Alice considering re-recording some early 80's material

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"If a person says that James Buchanan was the greatest president in American history, it wouldn't matter to me to change their mind, but I would know that their perception of history and politics is skewed.

You totally are not getting what this is about. At least with "history and politics", there are facts in the background which once agreed on, you can add your interpretation to those facts. That isn't what happens with music. You either instinctively like something or you do not. If you want to live your life in such a way that there are a series of tests that have to be passed by a piece of music before you can allow yourself to like it, then that is being a snob, which is completely your choice.

>If they said Buchanan was their favorite, that would be different.

Again, you're moving the goal - posts though. The enjoyment of music cannot be based on facts - it isn't a science in the same way that understanding history can be.

> they are admitting it is merely personal preference (favorite rather than best) and it means nothing.

Again, you don't explain why one band is 'better' than another though. The reason for that is because you can't do it.

>Some musicians are clearly more skilled at playing an instrument than others.

Who cares?!

>Do you disagree or feel that this is also subjective?

I agree but you haven't answered my question. Who cares?! Answer that question. I am not denying that Al Di Meola might be technically better at playing the guitar than Johnny Thunders was. That isn't the issue. If I prefer Johnny Thunders, I couldn't care less how good Al Di Meola is. That would be like saying that someone who doesn't like eating meat should eat some meat because the cook who cooked the meat is better than the cook who cooked the vegetarian food. It is absolute nonsense (and yes, it's disappointing to have to make the same analogy as I did in another thread).

>Then there's the matter of taste, which you deride.

How can I "deride" taste when I have told you it is personal and subjective?! YOU are the one who is saying it is objective.

>You seem to be saying the musical opinions of everyone have equal value and are on equal footing.

You sound like a snob and a fascist. So basically, only your opinion counts when it comes to personal taste.

> I disagree and I believe these kinds of attitudes are among the reasons that bad music is so popular.

Thanks for proving my point - you're a snob.

>Using Alice as an example, if a person told me that Constrictor is a much better album than Billion Dollar Babies, I'd know they're wrong, while you would say, "I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion."

How can they by "wrong" if that's what their taste is? THIS IS RIDICULOUS. Just because you or I would disagree does not make them "wrong". It doesn't seem like you read my last post properly.

>but, based on what I'm hearing, you would say they aren't right or wrong, it's totally subjective.

Yes because everyone's taste is different. I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of people who are serious music fans (including no doubt some people here) who don't like The Beatles - just because they're in the minority doesn't mean they're "wrong". Also, to get this back on topic, it was snobbery for you to say that they lyric in "I'm Your Gun" was "beneath" Alice but I don't see you saying that about the lines:
"Really feeling sick
The hardest part's explaining
All the blisters on my - nose" and that's just one example.

[mr.barlow]

I like Meghan Trainer and think that "I'm All About The Bass" is the best pop song to come along in the last 20 years!

My musical hero is Duke Ellington and I think that he was the best songwriter who ever lived. I think nearly all musical scholars would agree that he is in a differnt league than ANY rock act maybe with the exception of The Beatles or Bob Dylan.

That being said I equally enjoy the music of artists that range from Alice Cooper and Motorhead to Robert Goulet and Vicki Carr and I find them all to be incredibly talented. Alice is an incredible lyricist.

Also and you can ask any songwriter that sometimes it's very hard to write dumb-downed lyrics that work--and even harder to make them a hit record.

I agree that a lot of ALice's lyrics in the mid-late 1980s were ridiculous and juvenile, but you have to keep in mind they were written to be that way ON-PURPOSE. He was writing for a specific demographic and genre. It's no different that when he has been writing for the character based on the tone and approach of each album.

Also, the lyrics to his biggest hit "School's Out" does not bring to mind a comparison to Bob Dylan or George Gershwin.


I remember reading a quote from Duke Ellington when he was asked to define good music. He replied "I know it when I hear it". Bascially it's up to the listenter to define they like and think is good.

[darkmenace]

From darkmenace:

You sound like a snob and a fascist.

