Wish Alice Would Do This!

[A_MichaelUK]

From mr.barlow:
"Alice Cooper could release the best album of his career next year and he would not become relevant to today's music buying public."

That is one hundred per cent correct. In fact, Alice has making the same point about the way things are for a while, but using Paul McCartney as the example.

> He is an old man in a young man's game. Does anyone on here really think that Alice could connect with the 16-25 years old of today?

I actualy think he could but I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that even if he did, it wouldn't be enough for some people because as far as they're concerned, they expect to be transported back to 1973 and then wonder why that will not happen.

[A_MichaelUK]

From Swinger:
"but if you're young and want to check out a music legend he is kind of a perfect example."

That is a good point and if some people actually went to an Alice Cooper show occassionaly instead of just making assumptions from the comfort of their own homes, they would see that every few years, Alice's audience regenerates itself with new, young people attending. That doesn't mean the audience is getting bigger (because it isn't) but for all the fans he loses (for different reasons), newer fans come along for the ride until they move onto someone or something else.

>And while some might, perhaps rightfully so, think the show's got a bit stale or too content over the years I'll take it because I came into the fandom late and I want to see him live a few times more before it's over.

This is another good point and the proof of that is that there are people who don't get the opportunity to see Alice every year and who don't follow his career fanatically, so as far as they're concerned, the show isn't boring. That doesn't mean the show can never change or there can never be criticisms because that would be ridiculous but this is the climate Alice is operating in and it's still puzzling that some people don't understand that.

[Toronto Bob]

Barlow and amuk are building strawmen arguments. Criticisms of recent AC albums have nothing to do with AC topping the charts, selling out hockey area-sized tours and becoming a media darling all over again. It's about putting out interesting/quality albums and believing in your product enough to tour with it. Then trusting your audience good sense that they'll come out and see the show.

As a Rush fan, I thought their last studio record was great and when they toured, they played it almost in its' entirety. That's an example I wish Alice would follow. Did Clockwork Angels rise up the charts? I dunno - doubt it. Now they have enjoyed a bump in main stream media exposure due to the documentary "Beyond the Lighted Stage" and a subsequent Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. Two things that Alice has earned and enjoyed recently as well. I just hoped he could have followed that up with a kick ass record and tour. Instead we got the disappointing and momentum killer album Welcome to My Nightmare 2 coupled with an opening slot at Motley Crue's farewell tour.

Nothing to do with transporting back to 1973 - take that strawman and burn it.

[A_MichaelUK]

From Toronto Bob:
"Barlow and amuk are building strawmen arguments. Criticisms of recent AC albums have nothing to do with AC topping the charts, selling out hockey area-sized tours and becoming a media darling all over again

Well since you mention "strawmen arguments", show me where I said anything about "AC topping the charts, selling out hockey area-sized tours and becoming a media darling all over again because I don't think I did.

>It's about putting out interesting/quality albums

Who decides if an album is "interesting" though? I asked concolz that and he didn't reply. Do you know who gets to decide? Is it not subjective?

> and believing in your product enough to tour with it.

If he didn't believe in it, why did he bother recording and releasing it? Again, he is hardly the only artist of his generation to be play less rather than more new material.

>Then trusting your audience good sense that they'll come out and see the show.

You seem to ignore all previous points made on this issue to the point where debating with you seems futile but I'll play along if you want me to. Which "audience" are referring to? The one that visits this site and posts here or the one that would rather hear classic familar, rather then new and unfamiliar, material?

As a Rush fan, I thought their last studio record was great and when they toured, they played it almost in its' entirety.

That album was a huge success though whereas "Welcome 2 My Nightmare" was not. People were familiar with it. How is that a good comparison?

>That's an example I wish Alice would follow.

If "Welcome 2 My Nightmare" had been as big as "Clockwork Angels", why would he not perform a lot of songs from it? It wasn't though.

> Did Clockwork Angels rise up the charts? I dunno - doubt it.

Again, you're wrong. The album did very well in Canada and in America as well. Trust me - if Alice had an album that big, you would be complaining that four years down the line, he is playing too many songs from it.

> Instead we got the disappointing and momentum killer album Welcome to My Nightmare 2

You mean the one which a lot of people though was really good?

>coupled with an opening slot at Motley Crue's farewell tour.

You love exagerrating. Since the so - called "bump", Alice has done as many (actually probably more) shows as a headliner than "an opening act" (and that's including opening for Iron Maiden as well).

>take that strawman and burn it.

Maybe you should set fire to all those Alice Cooper albums you don't like. It might help keep you warm.

[mr.barlow]

Barlow and amuk are building strawmen arguments. Criticisms of recent AC albums have nothing to do with AC topping the charts, selling out hockey area-sized tours and becoming a media darling all over again. It's about putting out interesting/quality albums and believing in your product enough to tour with it. Then trusting your audience good sense that they'll come out and see the show.

