both photographers and members of the Hexagon Sun collective, MDG being the only one who has had amicable contact with the fans debunking various fake releases.

HighScore wrote:

zeoevil wrote:Maybe someone should ask Peter about this artwork and its connection to the band. He has been amicable in the past. There is no reason to believe he won't be this time.

I think you're confusing PIC (Peter Iain Campbell) with MDG (Mark David Garett) who are both photographers and members of the Hexagon Sun collective, MDG being the only one who has had amicable contact with the fans debunking various fake releases.

PIC does occasionally comment too, although only rarely and to the best of my recollection, without really giving much away. No harm asking though.

Mexicola wrote:

HighScore wrote:

zeoevil wrote:Maybe someone should ask Peter about this artwork and its connection to the band. He has been amicable in the past. There is no reason to believe he won't be this time.

I think you're confusing PIC (Peter Iain Campbell) with MDG (Mark David Garett) who are both photographers and members of the Hexagon Sun collective, MDG being the only one who has had amicable contact with the fans debunking various fake releases.

PIC does occasionally comment too, although only rarely and to the best of my recollection, without really giving much away. No harm asking though.

Could you give me a few examples of instances in which he commented something. A quick search on here didn't reveal anything.

Not without trawling, but he definitely has. Seem to recall he replied to someone's emails or something? Don't get too excited, it wasn't life-changing

Opothecary wrote:

Rodheh wrote:Hold on - Closes was pressed to CD?

This is new information to me that I have not seen anywhere. I have known for a long time that BoC Maxima was purported to have been pressed to CD, but not with any other unreleased back catalog record/EP.

Are those the only two, or are there any more?

Just those two (and Play By Numbers)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010609171 ... alog3.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20010609171 ... oses1.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20010609171 ... _play.html

Play by Numbers on CD would be fucking awesome. I've long wished that a CD copy of BoC Maxima would be found and ripped for tracks like Whitewater, but that's still like typical BoC. To hear the BoC shoegaze album...that's something totally new.

Wat

Opothecary wrote:

donq wrote: overlaying the high res against the 200x200 jpeg album art that's been around forever, I noticed something odd- the ".97" on the camcorder/vcr timestamp seems to have been doctored out on the album art in every individual photo that features it. Whether this should be interpreted as another reason to be skeptical of the album's existence I'm not entirely sure of yet, it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

Good find, but maybe they didn't want to tie their album artwork to a specific date and time, since a large part of their mission statement has been to create music that is "timeless" if that makes sense - even if they don't say that themselves, it's fair to say that they want their work to mean something personal to everyone who listens to it, and the less concrete specifics known about the music or artwork, the better. I'd think they'd try to remove references to specific years in that case, for sure.

I've always felt that these very small private represses of Catalog 3/Closes Vol. 1 were to commemorate being signed to Warp. Knowing that these photos are from the second half of 1997 really ties into that idea.

Let's try to fill in the blanks (as people tend to do when all the facts aren't known) but I'm sure that they had quite a Redmoon party with their friends and family in late summer or fall of 1997 once the deal was done, or at least imminent, you know? I feel like that's a pretty good guess as to why these exist. It would not surprise me at all if Catalog 3, Acid Memories and Closes Vol. 1 all had very rudimentary OT style artwork in their original cassette incarnations.

that feels very much like reaching. The fact remains undeniable that the photoset is from a PIC project about kosovan refugees in the red road flats, and so these are 1999 photos of a 1997 home video. The video cannot have been viewed, and therefore this artwork cannot have been assigned, earlier than '99. Its ez. I'm pissed on cheap Thai booze so don't listen to me by all means but it seems obvious to me.

It was a Glasgow reflex of mine to always pronounce (in my head) closes as the plural of the synonym for near, rather than the synonym for shut. This, at least, feels vindicated.

Ultimately, in summary, I don't give a shit. All I want are r35tt track titles, not mythical secret albums or anything. I enjoy the music we have and that of many other artists, so I won't waste any more of my time on earth discussing "mibbies real, mibbies no" album and track titles.

donq wrote:
overlaying the high res against the 200x200 jpeg album art that's been around forever, I noticed something odd- the ".97" on the camcorder/vcr timestamp seems to have been doctored out on the album art in every individual photo that features it. Whether this should be interpreted as another reason to be skeptical of the album's existence I'm not entirely sure of yet, it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

doctored?.....
this is what happens when you shrink an image, then scale it back up to overlay on the source image you found.

re-phaelam-ed wrote:

donq wrote:
overlaying the high res against the 200x200 jpeg album art that's been around forever, I noticed something odd- the ".97" on the camcorder/vcr timestamp seems to have been doctored out on the album art in every individual photo that features it. Whether this should be interpreted as another reason to be skeptical of the album's existence I'm not entirely sure of yet, it just seems like a strange extent of "covering their tracks" for an album that was given to people who would know it was first released in 1992 regardless.

doctored?.....
this is what happens when you shrink an image, then scale it back up to overlay on the source image you found.

Dude, it's quite obvious the 97 was taken out. Look at the image with the boy's face. You'd still be able to see the white juxtaposed against his skin color.

Yeah, the 97s are definitely missing. Everything else is just quality loss.

What does it all mean Bazel?

Is the closes cover fake or the release itself? What is the source of the supposed album cover in its blurry form (I know PIC but still what about the font and such)?

mechanismj wrote:Yeah, the 97s are definitely missing. Everything else is just quality loss.

sorry didn't notice...its so freakin blurry.

how about putting the alternate spin on it....

perhaps the image was posted again WITH the 97 added to throw you off the scent.

re-phaelam-ed wrote: perhaps the image was posted again WITH the 97 added to throw you off the scent.

I doubt it. You can even see photoshop smudge left at the picture 3x3.