Please inform Bob Ezrin that he is a snob and a fascist the next time you see him.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-ezri ... sic-today/

[darkmenace]

I think nearly all musical scholars would agree that he is in a different league than ANY rock act maybe with the exception of The Beatles or Bob Dylan.

I agree with your sentiment that the views of musical scholars have value when making judgments.

I remember reading a quote from Duke Ellington when he was asked to define good music. He replied "I know it when I hear it". Bascially it's up to the listener to define they like and think is good.

Yes, it's up to the listener, but not all listeners are the same. When Duke Ellington says "I know it when I hear it" and he's says he likes a song, I respect his viewpoint more than the kid next to me in his car blaring the latest Top 40 hip hop song.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"Please inform Bob Ezrin that he is a snob and a fascist the next time you see him."

He isn't saying the people who like that stuff are "wrong" though.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"Yes, it's up to the listener, but not all listeners are the same."

I admire your arrogance. It sounds as if only you can be trusted to decide which "listeners" are right and which are "wrong". Maybe we should all submit our album collections to you so that you can anoint us with your impeccable judgement and tell us where are "wrong".

>When Duke Ellington says "I know it when I hear it" and he's says he likes a song, I respect his viewpoint more than the kid next to me in his car blaring the latest Top 40 hip hop song.

You never said anything about "respect" - you said he was "wrong" which is totally different.

[darkmenace]

He isn't saying the people who like that stuff are "wrong" though.

Whether you can see it or not Bob Ezrin is saying pretty much the same thing I am. You give him a free pass for some reason.

Your focus on a trivial distinction ("wrong") misses the forest from the trees, ignores the fundamental agreement of Bob Ezrin's views with mine, and allows your mind to retreat to a world of black and white opposites where one view is acceptable and the other is arrogant and fascist.

Bob said the following in the above article I cited:

We’re left now, he adds, with “four-bar grids of ‘cut and paste’ monotony over which someone writes shallow nursery rhymes about partying, trucks and beer or bitches and bling, or whines in hardly rhyming verse about their sad little white boy or girl life.”

There can be no doubt where he stands on the issue of judging music critically and aesthetically. I agree with him and applaud his high standards and willingness to take a stand.

[mr.barlow]

When you speak of high standards, then an argument can be made that the entire genre of rock and roll and the whole of today's popular music is inferior to that of classical (symphonic and opera), jazz and even that of Tin Pan Alley.

When applying the standards of composition, technical skill, and performance there is nothing that can come close to a symphony orchestra. Nearly every performer in rock and roll--yesterday and today, couldn't shine the shoes of ANY member of say the New York Philharmonic.

The thing is that people don't want Bach they want Guns N Roses. They don't want to watch and enjoy Bizet's opera "Carmen" they want Elvis shaking his hips. They don't want John Coltrane--they want Meghan Trainor. That is what is bringing them joy.

When jazz was taking hold in popular culture you had the musical elitists crying foul about it's inferiority and how it was "sub-standard". When rock and roll came about the same was being said by that crowd, a segment of the jazz community and Tin Pan Alley. Rock and Roll was thought to be a passing fad. The Beatles came along and began to change the perception of it--they elevated it to an art form.

I agree with Ezrin about the state of today's music, however, once again it comes down to taste. Obviously the record buying public like what's being produced. It's reaching them and they are connecting with it. I think it has more to do with the current state of society and culture than anything else. We live in a throw-away society where the music has become very disposable. It's instant gratification and then on to the next thing. People just don't care the way they used to about music, art, theatre, film, etc.

I have no use for rap. I'm a white middle aged male raised on Alice Cooper and Motorhead. How could I speak for young black people or disaffected white youth and how they relate to it. To be honest--and I hate to say this--rap took over for rock and roll in speaking for angry teenagers. That's why it sells.

Ezrin may not like the music, you may not like it, I don't like it--but it is connecting with millions. Maybe they have poor tastes, maybe they don't know any better, but they like it and it means something to them.

[darkmenace]

When you speak of high standards, then an argument can be made that the entire genre of rock and roll and the whole of today's popular music is inferior to that of classical (symphonic and opera), jazz and even that of Tin Pan Alley.

