Dennis Dunaway book reviews

[mr.barlow]

In re-reading my post I want to clarify sonething I wrote. The original post read:
"... it's hard to argue that the softening of the character was not one of the best decisions they ever made.."

it should read as "...but it's hard to argue that the softening of the character WAS one of the best decisions they ever made--it's the reason why Alice has had a career for the last 40 years."

I want to be perfectly clear that it is my opinion that the softening of the character was one of the best decisions ever made by Alice and Shep.

[KeithGale]

I finished reading the book today, I enjoyed the style of writing and especially the early years, though book didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t already know in regard to the split.
It is clear to me that band were a close cohesive group in the early years and slowly but surely this began to deteriorate, I really don’t believe it was a master plan for Alice to go solo, I think Shep saw an opportunity and took it!!! How that affects friendships is always going to be contentious, as those involved seemed to allow it to happen, why no one challenged Shep is interesting, but maybe their influence had already declined in the organisation.
Maybe Alice could have more back bone, it’s clear from Dennis’s account that Alice didn’t like confrontation, but it would seem no one else in the band fought their corner as well, so did they lack backbone or was Shep that powerful?
Too me, the dynamic in the early days seem to stem from Dennis and Alice, who were on the same page for many years, but things change.
I would offer though, if I was Shep, faced with five individuals with lots of input, I would be keen to simplify the situation and if that means alienating the band, then I can understand that, whether it was morally wrong, I don’t know.
Alice was being called Alice very early on and to my mind if I was going to sue Alice over using the name it would be difficult, as there is precedent already set, plus he thought of the name according to Dennis!!
So I take my hat off to Dennis for writing an entertaining book and at least trying to be fair in his appraisal.

[Stacanova]

I finished reading the book today, I enjoyed the style of writing and especially the early years, though book didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t already know in regard to the split.
It is clear to me that band were a close cohesive group in the early years and slowly but surely this began to deteriorate, I really don’t believe it was a master plan for Alice to go solo, I think Shep saw an opportunity and took it!!! How that affects friendships is always going to be contentious, as those involved seemed to allow it to happen, why no one challenged Shep is interesting, but maybe their influence had already declined in the organisation.
Maybe Alice could have more back bone, it’s clear from Dennis’s account that Alice didn’t like confrontation, but it would seem no one else in the band fought their corner as well, so did they lack backbone or was Shep that powerful?
Too me, the dynamic in the early days seem to stem from Dennis and Alice, who were on the same page for many years, but things change.
I would offer though, if I was Shep, faced with five individuals with lots of input, I would be keen to simplify the situation and if that means alienating the band, then I can understand that, whether it was morally wrong, I don’t know.
Alice was being called Alice very early on and to my mind if I was going to sue Alice over using the name it would be difficult, as there is precedent already set, plus he thought of the name according to Dennis!!
So I take my hat off to Dennis for writing an entertaining book and at least trying to be fair in his appraisal.

It was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

All five members legally owned the name/trademark of "Alice Cooper".
All five members contributed in significant ways to the creation and success of "Alice Cooper".
No one quit or ever relinquished their claim to "Alice Cooper".

Alice could have put out his solo album, simply crediting it to "Alice".

Putting it out as "Alice Cooper" violated the other four equal sharing partners rights.

It also doesn't really matter if Alice changed his legal name to "Alice Cooper", I could go change my legal name to "David Bowie", but I wouldn't be able to release an album as "David Bowie".

I'm not trying to bring up an argument that has been argued to death.
I'm not saying that anyone is "the bad guy", maybe everyone had the best intentions?
As a musician, who has played in many bands, it hurts my soul to see Michael, Dennis, Glen & Neal's legacy and contributions to popular music not recognized.

I'm so glad the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame handled it properly and it is better than it used to be.... but then you still hear things, like Neal Smith being interviewed and the interviewer saying to Neal "that was really nice of Alice to include you guys in the Hall of Fame induction and ceremony" and you can hear Neal trying to hold back his anger and say "it wasn't up to Alice who is included, the Hall of Fame makes that decision". That is such a slap in the face that people still have that sort of perception and don't understand their contributions.

Growing up in the 80's, I remember the long strange journey over about a decade of being an Alice Cooper fan before I realized that:
a. Alice Cooper WAS a band.
b. Michael, Glen, Dennis & Neal was every bit as important as Alice.
c. 99% of Alice Cooper that I like was from the original Alice Cooper.

This is why I'm glad there are books like Dennis's.
Dennis's book, I thought it was a great, really fast read, I almost wished he would have went into a little more detail about each album, track by track for all of the tracks, etc.

I think Dennis has in past interviews and when writing this book has continued to try to take the "High Road", so to speak.

I actually believe that he probably held back a little when talking about the "break up/getting fired" and it hurt him even more then he let on.

