potsie Wrote:Someone needs to explain to me what moral high ground those fans that are "boycotting" the book are standing on.
I'll pick on the Facebook crew, but the vast majority of items posted on that site are unlicensed. There was one of many threads on the moral pros and cons of the book, followed by a posting of bootleg turntable slip mats with the Hip logo and gargoyle image. The unlicensed slip mats are potentially more damaging to the band's brand and pocketbook, compared with the book, but no concern raised.
Specific to Barclay, and again picking on FB, people were clamoring for the Maclean's magazine commemorative issue. Single issue was priced at around $10 (double usual price), and I don't recall mention of any proceeds being donated to charity. Barclay wrote the best parts of that issue, and there was no fan backlash then about his version of the band's story.
The moral high ground when I read though those threads on FB, which I have on occasion with absolute fascination, seems to focus protecting the privacy of the band members. Here I think Barclay did a great job; there's little to nothing revealed about their lives outside the band that was not already public domain. I learned two inconsequential things about the private life of two band members
That "protecting their private lives" theme has neutered that group. On occasion when someone tries to start an interesting conversation -- meaning behind lyrics, as an example -- it gets shut down. There was also a lot of anger around the phrase "the last tour" or any conversations about Gord's health (not speculation, but informed insight about the disease). I recall one comment that those were hurtful threads, as Gord is likely reading...which made me laugh. First, just imagine Gord reading FB postings. The guy was reading poetry, not cruising the internet. Even better, I sat beside him during the FC tour and he was using the oldest Blackberry I've ever seen to text, one step from a flip phone. It almost looked painful.
potsie Wrote:Someone needs to explain to me what moral high ground those fans that are "boycotting" the book are standing on. No animals or small children were harmed during the writing of this book. Nor were the Hip harmed in any manner, either financially (there is no "competing" book from a band member) or from damage to their legacy. The book is very respectful.
People choosing not to read are missing out. There are stories and analysis in here (such as the CMG recording and the chapters on Gord's lyrics as poetry and his dance moves) that won't be found in any future book written by a band member. My reaction to Rob's Twitter comments were a shrug. So what if the details aren't perfect (I only pointed out the potential release date error so that the author, if he is still on this board, can correct it for future printings)... it's not meant to be a scientific paper. I will certainly read Rob's book if and when it ever comes out, and I suspect the number of details that he calls "laughably wrong" will be very limited.
What I find interesting is that many of these people are the same ones supporting all the hip the cover bands. While I'm pretty impartial to the idea of a cover band, the fact that they are making money performing other people's music seems like a whole different level compared to someone spending time researching and interviewing people to write a book trying to tell the history of a band.
As others have mentioned, Barclay being correct and Baker thinking he is incorrect is not mutually exclusive. Our memories are far from perfect and it's quite possible that people believe they are stating events as fact with the best of intentions but details have been mixed up over time.
I don't think there was anything controversial in there that could have the band too upset, if anything I felt Barclay was too cautious at times and would have appreciated some more opinionated views.
I have just dipped in to the first few chapters and so far have found it an interesting read. From what I gather the band was given the opportunity to review the book for factual errors and they declined. So whatever inaccuracies are present in the book then that's inevitable. Any misrepresented facts could have been corrected had the band agree to review the manuscript, so I am going to enjoy this read, as well as anything Rob has to offer in the future. Hopefully Rob gives us a glimpse of things we don't already know and I will really look forward to it. But Barclay's book is an informative read and I respect the fact that he didn't delve too deeply into their private lives. That shows respect in and of itself. As for the inside scoop - that's the bands' story to tell should they choose to.
I'm halfway through the book and I'm finding it to be a very enjoyable book. I have to say though, that with all due respect to the band, and I have a LOT of respect for them, I am slightly miffed that they chose not to participate by fact checking. I'm not sure why they didn't want an official bio. If they were part of the process they could even have chosen what parts to omit if they did not want certain parts to be made public. If they are claiming that certain parts are not true like Rob Baker has implied, it would really be great if they made an effort to fact check it for a second release. I mean why not? I'm sure that Barclay tried his hardest to be accurate so can you really blame him?