When applying the standards of composition, technical skill, and performance there is nothing that can come close to a symphony orchestra. Nearly every performer in rock and roll--yesterday and today, couldn't shine the shoes of ANY member of say the New York Philharmonic.

I agree with everything you are saying and that we aren't required to like what is quality music. We can enjoy what we enjoy. I certainly do. There are different reasons for liking some genres over others. Rock and dance music get your body moving, make you want to pump your fist or maybe dance. Classical music is a different experience, more deeply aesthetic in the way it must be appreciated. But no matter what, we can enjoy what we enjoy without apologizing for it.

Ezrin may not like the music, you may not like it, I don't like it--but it is connecting with millions. Maybe they have poor tastes, maybe they don't know any better, but they like it and it means something to them.

I think beyond the issue of liking it, Ezrin is saying it isn't good. I agree with that. I recognize that the lyrics may connect for some people, but that doesn't make it good music as a total package. I'm not just referring to rap or hip hop. Within any genre (and that's how this started) there is better quality music. Is there any serious argument that "Sugar Sugar" is a better song than "Stairway to Heaven"? A person might like Sugar Sugar more, but I don't think it could be argued that it is better as a musical piece.

[mr.barlow]

There are those that say that the entire genre of rock and roll is inferior and that it isn't good and applying the criteria that you stated like composition, technical skill, etc they'd be absolutely correct.

Sugar Sugar, Stairway To Heaven, every Beatles song ever written can't hold a candle to Bach's weakest compostion.

I agree that some music is better than others in any genre but again that is subject to the listener. It doesn't matter how good a composition may be or how technically proficiant a musician is, it depends on whether people like it or can realate to it.

If you look at the history at pop music (rock n roll included) you'll find that the most successful hit songs in the history of music are usually very simple both lyrically and structurally.
Hound Dog, Louie Louie, I Wanna Hold Your Hand--just a few examples.

Think of Alice Cooper. I think myself and maybe 20 other people bought Dada since it's been released. It's the artistic high point in the careers of Alice and Wagner and I would go so far as to say it's one of Ezrin's bst works. It succeeds on all levels. BUT--no one bought it, wants to hear it--and most outside this board don't even know it exists. Yet a simplistic juvenile song like "School's Out" sells in the millions, becomes a legendary anthem and Alice's signature song. It's very inferior to anything on Dada, yet nearly everybody--including myself--loves the song. I guess then we're all guilty of liking inferior music.

Again--music--be it great or awful is judged by the listener. I agree that most of the music today is crap--yet as long as people are buying it and relating to it--it won't change.

[steven_crayn]

There are those that say that the entire genre of rock and roll is inferior and that it isn't good and applying the criteria that you stated like composition, technical skill, etc they'd be absolutely correct.

Sugar Sugar, Stairway To Heaven, every Beatles song ever written can't hold a candle to Bach's weakest compostion.

I agree that some music is better than others in any genre but again that is subject to the listener. It doesn't matter how good a composition may be or how technically proficiant a musician is, it depends on whether people like it or can realate to it.

If you look at the history at pop music (rock n roll included) you'll find that the most successful hit songs in the history of music are usually very simple both lyrically and structurally.
Hound Dog, Louie Louie, I Wanna Hold Your Hand--just a few examples.

Think of Alice Cooper. I think myself and maybe 20 other people bought Dada since it's been released. It's the artistic high point in the careers of Alice and Wagner and I would go so far as to say it's one of Ezrin's bst works. It succeeds on all levels. BUT--no one bought it, wants to hear it--and most outside this board don't even know it exists. Yet a simplistic juvenile song like "School's Out" sells in the millions, becomes a legendary anthem and Alice's signature song. It's very inferior to anything on Dada, yet nearly everybody--including myself--loves the song. I guess then we're all guilty of liking inferior music.

Again--music--be it great or awful is judged by the listener. I agree that most of the music today is crap--yet as long as people are buying it and relating to it--it won't change.

I've never heard as much pompous crap as what you have been coming out with, you make out you are some kind of musical scholar branding the whole rock n roll genre as inferior to Bach's weakest composition, do us all a favour!

As a graduate of the London College of Music a lover of classical, jazz, rock, soul and other genres I've got to pick you up about your misguided assumptions.

