Tour 2016---Thoughts???

[kevinuk81]

There are only 3 songs that I remember Alice saying no to.

I Am made of You 'cause it didn't work without keyboards

Generation Landslide (sadly) for it didn't work live

And Bed of Nails... for whatever reason he gave (I think it was about the lyrics or something) I Can't remember him saying something against playing something from RYFAY, In fact I remember him saying he could give it a try if possible for his band could totally do those songs (This was in an interview when he talked about Kane Roberts, I do remember that)

Add Trash to that.

[pitkin88]

There are only 3 songs that I remember Alice saying no to.

I Am made of You 'cause it didn't work without keyboards

Generation Landslide (sadly) for it didn't work live

And Bed of Nails... for whatever reason he gave (I think it was about the lyrics or something) I Can't remember him saying something against playing something from RYFAY, In fact I remember him saying he could give it a try if possible for his band could totally do those songs (This was in an interview when he talked about Kane Roberts, I do remember that)

Odd he can sing about banging the dead but not a hammer on A Bed Of Nails.

[bigbradwolf]

There are only 3 songs that I remember Alice saying no to.

I Am made of You 'cause it didn't work without keyboards

Generation Landslide (sadly) for it didn't work live

And Bed of Nails... for whatever reason he gave (I think it was about the lyrics or something) I Can't remember him saying something against playing something from RYFAY, In fact I remember him saying he could give it a try if possible for his band could totally do those songs (This was in an interview when he talked about Kane Roberts, I do remember that)

Add Trash to that.

I'm pretty sure he played Trash on the Dragontown tour

[SickThings]

I'm pretty sure he played Trash on the Dragontown tour

He did.

For anyone who doesn't know, there's a fantastic setlist resource right on this site:

http://www.sickthingsuk.co.uk/content.p ... tlists.php

Hunter

[kevinuk81]

I found this from 2008.

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/ ... /30163/p1/

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"I was in your fanzine."

Yes, for sending in a copy of a letter sent to you by a cinema in reply to your letter of complaint.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"He spots casual fans"

If you think everyone who goes to a show is a fanatic and if you think every song gets a similar reaction, you're deluded and need to go to more shows.

>and now he says he has definitive proof I am only here to cause trouble.

So does that mean you made a mistake when you wrote "it would never happen as no one knows those songs."? If you didn't, why did you state that?

>Please read the MANY threads I have made here discussing the music etc and list which ones I am deliberately starting trouble in.

Is that an admission? The archives are there for anyone who cares to check.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"or the other two here that read it."

Actually it was only one person (The Pain Addict), as killer wolf gave a totally different reason than you did (unless I misunderstood what he wrote and I don't think I did). Not only that (and for what might now be the second time), The PainAddict stated it was an older interview. If so, why you would want to drag up an old interview in a thread called "Tour 2016---Thoughts???" is an interesting question.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/i ... bum-sales/"

Thanks. So, the logic is that because a group of albums sold 235,000 copies more than another group of albums (over the course of thirty years or so, that's less than 8,000 a year) then that's enough of a reason for those songs to be included over any others and so by that same logic, only songs from "Billion Dollar Babies", "Welcome To My Nightmare" and "Trash" should ever be performed as those were the most commercially successful albums. You also aren't making fair comparisons. You are comparing one group of albums released during the heyday of albums sales with another group which were not only released during the time record sales were starting to (and did) decline, but using a set of figures that don't take into account outlets not registered with SoundScan (such as some independent stores and maybe even some mail - order stores) and given there are less and less major stores now, many it's to the independents some people buy from. None of this means the later group of albums have shifted hundreds of thousands of unaccounted copies, but it does mean you're comparing two different circumstances. You also still haven't told us why you care so much about songs you claim you don't like.

[A_MichaelUK]

From Lucius Morthem:
"There are only 3 songs that I remember Alice saying no to.

It ultimately isn't that important. He will say what he thinks is true at the time and if he changes his mind, does that instead, just like any other human being does. At one point, as you and kevinuk81 point out, he said he would never perform any songs from "Trash" again but he did, just like David Bowie said he would never perform his hits again, but did.

[Si]

From pitkin88:
"http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/i ... bum-sales/"

Thanks. So, the logic is that because a group of albums sold 235,000 copies more than another group of albums (over the course of thirty years or so, that's less than 8,000 a year) then that's enough of a reason for those songs to be included over any others and so by that same logic, only songs from "Billion Dollar Babies", "Welcome To My Nightmare" and "Trash" should ever be performed as those were the most commercially successful albums. You also aren't making fair comparisons. You are comparing one group of albums released during the heyday of albums sales with another group which were not only released during the time record sales were starting to (and did) decline, but using a set of figures that don't take into account outlets not registered with SoundScan (such as some independent stores and maybe even some mail - order stores) and given there are less and less major stores now, many it's to the independents some people buy from. None of this means the later group of albums have shifted hundreds of thousands of unaccounted copies, but it does mean you're comparing two different circumstances. You also still haven't told us why you care so much about songs you claim you don't like.

