SickthingsUK

Could Mike, Neal and Dennis and Steve Hunter make an album under The ACG name....and they can still write great stuff as imo their input on recent Alice solo albums are the highlights. I know Alice owns the rights to the Alice Cooper name, but would that allow them to call themselves The Alice Cooper Group ? If so, who do you think they could bring in as a main vocalist....maybe there’s an Asian version of Alice in a tribute band like Journey are using ....personally, I’d go with Johnny Rotten . Imagine that

jacknifejohnny wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:31 pm

Could Mike, Neal and Dennis and Steve Hunter make an album under The ACG name....and they can still write great stuff as imo their input on recent Alice solo albums are the highlights. I know Alice owns the rights to the Alice Cooper name, but would that allow them to call themselves The Alice Cooper Group ? If so, who do you think they could bring in as a main vocalist....maybe there’s an Asian version of Alice in a tribute band like Journey are using ....personally, I’d go with Johnny Rotten . Imagine that

Have you heard the Billion Dollar Babies (Band) Lp? Great idea but not exactly a Classic!
They're like the Beatles, all of the parts make a whole & when pieces are missing...

The few songs they did recently were highlights, agreed but how much has been rejected? I have heard over the years that the group have given lots of songs to alice to potentially use and only recently has any been used ( I remember it going back to pre constrictor). is that coincidence? I have heard allot of neils stuff (terrible) and the work dennis has done is not exactly blowing me away.
Do dennis and neil get on with Michael? (I know niel and dennis get along) but the two of them never seem to operate with Michael, is it strained in that direction as well?
Nothing stopping them from working as a band and calling themselves Love it to death or something related but I doubt they could get away with ACG (billion dollar babies didn't exactly set the world on fire as we know)
As mentioned I think alice (although not a musician) has an ability to work a melody, find the hook and the worth of a song I wouldn't say the band flounder without him but I think alice is the spark they need to really bring their A game.

Saint&Sinner wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:06 am

I have heard allot of neils stuff (terrible) and the work dennis has done is not exactly blowing me away.
Do dennis and neil get on with Michael? (I know niel and dennis get along) but the two of them never seem to operate with Michael, is it strained in that direction as well?

Neal....

Not interested. All or nothing.

Actually think Dennis’s “Bones From The Yard” is as good as any recent Alice solo album. Michael does always seem on the peripheral of things, which is a shame, as he was always my fave member of the band and has written some downright classics and imo Neal can hit the skins with the best of them.Thought The B$B’s album had it’s moments, but like Alice’s solo stuff, some hit and miss....But think...Black Sabbath with Dio....and The Alice Cooper Group with Johnny Rotten....a match made in heaven

personally I don't think this would work. I remember years ago George Michael doing Somebody to Love (Queen ) in a very good way and could have replaced Freddy imo, and that singer Queen have at this time is also doing fine, but, they sound like Queen again. Was not the case with Paul Rodgers and Queen.
What would be the use of calling yourself the Alice Cooper Group without references to what Alice was/is ? Unless you'd take the theatrics and so on, but that might even be a worse idea imo...

“What would be the use of calling yourself The Alice Cooper Group”...because they are, well 3/5ths of it anyways...and nah, no theatrics

I don't think it would generate a successful response, but I do wonder legally if it would be out of the question. Alice has continued paying royalties over the years for the use of the name, because he does not own the rights to the name. This little nugget of information just popped up again recently in this article that I am attaching. There could be an agreement that they wouldn't do anything to cause confusion or to possibly diminish the brand which they are still making money off of. Maybe Michael, Neal, and Dennis have thought about it and realize it is not in their best interest, who knows?
https://spinditty.com/artists-bands/Alice_Cooper_Facts

I feel like if the guys thought it was worth acting on though, that they would have tried it already. Maybe if Glen was in a better place to continue on, they would have tried to take that route when releasing Battle Axe instead of using the Billion Dollar Babies name, since it would have been everybody but Alice. I feel that without Glen, it changes things drastically. Without Glen, you need Alice or it just cheapens the effort to me.

You know, if they weren't dealing with Glen's deteriorating state in the studio and on stage and were functioning fully as the whole original unit, Alice may have been more open to staying with the full band. The Billion Dollar Babies tour was a huge success, but without a doubt, the rollercoaster ride of success and having to tried to hold things together enough to continue while one of their brothers was hitting the bottom had to be extremely taxing emotionally, physically, and mentally. Maybe Alice ran to the solo career, because being around the other guys was too much with Glen not around as much or at all. Dealing with a growing fame and such turmoil has to be a hard path. Maybe it was in Vince's best interest. Maybe it wasn't, but he and Shep thought it would be. Maybe he slipped farther and farther up through the earlier 80s into addiction issues due to trying to eliminate the emotions of the turmoil and possible second guessing or maybe it was because he wasn't comfortable in his growing spotlight. I feel like there was more to it considering that he was self-destructing completely. We don't know, and we likely never will. Hell, maybe Alice doesn't fully understand what he was going through himself. That kind of self-destruction though usual stems from negative feelings about one's own nature, so it is quite possibly what was going on, and once he was able to forgive himself and find new, more "positive" addictions, he was able to move on. Maybe all of the guys kind of understood the best trajectory for the Alice Cooper name to continue to make them all some money, and they accepted it even if it wasn't as beneficial to some as it was Alice himself.