You clearly haven't listened to any progressive rock music that was just as complicated as say Bach's Two Part Invention in D Minor, Jesus some of these bands were influenced by classical and jazz composers and took things to another level by fusing it with the rock genre, if you are seriously trying to pull the wool over our eyes by saying that say something like 21st Century Schizoid Man with its use of syncopation can't hold a candle to Bach you need to get your ears waxed and get a musical education.

When I saw the Moscow Philharmonic perform Mussorgsky's Night On A Bare Mountain about 30 years ago, as fantastic as it is it doesn't make me want to dismiss the whole of the rock n roll genre as you have done as not holding a candle to the classical or jazz composer, after all that piece in particular has its roots in the melodies of Russian folk music.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"Whether you can see it or not Bob Ezrin is saying pretty much the same thing I am."

No, he is not. Show me where he is. He made no comment about the people who like that stuff. If you read what he said a bit more carefully, he was making a broader cultural point - and he's right. He isn't just bemoaning the music that is currently popular. He is also bemoaning the fact that music is no longer a cultural leader because no current musicians are leaders. That doesn't mean there is no longer any 'good music'. His point is that the culture has changed.

>Your focus on a trivial distinction ("wrong") misses the forest

It was you that used that word not me, so you can stop trying to deflect.

>allows your mind to retreat to a world of black and white opposites where one view is acceptable and the other is arrogant and fascist.

I am not the one who is saying people are right or "wrong" when it comes to personal taste.

>There can be no doubt where he stands on the issue of judging music critically and aesthetically.

You still haven't shown me where he says people are "wrong" for liking that stuff. Let me give you three examples why what you say is nonsense. You brought up the example of The Knack and The Beatles in a very snobbish way. However, I understand that Frank Zappa didn't like The Beatles, so according to what you've been saying, he was "wrong". In other words, your view on music is more important than his was. Also, both Pete Townsend and Keith Richards didn't like Led Zeppelin, yet, on the assumption that you do like Led Zeppelin, according to you, you are wrong. Does that mean your appreciation of music is 'better'? Your entire argument is nonsense. There is almost nothing more subjective than music yet you seem to think there are set of rules that can determine whether someone should like something or not.

[A_MichaelUK]

From mr.barlow:
"Maybe they have poor tastes, maybe they don't know any better, but they like it and it means something to them."

Exactly but darkmenace is such a snob that he or she looks down on his or her perfectly - formed nose and sneers at those who have different preferences. I would love to see him or her sneer at Keith Richards in discussion about Led Zeppelin in that case.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmeance:
"But no matter what, we can enjoy what we enjoy without apologizing for it."

What a pathetic, grovelling and back - pedaling reply.

> but that doesn't make it good music as a total package.

Who says so? Who is this arbiter that gets to decide everything. This is a truly pathetic argument you are espousing. The exact same criticisms you seem to be making were, at one time, made against Alice Cooper as well. It is a hypocritical position. As Alice Cooper fans, we moan whenever neither Alice nor the original band get the credit they deserve or are left out of some stupid poll or article and yet we have amongst our number someone who is condescending and sneering at others for liking whatever it is they like just because he or she happens not to like it.

>I'm not just referring to rap or hip hop. Within any genre (and that's how this started) there is better quality music.

Who says so?

>Is there any serious argument that "Sugar Sugar" is a better song than "Stairway to Heaven"?

Where does it say it is not?

>A person might like Sugar Sugar more, but I don't think it could be argued that it is better as a musical piece.

I don't think you understand what "better" means. You seem to be confusing it with the word "proficient" or "sophisticated" or having an abundance of "technique". All of that is nonsense. In 1976, we had Genesis fans tell us punk bands were no good and we had fans of punk bands telling us Genesis were no good. They were all "wrong" in exactly the same way that you are.

[The son of Don Quijote]

There isn't a scientific formula that defines what a good song is. Music is emotional, instinctive and maybe even spiritual experience. Every now and then I hear a song that has all the elements I usually appreciate but still leaves me cold. Also opposite situations happen. I hear a song that stylistically isn't my cup of tee but for some reason I like it. Different music styles are listened for different reasons. Arguments about superior or inferior playing skills are not important. Alex Lifeson of Rush plays the guitar much better than Lou Reed but I prefer Lou Reed's songs by far. Also lyrics are only one element of a song and I know some people are not obsessed by rock lyrics at all. They just want catchy riffs and melodies and be entertained. Lyrics don't matter much to them.

