PunBB

the Hip's biography on rollingstone.com:

"Currently residing in the 'Where Are They Now?' file, these Canadians were on the verge of making it big in the late '80s and early '90s. Their almost unique blues-influenced pop just never caught on with Americans (nor the rest of the world) as much as it did in Canada."

'where are they now'? 'making it big'? 'almost unique'?
man oh man. the integrity of this magazine disapeared a long time ago along with anything even scarcely resembling substance in the mainstream.

just awful...

I lost all respect for Rolling Stone the day I saw the chubby guy from American Idol on the cover.

Besides, who has time to cover the old guys like the Hip when there's a brand new flavour-of-the-month "punk" band made up of eight 16-year-olds all playing identical guitars and singing about the hardships of going to school to write about?

vicariousmartyr Wrote:the Hip's biography on rollingstone.com:

"Currently residing in the 'Where Are They Now?' file, these Canadians were on the verge of making it big in the late '80s and early '90s. Their almost unique blues-influenced pop just never caught on with Americans (nor the rest of the world) as much as it did in Canada."

'where are they now'? 'making it big'? 'almost unique'?
man oh man. the integrity of this magazine disapeared a long time ago along with anything even scarcely resembling substance in the mainstream.

just awful...

Rolling Stone lost all their credibility as soon as they started putting people like NSYNC and Britney Spears on the cover. Not surprisingly, that was also right around the time the magazine was bought by those classy folks over at Maxim. Go figure.

Direwolf's right. Rolling Stone was once the "bible" of a generation. It wasn't just about music. It was on the cutting edge. It spoke out against political corruption and the avarice of big business. It's obscene to see how far it's degraded.

Rolling Stone then:

Rolling Stone now:

Can you say "garbage" boys and girls? I bet you can...

direwolf74 Wrote:

vicariousmartyr Wrote:the Hip's biography on rollingstone.com:

"Currently residing in the 'Where Are They Now?' file, these Canadians were on the verge of making it big in the late '80s and early '90s. Their almost unique blues-influenced pop just never caught on with Americans (nor the rest of the world) as much as it did in Canada."

'where are they now'? 'making it big'? 'almost unique'?
man oh man. the integrity of this magazine disapeared a long time ago along with anything even scarcely resembling substance in the mainstream.

just awful...

Rolling Stone lost all their credibility as soon as they started putting people like NSYNC and Britney Spears on the cover. Not surprisingly, that was also right around the time the magazine was bought by those classy folks over at Maxim. Go figure.

I second that.

Too bad Peter Grant ~ Led Zeppelin's manager isn't around to comment on this thread.. :lol:

He use to shelter Jimmy Page and Robert Plant from Rolling Stone.. he wouldn't let Jimmy or Robert talk to such a trashy tabloid :lol:

Cheers! 8)

Britney Spears at 17. . . in her underwear. Classy. I think that one was aimed for all those Humberts out there :lol:

-Jenna

if anyone remembers or can reprint it---rolling stone ran a 3 inch column on its letters page about 15 yrs ago which in no uncertain terms they advised in their most pig headed lanquage possible that due to the overwhelming amount of mail (,,most of it hateful) from canadians about the magazines continued ignorance of the pure talent in this band.(and rolling stones continued lack of coverage)--that they would from this moment on--"never---ever" give any creedance to the tragically hip--whatsoever.. And that basically all canadians were SOL in terms of TTH ever getting press coverage from their magazine.------can any one reprint or provide a link to this incident??. I remember seeing it but did'nt save it .

daysleeperchuk Wrote:if anyone remembers or can reprint it---rolling stone ran a 3 inch column on its letters page about 15 yrs ago which in no uncertain terms they advised in their most pig headed lanquage possible that due to the overwhelming amount of mail (,,most of it hateful) from canadians about the magazines continued ignorance of the pure talent in this band.(and rolling stones continued lack of coverage)--that they would from this moment on--"never---ever" give any creedance to the tragically hip--whatsoever.. And that basically all canadians were SOL in terms of TTH ever getting press coverage from their magazine.------can any one reprint or provide a link to this incident??. I remember seeing it but did'nt save it .

This is the first I've head of such an incident. I'm shocked and rather disgusted. :twisted:

-Jenna

can anyone remember this incident in rolling stone---or have any reply?------I,ve been thinking of burning my own greatest hits package and giving it to friends here in the south,just to spread awareness/ people have kinda heard of TTH down here but there's very little furor, especially among the locals. The only fans are from somewhere else. In a way its sad,but I've given up hope on the rock radio.--How in the hell does Nickelback get played 5 times a day in N.C.? but no HIP? EVER?---sigh--nevermind i know the answer.

So, I have been a longtime (20+ years) reader of Rolling Stone. I grew up in small town Minnesota and the mag was my only view into what was going on in rock's big picture (by the mid 80's it was already obvious MTV wasn't into music at all). I subscribed, collected some back issues, clipped some of my favorite stories, etc. When I got into college in the early nineties I started to see inconsistencies in the viewpoints, the stories, the places artists held in RS's "all-time" lists. It was all flavor of the month. Sure, they'll still give it up for the Boss. But fifteen years ago, he had like six of the top fifty records all time. Bob Dylan? Like, two. Look at the mag today and the roles are reversed. What's changed? Not the artists. Both artists have been on the road a lot doing relevant and spirited shows. Not even necessarily the editors and/or the writers have changed. Its just that Dylan's been "hotter" since Time Out Of Mind. Rolling Stone is just a reactionary rag to what's hot or (suprise) good. How many times do you see a record get the obligitory *** rating from RS or no review at all. Then said album goes on to have a hit video, genrebreaking sound, and/or critical praise from more musically aware rock journalists (like those of say, Magnet). Come end of the year and Rolling Stone has the same album listed in its "best of" list with a review postured like "we knew this was gonna blow up..." They missed it the first time and then totally act like it never happened that way.

