Okay, since the series gave me my username, I feel obliged to comment here. I must be one of the few people left in the world who actually enjoyed Bat 3, if there were any of us out there to begin with. Say what you will about the title or Meat and Jim not working together, but it was for all intents and purposes a solid album that tried to live (and love) up to the legacy established by the previous two. I'm putting myself in an even smaller minority by saying I preferred the Steinman tracks to Desmond's half of the album, but that's neither here nor there.
Would I welcome a Bat 4? Well, in interviews, Steinman always made the comparison to The Godfather having three parts, as if that was like the keystone reason for why there were two or three albums instead of one. (Ironically enough, The Godfather also had two really well-received parts and a third part that was widely deemed to be shite as well which featured many of the same people from the first two, but didn't capture the same spirit.) If you go for a fourth album in the series, that's like adding on to The Godfather -- at this point, who would want to take on that task?
I'd be perfectly content with new Meat and Jim product if both of them are up to it. The Dream Engine shows (at least by the looks of track lists on everyone's websites) proved that Jim still has some material knocking around in the old noggin ("Body," "Still the Children," even "Speaking in Tongues" [which I've only seen the lyrics to] would arguably fit on such an album in keeping with the tradition of "Surf's Up"), but the real question is this: Is there enough to fill an album? And if so, is it worth it for either of them, at their advanced age, with their reported health problems, to go in the studio for an extended period of time (presumably for the seven years it apparently took to record Bat 2, if we want it to sound half as good) for a niche audience that may well have depleted in this age of downloads?
On paper, it doesn't look like it. But I'm willing to be proved wrong. :)
|