While have been vocal about my feelings towards the ACG being the best era and my negative opinions about Shep, Alice, and Ezrin as of late and would personally support those Michael, Neal, and Dennis trying to hearken back to an ACG type of situation with a couple of new guys, I do think that if it were seen as tenable and worth doing, it would have already been tried. I feel like over the course of 45 or so years, the options have been weighed by Shep, Alice, Michael, Dennis, and Neal as to reunions, semi-reunions, or any other kind of ACG-oriented situations.

guttertrash wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:05 pm

I don't think it would generate a successful response, but I do wonder legally if it would be out of the question. Alice has continued paying royalties over the years for the use of the name, because he does not own the rights to the name. This little nugget of information just popped up again recently in this article that I am attaching.

As I understand it this is not true. Yes, they get royalties from work they have done (performance, songwriting, etc), as does anyone who works on something, but he does NOT pay them money to use the name. For a start it's his legal name. For him not to be able to use it someone would have to challenge the use, which the band have never done.
I think this is mentioned in Dennis's book (possibly Michael as well) and other places. They could have challenged it in the 70s but decided against it, as they valued friendship over the name and such course of action would likely have finished that friendship for good.

Si wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:56 pm

They could have challenged it in the 70s but decided against it, as they valued friendship over the name and such course of action would likely have finished that friendship for good.

I don't care how you slice it, this was a colossal mistake on their part.

Si wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:56 pm

guttertrash wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:05 pm

I don't think it would generate a successful response, but I do wonder legally if it would be out of the question. Alice has continued paying royalties over the years for the use of the name, because he does not own the rights to the name. This little nugget of information just popped up again recently in this article that I am attaching.

As I understand it this is not true. Yes, they get royalties from work they have done (performance, songwriting, etc), as does anyone who works on something, but he does NOT pay them money to use the name. For a start it's his legal name. For him not to be able to use it someone would have to challenge the use, which the band have never done.
I think this is mentioned in Dennis's book (possibly Michael as well) and other places. They could have challenged it in the 70s but decided against it, as they valued friendship over the name and such course of action would likely have finished that friendship for good.

Thanks for this follow-up, Si. You never know about articles these days. That being said, it seems like some of the bitterness that has existed is kind of misspent if the other members consistently let Alice take control of the brand by valuing friendship or business. Maybe those most bitter were outvoted or persuaded by the others or something, but it seems like in many ways, they really only have themselves to be angry at if these types of scenarios are true.

it might just be me but Neal and Dennis never seem bitter or resentful. Frustrated at times maybe, but never overtly negative. I get a different impression of Michael who seems annoyed at allot of things toward Alice and how he is lack of recognition.
Clearly Alice and possibly even (Dennis and Neal) do not get on with Michael very well. It always seems strained regarding Michael. Maybe i'm misreading it, but Dennis and Neal seem to intertwine allot (i know they were closer "back in the day" being the rhythm section and all) but no one seems to interact with Michael in a positive way.

Unfortunately the band never had big personalities like ace, peter, paul and gene of kiss - this made it easier to identify with them and for them to carve solo careers of varying success. (as is mentioned above the character make up has now lead to them being easily replaceable too but that's a different issue!) So alice was always associated with the show, the horror and the make up etc. I think it would have been hard for the band to sue him back in the day due to those connotations but not impossible, the sad thing is it would have killed alice and the band chances as no one would want to see the band without the "alice character" and people who wanted that didnt need the band.

Just to be clear i like the OG band but as has been pointed out countless times the general public doesnt know or care either way. They see the make up and if they know anything, they know its alice cooper.

I'd be up for listening/buying/watching the OG band minus alice but so far none of the respective members music has me convinced of their talents outside of alice/bob ezrin to hone the craft. Bones from the yard is probably the best but even with that i find i rarely delve into it. The various MIchael bruce stuff i have almost never gets listened to and the less said about Killsmith the better! (this from a man who likes industrial/heavy music!)

I'd say in the internet age it would be easier for them to form under a band related banner (love it to death) or something and record & tour than it ever has been for them in the past but something must be preventing it from happening.........

No please no.

It just cheapens the branding of the name when you start having "Neil Smiths Alice Cooper Group" or "The Alice Cooper Group and..." or whatever route that could go down.

Alice Cooper (the group) is done (for now). If it was to ever come back it would be with only 1 lead singer and sadly for ACG I imagine a large majority of concert goers would not see the hype or even know any different.

Of course some of us where lucky to see 4/5s of the original group live not all that long ago and it was great and thats how i'd like to leave that one personally.

RemarkablyInsincere wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:34 pm

Si wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:56 pm

They could have challenged it in the 70s but decided against it, as they valued friendship over the name and such course of action would likely have finished that friendship for good.

