[Kevala]

As an artist I can assure you, why revisit the past. Compromise becomes harder as one progresses further and further. The most recent period prevails as can be understood, right? Imagine yourself doing something over and over and over and over.

I heard a lady on Q the other day describe her first tour as dreadful because her first songs were so emotional. I should say that her first album was written with very heavy emotional songs because she didn't know better. As her tour progressed, she felt more and more like an actress up there on stage. She didn't have the same feelings of angst and pain as before. Imagine one or two years of this eternal return.

Her next tour was more focused on material she loved to perform because the notes, sounds, words, etc... all played more fully together. This is what musicians look for and work towards. Listeners might not know of such a thing.

Setlists are not that important unless you want to HEAR something. I always go to experience it. It kills me every-time. I'd be much better off just wanting to hear something..... no not really.

[Killer Whale Tank]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread. I am tolerably sure that Gord's vocal problems on the last Hip tour were indeed mostly the result of boredom with the material and some sort of frustration with fan expectations (along the lines of, 'OK, you want me to holler like an idiot? HERE YOU GO YA DUMMIES!'). I also think he was being a bit unfair to his fans, but then again, look around the crowd, what do you see but a bunch of greying 40-somethings who haven't listened to a new Hip record in 15 years and just want to relive their youth. So maybe he's onto something.

This thread illustrates a part of the problem, though. Several posters have come on here expressing a deep-seated wish that the Hip 'get back to basics,' get back to their '90s sound, etc. Even if this were possible for Gord's vocals, which I doubt, I think it's a ridiculous wish. How many times have the Hip in fact delivered a 'back to basics' record only to have it dissed by the fans? They did IBE - totally live, off the floor, urgent stuff - and nobody liked it. They did NFPA - impassioned, driven, urgent rock and roll songs - and ho-hum, the same reaction of indifference from many of the very same people that are demanding a 'back to basics' record.

Automatons like AC-DC are one thing, but for LIVING artists who actually try to express real thoughts and emotions and ideas in their work, it's simply not POSSIBLE to 'go back to basics' in the sense of sounding exactly like you sounded 30 years ago. Think about it; would you do that in your own life, go back and live, act, talk, think, feel the way you did decades ago? Of course not. It'd be excruciating.

If you ask me, the Hip's fundamental problem is not that they've deviated from the 1990s sound, it's that they haven't deviated far enough. The Bob Rock albums were problematic (I think WC is possibly the worst thing the Hip have ever done, period, though I liked quite a bit of WATS), but at least it showed them explicitly branching out and trying new sounds. If they keep delivering mature, passionate rock and roll like NFPA their audience will continue to dwindle: fans of their 1990s stuff won't like it because it doesn't have enough power chords (or Gord doesn't sound like he used to, or whatever), while non-fans will dismiss it as the same old thing.

One way forward is to integrate more technology into their staple sound (like those blips at the end of 'At Transformation'). But what I've been arguing for a long time is that the Hip have never fully developed the *acoustic* side of their repertoire. One of their best songs is 'Ahead by a Century' - that 'heavy folk' sound runs through their stuff but has never been foregrounded. I really feel that THAT is what they should do. Totally clear the decks, bring a totally new sonic palette to the forefront that is nonetheless on a continuum with past highlights like 'Scared' or 'Wheat Kings.' IMHO that's what has the best chance of changing the conversation, getting them a new hearing and maybe revitalizing their audience a bit.

[direwolf74]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread. I am tolerably sure that Gord's vocal problems on the last Hip tour were indeed mostly the result of boredom with the material and some sort of frustration with fan expectations (along the lines of, 'OK, you want me to holler like an idiot? HERE YOU GO YA DUMMIES!'). I also think he was being a bit unfair to his fans, but then again, look around the crowd, what do you see but a bunch of greying 40-somethings who haven't listened to a new Hip record in 15 years and just want to relive their youth. So maybe he's onto something.

This thread illustrates a part of the problem, though. Several posters have come on here expressing a deep-seated wish that the Hip 'get back to basics,' get back to their '90s sound, etc. Even if this were possible for Gord's vocals, which I doubt, I think it's a ridiculous wish. How many times have the Hip in fact delivered a 'back to basics' record only to have it dissed by the fans? They did IBE - totally live, off the floor, urgent stuff - and nobody liked it. They did NFPA - impassioned, driven, urgent rock and roll songs - and ho-hum, the same reaction of indifference from many of the very same people that are demanding a 'back to basics' record.

Automatons like AC-DC are one thing, but for LIVING artists who actually try to express real thoughts and emotions and ideas in their work, it's simply not POSSIBLE to 'go back to basics' in the sense of sounding exactly like you sounded 30 years ago. Think about it; would you do that in your own life, go back and live, act, talk, think, feel the way you did decades ago? Of course not. It'd be excruciating.

