Dose.ca - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Dose.ca (/showthread.php?tid=9177)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Dose.ca (/showthread.php?tid=9177)
- tigerthelion - 10-18-2006
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Bosman Wrote:There are still those who think that any World Container shortcomings lay in the bloody hands of Bob Rock. How it could have been so much better had he not been involved.
Well, having relentlessly mocked the whole "Bob Rock is the antichrist" thing for months, I'm now saying it would have been better had he not been involved, the song "World Container" being the poster child for that assertion.
Responsibility for production lies with the guy having the "producer" credit, which happens to be Bob Rock. I'd also like to introduce into evidence Exhibit A, Bob Rock's own blog post in which he takes full responsibility for that debacle:
I thought it would sound better under 18 layers of shit Wrote:"The song,"World Container", probably, has the most production. It is a song that, really, could be just an acoustic guitar track and a vocal. I thought it could be something much bigger sounding."
Pardon me if I'm not impressed by Gord's gushing over the joy of working with Bob Rock. The proof is in the pudding, and if artists were the best judges of their own work, bad albums would never be made. It may be a shocking thing to say here on the Hipbase, but Gord Downie isn't infallible.
For those of us who don't like the production on this album, it seems reasonable to lay the blame on, oh, I don't fucking know ... let me think ... the producer?
I blame it on, you guessed it- Frank Stallone.
- Chris Tanz - 10-18-2006
Is there some acoustic version of World Container [the song] floating around out there that's giving a bunch of people a big stiffie that I'm missing out on.
Who the hell knows how World Container would have sounded if it was ... oh yeah ... a completely different song to the only extant version of it.
You can say you don't like it, but it doesn't make sense to say that they've destroyed it.
ct
- thechubb - 10-18-2006
The rockers are okay. The other songs belong on a Gord solo record. I always hoped that those solo efforts would get these sorts of songs out of his system and the hip records would get back to the strength they should be. I've only heard the record on the website so... But, I doubt this will be in my regular record rotation for long.
The review at that start of this thread is definitely retarded though.
- Dr. J - 10-18-2006
Chris Tanz Wrote:Who the hell knows how World Container would have sounded if it was ... oh yeah ... a completely different song to the only extant version of it.I agree.
You can say you don't like it, but it doesn't make sense to say that they've destroyed it.ct
This insinuation that there was a set of "terrific" songs out there (had they been arranged and produced in a manner acceptable to the commentator) that were ruined because the band was hoodwinked by an overblown producer is ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that this set of terrifc songs was in fact ruined by the band themselves.
Quote:Bob Rock is only partly to blame.......I think the best thing for Downie might be to ditch his bandmates at this point. Based on this record, at least, they're not doing him any favours.Give me a fuckin' break.
You like the album or you don't. So be it.
The band (and Gord Downie, in particular) made the record they wanted. That's obvious.
Some people like it and some people don't. That's life.
The fact they didn't make the record that I or anyone else thought they should is irrelevant.
- thecompletist - 10-18-2006
This is all quite interesting opinion... given the CD came out yesterday. Sure a little streaming on computer speakers....but what about the Live versions..
how many of you were at the live shows this week at the CBC or Horseshoe? There is no piano or overdubs...... I haven't made my final review yet because I'm still brewing the CD... 10-15 times in the car and on the Ipod has given me an indication that I like it... the CBC... pushed it up another notch..
....... then last night when they busted out THE DROP OFF at 180mph... I realized I don't need to hear Fire In The Hole for quite some time... :jump
spin it again
- skippy the wonder dog - 10-18-2006
Dr. J Wrote:The fact they didn't make the record that I or anyone else thought they should is irrelevant.
Absolutely. The last thing we want on a discussion forum is any actual discussion.
- Killer Whale Tank - 10-19-2006
Right on, Skippy.
And I don't know where I (or anyone) said the Hip were 'hoodwinked' by Rock. I basically said that the band, in league with the producer, made terrible choices when recording this material. (It is valid, though, to suggest that Rock was a bad influence).
