Re: "A Big Announcement to Come in a Few Weeks"
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:42 pm
>I think the drinking that Alice did from the late 60s to 1984 (with maybe a a year or so 'out' and will amount to more than 8 years - more like 14 or so)
As I said in my post, GNDM is not referring to "late 60s" - read his post.
>did untold damage both physically and career-wise.
Not during the classic 1971 - 1975 period, it didn't.
>Career-wise: do you honestly think think work was in focus from 76 - 84?
That is the point I've just made. That is the period GNDM was
referring to. To answer your question, I think "Alice Cooper Goes To Hell" (when he was drinking) and "From The Inside" (when he wasn't) were both excellent), so the drinking could have been both a facilitator of creativity as much as it wasn't (during "Lace And Whiskey" for example) and while the early eighties material (when he was drinking) was somewhat weak here and there, there was plenty about it that was interesting and creative. Being drunk while an artist is creating his or her art does not automatically that he or she will create bad art. It can do but it's not an assumption that you can make.
>KISS took the audience off him as he was writing ballads and easy-listening tracks,
They did the same thing, though. Their song "Beth" was very successful.
> drinking, performing very drunk,
So were Peter Criss and Ace Frehley so I'm not sure how relevant that is.
> hanging out with film stars etc etc. He doesn't remember recording some albums and some tours!!! Is that not damaging????
I think in the 'big picture', no. Too much emphasis is placed on his drinking as being a reason for the commercial and in some cases, artistic decline. After all, I'm sure we can all think of rock starts or bands who produced their best or most commercial work while under the influence of substances and besides, you also missed the point that even if what you say is true (and it has some truth, but not much), the time it represents is very small over the period that GNDM was referring to. I know it's tempting to have an easy answer to the question that he posed, but if a record compant isn't interested in promoting an artist or band (for whatever reason), it doesn't matter how drunk they are are or how good the albums are.
As I said in my post, GNDM is not referring to "late 60s" - read his post.
>did untold damage both physically and career-wise.
Not during the classic 1971 - 1975 period, it didn't.
>Career-wise: do you honestly think think work was in focus from 76 - 84?
That is the point I've just made. That is the period GNDM was
referring to. To answer your question, I think "Alice Cooper Goes To Hell" (when he was drinking) and "From The Inside" (when he wasn't) were both excellent), so the drinking could have been both a facilitator of creativity as much as it wasn't (during "Lace And Whiskey" for example) and while the early eighties material (when he was drinking) was somewhat weak here and there, there was plenty about it that was interesting and creative. Being drunk while an artist is creating his or her art does not automatically that he or she will create bad art. It can do but it's not an assumption that you can make.
>KISS took the audience off him as he was writing ballads and easy-listening tracks,
They did the same thing, though. Their song "Beth" was very successful.
> drinking, performing very drunk,
So were Peter Criss and Ace Frehley so I'm not sure how relevant that is.
> hanging out with film stars etc etc. He doesn't remember recording some albums and some tours!!! Is that not damaging????
I think in the 'big picture', no. Too much emphasis is placed on his drinking as being a reason for the commercial and in some cases, artistic decline. After all, I'm sure we can all think of rock starts or bands who produced their best or most commercial work while under the influence of substances and besides, you also missed the point that even if what you say is true (and it has some truth, but not much), the time it represents is very small over the period that GNDM was referring to. I know it's tempting to have an easy answer to the question that he posed, but if a record compant isn't interested in promoting an artist or band (for whatever reason), it doesn't matter how drunk they are are or how good the albums are.