Which brings me to the Hip. I remember reading a review of Up To Here (maybe somebody still has it; I've since ditched my collection of RS BS) as one of the showcased albums reviewed at the front of RS's new album review section. They gave the album an ok review and had it lumped in with two other albums, the Black Crowes debut record and one from Del Amitri. As for the Crowes, I've seen 'em three times at various points in their career - they always sucked live. I even saw the Hip as the second from the headline on an Aspen festival bill blow away the headlining Crowes on the Phantom Power tour. No shock there. Del Amitri? Never had the pleasure of seein' 'em live. They made some fine enough albums though. That's the band of the three to put as "where are they now?". But back to the point of this post: The Hip. That is the last thing I remember seeing from Rolling Stone on them. A *** or ***1/2 review and then bubkus.

Some of the offenses:

After Woodstock, Rolling Stone had a cover to its issue with every band's name on it. Every band who played! Except (with no explanation) The Hip. And not a word about 'em in the mag. Looking back through the web, they did get mentioned on the internet.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=5922658">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=5922658</a><!-- m -->

After the 9-11 bombings, Rolling Stone had a blurb about Alanis leading the Music Without Borders cause. Again, the web comes through with a minor mention of Das Hips.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=5920176&pageid=rs.ArtistArticles&pageregion=mainRegion">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story? ... mainRegion</a><!-- m -->

In the Random notes section, Rolling Stone named Avril and Sum 41 as the artists heading up a SARS benefit concert. They neglected to mention the headliners, although they do get a mention on the internet.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=5935394&pageid=rs.ArtistArticles&pageregion=mainRegion">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story? ... mainRegion</a><!-- m -->


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=5935854&pageid=rs.ArtistArticles&pageregion=mainRegion">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story? ... mainRegion</a><!-- m -->

Lastly, when In Violet Light came out, Rollingstone's web page reviewed the album as an "internet exclusive!" Like that's a f#@%ing bonus! Howsabout actually printing your know-nothing review in the mag!

These blatant omissions make me believe the article in the letters section is true. I don't recall seeing it, but I have been at a loss for a reason (until now) that Rolling Stone would bury this band beneath news of guys like Rickey Martin.

My thought for the last several years is that the magazine is such a trend follower they don't know how to deal with a band that isn't, well, trendy. "Avoid trends and cliches..." These guys have been around for longer than almost any U.S. band (certainly the ones making still relevant music) and are anything but flavor of the month. The only chance they have of getting the respect from Rolling Stone they deserve is if they get it everywhere else first.

I totally agree!!! I had a subscription back in '99 to Rolling Stone and didn't renew it when they put Rob Zombie on the cover. Watching Much Music all the time at 16, I figured Rolling Stone would be a cool way to stay "with it" like the new music that's out and stuff, but ROB ZOMBIE ON THE COVER!!! The guys name is a ****ing gimick!!! He came out with one song "Dragula" and made the cover of Rolling Stone. (Ahem. Right after Marilyn Manson made it big) Remember when it used to be such a feat?... "Wanna see my smiling face on the cover of the Rolling Stone" (Dr. Hook) Now Rolling Stone is like giving out it's cover for free. Passing up reviews of the ARTISTS for whiny-toned little punks like Simple Plan, Blink, and others that are, as you put it, nothing more than a

Christian Schutz Wrote:flavor of the month

Excellent pull on the topic, man!

As far as The Hip not getting coverage in RS; I thought I read that there was a "misunderstanding" by a former editor who thought that the bands name, or an album name, etc., was chosen to make fun of him. From that point forward, he vowed that there would be no more mentions of The Hip in RS.

I'm searching for the article I read this in now, and will post it if I find it.

Anyone else recall this?

Found it: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.golfontario.ca/archives/2002_hip.shtml">http://www.golfontario.ca/archives/2002_hip.shtml</a><!-- m -->

Here's the snippet that I was referring to:

<snip>

I hate asking this, since bands get it all the time, but where did “The Tragically Hip” name come from?

GS: It came from a Mike Nesmith video called “Elephant Parts.” There was this mock telethon thing in it - the Foundation for the Tragically Hip. Actually, the name cost us quite dearly in the States. The guy who runs Rolling Stone Magazine, Jan Wenner, came out of the closet as a gay man in the ‘70s, and the story we heard was that he played this charity baseball game against Irving Azoff (the former chairman of MCA’s Music Entertainment Group). Azoff showed up to the game and his team was named The Tragically Hip, apparently to sort of bug Wenner. The way we heard it was that Wenner thought we got the name from that story, which we didn’t. But after 15 years and 10 records, you’ll still never see a review -not a mention- of The Tragically Hip in Rolling Stone.

</snip>

chris Wrote:As far as The Hip not getting coverage in RS; I thought I read that there was a "misunderstanding" by a former editor who thought that the bands name, or an album name, etc., was chosen to make fun of him. From that point forward, he vowed that there would be no more mentions of The Hip in RS.

I'm searching for the article I read this in now, and will post it if I find it.

Anyone else recall this?

Good snag Chris!...In hindsight, I do remember reading that when it first came out...If memory serves, that article also had some pretty humerous photos of Gord and Paul in a golf cart...

Talk about petty...Just reinforces why I stopped giving a rat's you-know-what about what US media (or Canuck media for that matter) thought of the band a long, long time ago...

M.