As a Rush fan, I thought their last studio record was great and when they toured, they played it almost in its' entirety. That's an example I wish Alice would follow. Did Clockwork Angels rise up the charts? I dunno - doubt it. Now they have enjoyed a bump in main stream media exposure due to the documentary "Beyond the Lighted Stage" and a subsequent Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. Two things that Alice has earned and enjoyed recently as well. I just hoped he could have followed that up with a kick ass record and tour. Instead we got the disappointing and momentum killer album Welcome to My Nightmare 2 coupled with an opening slot at Motley Crue's farewell tour.

Nothing to do with transporting back to 1973 - take that strawman and burn it.

People are always free to criticize Alice's albums, tours, decisions etc. I have done so on many occasions. But as far as putting out "interesting/qulaity albums", well that's up to each individual listener.

"Trash" one of the biggest selling albums of his career, to me is absolute garbage--just horrible, BUT it sold in the millions--so there are those who really liked it! Also, I think "DaDa" is his masterpiece--to me it's better than anything's he's ever done including all of the albums from the original band and his solo albums. I'm sure that nearly everyone would disagree with me. Does that mean that DaDa is not "interesting/quality"?

Also, after WTMN I can't recall a tour where Alice played the bulk of his new releases. Usually it's always been a few new songs sprinkled in with the old classics and stand-bys. The much beloved 1981 Special Forces tour contained a total of ONE song from that album performed live that being "Who DO You Think We Are?".

The now legendary 1986 Nightmare Returns tour contained only THREE songs from Constrictor. The 1987 tour contained only FOUR songs from RYFAY.

The early tours with the original band were heavy on the new material because that's ALL they had to play. They had no back catalog of songs, or a string of established hits at that time. What else would they have played in 1971? 1972? 1973?

Alice fan base in 1981 was far different than it was in 1972--why then was that tour (playing in smaller venues)so successful when Special Forces album was a flop?

Alice's fan base of 1986 was also differnt from that in 1981 and Constrictor was far from a big success yet it's one of Alice's most successful tours ever--now considered legenedary--and yet he played only FOUR new songs. Was the success of that tour based on the fact that the fans "good sense" after hearing Constrictor is what brought them to the show?


Could you please give us an example of any Alice tour after 1975 where Alice played a set list that was dominated by new material?


Also, you are forever insistent on comparing Alice to Rush. I am sure you are well aware that Alice and Rush are completyely different entities on ALL levels, From the music to the marketing and more importantly the fanbase--there is no way anyone--including you--can make a logical argument/comparison between the two.

Also, we all know that ALice has lost fans over the years for many different reasons. Some don;t like his change in direction over the years while others simply outgrow the music and character. If you have such a problem or are so turned off by his output and decisions than why are you still a fan? Simply, move on as many others did over the years.

The bulk of Alice's audience of 2015 want to take a trip back to hear the songs they loved when they were younger. Are there new fans--sure--but most of them are there for the same reason. The majority of the crowd could care less if Alice records Billion Dollar Babies Part II with the original band or performs Dada live in it's entirety. They can care less. They want the hits. the classic props and Alice in make-up.

To me the main reason there will never be a full reunion tour is that nobody outside the hardcore fans cares about it. I'm sure Shep and Alice have looked at the numbers and gauged interest and found that it just not worth the investment.

But for arguments sake--let's say it happens. Let's say Alice and the remaining original band members record and release a full album of new material. By reading your comments I would think that you would be very disappointed if the tour didn't include them playing the bulk of that new material instead of the familiar hits. I'm guessing you would be very irate if there was a reunion tour and all they played were the tired old hits.

[kevinuk81]

Mr Barlow, Also, after WTMN I can't recall a tour where Alice played the bulk of his new releases.

Didn't Alice have 7 songs from Brutal planet on that tour?

[concolz]

Also, after WTMN I can't recall a tour where Alice played the bulk of his new releases. Could you please give us an example of any Alice tour after 1975 where Alice played a set list that was dominated by new material?

Madhouse Rocks - 7/10 'FTI' played.
FTF - Again, 7/10 'FTF' aired.
Trash - Another 7/10 played.
Brutal Planet - 7/11 'BP' tracks.


Interestingly, 'Madhouse Rocks' and 'FTF' tours had only a handful of ACG songs, with earlier solo Alice material making up the rest. ('TEOAC' also managed five new songs.)

[Swinger]

From concolz:
>Generating that 'grab 'em by the throat' greatness of his best work won't be easy from here.

With respect, that is one of the silliest things I've ever read. When you consider he has been an artist for almost fifty years and is nearly seventy years old, I don't understand why you would expect anything he may do from now on to have that "'grab 'em by the throat' greatness of his best work".