Also fwiw Soundscan figures only started in I think 1991 and only include sales after that date, which is stated in teh small print at the end.
"Total Soundscan-registered album sales (1991 - Dec 2005)"

[pitkin88]

From pitkin88:
"http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/i ... bum-sales/"

Thanks. So, the logic is that because a group of albums sold 235,000 copies more than another group of albums (over the course of thirty years or so, that's less than 8,000 a year) then that's enough of a reason for those songs to be included over any others and so by that same logic, only songs from "Billion Dollar Babies", "Welcome To My Nightmare" and "Trash" should ever be performed as those were the most commercially successful albums. You also aren't making fair comparisons. You are comparing one group of albums released during the heyday of albums sales with another group which were not only released during the time record sales were starting to (and did) decline, but using a set of figures that don't take into account outlets not registered with SoundScan (such as some independent stores and maybe even some mail - order stores) and given there are less and less major stores now, many it's to the independents some people buy from. None of this means the later group of albums have shifted hundreds of thousands of unaccounted copies, but it does mean you're comparing two different circumstances. You also still haven't told us why you care so much about songs you claim you don't like.

You are better at spinning than a whirling dervish!! I dont care about those songs at all. I am pointing out that the casual fan probably knows this lot more than anything after it. The sky wont fall because of changes to a set and you know it. If you can arrange a ticket at a show in SD I will interview fans and ask what songs they know and don't know. We can come to an agreement here as what to ask. I know that might not be scientific to you but its a lot better than watching to see if people go to the bog and making assumptions.

[pitkin88]

From pitkin88:
"or the other two here that read it."

Actually it was only one person (The Pain Addict), as killer wolf gave a totally different reason than you did (unless I misunderstood what he wrote and I don't think I did). Not only that (and for what might now be the second time), The PainAddict stated it was an older interview. If so, why you would want to drag up an old interview in a thread called "Tour 2016---Thoughts???" is an interesting question.

I guess you don't read the threads on the forum as much as I thought you did. They all follow the thread title and never go off on a tangent then? Why do you fear set change or even discussion of it is much more interesting than anything I could drag up.

[pitkin88]

From pitkin88:
"I was in your fanzine."

Yes, for sending in a copy of a letter sent to you by a cinema in reply to your letter of complaint.

Your welcome. I also sent some photos from WTMN in London. You might have forgotten as you didn't go to those shows in 75 despite living in London.

[pitkin88]

From pitkin88:
"http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/i ... bum-sales/"

Thanks. So, the logic is that because a group of albums sold 235,000 copies more than another group of albums (over the course of thirty years or so, that's less than 8,000 a year) then that's enough of a reason for those songs to be included over any others and so by that same logic, only songs from "Billion Dollar Babies", "Welcome To My Nightmare" and "Trash" should ever be performed as those were the most commercially successful albums. You also aren't making fair comparisons. You are comparing one group of albums released during the heyday of albums sales with another group which were not only released during the time record sales were starting to (and did) decline, but using a set of figures that don't take into account outlets not registered with SoundScan (such as some independent stores and maybe even some mail - order stores) and given there are less and less major stores now, many it's to the independents some people buy from. None of this means the later group of albums have shifted hundreds of thousands of unaccounted copies, but it does mean you're comparing two different circumstances. You also still haven't told us why you care so much about songs you claim you don't like.

Also fwiw Soundscan figures only started in I think 1991 and only include sales after that date, which is stated in teh small print at the end.
"Total Soundscan-registered album sales (1991 - Dec 2005)"

If you have a better sales source Si please post it.

[Si]

From pitkin88:
"http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/i ... bum-sales/"

Also fwiw Soundscan figures only started in I think 1991 and only include sales after that date, which is stated in teh small print at the end.
"Total Soundscan-registered album sales (1991 - Dec 2005)"

If you have a better sales source Si please post it.

I don`t. I was just pointing out that the figures were for a set period only, starting many years after many of the biggest albums were released.
I found the listing interesting, and surprising in some places, like some pointless compilations selling very well.

[Maaki]

From pitkin88:
"or the other two here that read it."

Actually it was only one person (The Pain Addict), as killer wolf gave a totally different reason than you did (unless I misunderstood what he wrote and I don't think I did). Not only that (and for what might now be the second time), The PainAddict stated it was an older interview. If so, why you would want to drag up an old interview in a thread called "Tour 2016---Thoughts???" is an interesting question.