It really is the matter of taste. There isn't one Emperor in his ivory tower who defines what is good music and what is bad music. It's great to hear different views and opinions but it is rather sad when a person sees someone with contradicting opinions about music as a clueless and wrong.

The world has infinite amount of colors and shades. Things are not black and white. In the fields of literature for example many could claim that Virginia Woolf writes much more poetic sentences than Stephen King but for the Stephen King fans it probably doesn't matter. They want to experience something exciting and scary through middle class characters that King so often uses in his novels.

[mr.barlow]

There are those that say that the entire genre of rock and roll is inferior and that it isn't good and applying the criteria that you stated like composition, technical skill, etc they'd be absolutely correct.

Sugar Sugar, Stairway To Heaven, every Beatles song ever written can't hold a candle to Bach's weakest compostion.

I agree that some music is better than others in any genre but again that is subject to the listener. It doesn't matter how good a composition may be or how technically proficiant a musician is, it depends on whether people like it or can realate to it.

If you look at the history at pop music (rock n roll included) you'll find that the most successful hit songs in the history of music are usually very simple both lyrically and structurally.
Hound Dog, Louie Louie, I Wanna Hold Your Hand--just a few examples.

Think of Alice Cooper. I think myself and maybe 20 other people bought Dada since it's been released. It's the artistic high point in the careers of Alice and Wagner and I would go so far as to say it's one of Ezrin's bst works. It succeeds on all levels. BUT--no one bought it, wants to hear it--and most outside this board don't even know it exists. Yet a simplistic juvenile song like "School's Out" sells in the millions, becomes a legendary anthem and Alice's signature song. It's very inferior to anything on Dada, yet nearly everybody--including myself--loves the song. I guess then we're all guilty of liking inferior music.

Again--music--be it great or awful is judged by the listener. I agree that most of the music today is crap--yet as long as people are buying it and relating to it--it won't change.

I've never heard as much pompous crap as what you have been coming out with, you make out you are some kind of musical scholar branding the whole rock n roll genre as inferior to Bach's weakest composition, do us all a favour!

As a graduate of the London College of Music a lover of classical, jazz, rock, soul and other genres I've got to pick you up about your misguided assumptions.

You clearly haven't listened to any progressive rock music that was just as complicated as say Bach's Two Part Invention in D Minor, Jesus some of these bands were influenced by classical and jazz composers and took things to another level by fusing it with the rock genre, if you are seriously trying to pull the wool over our eyes by saying that say something like 21st Century Schizoid Man with its use of syncopation can't hold a candle to Bach you need to get your ears waxed and get a musical education.

When I saw the Moscow Philharmonic perform Mussorgsky's Night On A Bare Mountain about 30 years ago, as fantastic as it is it doesn't make me want to dismiss the whole of the rock n roll genre as you have done as not holding a candle to the classical or jazz composer, after all that piece in particular has its roots in the melodies of Russian folk music.

ELP, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, etc. I have yet to hear an artist or band match anything done by any classical composer. I'll go so far as to say I wouldn't put them in the same league as modern day composer say like John Williams.

I like their music and find them to be very talented, also as you say they did bring classical elements into the rock genre, but I would never put any of those writers in the same talent sphere as a Mozart or Beethoven.

Again--it's down to personal taste and opinions. You should be proud to be a graduate of The London School Of Music as you have accomplished something that a large amount of rock and rollers have not. The thing is they didn't need a degree from music school to find tremendous success. That's the one thing about rock and roll is it made it possible for even an amateaur musician to find tremendous success. You don't need a lot of talent in rock and roll to sell millions of records. Louie Louie in all it's varations and recordings I would bet has sold more units over time that the complete King Crismon catalog. More people know of Alice Cooper than Robert Fripp.