I don't care how you slice it, this was a colossal mistake on their part.

Agree 100%! They should have had Alice buy them out.

Saint&Sinner wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:11 am

it might just be me but Neal and Dennis never seem bitter or resentful. Frustrated at times maybe, but never overtly negative. I get a different impression of Michael who seems annoyed at allot of things toward Alice and how he is lack of recognition.
Clearly Alice and possibly even (Dennis and Neal) do not get on with Michael very well. It always seems strained regarding Michael. Maybe i'm misreading it, but Dennis and Neal seem to intertwine allot (i know they were closer "back in the day" being the rhythm section and all) but no one seems to interact with Michael in a positive way.

Unfortunately the band never had big personalities like ace, peter, paul and gene of kiss - this made it easier to identify with them and for them to carve solo careers of varying success. (as is mentioned above the character make up has now lead to them being easily replaceable too but that's a different issue!) So alice was always associated with the show, the horror and the make up etc. I think it would have been hard for the band to sue him back in the day due to those connotations but not impossible, the sad thing is it would have killed alice and the band chances as no one would want to see the band without the "alice character" and people who wanted that didnt need the band.

Just to be clear i like the OG band but as has been pointed out countless times the general public doesnt know or care either way. They see the make up and if they know anything, they know its alice cooper.

I'd be up for listening/buying/watching the OG band minus alice but so far none of the respective members music has me convinced of their talents outside of alice/bob ezrin to hone the craft. Bones from the yard is probably the best but even with that i find i rarely delve into it. The various MIchael bruce stuff i have almost never gets listened to and the less said about Killsmith the better! (this from a man who likes industrial/heavy music!)

I'd say in the internet age it would be easier for them to form under a band related banner (love it to death) or something and record & tour than it ever has been for them in the past but something must be preventing it from happening.........

Neal and Dennis friendship might have a little to do with Dennis marrying his sister! They also both live in Conecticut.

The four could save easily sued and probably won as the ownership of Alice Cooper was 4-1! It would have been interesting if he had lost and had to tour under Vincent Furnier.

I think far too much is being read into the Alice hates Michael thing. I have only ever heard him speak out in anger and that was towards Jon Denver. Alice is a forgiving practising Christian and so is Cheryl. She forgave the guy that hit her with a can while on stage and was genuinely concerned for him. I'm sure it Alice hates Michael she would scold and counsel him.

rgallie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:41 pm

No please no.

It just cheapens the branding of the name when you start having "Neil Smiths Alice Cooper Group" or "The Alice Cooper Group and..." or whatever route that could go down.

I agree, something similar has happened with Saxon whereby there is a 'Saxon' and also an 'Oliver Dawson Saxon'. The main one, led by Biff Byford, is clearly the king and the bottom line is that the lead singer is usually the one holding most the cards. It's not to say the other band is no good, but without the lead singer many casual fans just have no interest in them.

rgallie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:41 pm

Alice Cooper (the group) is done (for now). If it was to ever come back it would be with only 1 lead singer and sadly for ACG I imagine a large majority of concert goers would not see the hype or even know any different.

Same thing applies to the solo band. I sure wouldn’t notice if that guitar player from the Iron Maiden cover band wasn’t in the solo band anymore

VinceLeeRose wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:20 pm

rgallie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:41 pm

Alice Cooper (the group) is done (for now). If it was to ever come back it would be with only 1 lead singer and sadly for ACG I imagine a large majority of concert goers would not see the hype or even know any different.

Same thing applies to the solo band. I sure wouldn’t notice if that guitar player from the Iron Maiden cover band wasn’t in the solo band anymore

Very true. I doubt many casual fans know or care who his back up band is.

pitkin88 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:09 pm

VinceLeeRose wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:20 pm

rgallie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:41 pm

Alice Cooper (the group) is done (for now). If it was to ever come back it would be with only 1 lead singer and sadly for ACG I imagine a large majority of concert goers would not see the hype or even know any different.

Same thing applies to the solo band. I sure wouldn’t notice if that guitar player from the Iron Maiden cover band wasn’t in the solo band anymore

Very true. I doubt many casual fans know or care who his back up band is.

I think the answer is yes and no to that. Alice has toured the UK so regularly over the last few years that many casual fans have actually seen him and therefore four of current band (three or four times in eight to ten years. The band are therefore recognised and talked about in the venue. You only have to chat to a few regular casuals ( when does a casual stop being a casual?) to realise that they may not remember all their names but they certainly recognise their quality and do care (if that's the right word) about them. Tommy has actually stepped forward towards being seen as a constant because of his Vampires association as well.

As has been said already, for many, the old guys were seen as a backing band as well and in the UK, outside London particularly, hardly anyone ever saw them anyway apart from on a couple of TV shows and album covers. 90% of the magazine coverage was Alice only as well.

To some of the current audience the current band, particularly Chuck and Glen are the only band they have ever seen live There is therefore a recognition of them that in many ways the old guys never achieved.