SickthingsUK

There's been an interesting debate on another thread regarding AC vs David Bowie. Most music critics, with the exception of a period in the 80's, have always viewed DB as being artistically relevant right up to the present. Alice Cooper never had many journos championing them even at their peak, whilst post-70's Alice has often been tagged - by the 'cool' brigade - as a 'past it panto rocker', with little artistic relevance.

But what do you, as a fan, honestly think? Was WTMN the last real roll of the artistically relevant dice, or did the hair-metal years strip away any last vestiges of credibility? Maybe TLT and BP saw an artistic re-flowering that's been maintained to this day. Then again, has it been years of Alice Trouper; constantly churning out records/shows that frequently fail to capture the artistic spark of former glories?

So, is Alice still artistically relevant?

As relevant as the early 70's, no. As relevant as anyone else who has been performing for that long then yes.

Much more than any current touring band. He continues to release material & provide a show that provokes as well as entertains. Sure as far as "pushing the envelope" he as well as the rest of the '70's & '80's bands that still tour (and are still together) play it pretty safe.

Just touring and being active doesn't make a person artistically relevant. The high points of Alice being artistically relevant are from Pretties for You to WTMN. After that it's hit and miss.

FYI was artistically relevant because it was an excellent album with personal issues attached to it. A great piece of work.

Dada was also a great work but few people knew about it so it wasn't "relevant" in the sense that it wasn't noticed.

I agree that the hair metal albums were a blow to the perception of Alice as an artist and for good reason.

The return of artistic relevance came with TLT which was solid and a unique album that is only Alice, but his credibility had eroded quite a bit and he didn't get the attention and respect he deserved for this effort.

BP was artistically relevant, some good ideas and good lyrics.

It's been too hit or miss lately and I think he is no longer artistically relevant. In some ways this isn't shocking for a man in his 60s and this late in the game. To me W2MN was a big swing and miss because had it been a great album musically and conceptually it would have gone a long way. The timing (Hall of Fame) and sequel to a big album would have brought a lot of attention to a great album. Not to say it's a bad album, just not a creative and artistic success as we are now discussing.

Then there's that horrible album cover art for W2MN which unfortunately is about as much a statement as any about the artistic relevance of Alice today.

Artistic relevance? Its an interesting question but I am struggling getting a set definition that I am happy with. I would agree with Pitkin88 et al saying not as relevant as in 70s but in view of time lapse to now he is relevant compared to others who have been lucky enought to last. I suppose since 1975 WTMN I think of FTI, TLT and Brutal P..I still think there was something artistic/clever in ACAS with its Roger Corman style. Something ground breaking artistically for me in the group albums LITD to BDB-jazzy,bluesy at times-even funky but most of all fun. Have to edit myself as I am straying off the point.

>but I am struggling getting a set definition that I am happy with.

That is a good point because concolz didn't explain what it means.

Who decides "artistic relevance"? I certainly don't care what "music critics" say about music to determine if I think it's "artistically relevant".

If I enjoy whatever music, it's "artistically relevant" to me, and that's all that should matter to anyone.

Hunter

Agree with the above, I always thought Alice and co thrived on not being liked anyway!

For me, artistic relevance refers to how influential your work is.

I'd say that Alice's work hasn't been influential for many years. By no means does that suggest I don't like his more recent material....but artistically relevant in the scheme of things..... i don't think so.

Agree with Hunter : if Alice's music is relevant to me, that should do .
In the old days it was easier to be influential , now there is just too much choice, so much diversity. Back then you could name the top ten bands ( most of them still known by the youngsters), now you have the one hit wonders or the bands that last for a year and then disappear for ever..Trends come and go at a dizzling speed ..
So if Bowie or Alice were starting today, I doubt if they would still be around fourty years from here..

A_MichaelUK wrote:>but I am struggling getting a set definition that I am happy with.

That is a good point because concolz didn't explain what it means.

After reading the Alice vs Bowie debates on the other thread, I'd come across an article about artistic relevance - which strangely enough singled out Bowie as a prime example of someone who was an expert at this. The article's author praises Bowie not because he ever wanted to be 'current' but because he was constantly wanting to make something as fresh, original, innovative and mind-bending as possible - whilst remaining true to his 'artistic soul'. (Obviously, the author must have forgotten about those dire 80's albums but you get the gist.)

I'm not bothered what the critics think, nor whether Alice was/is a current 'trendsetter'. What I wondered was, is Alice's ouevre - particularly his latter years - creative, imaginative, inventive, original, eloquent, expressive, inspired, poetic etc. etc.

Up to WTMN I think that it was everything listed above, and then FTI/Dada/TLT became lonely little outposts of artistic relevance until BP when Alice blasts back with a truly fresh and innovative album/show. Since then I believe he's strived to be constantly creative etc. on record at least - certainly much more so than in the previous two decades - even if the end results aren't always 'mind-bending'!

>The article's author praises Bowie not because he ever wanted to be 'current' but because he was constantly wanting to make something as fresh, original, innovative and mind-bending as possible

You just proved the point Sickthings and wind_up_toy made. Why does it matter what that "author" thought? How does that make Alice less relevant as far as Sickthings, wind_up_toy and the couple of hundred thousand or so people that see Alice on his tours every year are concerned? You can still be relevant and not be "innovative". The Velvet Underground were innovative but at the time, nobody cared.

Apart from the early 70s, I don't think Bowie has ever been that artistically relevant. Bowie's talent, for me, is being able to see the next 'big thing, fashion, fad" whatever, early, and to jump on that bandwagon before than most other people.

Like Hunter, I am not bothered whether Alice is artistically relevant.I just want him to release good albums and play great concerts. Which he usually does.

Nobody's relevant anymore! Music and the music industry are so far gone. It's all disintegrated into no talent idiots being passed off as "artists" e.g.- Miley C., Justin B. Alice is relevant to us because we follow his career. His new stuff rarely gets played on radio. I remember calling a major Cleveland rock station when DD came out and requested Perfect or Sunset Babies. They said they had no plans of playing anything from a new AC album, only the old stuff. If not for the Internet, think about how hard it would be to follow a classic artist.

Mr.Bluelegs wrote:Nobody's relevant anymore! Music and the music industry are so far gone. It's all disintegrated into no talent idiots being passed off as "artists" e.g.- Miley C., Justin B. Alice is relevant to us because we follow his career. His new stuff rarely gets played on radio. I remember calling a major Cleveland rock station when DD came out and requested Perfect or Sunset Babies. They said they had no plans of playing anything from a new AC album, only the old stuff. If not for the Internet, think about how hard it would be to follow a classic artist.

I see where you're coming from. As far as American Idol & America's Got Talent (or whatever Simon can come up with) these "Artists" are skipping a basic step - called paying your dues. When you leapfrog over that one, being "ready" for what's coming at you is where problems lie. With current radio - the corporate mentality has taken over except maybe to some extent in the realm of satellite radio. What will the sponsors pay for? Independent Radio be damned!!!
Bring back the days of WHFS Homegrown Radio! (Bought by Infinity Broadcasting years ago - now an all news channel)

>They said they had no plans of playing anything from a new AC album, only the old stuff.

This connects to the thread (or threads) about Alice's set - lists as well.