I don't think it's silly at all. Glen Campbell recorded his best ever album, 'Ghost On The Canvas', when he was 75 and in the initial throes of Alzheimers. Johnny Cash's 'American Recordings' albums, made at the end of his life, are universally lauded as the best thing he ever did. Patti Smith, at 69, is still releasing albums that are every bit as 'throat grabbing' as her brilliant 1970s records. Ian Hunter (76), Leonard Cohen (80) and Dolly Parton (69) have all recently released albums that are just as creative as their earlier stuff.

Age and longevity don't determine (lack of) creativity and innovation, more attitude and motivation.

You know, Johnny Cash "American Recordings" was almost all covers and/or re-recording of his old songs. Patti Smith second latest album, "Twelve", was a cover album. And while I don't know much about Glen Campbell, just looking at his discography he also recorded a cover album in 2008.

[concolz]

You know, Johnny Cash "American Recordings" was almost all covers and/or re-recording of his old songs. Patti Smith second latest album, "Twelve", was a cover album. And while I don't know much about Glen Campbell, just looking at his discography he also recorded a cover album in 2008.

Yes. I've never been opposed to covers per se, provided the artist imbues them with some semblance of creative difference. So, 'classic rock' sound-alikes are, IMO, pointless if covering so-called 'classic' rock songs. Alice's 'RTD' covers are 'rocking' and 'nice', but don't particularly add anything new to the originals, whilst his two McCartney covers are basically karaoke. (I think his '81 version of '7 And 7 Is' great though; tighter, 'punkier' and much more driving than Love's - like a stoked-up boxer.)

Re Cash and Campbell: they took a number of songs from outside of their normal 'comfort zone', adopted a minimalist approach, and, because both artists' physical or mental health was waning, they summoned up a 'raging against the dying of the light' feel. I found those albums very moving and innovative.

In a strange way, the final Cash/Campbell records remind me of Alice's 'lost albums' period. Like them, he was in 'a mess', yet somehow found the strength to innovate musically. Perhaps frailty and despair (plus drugs!) stimulate creativity, whilst healthy contentment and sobriety can sometimes result in a sort of bland complacency. Maybe.

[mr.barlow]

Also, after WTMN I can't recall a tour where Alice played the bulk of his new releases. Could you please give us an example of any Alice tour after 1975 where Alice played a set list that was dominated by new material?

Madhouse Rocks - 7/10 'FTI' played.
FTF - Again, 7/10 'FTF' aired.
Trash - Another 7/10 played.
Brutal Planet - 7/11 'BP' tracks.


Interestingly, 'Madhouse Rocks' and 'FTF' tours had only a handful of ACG songs, with earlier solo Alice material making up the rest. ('TEOAC' also managed five new songs.)

I guess I should not have relied on my memory when writing my post. I should have referenced the set lists on the site. I'll take my lumps--feel free to pile on!

[mr.barlow]

You know, Johnny Cash "American Recordings" was almost all covers and/or re-recording of his old songs. Patti Smith second latest album, "Twelve", was a cover album. And while I don't know much about Glen Campbell, just looking at his discography he also recorded a cover album in 2008.

Yes. I've never been opposed to covers per se, provided the artist imbues them with some semblance of creative difference. So, 'classic rock' sound-alikes are, IMO, pointless if covering so-called 'classic' rock songs. Alice's 'RTD' covers are 'rocking' and 'nice', but don't particularly add anything new to the originals, whilst his two McCartney covers are basically karaoke. (I think his '81 version of '7 And 7 Is' great though; tighter, 'punkier' and much more driving than Love's - like a stoked-up boxer.)

Re Cash and Campbell: they took a number of songs from outside of their normal 'comfort zone', adopted a minimalist approach, and, because both artists' physical or mental health was waning, they summoned up a 'raging against the dying of the light' feel. I found those albums very moving and innovative.

In a strange way, the final Cash/Campbell records remind me of Alice's 'lost albums' period. Like them, he was in 'a mess', yet somehow found the strength to innovate musically. Perhaps frailty and despair (plus drugs!) stimulate creativity, whilst healthy contentment and sobriety can sometimes result in a sort of bland complacency. Maybe.

I agree about cover songs. I really have no use for them if they are carbon copies of the originals. Alice has always had a knack for making cover songs better than the original versions. "7 & 7 Is" is one of his best songs ever and his version of "Talk Talk" blows the original away. Even "I Got A Line On You" rates better than the original. I'm hoping Alice does the same with the songs on the upcoming covers albums.

[A_MichaelUK]

From concolz:
"Yes. I've never been opposed to covers per se, provided the artist imbues them with some semblance of creative difference.

It is a bit late to try and shift your position - you, on at least one occasion, have used the covers album as an example of lacking creativity or innovation. You haven't even heard this album.

