30th Anniversary 'The Strange Case Of Alice Cooper' on DVD ?

RemarkablyInsincere · Post by **RemarkablyInsincere** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:35 pm

I will say one thing, if I were going to pull out a DVD of any tour to show a newbie, it wouldn't be "The Strange Case of Alice Cooper". And yes I have a DVD of it that I transferred myself after hunting down a good copy of the tape.

Even when I throw it on every once in a long while, I still am surprised by the vocals because they're just so much different than at any other time in his career. It's just such an anomaly it's curious. Even on the 1977 material from "Alice Cooper and Friends", the vocals are nowhere near what we have here.

WickedYoungMan · Post by **WickedYoungMan** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:42 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote:So why do the bad vocals bother you (and others) so much?

Probably because they are bad vocals?

You seem awfully confident that is going to be the case.

Cool.

Otherwise, why dif you use the word “probably”?

To imply probability.

but to allow that to make you forget the other great things in the show

I don't.

That’s partly why I don’t get involved in posts based on taste and why I don’t generally care about other people’s opinions, whether they are the same as mine, or not.

Great.

There’s nothing wrong with people noting the vocals, but you know as well as I do that some of the posts in this thread give the very strong impression that the bad vocals spoil everything else in this show. Don’t pretend otherwise.

Cool, I won't.

Actually, you kind of did. You wrote:

I never said that absolutely any new comer would never get past it. Just that they might stick out like a sore thumb in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks for the clarification, in which case, it doesn’t really change my position on the subject.

Great.

glamprincess · Post by **glamprincess** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:58 pm

RemarkablyInsincere wrote:I will say one thing, if I were going to pull out a DVD of any tour to show a newbie, it wouldn't be "The Strange Case of Alice Cooper".

I have to agree. And it's not just Alice's out-of-breath vocals. It is also his physical appearance. He is so overly thin that he even looks older then than he does today! And while I know that tour had interesting theatrics, it is still difficult to watch Alice when he looks painfully skinny and seems out of breath. When the performer looks like they are not well, I think it does take away from the show.

glamprincess · Post by **glamprincess** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:51 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote:> started off right at the front and must have got moved at least 20 feet by the swell of approx 90,000 people pushing.

The audience was nowhere near that big.

Right. As I seem to recall reading that attendance was in the 25,000-30,000 range. I also think I read that the attendance for Alice's headlining show set a record for the Reading Festival at that time.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:08 pm

>Probably because they are bad vocals?

But why does it bother you so much, though? I know they’re not great. It doesn’t bother me as much as some others it, seems.

> To imply probability.

I don’t think it’s 'probable' at all. Are you really saying that when people talk about the legendary Alice Cooper stage shows, they’re ‘probably’ going to think about the vocals above everything else?! You really think that it’s ‘probable’ that they’re going to mention the make – up, the costumes, the theatrics, the stage – set, the special effects, the snake or, the execution AFTER they mention the vocal performance?!

>I don't.

I don’t think I meant you personally. I meant the posts from others (again, go back to the original point of the thread). You admit you don’t let the vocal performance put you off, but given the way you’re defending those that don’t like the show because of the vocals, you’re adding weight to that side of the argument. No one said that you (not you, personally) HAVE to like the vocals. I just don’t understand how you can let that one aspect of many that goes into making a live performance overshadow everything else.

>I never said that absolutely any new comer would never get past it.

I never said that you “absolutely” did. I said you “kind of did”.

>Just that they might stick out like a sore thumb in the grand scheme of things.

See above.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:10 pm

>When the performer looks like they are not well, I think it does take away from the show.

I'm don't doubt that can apply to someone like Amy Winehouse, who only has her voice to fall back on, but I think as in many other instances, Alice is an exceptional case.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:11 pm

>Right. As I seem to recall reading that attendance was in the 25,000-30,000 range. I also think I read that the attendance for Alice's headlining show set a record for the Reading Festival at that time.

I believe you are correct on both of the above.

WickedYoungMan · Post by **WickedYoungMan** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:12 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote:Are you really saying that when people talk about the legendary Alice Cooper stage shows, they’re ‘probably’ going to think about the vocals above everything else?!

