[potsie]

I thought I would start a new thread to discuss the contents of Barclay's book. The intention with this second "book" thread would be to avoid diminishing the reading experience for those that haven't yet read the book, through unwanted spoilers. So, be forewarned... SPOILERS AHEAD! If you haven't read the book and care about this short of thing, stick to the first "book" thread, started by thompson girl.

Gord Downie paraphrased a quote from the 19th century French novelist Gustave Flaubert in a MuchMusic interview many years ago: "Be regular and ordinary in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work ." After finishing the book, it is clear that this is a very apt description for the Hip. They are unfailingly polite gentlemen who do the dishes at parties. This presents a challenge for someone writing a rock biography as the Hip were relatively ordinary (and some might say "boring") in how they carried themselves offstage. Barclay was unable to rely on tales of boorish and abhorrent behavior (throwing TV's out hotel room windows, doing lines of coke off a stripper's back...) that pepper many of the great rock biographies. Instead, he was left to focus on the challenge of discussing the music in a manner that would satisfy hardcore fans but also keep the book accessible to the more casual fan. I think he pulls it off nicely.

What's missing, as pointed out by others, is how exactly the sausage was made. Kieffer mentioned previously that the book is shaped in many ways by the limitations of the interview subjects Barclay had access to. I agree completely. Without access to the band members themselves we are left without much in the way of insight into the creative process. However, while content like this is what the hardcore fan is looking for (and where the band can fill in the gaps with an autobiography down the road), focusing a lot on this area would have also narrowed the appeal of his book. Barclay does a good job of analysis in this area when he is able to, predominantly through interviews with producers.

As for the "not his story to tell" criticism, I think this can also be rebutted by pointing out that much of the book is spent discussing Gord Downie and his solo career. Downie is not around to share the tale so who's left to claim ownership? I greatly appreciated the inclusion of Gord's solo career in the book, particularly the insights into the making of Coke Machine Glow.

[potsie]

The inner workings of the band dynamics are never really explicitly discussed but are alluded to several times through the mentioning of creative decisions that were made. There are several instances where Downie seems to have exerted control, and possible undue influence, and leads me to wonder whether the band in the second half of its career was truly a fully democratic machine or whether Downie was at times a benevolent dictator. Three examples of this are:

1. The band was considering Don Smith to produce World Container and Downie, as Barclay phrased it, "rolled a Rock up that hill".
2. The engineer on NFPA did some mixes that emphasized the "rock" aspects of the album, which made some of the band happy but not Downie, so a different approach was taken.
3. The choice of the first single on MMP where the band wanted "Machine" and Downie fought for "In a World".

There is always the strong possibility of reading too much into some of these decisions, but after Downie established a solid solo career, I wonder if his "vote" carried more weight with the rest of the band knowing that he had other creative outlets if he wasn't feeling satisfied within the Hip.

And as for Smith potentially producing World Container, I'm left to ponder what could have been...

[direwolf74]

The inner workings of the band dynamics are never really explicitly discussed but are alluded to several times through the mentioning of creative decisions that were made. There are several instances where Downie seems to have exerted control, and possible undue influence, and leads me to wonder whether the band in the second half of its career was truly a fully democratic machine or whether Downie was at times a benevolent dictator. Three examples of this are:

1. The band was considering Don Smith to produce World Container and Downie, as Barclay phrased it, "rolled a Rock up that hill".
2. The engineer on NFPA did some mixes that emphasized the "rock" aspects of the album, which made some of the band happy but not Downie, so a different approach was taken.
3. The choice of the first single on MMP where the band wanted "Machine" and Downie fought for "In a World".

There is always the strong possibility of reading too much into some of these decisions, but after Downie established a solid solo career, I wonder if his "vote" carried more weight with the rest of the band knowing that he had other creative outlets if he wasn't feeling satisfied within the Hip.

And as for Smith potentially producing World Container, I'm left to ponder what could have been...

There was also the whole clusterfudge with their lawsuit over their song publishing, which ultimately resulted in the firing of Jake Gold. However, Gold continued to manage Gord's solo career up until the end of touring for Battle of the Nudes. I'm thinking that may have also rubbed the band the wrong way to an extent.

I was also surprised to hear about the band being somewhat threatened by Chris Brown and Kate Fenner's involvement in the 2000 tour. Weird that it was Brown, an outsider, who ended up calling a band meeting while on the road to clear the air and dispel any notion that he and Fenner were working with Gord on his solo project.

Of course all of this gives even more emotional weight to the song Love Over Money:

"We fell and we fell out, and got back up."

"Love, broken and repaired."


No doubt that every successful band goes through stuff like this at one point, especially bands that have long careers. Everyone knows the story about U2 almost breaking up during the sessions for Achtung Baby because of creative differences. The similarities between the Hip and Pearl Jam are almost eerie. They too went through a phase at one point where they felt threatened by Eddie Vedder's growing influence, which resulted in band squabbles and drummer Dave Abbruzzese getting fired. In the mid-90s, Vedder wanted them to revert from the mainstream and be more punk-rock/underground, and the rest of the band fought back and said "but that's not what we are", and there was an internal struggle during that period. And yet, much like the Hip, they got through it and soldiered on.

I'm only about halfway through the book, and there are so many things I still want to discuss. Looking forward to checking back in on this thread when I'm done.

[edgoffin]

The inner workings of the band dynamics are never really explicitly discussed but are alluded to several times through the mentioning of creative decisions that were made. There are several instances where Downie seems to have exerted control, and possible undue influence, and leads me to wonder whether the band in the second half of its career was truly a fully democratic machine or whether Downie was at times a benevolent dictator.