Any other Hipbasers heading to the reading tonight at the NAC?
sean.bonner Wrote:Any other Hipbasers heading to the reading tonight at the NAC?
I'm going to be out on Elgin selling bootleg Hip shirts.
I would have gone, but have a conflict -- based on reports on his other readings, it sounds interesting. Try and get some clues on who the hater musician quote is.
potsie Wrote:A couple of errors, in the event that Barclay is still coming around these parts:
1. p. 271 "Grace, Too ended the final encore of August 14, 2016, the second of three Toronto shows." Grace, Too ended the third show.
2. p. 114. DFN release date is incorrectly listed as September 6, 1994. Should be September 19, 1994.
He also attributed the "Don't tell Gord he can't do something" quote to Patrick, when on the documentary I was sure it was Johnny. Entirely possible they both said it.
edgoffin Wrote:I think the tweet has since been deleted, but one person then said Barclay was also selling bootleg T-shirts. I thought that was pretty funny. He wrote the definitive history of Canadian music through the 90s with a book forwarded by Gord, wrote many of the pieces in the incredible Maclean's commemorative issue, but to supplement his income sells knockoff T-shirts from a garbage bag outside concert venues.
That would not surprise me at all. Canadian Author is not the lucrative career you might think
And the book is really kind of a bootleg itself, a repackaging of previously published sources.
MattPower Wrote:I'm halfway through the book and I'm finding it to be a very enjoyable book. I have to say though, that with all due respect to the band, and I have a LOT of respect for them, I am slightly miffed that they chose not to participate by fact checking. I'm not sure why they didn't want an official bio. If they were part of the process they could even have chosen what parts to omit if they did not want certain parts to be made public. If they are claiming that certain parts are not true like Rob Baker has implied, it would really be great if they made an effort to fact check it for a second release. I mean why not? I'm sure that Barclay tried his hardest to be accurate so can you really blame him?
Because they wanted no part of it. Any contribution on their part could be seen as approval or authorization.
I finished the book. I'm glad it was published...but I can't say I loved it...Half of it wasn't even really about the band (chapters on cover bands, stories and opinions on the last show, a large section on residential schools, etc). And only a small percentage of the half that WAS Hip related was new information. So the book is largely a summary of previously published information, with some tangential stories and opinions. The literary equivalent of the Bobcaygeon documentary.
But Barclay is clearly a fan and obviously reads HipBase so I can't fault him too much
andrew sharpe Wrote:I finished the book. I'm glad it was published...but I can't say I loved it...Half of it wasn't even really about the band (chapters on cover bands, stories and opinions on the last show, a large section on residential schools, etc). And only a small percentage of the half that WAS Hip related was new information. So the book is largely a summary of previously published information, with some tangential stories and opinions. The literary equivalent of the Bobcaygeon documentary.
But Barclay is clearly a fan and obviously reads HipBase so I can't fault him too much
Definitely agree. It wasn’t the deep-dive into the unknown many of us were hoping for. But a nice aggregation of well to lesser known information
kieffer Wrote:andrew sharpe Wrote:I finished the book. I'm glad it was published...but I can't say I loved it...Half of it wasn't even really about the band (chapters on cover bands, stories and opinions on the last show, a large section on residential schools, etc). And only a small percentage of the half that WAS Hip related was new information. So the book is largely a summary of previously published information, with some tangential stories and opinions. The literary equivalent of the Bobcaygeon documentary.
