[sean.bonner]

back to the Hip - I'm not from Canada, and was very young in their 90s heyday, so I never experienced the commercial success firsthand. I only saw and heard bits and pieces from Canadian radio and CBC. I do remember seeing a commercial for the upcoming M@W album on channel 29 in Buffalo, though.

You and I are on the same timeline. The earliest I ever saw The Hip was the M@W video. I was 13.

[senrab]

back to the Hip - I'm not from Canada, and was very young in their 90s heyday, so I never experienced the commercial success firsthand. I only saw and heard bits and pieces from Canadian radio and CBC. I do remember seeing a commercial for the upcoming M@W album on channel 29 in Buffalo, though.

You and I are on the same timeline. The earliest I ever saw The Hip was the M@W video. I was 13.

I'm a little older, I would have been 18 or 19. I was a bit of an oddball (but who isn't?) and was not into "current" music yet. I do remember hearing all of their stuff on the radio beginning with ABAC when that came out, though.

Same timeline, different channels (US/Canada)

[stanslow12]

Most bands peak commercially within their first few albums. It is this peak that allows them the luxury of recording a few more, and in rare instances you have legends with rabid fanbases that will enable a band to prosper for decades. 15-22 year olds propel entertainment sales, god I bought a ton of cd's at that age. The Hip are simply not unique in this regard as many have mentioned.

[Mr. Lahey]

This thread is a treat to read through. Great opinions and ideas shared here and love all the different thoughts and angles on the various albums and tunes.

[sonichka11]

I think the biggest reason is simply that their material just isn't that great as the years go by. Most if not all bands just can't keep the high quality output forever. They run out of ideas and the basic formula or sound of the band eventually gets tiresome. Some bands try to change it up but rarely can they duplicate the level of quality or uniqueness a second time. Same goes for any of the arts. Look at Stephen King.

Unfortunately for me, I usually discover bands AFTER their heyday. Discovered U2 during Pop. RH during HTTT. The Hip in 09 on the WATS tour. For once I wanna be following a band that is just breaking in and follow them for the ride!

[rivum]

I think the biggest reason is simply that their material just isn't that great as the years go by. Most if not all bands just can't keep the high quality output forever. They run out of ideas and the basic formula or sound of the band eventually gets tiresome. Some bands try to change it up but rarely can they duplicate the level of quality or uniqueness a second time. Same goes for any of the arts. Look at Stephen King.

Unfortunately for me, I usually discover bands AFTER their heyday. Discovered U2 during Pop. RH during HTTT. The Hip in 09 on the WATS tour. For once I wanna be following a band that is just breaking in and follow them for the ride!

well, you missed three good Strumbellas records (or maybe you haven't!) but they are indeed a star on the rise.

I'm really hoping Hey Rosetta! keeps on with what they're doing also!

[sonichka11]

I've heard a bit of the Strumbellas and Hey Rosetta on cbc radio. I'll have to look into them more

[edgoffin]

I think the biggest reason is simply that their material just isn't that great as the years go by. Most if not all bands just can't keep the high quality output forever. They run out of ideas and the basic formula or sound of the band eventually gets tiresome. Some bands try to change it up but rarely can they duplicate the level of quality or uniqueness a second time.

My slightly different perspective, creative bands need to keep evolving and sometimes that comes at the expense of the fan base built with earlier records. M@W to me is a turning point where they chose "art" over commercial appeal. REM are similar; Losing My Religion was a huge hit, Automatic for the People was a huge seller, and then they followed it up with a guitar and vocals effect heavy album with Monster. A creative choice after two primarily acoustic albums where they had to know they were going to alienate a large percentage of the fan base gained.

Going in to this tour, and in particular Kingston, there was a lot of chat around The Hip playing EP songs. Beyond the fact that they had not played those songs in years, and breaking them out on national TV seemed like a bad idea, I also think the band would find those tunes maybe a bit boring and redundant. Counter that with a band like the Stones, where there's likely no issue playing older material as they have not really evolved past that same sound or song structure. I'm picking on the Stones, but I can't imagine them going in to the studio and making an album like MMP.

And yah, Strumbellas and Hey Rosetta are both great -- good albums, and really good live shows.

[ewallman]

I think the biggest reason is simply that their material just isn't that great as the years go by. Most if not all bands just can't keep the high quality output forever. They run out of ideas and the basic formula or sound of the band eventually gets tiresome. Some bands try to change it up but rarely can they duplicate the level of quality or uniqueness a second time.

My slightly different perspective, creative bands need to keep evolving and sometimes that comes at the expense of the fan base built with earlier records. M@W to me is a turning point where they chose "art" over commercial appeal. REM are similar; Losing My Religion was a huge hit, Automatic for the People was a huge seller, and then they followed it up with a guitar and vocals effect heavy album with Monster. A creative choice after two primarily acoustic albums where they had to know they were going to alienate a large percentage of the fan base gained.

I agree. Another good example is Fleetwood Mac doing Tusk after Rumours. Lindsay Buckingham said doing another Rumours sounding album would have been boring. Bands that last or most that last have to evolve to maintain their own interest. The one thing I note from the M@W and IVL sessions is the lack (or reduction) in the signature Hip sound, the driving rhythms. To me this sound came back with IBE and records that followed. This was also the period if I recall that Gordie was doing some solo work, i actually thought IVL may be the band's last record. On the new record and on WAATS, I find they were moving to more melodic sound but still keeping the signature sound, it was far more subtle than just a strong hard riff.

As mentioned, every band goes through this - peaks in public popularity cannot be maintained.

One last comment on IVL - how the hell does Problem Bears get cut from this album?

[andrew sharpe]

My slightly different perspective, creative bands need to keep evolving and sometimes that comes at the expense of the fan base built with earlier records. M@W to me is a turning point where they chose "art" over commercial appeal. REM are similar; Losing My Religion was a huge hit, Automatic for the People was a huge seller, and then they followed it up with a guitar and vocals effect heavy album with Monster. A creative choice after two primarily acoustic albums where they had to know they were going to alienate a large percentage of the fan base gained.

Disagree that there was ever a conscious choice of art over success. Every band has a most successful album, the Hip`s just happens to be Fully Completely. The band evolved on every album, and almost every one went #1, and they were still selling out arenas even before Gord's diagnosis. Of course they got less top forty radio play, but that's more because the radio stopped playing rock music. Saying the Hip were in commercial decline is like saying Apple is selling less IPhones. Technically, true, but they were still arguably among the top five most popular rock bands in the country. Very few rock bands can sell out arenas anymore.

Radiohead and Springsteen are two other great examples. Are they still selling as many records as OK Computer or Born in the USA? Of course not, but to suggest they are in commercial decline is madness, since they still sell out massive venues.

Record sales are a fraction of what they used to be and radio doesn't play rock music anymore. So using these units to measure success is misleading.

[SRK]

Whoever it was that said 'napster' is correct. EVERYONE has had a commercial decline over the last 15 years. Patrick Pentland mentioned that in a series of tweets yesterday when someone asked him what the best way to support sloan was, and he said "shows and merch", since no one buys albums anymore. And then pointed out that Nevermind sold 24M copies, and the "biggest album of the 21st century", Adele's '25', has only sold 8M.

Also, the Hip's albums not being as good as in the 90s is also an issue, but if they put out a universally acclaimed 5* 'better than sgt pepper' album at this point, it'd probably sell about as many copies as in violet light. It's a different world now.