If you ask me, the Hip's fundamental problem is not that they've deviated from the 1990s sound, it's that they haven't deviated far enough. The Bob Rock albums were problematic (I think WC is possibly the worst thing the Hip have ever done, period, though I liked quite a bit of WATS), but at least it showed them explicitly branching out and trying new sounds. If they keep delivering mature, passionate rock and roll like NFPA their audience will continue to dwindle: fans of their 1990s stuff won't like it because it doesn't have enough power chords (or Gord doesn't sound like he used to, or whatever), while non-fans will dismiss it as the same old thing.

One way forward is to integrate more technology into their staple sound (like those blips at the end of 'At Transformation'). But what I've been arguing for a long time is that the Hip have never fully developed the *acoustic* side of their repertoire. One of their best songs is 'Ahead by a Century' - that 'heavy folk' sound runs through their stuff but has never been foregrounded. I really feel that THAT is what they should do. Totally clear the decks, bring a totally new sonic palette to the forefront that is nonetheless on a continuum with past highlights like 'Scared' or 'Wheat Kings.' IMHO that's what has the best chance of changing the conversation, getting them a new hearing and maybe revitalizing their audience a bit.

Excellent post. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an acoustic record.

[Dagger]

"look around the crowd, what do you see but a bunch of greying 40-somethings who haven't listened to a new Hip record in 15 years and just want to relive their youth."



Speaking as one of these "greying 40- somethings" (I'm actually over 50) I must say that I have bought and listened extensively to EVERY Hip record and have seen them live well over 100 times - the first time being before many of you "fans" were born. The simple fact of the matter is that the early records are simply better ROCK albums and ROCK is the reason we all love this band. I enjoy their acoustic stuff as much as any fan (although I confess to getting bored by hearing ABAC in concert yet again) but it is the ROCK songs that get people off their feet (even us grey hairs) Seriously, which song would you rather hear them play live - ABAC or Three Pistols??

For me, many songs on NFPA were not Hip songs. When I heard At Transformation I was thrilled that the whole album might be like that - then I heard the title track. Geez - really?? It's not that us old fans ONLY yearn for the old stuff - I eagerly await every album - we just think that our beloved band is, first,foremost and always, a ROCK band.

[Killer Whale Tank]

Oh, I too am one of those greying 40somethings, don't worry about that!

'Plan A' is quite obviously a rock album. It's just not an exact replica of what they were doing in 1990. I admire your loyalty to the band, but it kinda seems to me that if you're buying each record hoping for Road Apples II you really are wasting your time and money.

[fingernailsonhull]

I love Three Pistols. I also really like the title track from NFPA. It's one of the few songs from NFPA that I still enjoy. The music needs to match the message. You can't have the music of Three Pistols with a solemn and sober reflection on commitment through both life and death.

[Killer Whale Tank]

I love Three Pistols. I also really like the title track from NFPA. It's one of the few songs from NFPA that I still enjoy. The music needs to match the message. You can't have the music of Three Pistols with a solemn and sober reflection on commitment through both life and death.

Indeed...and further to this, Hip records from the very beginning have included quieter moments, like 'Fiddler's Green.' I'm not sure why the song 'Now for Plan A' somehow invalidates the album of the same name, or the Hip's standing as a 'rock band.' I do find the song boring, but that's a different discussion.

I guess it all depends on our frame of reference. Many of the acts I've followed over the years - Dylan, Elvis Costello, Tom Waits, not to mention lifelong favourites like The Beatles - moved around and did different things as their careers evolved. And all of them, not unlike the Hip, have been saddled with a very narrow and rigid set of expectations from their early fans, and were criticized of dismissed for daring to deviate. Dylan got called 'Judas' for plugging in. Hard as it is to believe now, a lot of people were hostile to The Beatles for turning darker and murkier after Sgt. Pepper, and I still remember people dismissing Achtung Baby as U2 'selling out.' Even quite conservative examples of my favourite artists, like Ron Sexsmith or Gillian Welch, have in fact branched out in different directions over the years. Artists have to move or die; you can't keep doing *exactly* the same thing for 30 years, unless you're a monkey.

[pars9393]

I have loved all of their stuff and I just want them to listen to whatever their creative minds put out. There is a simple solution to all of this. Gord to sing certain songs closer to original and if he wants to be a pinch different then fine. I have begged someone to convince the hip for years that they need to develop a pearl jam like mentality with their setlists again and never be afraid to practice and play any song you ever played. End of story, so simple!!

[jgardz]

I dig all their albums in different ways...some are better than others, but I'm glad that each is different. My only real problem is the recent live product...the studio stuff is fine...some great rock songs, some interesting detours, and a clunker or 2...as long as they keeping putting out tunes, I'll keep on buying!

[hippie]

If you ask me, the Hip's fundamental problem is not that they've deviated from the 1990s sound, it's that they haven't deviated far enough. If they keep delivering mature, passionate rock and roll like NFPA their audience will continue to dwindle: fans of their 1990s stuff won't like it because it doesn't have enough power chords (or Gord doesn't sound like he used to, or whatever), while non-fans will dismiss it as the same old thing.