With Alice in general? Maybe not. With this video? Yes. Just as we've seen with this thread alone and countless other comments regarding it in the past.

>I never said that absolutely any new comer would never get past it.

I never said that you “absolutely” did. I said you “kind of did”.

"Absolutely" wasn't meant into the context that I "absolutely said it" but that "absolutely any new comer" or "absolutely no-one" for better wording.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:46 pm

>With Alice in general? Maybe not. With this video? Yes.

Really? Not the leather costume? Not the make – up? Not the snake? Not the dancing bottles? Not the strait – jacket? Not Davey Johnstone and Steve Hunter’s guitar playing? Not Alice’s psychotic personality?

>Just as we've seen with this thread alone and countless other comments regarding it in the past.

I know. Very strange.

>"Absolutely" wasn't meant into the context that I "absolutely said it" but that "absolutely any new comer" or "absolutely no-one" for better wording.

I don’t see how that changes anything. You still accused me of saying that you said something, when I only said you “kind of did”.

scotty · Post by **scotty** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:50 pm

that's funny (?????) if only.......................
yeah,regarding this video,I wonder if alice realized how much disco he incorporated into his show with all the dancers (some guys as well......so not good).he was keeping sheryl happy I guess

Shoesalesman · Post by **Shoesalesman** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:13 pm

Alice's use of disco is a fine line walked very well. I feel his ability to incorporate the sound, at the same time poking fun at it is a skill not mastered by many. Although I'm not a fan of disco some of my favorite moments on the Goes To Hell album or even Strange Case (from what I've seen anyway) incorporate that sound.

hywel · Post by **hywel** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:14 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote:>hang on, if i go to see any band and the vocals are crap, then they will spoil the show.

But we’re not talking about “any band”. That’s the whole point. Alice Cooper is not “any band”. There are other elements available for your entertainment.

>are you saying that because there is a theatrical show alice shouldn't worry about how he sounds?

Your question is interesting because you are getting confused between now and 1979 when this concert was filmed. Alice admits that back then, he could rely on the theatrics to get the show across and not have to worry about the vocals as much as he might now. This isn’t Luciano Pavarotti that we’re talking about.

>there are people here who are not fussed on the stcoac,

That would be very strange as it was a return to form for Alice compared to his performances on the 1977 tour.

>and imo he sounds awful

I agree – that’s the whole point. The thread is about people being interested in a DVD of this show, yet some people seem to allow the bad vocals to put them off from the overall enjoyment of it.

>and it does not help at all.

I agree, but neither was it the hindrance that some people think it was.

no one is saying it was a hindrance. they just dont like it.

i dont like eyes but i love flush, i like diamonds but i really dont like wtmn. many would disagree but it is down to personal taste. no one has to like everything alice cooper does because its alice cooper.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:28 pm

>I wonder if alice realized how much disco he incorporated into his show with all the dancers (some guys as well......so not good).

If you can remind me, that would be great. Thanks.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:40 pm

>no one is saying it was a hindrance.

Wrong again. Go back and read all the posts in this thread. It was RemarkablyInsincere who wrote:
"It's hard to dispute that "The Strange Case of Alice Cooper" is painful to watch."
Look as well at posts from Sparticus, lattss and While Heaven Wept, all of whom said basically the same thing. So there are examples of people who are hindered from enjoying this performance.

>they just dont like it.

They're nothing wrong with that, but like I say, they've let that get in the way of everything else. At least WickedYoungMan admitted early on in the thread that the show overall was good (meaning he wasn't as hindered by the 'poor' vocals as the others were).

>many would disagree but it is down to personal taste. no one has to like everything alice cooper does because its alice cooper.

You're missing the point. The analogies you give above don't match what the thread is about.

hywel · Post by **hywel** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote:>no one is saying it was a hindrance.

Wrong again. Go back and read all the posts in this thread. It was RemarkablyInsincere who wrote:
"It's hard to dispute that "The Strange Case of Alice Cooper" is painful to watch."
Look as well at posts from Sparticus, lattss and While Heaven Wept, all of whom said basically the same thing. So there are examples of people who are hindered from enjoying this performance.

