Alice joins Motley Crue for more dates in 2015

[pitkin88]

By the way I don't have to see a live show in the flesh to make a comment. There's this thing called You Tube that ( proabably illegally in a lot of cases ) that shows some if not all of his shows. There's these other things called bootlegs too.

True, but it's difficult to gauge audience approval from the vast majority of YouTube videos which focus on the stage and the same goes for a bootleg recording.

I've seen the full RTD show 11 times and as much as we diehards don't care for the covers, they go over very well to the casual audience.

I made it a point to look around the crowd many times during the covers portion of the show and the crowd was always into it and having a great time.

Even the odd show or two where the crowd was rather lackluster during the main set, they seemed to perk up for the covers.

I tend to think the audience likes whatever is given to them which means he could be a lot more adventurous in the set. If he played Killer in it's entirety plus a few others it would go down well and maybe please some die hard fans. Instead we get the same old stuff trotted out and to boot you have to pay a motley price.

[pitkin88]

Back to this money vs art issue (and it's never all one or the other regardless of what people say), we also need to remember the band. I have a hard time imagining Dennis Dunaway thinking only about getting rich. It was guys like him that kept the band moving towards a vision that was exciting both musically and visually. Making a lot of money was a bonus for that vision working.

If it was all about money they would have stopped trying to be outrageous cross-dressers early on. If people are streaming out when you're doing your act a money person would say, "this isn't working, we need to change our act." An innovator says, "let's keep going, people will catch on."

They were inovators--but what drove them was the need to succeed. I don't think any of them set out with the goal to forever play clubs in the Phoenix area. They wanted to be superstars. Dennis knew the power of visuals and how they could have a major effect. They used shock and exploitation--like cross-dressing-- to generate buzz--once they got noticed they them built on it using the same game plan--only in a bigger way. Making money was not a bonus--it was the goal. The more money they made the bigger the vision got. It took money--LOTS OF MONEY--to make Alice Cooper into what they became and in turn they made LOTS OF MONEY. In the course of a few years they went from small clubs to Billion Dollar Babies. They had reached their goal and celebrated it with that album. A sheer unapologetic celebration of money and fame.

The thing that I always admired about Alice was his brutal honesty about it all. He was in it for the money. He used his artistic abilities and business savy to make millions and never made excuses for it. He never wrung his hands over his fame and wealth. He was PROUD of it.

I've yet to meet an artist who does not want to make money with their art. Whether they are a graphic designer, writer, musician. actor etc--they all want to make a living doing what they love. Some make it while others do not. You'll find however, that the ones who do make it have an incredible drive to succeed and a relentless work ethic.

Just remember this--any artist who acheives enormous fame and wealth are always free to give it all away to charity. If an artist really and truly belives that money is not important than once they start earning it they can give it all away to stay true to themselves.

Again you are over simplifying and missing the point that he/the band LOVED rock n roll. They wanted to be up there playing live and making records and probably getting hot chicks.

[pitkin88]

From RemarkablyInsincere:
"I made it a point to look around the crowd many times during the covers portion of the show and the crowd was always into it and having a great time."

I do the same and have been for years - long before the tour under discussion started. It is always interesting to see which songs get which kind of reaction and having been to approximately a hundred and fifty shows over the years, I will put my judgement based on that up against viewing a short piece of footage on the internet.

>Even the odd show or two where the crowd was rather lackluster during the main set, they seemed to perk up for the covers.

Exactly. I suppose pitkin88 must be right, though. After all, why would have Alice kept them in the show for so long if so many people hate them?! That was irony, by the way.

Where did I say people hate these songs. There are no doubt auto pilot songs in the set so he doesn't have to work so hard. I'd love to hide the crutch before he limps through 18.

[mr.barlow]

Back to this money vs art issue (and it's never all one or the other regardless of what people say), we also need to remember the band. I have a hard time imagining Dennis Dunaway thinking only about getting rich. It was guys like him that kept the band moving towards a vision that was exciting both musically and visually. Making a lot of money was a bonus for that vision working.

If it was all about money they would have stopped trying to be outrageous cross-dressers early on. If people are streaming out when you're doing your act a money person would say, "this isn't working, we need to change our act." An innovator says, "let's keep going, people will catch on."

