rostasi

Well, now you’re completely contradicting yourself.
Interesting, too, that you seem to know what the
rest of us here feel needs to be discussed.

Tubeileh

yeah I wont lie, I confused myself with my earlier arguments lol. Happens...
Nah I don't know, just the general feeling I'm getting based on other people responses. But yes, not everyone, as you have made it pretty clear you find no interest in discussing it

Thomas4

Ok here are some other things that Im either noticing or are paranoid about.
A few more...

Children being seen on the cover of an album faceless (which to me makes them lose their identity and this could portray the sexual object side of this strange choice to show faceless children on your artwork and BoC did a remix of "sexual objects" out of millions of artist they could of remixes it coincidentally included "sexual objects" which is how pedophiles view children)

They have had massive help from the BBC in their promotional campaigns and the BBC has a VERY LONG LIST OF LINKS TO CHILD HARMING or children being harmed.
The BBC covered for Jimmy Saville for example. The duo's very rare and often fawned over appearance on the BBC came via a slot on R1 on a show presented by John Peel (who was also under investigation for child exploitation). The BBC would not report the racial murders of young white males (kriss Donald being the best well known example) creating the atmosphere for people like myself at least to believe the BBC has something against young white male children.
Then there is the interview with UNCUT where they try to answer for why they include samples of children and many of the answers in that interview give reference to the fact they wanted to promote children in a sad or unhappy context (again what does that lend to their music... unhappy children ? I make the link to the child being unhappy due to harm).

Then there are all the sexual innuendos in the lyrics (ejaculations under water and references to the nervous sexual energy before a dive (reference to having sex) being a tense time etc...
Another sexual reference is the title of a track called Rodox video ...Rodox being a pornographic magazine owned by the ColorClimax corporation......which was the first publication to offer CHILD PORNOGRAPHY due to exploiting the age of consent in Denmark. This magazine franchise also produced "bestiality" pornography.
The duo love leaving clues about this and have used the "treasure hunt" to promote their music so are heavily invested in "hints and clues" to things...

I really dont care for all the jibes at me...
Im just some bloke on the internet who is asking questions on a public forum using what little freedom of speech he has, so its par of the course, people generally attack the person. I can answer for my self ( I was abused as a child myself) and Boc shouldn't fear people asking questions if Im wrong I will admit Im paranoid and seek help.
The truth doesnt fear scrutiny so I dont fear people asking me....I tell you now I would like someone to answer why all the porn&child references and what does thatxlend to the music....even if it is art?
Can I not ask the question?
Im not attacking the duo and if they were not reclusive I might of been able to approach them directly....but that seems impossible and not by my own doing either.

Frownland

BOC is reading my mail. I spend thousands a year on stamps trying to directly communicate with them.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Thomas4

Im also wondering if these two brothers were abused as children and they perhaps want to leave clues in the music. I just don't know, but I sense something is off about there music as a complete artistic package (when you take into consideration all of the non musical content or information about them?

Also I own their music, having purchased it myself I have a duty to myself to know what it is Im "buying" into.

I think that is fair.
And Im not making accusations Im asking are Boards of Canada pro Pedophilia?
I used to watch Rolf Harris..my dad had vinyl of Gary Glitter...

Even the Beatles have references to harming a young girl (the lyrics are quite disturbing actually)...
I could even post here multiple references to other seemingly accepted household names that give references to child harm...but Im specifically asking about Boards of Canada.

Thomas4

Isn't that the whole point though.
Like Gary Glitter showed...
A type of arrogance to show people and shove it in their faces what your doing without "actually" condemning yourself or admitting to it?

I agree with your point about actual evidence, and use Jimmy Saville as a great example of someone who even when people DID come forward to complain about him not a single person was taken seriously until.....he was beyond being prosecuted.
Those people who came foward "at the time he abused them" were mocked and judged on their motives. But what if hindsight could be turned around into foresight.... That would be prevention!!

bob_32_116

Precisely. Anyone can say anything about anybody on the internet, and "defamatory" is the right word to describe it. If the OP has any evidence of wrongdoing, he/she should take it to the right authorities - the police, or whoever. I believe the saying is "Put up or shut up".

I would add that anyone who finds a musician's work disturbing, for any reason, has the option of not listening.

Thomas4

Im just asking a question.

One track, ‘Opening The Mouth’, sounds like a heavy-breathing call from a banshee. Another, the truly horrible ‘The Devil Is In The Details’, alternates between the instructions on a relaxation tape and a desperately crying child.

"‘The Devil Is In The Details’ has a riff that was designed to imitate a specific well-known equation (edit: 666?), but in musical terms. Maybe it won’t mean anything to anyone, but it’s interesting........ just to try it. We do things like this sometimes.”

"........we never just make a pleasant tune and leave it at that, it would be pointless. So I suppose there is an intention to let the more adult, disturbed, atrocious sides of our imaginations slip into view through the pretty tunes.” Mike Sandison


“It’s something that has a peculiar effect in music, it ought not to be there, especially in atonal, synthetic music. It’s completely out of place, and yet in that context that you can really feel the sadness of a child’s voice." Mike Sandison

Why the fixation on children in a sad unhappy context?
Childhood is about innocence and make up some of the best memories we have.
Why embrace it in memory as such an unhappy time?
Only asking?

Thomas4

Would you argue that the financial gains of Savilles TV media appearances and Glitter et all musical offerings (vinyl and cassette or cds sold..) further funded their lifestyles which was far to LATER proved to of helped in the harm of children? I would say it did!!

The whole point is having something alluded to that cannot be proven in the case of the Saville case we learned proof or evidence was ALWAYS lacking.

Which is abit like knowing bears defacate in the woods but since no one is filming it or able to document it means it can be argued they don't defacate at all, not in the woods or anywhere.

I make NO ACCUSATIONS I simply want to attain what the motive is for the duo's clear focus on children (minors) which is replete with adult themes mixed in (sex, satanism, pornography)...or what that adds to the otherwise musical listening experience?

Can you answer that?

rubber soul

Without having heard the lyrics, of course, that was my first assumption. A lot of songs (and writings in general) are based on one's personal experience. Also, you mentioned that you were a victim of child abuse; is it possible that your curiosity about BOC is being clouded from your own experience?

Also, as a Beatles fan (obviously), what song are you referring to out of curiosity? Yes, the Beatles, particularly Lennon, had their moments of controversial lyrics but I don't recall one about child abuse right off the bat.

__________________