Meanwhile, there are those who argue that the 'essence' of the song is whatever its recorded version is - hence, 'who knows how it would have sounded if done differently? etc..'
On this view, complaining about performance or recording decisions makes no sense. But anyone who plays music or writes songs knows that there is a HUGE gulf between the basic 'song' and its specific execution, the instruments used when playing it, etc.. 'A Hard day's Night' was originally a midtempo ballad. The Beatles supercharged it into a driving rocker in the studio. That doesn't mean the latter was the 'real' song and the demos not. Indeed, the demo might have been much more heartfelt and moving (Lennon thought so). And Hip fans of all people should know that the live performance of a song is just as valid an expression of its 'essence' as whatever was done in the studio. So we CAN talk intelligently about whether a given song was given the right studio treatment. Sheesh.
My suggestion that Downie might be better off, creatively, without the Hip was predicated on the idea that the Hip are trapped in a 'Big Sound' box, afraid or unwilling to move away from the arena rock treatment even when the material demands it. Some postings have pointed out that this might be wrong - I'm open to it, I hope I'm wrong - but another album of lovely Downie tunes crushed by a massive wall of sound would probably prove the case. The question is whether the band, given an album's worth of material crying out for low-key treatment, would be willing to drop its self-definition as 'Rock Band' and do a whole record of songs that way. I have my doubts, but in any case, my main point was that WC ruins a bunch of fine songs, not that the band is unworthy of Gord Downie.
- Dr. J - 10-19-2006
I had no intention of curbing valid discussion or criticism of the album. I simply found the previous post which began with the assertion that you disagreed with "the treatment afforded the songs" and ended with a call for Downie to "ditch his bandmates " to not only be presumptious, but of little relevance to the actual album itself.
I can appreciate that you would have enjoyed these songs more if they had been given a more acoustic treatment, fair enough, but your continued assertion that by not giving them such the songwriter? the band? the producer? or all of them together have made "terrible choices" and "ruined a fine bunch of songs"is nothing short of sheer arrogance.
I listened to the satellite radio premiere of the album and heard the band talk about how pleased and proud they were with the finished product and I thought to myself....."you poor self-deluded individuals. How could you be so mistaken.....?"
C'mon, it doesn't take a musician or a songwriter or a brain surgeon to know that the creation of a song is an evolutionary thing and along the way there may be versions that you or I or any member of the band or the world may like better. That can be said for any song ever written. So what? Who is to say when the process has come to its rightful resting place. Might I suggest the artist?
Killer Whale Tank Wrote:The question is whether the band, given an album's worth of material crying out for low-key treatment, would be willing to drop its self-definition as 'Rock Band' and do a whole record of songs that way.
Am i reading this correctly? You want a rock band to quit being a rock band and do the album that you think the material demands?
My question is how could a band that's been together for 23 years so miss what it is the material is demanding of them and you actually see it.
That's the question.
- Killer Whale Tank - 10-19-2006
Right. The Artist Is Always Right. Got it.
You might want to read Skippy the Wonder Dog's response to this lame reasoning earlier on in this thread. He's on the mark.
- sundin13 - 10-19-2006
Dr. J Wrote:I had no intention of curbing valid discussion or criticism of the album. I simply found the previous post which began with the assertion that you disagreed with "the treatment afforded the songs" and ended with a call for Downie to "ditch his bandmates " to not only be presumptious, but of little relevance to the actual album itself.
I can appreciate that you would have enjoyed these songs more if they had been given a more acoustic treatment, fair enough, but your continued assertion that by not giving them such the songwriter? the band? the producer? or all of them together have made "terrible choices" and "ruined a fine bunch of songs"is nothing short of sheer arrogance.
I listened to the satellite radio premiere of the album and heard the band talk about how pleased and proud they were with the finished product and I thought to myself....."you poor self-deluded individuals. How could you be so mistaken.....?"