One way forward is to integrate more technology into their staple sound (like those blips at the end of 'At Transformation'). But what I've been arguing for a long time is that the Hip have never fully developed the *acoustic* side of their repertoire. One of their best songs is 'Ahead by a Century' - that 'heavy folk' sound runs through their stuff but has never been foregrounded. I really feel that THAT is what they should do. Totally clear the decks, bring a totally new sonic palette to the forefront that is nonetheless on a continuum with past highlights like 'Scared' or 'Wheat Kings.' IMHO that's what has the best chance of changing the conversation, getting them a new hearing and maybe revitalizing their audience a bit.

i agree with most of this. DFN, FC, MAW, and TATH are some of my favourite Hip albums because they embrace experimentalism; dark tonality; and rich, lush timbres. all of those albums are great albums that just happen to be Canadian; however, now the Hip seem to be trying to make great Canadian albums. IBE, WC, WATS, and NFPA all have their catchy moments, but they all seem to pander to the desires of some archetypal Canadian Hip fan. my favourite Hip albums always have me wondering why they didn't see more international popularity; i haven't wondered that with the last several albums. it's not that they're too Canadian. i'm not even sure if something can be too Canadian. they're just too conventional, self-conscious, and, frankly, in comparison to when the Hip are at their best, shallow

i'm hoping the next Hip album will be, for lack of a better term, an art rock (or avant-garde) album. that's what i consider my favourite Hip albums. on those albums, whether they did an acoustic song, a lush prog piece, or a dirty rock jam, they were pushing the boundaries of what music can be—and i am certain that is something they can still do

[tber]

I also am a fan of most every studio album,although the last two have a few undesirable tracks imo. As stated earlier, my complaint is the stagnant live show. I've seen about 130 shows since'93,countless hours on the road,and who knows how much money I've spent following them. All I ask is,like many of you, mix it up a bit. Problem solved.

[kleh]

i think they could & should continue to work in covers into the end of the sets

i mean how great is this

[youtube]D5Ygn4Qvpkc[/youtube]

[cochise]

"look around the crowd, what do you see but a bunch of greying 40-somethings who haven't listened to a new Hip record in 15 years and just want to relive their youth."



Speaking as one of these "greying 40- somethings" (I'm actually over 50) I must say that I have bought and listened extensively to EVERY Hip record and have seen them live well over 100 times - the first time being before many of you "fans" were born. The simple fact of the matter is that the early records are simply better ROCK albums and ROCK is the reason we all love this band. I enjoy their acoustic stuff as much as any fan (although I confess to getting bored by hearing ABAC in concert yet again) but it is the ROCK songs that get people off their feet (even us grey hairs) Seriously, which song would you rather hear them play live - ABAC or Three Pistols??

For me, many songs on NFPA were not Hip songs. When I heard At Transformation I was thrilled that the whole album might be like that - then I heard the title track. Geez - really?? It's not that us old fans ONLY yearn for the old stuff - I eagerly await every album - we just think that our beloved band is, first,foremost and always, a ROCK band.

This is perfectly said. I had posted earlier about wanting them to get back to their original sound. Doing that does not stimey them from growth and maturing as artists, nor does it mean I am trying to relive my youth. Many artists have grown considerably, yet at the core is their roots that you can still hear, take The Stones, Pearl Jam, Rush, etc for instance. Every single one of them matured from a teenage band into incredible artists, but you listen to one of their first hits and a more recent hit, their core is still there. The Hips core shows flashes now and again, for instance Gus, Lonley End Of The Rink, At Transformation etc, but that is too few and far between, maybe one song an album anymore.

Back when the Hip first came out, they were compared to the likes of The Stones, Pearl Jam, REM, etc. If the Hip were a new band today, where say their first LP was World Container and forward, they would not be getting those comparisons, it would be more along the lines of much "easier listening" artists, more adult contemporary "CBC radio" worthy type bands. Its not that I completely dislike their last few albums, but they almost seem to be an entirely different group now.

I am not asking the band to stop growth, I am just wanting them to return to their core and expand on it, return to that bluesy rock that made them The Hip in the first place.

[eatmecompletely]

love the comparison that a hip show is now 40 year olds with grey hair
i remember when a hip show was a bunch of kids with ball caps on backwards

I have seen over 45 hip shows

The most recent shows i saw i found extremely boring, almost as if gord could care less and is just waiting for the pay check
i have posted on this bored before, that the hip needs to
- stop letting gord do his rehersed dances maybe put the guitar back in his hands (I remember in 95 when he first started playing it during daredevil and everyone thought that was the end of the hip)
- focus on playing the bar room music we love
- a couple of covers would be sick would love to hear them play the music that inspired them
- and last but not least a little passion and act like you enjoy it !

[Rye]

If you want The Hip to play bar room music, go watch a local cover band.

The new songs sound great live. The problem is when they bust out "old favorites" like New Orleans Is Sinking that Gord just butchers and screams through. I hate that the band feels obligated to play these songs when Gord clearly isn't interested. For whatever reason they feel like they have to play these hits. They should be following Neil Young or Pearl Jam and if they're bored of a song, retire it and don't bother. Again, Gord doesn't butcher the new songs, it's the old ones.

And the comment a few posts above about Pearl Jam still sounding