No disrespect to BFG. It’s a great album. But it’s just a clone of the original Bat. With Bat 2 we had some variety. But the songs on BFG are like clones of the Bat Songs.
But clones that almost always fall short to the original. And you may all say "Well it’s a bat Album if you say it’s a clone" But I say it is an imitation of a Bat record. Dead Ringer also don’t suit the Bat bill. It’s a great album. But its like Chalk to Bats cheese. Original Sin is the completion of the trilogy in my view. That’s exactly how a bat album should sound. (The Stienman songs anyway)
. > This post reminded me of a theory I once came up with: the
> "alternate Steinman trilogy" theory. Bat is still
> the first album in the trilogy, but the second and third
> albums hinge on one fact of life: Steinman's recycling.
>
> Take a careful look at Bat II and (dare I say it)
> TMIL as well. Disregard the new (and also, in the
> case of the latter, non-Steinman) songs on both albums for
> a second, and what do you have? A mixed consistency of
> songs from two major Steinman projects: Bad for
> Good and Original Sin. That's right...for me,
> the trilogy goes Bat, BFG, and Sin.
>
> It's plausible. Read the Rockman site and you'll see Jim
> definitively call BFG "Bat Out Of Hell, part 2" in
> several interviews, most notably the BBC Rock Hour
> special. And the PB Sin press release from Virgin
> Records includes at its end the cryptic note: "1977: Bat
> Out Of Hell. 1989: Back Into Hell. Welcome To The Future."
> This just goes to show that on some level, I'm not the
> only one who thinks this trilogy is plausible.
|