C'mon, it doesn't take a musician or a songwriter or a brain surgeon to know that the creation of a song is an evolutionary thing and along the way there may be versions that you or I or any member of the band or the world may like better. That can be said for any song ever written. So what? Who is to say when the process has come to its rightful resting place. Might I suggest the artist?
Killer Whale Tank Wrote:The question is whether the band, given an album's worth of material crying out for low-key treatment, would be willing to drop its self-definition as 'Rock Band' and do a whole record of songs that way.
Am i reading this correctly? You want a rock band to quit being a rock band and do the album that you think the material demands?
My question is how could a band that's been together for 23 years so miss what it is the material is demanding of them and you actually see it.
That's the question.
Excellent post -- you're right on the mark.
- emperor penguin - 10-19-2006
Killer Whale Tank Wrote:Right. The Artist Is Always Right. Got it.
You might want to read Skippy the Wonder Dog's response to this lame reasoning earlier on in this thread. He's on the mark.
they should hire you to produce the next album, cause you obviously know whats best for the material they write
- thechubb - 10-19-2006
Quote:My suggestion that Downie might be better off, creatively, without the Hip was predicated on the idea that the Hip are trapped in a 'Big Sound' box, afraid or unwilling to move away from the arena rock treatment even when the material demands it. Some postings have pointed out that this might be wrong - I'm open to it, I hope I'm wrong - but another album of lovely Downie tunes crushed by a massive wall of sound would probably prove the case.
Could it be that the band might be better off without Gord? I'm not suggesting that but in the context of this idea, I think a lot of Rob's influence with those blistering solo's get's lost more and more with each new record. Sadly, this record lacks more of Robby's cool guitar work than any of the others. Live shows are always cool and different. But, I have always hoped that the experimental side of Gord would be spent in his solo work and when coming back to work with the hip we'd see more of what I love about previous efforts. I can pop in any of the older albums any time. IVL and IBe never get any play. Just my take.
- skippy the wonder dog - 10-19-2006
Okay, so I guess criticism is out the window. Criticism is, by definition, "arrogant," and it is presumptuous to express any opinion other than gushing praise.
Gord Downie has been tapped to be the next Pope, as he's already got the infallibility thing down pat.
If artists and producers were the best judges of their own work, folks, bad albums would never be made. Or perhaps some of you have an explanation for how all those infallible artists make shitty albums from time to time?
- Dr. J - 10-19-2006
Killer Whale Tank Wrote:You might want to read Skippy the Wonder Dog's response to this lame reasoning earlier on in this thread. He's on the mark.I did. My question still stands.
- das_hips - 10-19-2006
This whole arguement is ridiculous. When I learned that Bob Rock was producing the new Hip album, I was petrified, I cried for days and days, and took refuge in the bottle. Of course, when I heard the new album, I realized that I didn't really hate Bob Rock, I just didn't like a lot of the bands he produced for. This new album is Hip, and we can argue all day about the production quality, but I won't budge on my stance that this is a great album until somebody mentions 'Fully Completely'. 'tis a great album, that could have been so much more; yet, we find a refined demonstration on the stage, and a raw approach that those songs truly deserve. Is it the worst thing in the world that Bob Rock injected a little 'Pop' album sound into the new album? Not at all. If you don't like the material, criticize the band, they're the ones that wrote the material. And if you think that Gord Downie would flourish without the rest of the band, I counter that Gord Downie would have done better if he was Jesus. Absurd? Of course it is. Do I care? Of course not. Negative reviews are welcome as long as they carry realistic substance.
Either way, my only comment about the original thread title is why anybody actually cares about what a 'Dose' music editor has to say. From my experience working in downtown Ottawa, 'Dose' is used as a setting to roll a joint, pick up dog shit, or to provide a dry seat on a damp park bench. I'm willing to bet my copy of 'World Container' and the six beers in my basement that anybody who pays any attention to music pays little to no attention to a Dose music editors review of a new album.