From b3burner@ca.astounditv.net Wed Feb 05 15:10:45 2003
Subject:Alice Cooper...a question of talent

I'm seeing from others' replies, that maybe I was a tad bit short sighted in my criticism of Alice Cooper, and that it was way too presumptive of me to assume that everyone else shared my viewpoint on him (and/or A.C.-the band).

I guess I need to proceed what I say with IMHO first:

So IMHO, I have never dug "theatrical rock" as a musical genre. I feel music is primarily an auditory stimulus. It's something you listen to. The only exception to that being sitting quitely in a concert watching the musician perform his/her craft on their instrument of choice, where the only visual stimulus necessary is that of the musican's fingers weaving their way through the passages, and the facial expressions the musican yields as musican and instrument interface with one another. And musicans communicate with one another on stage. The PBS show "Austin City Limits" is IMHO a good example of the atmosphere under which ALL music should be presented.

That's the whole problem I have with what MTV did to music from 1979 and forward. No longer was it just good enough to be a good MUSICIAN. Now you had to be an actor, a dancer, a choreograher, a cinamatographer. You had to have sex appeal. Mama Cass and Janis Joplin wouldn't have stood a chance in today's image oriented music world, yet they were fabulous musicians in their own right, and I believe their voices alone would still sell in 2003.

But it all started with Alice Cooper, Frank Zappa, and Kiss. If you gotta' put paint all over your face, and shoot stage smoke and special effects all over the place to generate audience appeal, then DOES THE MUSIC REALLY STAND ON ITS OWN AS A LEGITIMATE ENTERTAINMENT?

I remember trying my hardest to respect Frank Zappa as a musician, but he lost me on a song where he sang about dental floss in Montana! For cryin' out loud (IMHO)...if the lyrics made any sense and weren't so silly, maybe I'd have listened for a melody or God help us...a Hammond solo, if one was even forthcoming.

Queen's BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY is another one (IMHO) that for the life of me I can't and will never understand what people see musical value in...."I see a silhouette...Galilaeo, Galilaeo..." (or whatever the heck he's trying to say in there). Save it for a Berkeley coffee house on poetry night for Christ sake!

And then in the early 80's when Styx tried "Paradise Theatre" and "Mr. Roboto" and scarred my early adolesence (IMHO of course!) I had had enough! No wonder I was so relieved to have found Deep Purple in the haphazard year of 1982. A band that was and still is about the MUSIC, NOT flashy gimmicks.

Music is about music. Chord progressions, long instrumental solos where the whole band falls into a groove and the audience is taken wih them. Listen again to Traffic's LOW SPARK OF HIGH HEELED BOYS or Steppenwolf's MAGIC CARPET RIDE if you need examples (IMHO).

Sorry to go off on a tirade, but someone poked my "hornet's nest" when they mentioned Frank Zappa and "theatrical rock".
I guess I'm just not there, but if others are, I recognize that these are heavyweight names within their own musical genre, that deserve respect. I'll give them that much.

John O'Flaherty (The B3 Burner)