I guess you don't read the threads on the forum as much as I thought you did. They all follow the thread title and never go off on a tangent then? Why do you fear set change or even discussion of it is much more interesting than anything I could drag up.

To be fair, this started when you said that the Kane stuff is too hard for the band to play and then went to the quote hunt about the subject.

I think we can agree that this is not the case, at the very least as far as the current band is concerned, no matter what Alice may or may have said once and regardless of what he meant by saying whatever he said or didn't say.

Logically it follows that not playing those songs is not due to the band not being able to play them.

Do we agree on this at least?

[pitkin88]

From pitkin88:
"or the other two here that read it."

Actually it was only one person (The Pain Addict), as killer wolf gave a totally different reason than you did (unless I misunderstood what he wrote and I don't think I did). Not only that (and for what might now be the second time), The PainAddict stated it was an older interview. If so, why you would want to drag up an old interview in a thread called "Tour 2016---Thoughts???" is an interesting question.

I guess you don't read the threads on the forum as much as I thought you did. They all follow the thread title and never go off on a tangent then? Why do you fear set change or even discussion of it is much more interesting than anything I could drag up.

To be fair, this started when you said that the Kane stuff is too hard for the band to play and then went to the quote hunt about the subject.

I think we can agree that this is not the case, at the very least as far as the current band is concerned, no matter what Alice may or may have said once and regardless of what he meant by saying whatever he said or didn't say.

Logically it follows that not playing those songs is not due to the band not being able to play them.

Do we agree on this at least?

You'd have to ask Alice not me as he was the one who said it. I have no idea about his current band now they have a shredder.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"You are better at spinning than a whirling dervish!!"

Is there anything I wrote which was not true? Why did you include albums from two different eras of the industry?

>I dont care about those songs at all. I am pointing out that the casual fan probably knows this lot more than anything after it.

Yet you would be the first to complain that those songs aren't being played when instead, as you say, he is playing the later stuff (especially around the time it is released). Which is it? Should he play new songs at the expense of songs from "Constrictor" or should he play songs from "Constrictor" at the expense of any new songs?! The only thing that is "spinning" is you as you debate yourself into a circle.

> The sky wont fall because of changes to a set and you know it.

Who said that? If you really think the majority of people pay around $100 (not including, merchandise, parking, food, maybe a baby - sitter) to go and see what's now described as a 'heritage artist" expecting to hear relatively unfamiliar material, then you are not living in the real world (but we kind of knew that). You can check the set - lists of almost every artist who is still playing a hundred shows a year and who started out no later than say, 1990 and you will see the majority of those artist will be including familiar material. Yes, there will be exceptions (David Bowie in 1995 but he certainly didn't do that again, at least not that extent, or Madonna in 1996 or so) but most of those type of artists don't do that. You are behaving as if going to see Alice Cooper is like spending $20 on a whim to walk down to your local bar to see some new band improvise some new songs.

>If you can arrange a ticket at a show in SD I will interview fans and ask what songs they know and don't know.

Better still, buy your own ticket but don't watch the show. Instead, face the audience at all times and monitor which songs get the best reactions.

> I know that might not be scientific to you but its a lot better than watching to see if people go to the bog and making assumptions.

So basically, you're saying that the fact that I've seen around a hundred and fifty Alice shows (as has Si) in Europe and north America since 1982 and the fact that you've seen around ten (I would guess) means that your experience is as valid as mine is.

[A_MichaelUK]

From pitkin88:
"I guess you don't read the threads on the forum as much as I thought you did. They all follow the thread title and never go off on a tangent then?"

Of course they do but this was more than just going "off on a tangent". Again, the point you raised had nothing to do with what killer wolf said and unlike what he said, it had nothing to do with the thread. As ThePainAddict stated, you didn't provide any "context". You just threw it in there like it was new or current information, implying it was relevant to the thread. I am not saying you did that deliberately, but once ThePainAddict more or less confirmed it was old information and therefore irrelevant (because it referred to musicians who are not in the current band), then at that point, you should have acknowledged that rather than perpetuating the thread unnecessarily as you often do.

>Why do you fear set change or even discussion of it is much more interesting than anything I could drag up.

If I 'feared' anything, why then have been discussing it and always have? I guess you're the one who doesn't "follow" threads. I have always said I would be happy for the show to consist of all obscure material but unlike YOU, I don't think Alice's shows should be about me or what I want. It is about what Alice feels (what a shocking concept) the audience that unlike you or me (for different reasons) actually pays with money to buy tickets want to experience.