I have no reason to question the truth of anything Dennis wrote about, it is really not that much different than other members accounts (sans Alice & Shep).

One odd thing to me was, I believe it still bugs Dennis that they went to individual writing credits instead of crediting it all as "written by Alice Cooper"?
I wonder if he knows that if those albums would have said all songs "written by Alice Cooper" or even "Alice Cooper as a group" that they would have received NO credit for those and it would have all went to Alice?
That was the start of my journey discovering the members of Alice Cooper, when I looked at the writing credits on the Alice Cooper-Greatest Hits cassette and thought "who is this Michael Bruce who wrote so much of this stuff"? (some cassettes back in the day didn't list full credits of who played what, but they almost always had song and publishing credits) and then seeing the "Love it to Death" credits and that everyone (even the drummer) was credited a song by themselves.

I'm also glad Dennis mentioned Michael going unmentioned in Super Duper Alice Cooper. You would think that 40 years on, everyone (including Alice & Shep) would be fair in how the original group was presented? I really lost respect for those filmmakers because I know what they are capable of with the Rush and Iron Maiden Documentaries, so to sacrifice their ethics and excise every mention of Michael Bruce to please someone or to tighten the story is just ridiculous!

I wished Dennis would have talked a bit more about the Battle Axe album, that is still a great record and had Alice returned after "Welcome to my Nightmare" and participated, I think it would have been huge and seen as a return to form by Alice Cooper. When you listen to a song like "Too Young" and hear Dennis and Neal's syncopated rhythms under the chorus and realize how special and unique it was and still is, it makes you long for a proper reissue. Or a song like "wasn't I the one" and imagine a twist or two in the lyric from Alice and how great of an Alice Cooper song it might have been?

[darkmenace]

It was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

All five members legally owned the name/trademark of "Alice Cooper".
All five members contributed in significant ways to the creation and success of "Alice Cooper".
No one quit or ever relinquished their claim to "Alice Cooper".

Dennis's book and comments like these have got me thinking about the legalities of the Alice Cooper name and trademark. Alice (the person who adopted the name of the character) has always stressed that Alice Cooper is a role and he plays the character. Therefore Alice Cooper is a creation. The question is who owns the rights to that creation?

An intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as artistic works, that are used in commerce. This fits the Alice Cooper situation and makes Alice Cooper as a character an intellectual property.

Based on what Dennis says in his book (and what we've heard from others in the band), Alice Cooper was created by the entire band as a character. Some contributed more than others. Dennis feels he contributed a lot and the trademark makeup is a significant contribution.

If you watch movies like Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, the credits always say, "Created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko" or "Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby." Everyone has heard of Stan Lee, but few people realize that Steve and Jack were co-creators.

It seems the same is the case with Alice Cooper. If Alice is an IP then it seems every album featuring the traditional Alice image (character) should have a credit that reads: "The character Alice Cooper created by Alice Cooper, Dennis Dunaway, Neal Smith, Michael Bruce, and Glen Buxton." It follows that these co-creators would also receive royalties on any use of the Alice character that generates income, unless they signed those rights away.

I have no idea what the agreement is with the former band members, I know they receive royalties, but are these royalties consistent with co-creating an IP?

At the very least the band should receive co-creator credits front and center on all things Alice Cooper.

These are my thoughts, but I'm no legal expert. I'm interested in hearing other points of view.

[A_MichaelUK]

From KeithGale:
"but it would seem no one else in the band fought their corner as well,"

Well, that isn't the impression that Bob Greene and Michael Bruce gave.

>Too me, the dynamic in the early days seem to stem from Dennis and Alice, who were on the same page for many years, but things change.

Of course. There is almost no band I can think of that did not go through the same, or a similar, trajectory, where creativity, demanding schedules, pressure, alcohol, drugs, fame, egos and money are concerned. Nobody should be surprised.

>if I was Shep, faced with five individuals with lots of input, I would be keen to simplify the situation and if that means alienating the band, then I can understand that, whether it was morally wrong, I don’t know.

Given that you "really don’t believe it was a master plan for Alice to go solo", then you can't think there was a deliberate alienation. It did happen, but I don't think it was deliberate.

[A_MichaelUK]

From Stacanova:
"All five members legally owned the name/trademark of "Alice Cooper".

We keep being told that but I've never seen any evidence of it (I haven't read the book). Is there any evidence? I know Brian Nelson tried to find evidence but I don't think he ever did. We know that there was a corporation called "Alice Cooper Incorporated" but that's different.

>I'm not saying that anyone is "the bad guy", maybe everyone had the best intentions?

I agree.

>As a musician, who has played in many bands, it hurts my soul to see Michael, Dennis, Glen & Neal's legacy and contributions to popular music not recognized.

Generally, only by the general rock audience though. The serious fans know the reality which I think is far more relevant.