>Alice's 'RTD' covers are 'rocking' and 'nice', but don't particularly add anything new to the originals,

Were you expecting polka or jazz versions?

>whilst his two McCartney covers are basically karaoke.

This has already been discussed. Those were not his project. If you have a problem with them, tell Ralph Sall and let us have his response.

>(I think his '81 version of '7 And 7 Is' great though; tighter, 'punkier' and much more driving than Love's - like a stoked-up boxer.)

How do you know the covers album won't be similar to that?

>Perhaps frailty and despair (plus drugs!) stimulate creativity, whilst healthy contentment and sobriety can sometimes result in a sort of bland complacency. Maybe.

I don't know about "complacency", but a blunting of the sharp edge would not be unexpected. This is what happens in the real world as some people need to be repeatedly told. Some of you people really sound like maniacs. When Alice went five years (after "The Last Temptation") without releasing an album, there was none of this panic, anxiety, wailing and complaining. Now we get this sense of entitlement and from people who should know better too.

[Swinger]

You know, Johnny Cash "American Recordings" was almost all covers and/or re-recording of his old songs. Patti Smith second latest album, "Twelve", was a cover album. And while I don't know much about Glen Campbell, just looking at his discography he also recorded a cover album in 2008.

Yes. I've never been opposed to covers per se, provided the artist imbues them with some semblance of creative difference. So, 'classic rock' sound-alikes are, IMO, pointless if covering so-called 'classic' rock songs. Alice's 'RTD' covers are 'rocking' and 'nice', but don't particularly add anything new to the originals, whilst his two McCartney covers are basically karaoke. (I think his '81 version of '7 And 7 Is' great though; tighter, 'punkier' and much more driving than Love's - like a stoked-up boxer.)

Re Cash and Campbell: they took a number of songs from outside of their normal 'comfort zone', adopted a minimalist approach, and, because both artists' physical or mental health was waning, they summoned up a 'raging against the dying of the light' feel. I found those albums very moving and innovative.

In a strange way, the final Cash/Campbell records remind me of Alice's 'lost albums' period. Like them, he was in 'a mess', yet somehow found the strength to innovate musically. Perhaps frailty and despair (plus drugs!) stimulate creativity, whilst healthy contentment and sobriety can sometimes result in a sort of bland complacency. Maybe.

While I certainly agree that a good cover should provide something different from the original and while I really don't expect Alices cover album to be far out of his "comfort zone", my point was that I don't think it's really fair to talk about other artists that recorded cover albums as being creative and at the same time dismissing Alices album before even hearing it as uncreative. Heck, while some of Cash's song choices were out of his "comfort zone" alot of them weren't but still manage to be pretty great due to his performance. Same goes for Patti Smiths "Twelve", not really any surprising song choices IMO but she still does something interesting with them.

We don't know yet if Alices album will be "sound-alikes" or if there will be a clearer own spin to the songs. Sure, the songs that have been played on tour are pretty straightforeward versions but they are intended for a live setting. We don't actually know if they even will be on the album. The Mccartney songs are an unfair comparison since it wasn't his project, his musicians or his producer. A fairer point of comparison would be Alices cover of "We Gotta Ge Out of This Place" or the collaboration on "Hey Bulldog". Both fairly recent, both not far from the originals but still with, IMO, a bit of a twist.

Do I think Alice's cover album will be something as interesting and moving as Johnny Cash's last albums? No. Do I think it will be straight-up karaoke versions of the originals? No.

[The son of Don Quijote]

Everybody seems to be very anxious and in panic. In fact so much that they seem to forget some important facts about covers album project. No one here has talked and speculated about 4 or 5 original songs that are supposed to be on the covers album to set the story before the cover songs start. I found disregarding this aspect of the project very strange and sad because that is probably the biggest selling point for most fans. Yet no one seems to speculate what kind of style those songs represent are they sappy ballads or raw hard rockers or something entirely else.

Has anyone here besides me very relieved that he has already started writing the album that will follow the covers project? That was stated in an interview quite recently. Alice Cooper is looking forward and he is making future plans but most people here seem to ignore this. It was even stated somewhere that he is already planning the next tour but he has right now commitments with Motley Crue tour.

Besides I seriously doubt that he will transform into a full time covers act because market for that is not that big and I am sure Alice Cooper has some ambition left. This may even be something Alice made just for fun to take a deep breath and come back to his own music refreshed. Besides like I mentioned he has already started writing new material.

[darkmenace]

Has anyone here besides me very relieved that he has already started writing the album that will follow the covers project? That was stated in an interview quite recently. Alice Cooper is looking forward and he is making future plans but most people here seem to ignore this.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not optimistic. First, it could be a several years before another album comes out (not counting the covers album). Second, I was disappointed by ACAS and W2MN, so I'm not sure Alice has another great album in him.