>they just dont like it.

They're nothing wrong with that, but like I say, they've let that get in the way of everything else. At least WickedYoungMan admitted early on in the thread that the show overall was good (meaning he wasn't as hindered by the 'poor' vocals as the others were).

wrong again? admitted?
i do not like this video. do you get it?

>many would disagree but it is down to personal taste. no one has to like everything alice cooper does because its alice cooper.

You're missing the point. The analogies you give above don't match what the thread is about.

the stoac is now 30 years nearly since its release . could it be on dvd. i know the thread. and i still dont like it. i s that ok?

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:09 pm

>i know the thread. and i still dont like it. i s that ok?

Not if the reason you "dont like it" is because you "dont like" Alice's vocals in that performance. Those are two separate things and that is what the most recent exchanges in this thread have been about, not just whether or not there should be a release on DVD of this performance. I don't think you've been following the thread and the last few posts, closely enough. If you don't like the vocals, it is indeed, "ok" (I don't think they're that great myself, which if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed) and if you don't like the show as a whole, that's "ok" too, but to say you don't like the show because of the vocals doesn't make sense. You claimed no - one had said the vocal performance was a hindrance and I gave you examples of people who said it was. At least one of those examples I gave admitted that he or she didn't like the show because of the theatrics as well, not just because of the vocal performance.

WickedYoungMan · Post by **WickedYoungMan** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:32 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote:I don’t see how that changes anything. You still accused me of saying that you said something, when I only said you “kind of did”.

You said "Are you saying that no – one who is coming to this afresh cannot get past the vocal performance?" To which I only repeated back that I never had said that.

hywel · Post by **hywel** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:17 am

A_MichaelUK wrote:>i know the thread. and i still dont like it. i s that ok?

Not if the reason you "dont like it" is because you "dont like" Alice's vocals in that performance. Those are two separate things and that is what the most recent exchanges in this thread have been about, not just whether or not there should be a release on DVD of this performance. I don't think you've been following the thread and the last few posts, closely enough. If you don't like the vocals, it is indeed, "ok" (I don't think they're that great myself, which if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed) and if you don't like the show as a whole, that's "ok" too, but to say you don't like the show because of the vocals doesn't make sense. You claimed no - one had said the vocal performance was a hindrance and I gave you examples of people who said it was. At least one of those examples I gave admitted that he or she didn't like the show because of the theatrics as well, not just because of the vocal performance.

my reasons dont have to fit your specifications.

i dont like it. plain and simple.

and before anyone chucks in the thatrics garb i would like to add something. i had a very good quality audio tape of this show well before i had it on video and i didnt like that either. alices singing ruined it for me. it sounded like he had ran a marathon between songs.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:23 am

>To which I only repeated back that I never had said that.

You kind of did, though. It's there for all to see. There's nothing wrong with that, if you meant something slightly different, which you say you did. Like I say though, it doesn't change anything.

A_MichaelUK · Post by **A_MichaelUK** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:32 am

>my reasons dont have to fit your specifications.

Unfortunately for you, they do. As I suspected, you're having difficulty following this. Just yesterday, when you chose to intervene in the discussion between WickedYoungMan and I, you wrote:
>hang on, if i go to see any band and the vocals are crap, then they will spoil the show. are you saying that because there is a theatrical show alice shouldn't worry about how he sounds?

So, there you were indeed meeting what you call "specifications". Now you decide you don't want to, because if you carry on in that way, your whole point collapses. Once I replied to that particular post, you got confused (as I said yesterday) between not liking this show and why you might not like this show.

>i dont like it. plain and simple.

I don't have any problem with that, as I already said. You still don't seem to be following this, though.

> i had it on video and i didnt like that either. alices singing ruined it for me. it sounded like he had ran a marathon between songs.

You just contradicted yourself again. Yesterday, you said that no one said the bad singing was a hindrance to enjoying the show (even thought hey had said that). Now you say "alices singing ruined it for me."