>but then you still hear things, like Neal Smith being interviewed and the interviewer saying to Neal "that was really nice of Alice to include you guys in the Hall of Fame induction and ceremony"

You mean you were surprised that a journalist or broadcaster was an idiot and had not done any research?!

>Growing up in the 80's, I remember the long strange journey over about a decade of being an Alice Cooper fan before I realized that:
a. Alice Cooper WAS a band.

Well, if you owned the band's albums, I don't understand why you didn't already know it. Besides, it was often mentioned in articles that covered Alice's history.

>I wonder if he knows that if those albums would have said all songs "written by Alice Cooper" or even "Alice Cooper as a group" that they would have received NO credit for those and it would have all went to Alice?

I don't think that would have happened because at that time, Alice's publishing deal as a composer was not under that name although the credits suggest otherwise.

>(some cassettes back in the day didn't list full credits of who played what, but they almost always had song and publishing credits)

That would explain your earlier comment. Obviously, space is limited on the packaging of that format.

>I'm also glad Dennis mentioned Michael going unmentioned in Super Duper Alice Cooper. You would think that 40 years on, everyone (including Alice & Shep) would be fair in how the original group was presented?

Again and has been already discussed, that was a decision made by the directors of the documentary.

[steven_crayn]

Mine doesn't arrive until Thursday so probably not going to comment until I've read the whole thing, but from the first chapter that was previewed on a link Dennis posted, it promises to be a very interesting read. Always good to get another side of the story from someone who formed part of it.
I really liked Michael Bruce's book even though some have dismissed it as fiction.

As Billy Paul once sang "there's three sides to every story, there's a right, there's a wrong and there's the truth".

The truth often being somewhere in between what other band members have said.

This is my truth tell me yours, as the Manics would say.

[MrD Returns]

I'm waiting on the Cliff Notes version.



Actually got my copy this past weekend and read it in one sitting.
Again not much new stuff that I hadn't heard before in one version of another. However it did bolster my personal belief, again just a personal belief and in no way am I proclaiming it as fact, is that Shep was the main instrument in breaking them up. I've always felt that Alice was easily manipulated by him and that he had intentions of making Alice a "movie star".
Ol Shrek may believe that Shep is "hands down the nicest man on earth" but I think there are 3 other guys out there that may disagree.

Now that being said, I'm also beginning to come to the belief that in the next few years we'll all be seeing a different Alice Cooper.
One sans the props and more content being a "bar band". The references are all over the place. With Shep in semi-retirement that leaves more of the personal decision making to Alice himself.
Everyone has seen the videos of Alice at the 100 club, on the Rock Cruise and various other small venues. Toss in the Vampire gigs coming up and he just seems happier just belting out the songs. Perhaps its wishful thinking but I can see in the future some more of these type dates with Dennis, Neal and Mike on stage as well. Ya just never know what events will transpire in the future to predicate a different outcome.

[KeithGale]

Well, that isn't the impression that Bob Greene and Michael Bruce gave.

True, but it didn't go any further!

Of course. There is almost no band I can think of that did not go through the same, or a similar, trajectory, where creativity, demanding schedules, pressure, alcohol, drugs, fame, egos and money are concerned. Nobody should be surprised.

I am not surprised; I have been in many bands that have fallen out over quite silly things!!


Given that you "really don’t believe it was a master plan for Alice to go solo", then you can't think there was a deliberate alienation. It did happen, but I don't think it was deliberate.[/quote]

Just to be clear, I really don’t think it was a master plan for Alice to go solo, but if I was Shep, and I mean I was there in the situation and faced with the day to day logistics of managing five very creative people, it would be tempting from a manager’s role to alienate the other band members, as I said if I was Shep, not me!!1

[darkmenace]

Again and has been already discussed, that was a decision made by the directors of the documentary.

Shep (and Alice) should have strongly encouraged the directors to mention Michael Bruce. I believe they both screened the movie in advance and I doubt the directors would refuse such a request since it would only take a few seconds in the movie.

[A_MichaelUK]

From KeithGale:
"True, but it didn't go any further!"

I don't know about that. There is a section in "Billion Dollar Baby" that gives a pretty specific account.


>it would be tempting from a manager’s role to alienate the other band members, as I said if I was Shep, not me!!1

Again, that's a bit of a contradiction. I am not saying he refused to allow to Alice to leave (and all of this has been discussed before here) but it definitely was one less problem for him to deal with.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"Shep (and Alice) should have strongly encouraged the directors to mention Michael Bruce."

That would have been irrelevant given who had the editorial control.

> I believe they both screened the movie in advance and I doubt the directors would refuse such a request since it would only take a few seconds in the movie.

No, because by that point the film was in its final form. It is almost exactly the same situation as the exclusion of Dave Grohl from the Kurt Cobain documentary.