They were inovators--but what drove them was the need to succeed. I don't think any of them set out with the goal to forever play clubs in the Phoenix area. They wanted to be superstars. Dennis knew the power of visuals and how they could have a major effect. They used shock and exploitation--like cross-dressing-- to generate buzz--once they got noticed they them built on it using the same game plan--only in a bigger way. Making money was not a bonus--it was the goal. The more money they made the bigger the vision got. It took money--LOTS OF MONEY--to make Alice Cooper into what they became and in turn they made LOTS OF MONEY. In the course of a few years they went from small clubs to Billion Dollar Babies. They had reached their goal and celebrated it with that album. A sheer unapologetic celebration of money and fame.

The thing that I always admired about Alice was his brutal honesty about it all. He was in it for the money. He used his artistic abilities and business savy to make millions and never made excuses for it. He never wrung his hands over his fame and wealth. He was PROUD of it.

I've yet to meet an artist who does not want to make money with their art. Whether they are a graphic designer, writer, musician. actor etc--they all want to make a living doing what they love. Some make it while others do not. You'll find however, that the ones who do make it have an incredible drive to succeed and a relentless work ethic.

Just remember this--any artist who acheives enormous fame and wealth are always free to give it all away to charity. If an artist really and truly belives that money is not important than once they start earning it they can give it all away to stay true to themselves.

Again you are over simplifying and missing the point that he/the band LOVED rock n roll. They wanted to be up there playing live and making records and probably getting hot chicks.

I agree completely, but as you state, they wanted to use their artistic abilities for much more than simply being artists. Their art was music (rock n roll) and they added the visuals which for the most part was new at that time. They used their art to get what they wanted, that being the ability to earn enough money to make a living playing live, making records and getting hot chicks. What is lost on a lot of fans is the amount of money it takes to build an act like Alice Cooper into the megasuperstars they became in the 1970s. Also, the amount of money it took--and still takes to sustain such an entity. The whole goal of the music industry is to make a profit. It takes money to make money.

It all comes down to the music or product. if it's good it will sell--but without promotion and distribution no one will ever hear it. I think now with technolgy it's getting cheaper and easier to get music out there but still--the more money and brillaint business minds behind it--the better the chances of success.

[RemarkablyInsincere]

I tend to think the audience likes whatever is given to them which means he could be a lot more adventurous in the set. If he played Killer in it's entirety plus a few others it would go down well and maybe please some die hard fans. Instead we get the same old stuff trotted out and to boot you have to pay a motley price.

Sounds like you haven't been to many shows if that's how you think.

It's pretty standard that when an artist plays an obscure track (or often something new) that the reaction from the crowd is often decidedly less enthusiastic. Not just for Alice, but for many artists.

The reason the covers get a reaction even though they're not Alice songs is precisely *because* everybody knows them and can sing all the words.

Like it or not, the Alice concert demographic these days consists of many people that are casual fans. They don't live and breathe the stuff like we do.

[pitkin88]

I tend to think the audience likes whatever is given to them which means he could be a lot more adventurous in the set. If he played Killer in it's entirety plus a few others it would go down well and maybe please some die hard fans. Instead we get the same old stuff trotted out and to boot you have to pay a motley price.

Sounds like you haven't been to many shows if that's how you think.

It's pretty standard that when an artist plays an obscure track (or often something new) that the reaction from the crowd is often decidedly less enthusiastic. Not just for Alice, but for many artists.

The reason the covers get a reaction even though they're not Alice songs is precisely *because* everybody knows them and can sing all the words.

Like it or not, the Alice concert demographic these days consists of many people that are casual fans. They don't live and breathe the stuff like we do.

I think the casual fan goes to one of his shows for the stage show as much as the music. What songs has he performed that have bombed? We are also assuming that these so called casual fans know all the songs from albums that are 40 years old.

[pitkin88]

I saw Alice two nights in Manchester on The Special Forces tour. Here's the Setlist: Intro Tape / Who Do You Think We Are / Model Citizen / Go To Hell / Guilty / I'm 18 / Cold Ethyl / Only Women Bleed / No More Mr.Nice Guy / Clones (We're All) / Under My Wheels / I Never Cry / 7 And 7 Is / Grim Facts / Pain / Billion Dollar Babies / Generation Landslide / Who Do You Think We Are Reprise / School's Out (with a verse of Vicious Rumours)

Sold Out shows ecsatic response to a lot of songs that i am sure a lot of the casual fans there had never heard as those albums sold bugger all.

Also the fans at The Motley Crue shows are there to see Crue not Alice. How many of them know all of Alice's set list? Still he is managing to go down very well by all accounts.

