That's what's always turned me off about this band. Really, the first album is all you need. The second wasn't as good as the first but the "sound" was still there and it had some good songs. It wasn't a bad follow up overall. But then you read stories about how disappointed Tom was with Don't Look Back. Okay Tom, the third album will be a masterpiece right? Wrong. Third Stage had some nice songs but overall I couldn't stand how it sounded, and it seemed like there were too many "crunch ballads." Boston was a "sound" not a living, breathing, rock band. I only bought Walk On for the medly. I think I tried to hear the whole thing once and could barely stand it. I found a used copy and sampled the Walk On Medley, and though I'd give it a chance. The medley's pretty cool actually, despite how awful the drums sound. But at least there was that Smokin' vibe going on. It was worth spending a few bucks for the medley. I was never curious, not even slightly to hear the last album. After I read all the reviews and saw that they had a female singer and all that I thought, Jesus can this band descend further into schlock?however, the idea of spending a decade or longer to create an album of sonically outragous yet alarmingly mundane AOR-schlock seems increasingly ridiculous to me.
You know, I think Boston is a band that created such a great sound in the 70s and such a great debut album that it's been their legacy for all these years. It's what they've lived off for over 30 years, that one, great album. But this "perfectionism" of Tom, and all these law suits, and this and that. It's comical really. It's pathetic too. You'd think this band was a band you'd compare to the Beatles or Zeppelin.
Bookmarks