But Barclay is clearly a fan and obviously reads HipBase so I can't fault him too much
Definitely agree. It wasn’t the deep-dive into the unknown many of us were hoping for. But a nice aggregation of well to lesser known information
Yeah...I think this is how I felt, too. I finished the book this morning; I liked it, but I didn't quite love it, and given the combination of author and subject I was expecting to love it. I was especially disappointed by Barclay sorta glossing over the band's mid- to late years and sorta just writing them off as "band in transition, commercial flops." And while some of the "essays" in between chapters were interesting I'd have sacrificed every single one of them (including the one about reconciliation, which I truly believe is the most important challenge in Canadian history; I literally work on implementing reconciliation at U of T) in favour of more about the band, the members, the music, whatever. "The literary equivalent of the Bobcaygeon documentary" is perfect, actually.
NWOntario Wrote:kieffer Wrote:andrew sharpe Wrote:I finished the book. I'm glad it was published...but I can't say I loved it...Half of it wasn't even really about the band (chapters on cover bands, stories and opinions on the last show, a large section on residential schools, etc). And only a small percentage of the half that WAS Hip related was new information. So the book is largely a summary of previously published information, with some tangential stories and opinions. The literary equivalent of the Bobcaygeon documentary.
But Barclay is clearly a fan and obviously reads HipBase so I can't fault him too much
Definitely agree. It wasn’t the deep-dive into the unknown many of us were hoping for. But a nice aggregation of well to lesser known information
Yeah...I think this is how I felt, too. I finished the book this morning; I liked it, but I didn't quite love it, and given the combination of author and subject I was expecting to love it. I was especially disappointed by Barclay sorta glossing over the band's mid- to late years and sorta just writing them off as "band in transition, commercial flops." And while some of the "essays" in between chapters were interesting I'd have sacrificed every single one of them (including the one about reconciliation, which I truly believe is the most important challenge in Canadian history; I literally work on implementing reconciliation at U of T) in favour of more about the band, the members, the music, whatever. "The literary equivalent of the Bobcaygeon documentary" is perfect, actually.
I agree to all of the above as well. The best part of the book was at the beginning with how the band was formed and when they recorded their first 3 or 4 albums. I found that stuff fascinating. After that I found he went off on too many tangents that weren't really related to the band and he didn't talk that much about the rest of the albums. And why did he talk extensively about Hip cover bands so early on in the book? For me that should have been at the very end.
MattPower Wrote:I agree to all of the above as well. The best part of the book was at the beginning with how the band was formed and when they recorded their first 3 or 4 albums. I found that stuff fascinating. After that I found he went off on too many tangents that weren't really related to the band and he didn't talk that much about the rest of the albums. And why did he talk extensively about Hip cover bands so early on in the book? For me that should have been at the very end.
The cover band chapter bored me to tears, and it dragged on for 13 excruciating pages. I don't mind giving cover bands a quick mention or two (maybe 3 or 4 pages at most), but an entire chapter devoted to them was not a great decision on the author's part. And I agree, its placement in the book disrupts the flow of the narrative.
The rest of the book was pretty damn good. It's easily the most comprehensive account of the band's career so far, and I'm thankful it was written. I also view it as kind of a companion piece to Have Not Been the Same, which I'm currently rediscovering again thanks to the Hip book. I'm sure at least one or two more books will be written about these guys in the not too distant future. I'm looking forward to reading Robby's take on things once (or if) he finishes his memoirs. I'd also love to see a full length career-spanning documentary on the band eventually. Long Time Running was fantastic, but I want to see their entire story up on screen.
MattPower Wrote:The best part of the book was at the beginning with how the band was formed and when they recorded their first 3 or 4 albums. I found that stuff fascinating. After that I found he went off on too many tangents that weren't really related to the band and he didn't talk that much about the rest of the albums. And why did he talk extensively about Hip cover bands so early on in the book? For me that should have been at the very end.
I think that's where no band involvement, and limited involvement from the band's direct social and business circle, becomes more apparent. The early days are well documented, lots of sources to reuse. The middle period onward, the band both received less coverage and also seemed to do fewer interviews. Plus, there is a lot less traditional media channels through the back half of their career.