I recently saw The Sonics live. I only knew two songs and they were amazing. Blew the roof off for me the casual fan. Saw Panther Burns live. Great show and I only knew about two songs.

This fear of playing an even slightly different set, despite a wealth of classic seeldom heard material, is pretty sad.

[killer wolf]

had the same recently, went to see Imelda May, caught the Caezars as support - totally kick-ar$e.

still, much as i'd love to see a Coop tour where instead of covers there was a selection of his own obscure stuff, i think he's made it clear that's never going to happen. if he doesn't think an audience would go for it (ie, re the "they want to hear poison" etc comments)it would be cool if he and the band just jammed a few numbers as a special feature segment on the next DVD, a bit like the way Tallica put the next night's tracks on the Qebec Magnetic disc.

[RemarkablyInsincere]

I think the casual fan goes to one of his shows for the stage show as much as the music.

Yes, and that's why many don't know or care about much more than the hits.

What songs has he performed that have bombed?

Nobody used the word "bombed", but there is a distinct difference in audience reaction between playing HITS and playing obscure songs that only a small percentage of people know. If you don't understand this, you're either in denial or ignorant.

I can assure you that people weren't dancing in the aisles and singing along to "The Congregation" when I saw him perform it.

We are also assuming that these so called casual fans know all the songs from albums that are 40 years old.

You seem to be the one assuming that. Whereas it's been pointed out multiple times how the covers section went over exceedingly well with the "casual" audience.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"but I went to a show in Buffalo and was disappointed. Alice's set was shorter than usual"

Was it the same length as Zombie's, though? Different places have different curfews.

>So even though I probably won't be seeing Alice live for a long time, it's good to see him in the thick of things.

Exactly. Things could be a lot worse - he could have retired in 1983 if he had wanted to (although I don't think that was ever likely).

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"Back to this money vs art issue (and it's never all one or the other regardless of what people say)"

I agree.

> I have a hard time imagining Dennis Dunaway thinking only about getting rich.

I agree but he wasn't the only member of that band though. Besides, why can't both things be equally important?

>If it was all about money they would have stopped trying to be outrageous cross-dressers early on.

That's exactly what happened. The band's image and reputation in 1968 was very different to what it was by the time the band broke - up.

>If people are streaming out when you're doing your act a money person would say, "this isn't working, we need to change our act."
An innovator says, "let's keep going, people will catch on."

It was changed. They had to be innovative in other ways.

[A_MichaelUK]

From mr.barlow:
"I think in the case of those three album the pressure came from trying to adapt and stay relevent in the music scene at the time. I don't think he was necessarily trying to have a number one hit record or album but just to stay in the game."

That is true but there were also no demands of any kind from Warner Brothers either and he knew they weren't going to promote those albums too much, so the circusmtances were kind of the same. He wasn't trying to be fashionable in the hope he would be commercially successful. I think all of those albums either suffered or benefited from that.

> I think this was Alice experimenting and having a lot of fun-and I think knowing he was nearing the end of the WB contract that no matter what they were not going to support the album

Again, I think that can apply to all the albums from that time (although maybe beause "Dada" is so different, it stands out more) but what I find interesting is the number of people who (like me) really do like those albums (for all their faults). Despite the fact that he had no need or desire to 'tailor' them for an audience, they are still very accessible. His instincts were still leading towards writing songs which were still very accessible in all the traditional ways.

>I often wonder that if things went differently how far Alice would have taken the "skinny tie" Alice.

It probably would have lasted for a couple of albums as with most of the styles he immerses himnself in. For all the accusations he gets of jumping on bandwagons, what most people don't realise is that when he does that, he does it because he genuinely likes that particular style and wants to do his version of it. Eventually, something else would have come along to grab his attention.

> It was unlike anything at the time--and still is incredibly unique. It's timeless.

I think the sound of the percussion may be a little dated, though.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"Where did I say people hate these songs."

I don't mind retracting that but you disagreed that those songs were popular, based on flimsy evidence. Why do you think the songs are still in the set then? Might it be because they are going down well? As I said, I want to see the back of them too, but don't deny that they are going down well when you haven't been to any of the shows. Why do you think two of the cover songs were actually removed?! I wish I could say it was because I almost had a tantrum, but that isn't the case. They were removed bacause they sucked the air out of the room and got almost no reaction from the audience (and not even a bad reaction at that). You can say what you like from an uninformed position, but Alice is the one standing on the stage and he has a better view (literally) of what most of the crows are into than anyone else has.

>I'd love to hide the crutch before he limps through 18.