Again--I love rock and roll--always have. It was rock and roll that led me to discover those other musical styles. If you recall I was the one who pointed out to you on FB regarding "Big Apple Dreamin" and that it contained a nod to Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue. Well--it was that little snippet in that Alice song that led be to discover Gershwin. Still--I would never even remotely consider nearly any of them being in the same league as the classical and jazz greats--maybe I'm wrong in your mind but that's the way I feel about it.

[mr.barlow]

I will amend one thing I said in a previous post. I would agree that there are a small amount of rock and roll performers who could stand their own PLAYING within a symphony orchestra, but I would say at least 90% of them could not.

[pitkin88]

Could someone please split this thread so we can talk about Alice's 80's stuff?

[darkmenace]

No, he is not. Show me where he is. He made no comment about the people who like that stuff. If you read what he said a bit more carefully, he was making a broader cultural point - and he's right. He isn't just bemoaning the music that is currently popular. He is also bemoaning the fact that music is no longer a cultural leader because no current musicians are leaders. That doesn't mean there is no longer any 'good music'. His point is that the culture has changed.

No, you are cherry picking. He said modern music is not good. Any reasonable person would take that away from what he said, but you hem and haw around that. He said it in the way a "snob" would, using your word. But you give him a free pass. That is groveling.

>allows your mind to retreat to a world of black and white opposites where one view is acceptable and the other is arrogant and fascist.

I am not the one who is saying people are right or "wrong" when it comes to personal taste.

Now you are the one deflecting. That wasn't the point. It was you saying Bob Ezrin's opinions can be justified (groveling) and mine are snobbery and fascism.

You still haven't shown me where he says people are "wrong" for liking that stuff. Let me give you three examples why what you say is nonsense. You brought up the example of The Knack and The Beatles in a very snobbish way. However, I understand that Frank Zappa didn't like The Beatles, so according to what you've been saying, he was "wrong". In other words, your view on music is more important than his was. Also, both Pete Townsend and Keith Richards didn't like Led Zeppelin, yet, on the assumption that you do like Led Zeppelin, according to you, you are wrong. Does that mean your appreciation of music is 'better'? Your entire argument is nonsense. There is almost nothing more subjective than music yet you seem to think there are set of rules that can determine whether someone should like something or not.

Please do me a favor and allow me to speak for myself. I'm not a big fan of Stairway to Heaven, but I recognize that it is a great song. I have made the distinctions you have trouble making. I can separate personal taste from discussions of the quality of music. You don't want to do that. You think it's wrong or snobbish for some reason. You are afraid to take a stand about aesthetic issues, which I'm not and Bob Ezrin is not.

Apparently you think the Louvre is a joke. That the art in that museum is no better than a child's doodles. After all, it is all subjective. If someone said their child's art from first grade is as good as the work by Van Gogh or Degas, it is all subjective and a matter of opinion, would you agree?

[darkmenace]

From darkmeance:
"But no matter what, we can enjoy what we enjoy without apologizing for it."

What a pathetic, grovelling and back - pedaling reply.

But I believe that. There is plenty of music (and TV and movies, etc) that I like that I would never say is great, just a guilty pleasure. That's why we have expressions like guilty pleasure.

Your name-calling and insults speak far more to snobbery and arrogance than anything I could ever say.

As Alice Cooper fans, we moan whenever neither Alice nor the original band get the credit they deserve

Then you are saying they deserve credit because you believe their work is good while others don't. What a snob you are.

>Is there any serious argument that "Sugar Sugar" is a better song than "Stairway to Heaven"?

Where does it say it is not?

I will take a stand that you are afraid to take, lacking aesthetic judgment and the courage of your convictions, and I will say it here and now: Stairway to Heaven is a better song than Sugar Sugar.

Try to show some divergent thinking here: I am not saying I like it better, I may like Sugar Sugar better personally, but Stairway to Heaven is a better song. It will pass the test of time (it already has), it will appeal to more people worldwide over time, because it is higher quality.

Are you also afraid to make moral judgments? Those are subjective. Or is everything acceptable because there are no objective criteria for deciding right and wrong?

Do you deride Alice as a snob and fascist for espousing Christianity, one religion over all the others, when religion can be seen as subjective?