[SickThings]

I finished the book earlier today. It is a very quick, engrossing read, and Dennis's stories jibe so much with what I've read and assumed over the years that I find it easy to believe his version is the most accurate of them all.

Highly recommended. It seems very honest and heartfelt.

Hunter

[pitkin88]

From darkmenace:
"Shep (and Alice) should have strongly encouraged the directors to mention Michael Bruce."

That would have been irrelevant given who had the editorial control.

> I believe they both screened the movie in advance and I doubt the directors would refuse such a request since it would only take a few seconds in the movie.

No, because by that point the film was in its final form. It is almost exactly the same situation as the exclusion of Dave Grohl from the Kurt Cobain documentary.

Michael made the decision not to take part in the movie. It's not hard to work out why. They chose not to mention his contributions which leaves a hole in the movie. I'm not quite sure why they decided to make up the " he couldn't be found " nonsense. They should have just told it how it was.

[A_MichaelUK]

Frpm pitkin88:
"Michael made the decision not to take part in the movie."

That didn't stop people spreading conspiracy theories though. It was pretty obvious that would be a reason but people still claimed it was a snub.

>It's not hard to work out why. They chose not to mention his contributions which leaves a hole in the movie.

Well, that's not for certain unless you know that he knew that in advance.

>I'm not quite sure why they decided to make up the " he couldn't be found " nonsense. They should have just told it how it was.

These things can often be political and sometimes a little tact is called for.

[pitkin88]

Frpm pitkin88:
"Michael made the decision not to take part in the movie."

That didn't stop people spreading conspiracy theories though. It was pretty obvious that would be a reason but people still claimed it was a snub.

>It's not hard to work out why. They chose not to mention his contributions which leaves a hole in the movie.

Well, that's not for certain unless you know that he knew that in advance.

>I'm not quite sure why they decided to make up the " he couldn't be found " nonsense. They should have just told it how it was.

These things can often be political and sometimes a little tact is called for.

It wasnt obvious though as they said he couldnt be found.Their " tact " caused a lot of unecessary confusion.

[Si]

Michael made the decision not to take part in the movie.

What is your source for this information?
If true it puts a different slant on the whole thing.
I assume you only just heard this or you would have mentioned it before.

It's not hard to work out why. They chose not to mention his contributions which leaves a hole in the movie.

I agree not mentioning him was a bad choice. But if what you say above is true then there are two conclusions you could come to.
Either they didn`t mention him at all because of his decision not to take part, or they didn`t mention him at all because that is what he asked them to do.
He is too major a figure in the story to not even mention his name once for any other reason.

The first would seem a little petty. Other people are mentioned surely that didn`t appear in person the movie? It had to be a conscious decision to not use ANY quote mentioning his name.
The second would leave them with little option but to not mention him. It's an odd thing for him to request, but obviously its his right to do so.
Strange however that DD wasn`t aware of his decision. If he had been surely he would have mentioned it when he comments on the film in his book. He wouldn`t have pointed out Michaels abscence in the way he does if it was Michaels decision and not the filmmakers.

[Si]

These things can often be political and sometimes a little tact is called for.

It wasnt obvious though as they said he couldnt be found.Their " tact " caused a lot of unecessary confusion.

Shockingly I have to agree with Pitkin.
It was a bad decision. If they had stated the Michael had declined to take part, it wouldn`t have been as much of an issue. It certainly isn`t the first time someone has declined to take part in a project.
It would be a perfectly valid explanation, rather than one that was so obviously untrue.

[pitkin88]

Michael made the decision not to take part in the movie.

What is your source for this information?
If true it puts a different slant on the whole thing.
I assume you only just heard this or you would have mentioned it before.

It's not hard to work out why. They chose not to mention his contributions which leaves a hole in the movie.

I agree not mentioning him was a bad choice. But if what you say above is true then there are two conclusions you could come to.
Either they didn`t mention him at all because of his decision not to take part, or they didn`t mention him at all because that is what he asked them to do.
He is too major a figure in the story to not even mention his name once for any other reason.

The first would seem a little petty. Other people are mentioned surely that didn`t appear in person the movie? It had to be a conscious decision to not use ANY quote mentioning his name.
The second would leave them with little option but to not mention him. It's an odd thing for him to request, but obviously its his right to do so.
Strange however that DD wasn`t aware of his decision. If he had been surely he would have mentioned it when he comments on the film in his book. He wouldn`t have pointed out Michaels abscence in the way he does if it was Michaels decision and not the filmmakers.

I have no source Si. I was reading between the lines as AMUk suggested. I am assuming that he was asked to take part and said no. I would guess that he did not want to participate in an Alice movie when the re union ( whiskey ) etc never happened. What has Alice done for me lately?

[SickThings]

Dennis does mention in his book that he sometimes can't get in touch with Michael, too.... Maybe they really couldn't find him in the timeframe in which they tried.

Hunter