That statement tells us everything we need to know.

[Jumping Jack]

My 2 cents: Much prefer MC to Zombie or Iron Maiden, just wish they would fix the sound mix for the Crue instead of trying to cover Neil's voice.

It is also why I make a special effort to do road trips to see the solo shows when they are withn driving distance.

That said, there is no reason the set list can't be changed, or have a block of 2-3 songs changed from show to show even if it is simply rotating in other warhorses (Be My Lover, Ethyl, Wicked, etc). Add some element of surprise for an artist who made his rep being shocking, not that a song change terribly shocking but we'll take what we can get.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
“ think the casual fan goes to one of his shows for the stage show as much as the music. What songs has he performed that have bombed?”

If you went to a few more shows, you would know. I can think of "Generation Landslide" in 1991, “Triggerman” was dropped when the tour in 2001 resumed, “Public Animal No. 9” was eventually dropped from the tour in 2007, (In Touch With) Your Feminine Side” was eventually dropped, “The Congregation” was dropped and the two cover songs which I mentioned in a previous post. However, once again, you have it backwards - instead of the question you asked, you should be asking which albums haven’t “bombed” because that’s where the truth lies. If any new album is an immediate hit, you can be sure he will play a lot of songs from it. If it isn’t then, that isn’t going to happen.

>We are also assuming that these so called casual fans know all the songs from albums that are 40 years old.

You are the one who said he should play the whole of "Killer"!

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"Sold Out shows ecsatic response to a lot of songs that i am sure a lot of the casual fans there had never heard as those albums sold bugger all."

When I saw the newer material performed on that tour, the reception was pretty muted. It was always the classic material that got a better reception. It is a shame you don't have a more recent example that you can give. In fact, I think the older material always gets a bigger reaction to new stuff with the exception of the songs from "Trash" during that the "Alice Cooper Trashes The World Tour" and the reason is pretty obvious. That album was a success and people already knew the songs. Besides, as much as you (and I) like that album (assuming you do) not even you will think those concerts were "Sold Out" because of that album.

>I recently saw The Sonics live. I only knew two songs and they were amazing. Blew the roof off for me the casual fan. Saw Panther Burns live. Great show and I only knew about two songs.

Again, you think one size fits all and that isn't always the case.

>This fear of playing an even slightly different set, despite a wealth of classic seeldom heard material, is pretty sad.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. If you look at the selections across a whole range of tours, there is often a bit more than a slight difference. I think the issue is that, recently, there has been too much of a reliance on a group of songs and the fact that some people may have recently been seeing a shorter show can make the situation look worse than it is.

[mestreech]

This fear of playing an even slightly different set, despite a wealth of classic seeldom heard material, is pretty sad.

I agree 100%.

[nurserozetta]

Again a parralel with Metallica.

the fans on the forums are clamouring for Metallica to play a few rarer and lesser known obscure songs in their set list complaining the setlists are becoming all too familiar .

But guess what , when Metallica opened up their "Metallica by Request " shows and allowed the fans to vote for a tune to be played , It was the old standards that got voted up , I guarantee that would happen with Alice fans too these days , the forum and diehard fans might want a rarer obscure track played but the bulk of the audience want to hear the classics that they know.

[patrick]

I agree.
How many (die hard) members do we have here on this list ?Even if we all voted for that one (same?) track we find so important, we wouldn't stand up against all the other casual fans who never may have seen Alice before..
(of course the idea of a setlist composed by "us" is great, but not realisable I'm afraid).
I have seen TOD and RTD shows several times now and I wouldn't mind a change, but am still enjoying live at Wacken (rather than seeing a shortened version of those shows when Alice is not headlining...)

[Si]

Again a parralel with Metallica.

the fans on the forums are clamouring for Metallica to play a few rarer and lesser known obscure songs in their set list complaining the setlists are becoming all too familiar .

But guess what , when Metallica opened up their "Metallica by Request " shows and allowed the fans to vote for a tune to be played , It was the old standards that got voted up , I guarantee that would happen with Alice fans too these days , the forum and diehard fans might want a rarer obscure track played but the bulk of the audience want to hear the classics that they know.

Good example.

Alice did that Facebook vote (Metallica's was ticket holders only I think) to get ideas for the set, which was pretty predictable being facebook, and Poison and SO were both voted for despite asking the wording of the question asking for something different. In fact if I remember (could be wrong) the entire top 10 was songs already in the set list.
Some were even voting for "beer" I think.