It's examples like that where Barclay's approach likely tells closer to the truth, versus what the band would have written. I find it interesting that there were these small divisions that, in most cases, would defeat a band. It goes back to who would write lyrics, and extended to choosing the first single of their final album. I suspect the band would gloss over these details, but I think Barclay does good job at subtly highlighting these many moments where it could have fallen off the rails.

One thing missing is the resolution -- who played peace maker or mediator. That's where insight from the band would have been interesting. I equate it to REM, where Bill Berry played that role. After he left, they made one so-so and one terrible album, before bringing in a stronger willed producer who could mediate within the band. Barclay highlights the conflict, but there are cases where I wanted to know how they then got to a decision.

Barclay also does not try and make GD a saint (so maybe the FB crew should not read the book). There are definitely times when he comes across as a benevolent dictator, or possibly just a dictator. In some of the attributed quotes, he sounds worn down by the Hip machine in comparison to what he was able to do in his solo career. It's mentioned in the book, and excuse the paraphrasing, but it struck me as odd and a bit diminishing to the 30 year history with the band that he called the Secret Path his most important work. I get it, I understand, maybe I agree, but it felt a bit cold. Those are areas where band involvement, or maybe more sources, could have filled out the story a bit better.

For the rest of the band, they were all very private throughout their career -- Gord shared more in the last 18 months than he had in 28 years. I think Barclay respected that privacy, when he could have likely written more about their personal lives with just a bit of digging if he wished.

Mentioned in the other thread, but I liked the chapter on the cover bands. Mostly because I agree with the author, and just don't understand the motivation to stand on the stage or be in the audience. When the band was in the peak commercial years, I live in Kingston, where a person told me he preferred the band Road Apples over The Hip. I've never recovered from that. My takeaway from the chapter was you can play all the same notes, try and look and act the same, but there was something unique about those guys together that could never be replicated.

Craziest thing I learned from the book -- management's initial view that DFN was a dud.

Most intriguing -- Gord seemed to have finished another solo album with Hamelin/Drew before completing Introduce Yerself, and an album with Rock that's maybe a train derailment concept album?

[kieffer]

As I was reading the book, I tried to highlight anything that was truly new information for me. Some of them have been mentioned above (DFN being a dud, train derailment concept album) and I hope to be able to discuss some of them. While I was never one that required external validation from others that this was a great band, I did truly enjoy some of the quick comments in the book from Flea, Robert Plant and Mick Jagger.

Funny that Potsie found a story of his being used in the book, and I totally agree that there felt as though there was some familiarity with some of the opinions and thoughts shared on the various album threads. This doesn't bother me at all, but as I was reading I remember thinking a few times that I had read a post with the exact same line of thinking as Barclay.

Generally I found the most telling and insightful quotes to come from Julie Dorion, Kate and Chris and Kevin Drew (that story from him near the end about the final text's he exchanged with Gord was gutting).

Looking forward to this thread picking up steam as others finish reading.

[kieffer]

And two comments in which I vehemently disagree with Barclay on from the book.

1. No one views TATHH as their favourite Hip album
2. Gord's on stage fights with the microphone stand became tiresome.

[direwolf74]

With all the love, admiration, and attention that Gord and the Hip received over the past two years, it's easy to forget that there are people out there who truly hate this band. That harsh email message that Barclay inserted in the book from one of the band's peers (name withheld) was a bit jarring when I read it, especially when he says "they've always been terrible". Whoever that guy is, I get the impression that he almost resents their success, even though he admits that he likes them as people.

[potsie]

And two comments in which I vehemently disagree with Barclay on from the book.

1. No one views TATHH as their favourite Hip album
2. Gord's on stage fights with the microphone stand became tiresome.

Agree. It was the white hanky that began to feel tiresome to me, not the mic stand fights. I never tired of those.

A couple of other things I disagree with:
1. He states that "Born in the Water" is "definitely not one of the Hip's most powerful songs" (agree) and doesn't get into specifics (disagree) when compared to a work like Secret Path. I think "Born in the Water" is actually "too specific", which is the reason it doesn't hold up. It feels like Gord documented a Soo Municipal Council meeting in song. It feels very provincial and dated.
2. Phantom Power's "lyrical triumph is 'Fireworks'". I cringed when reading that. On an album full of great lyrics, Fireworks is not the one that rises to the top for me. Personal opinion, I suppose.

[potsie]

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.

[hotmetal401]

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.

I alluded to it in the other thread, but he has a couple of paragraphs on the Copper Penny bootleg early on. He essentially combines that bootleg (which has circulated for over a decade) with the 1987 Renfrew show that surfaced around the time of the last show. As I said in the other thread, catching onto that is a total Database moment, but it still jarred me. I'm also pretty certain Boots and Trickle Down were swapped when discussing who wrote what on Up To Here. The sheer fact Boots and Hearts continued to be played is proof enough it's a Downie lyric.

I would have liked more about the early days and less about the cover bands. Davis Manning is still alive - was he talked to at all? I'm sure someone other than Jake Gold could have had an on-the-record quote about the disagreements within the band about Coke Machine Glow (or if those songs were, in fact, the discarded tracks from Music At Work).

As for the "unnamed musician," it'll be very hard to convince me that wasn't Chris Murphy.

All this said it was an enjoyable read, filled with stuff that wasn't too commonly known. Like Sinclair meeting his first wife at the Lakeview? Amazing. Or their current manager running the Copper Penny back in the mid-80s? Just great stuff.

[Moof_Milker]

p. 114. DFN release date is incorrectly listed as September 6, 1994. Should be September 19, 1994.

In my mind, DFN was released on a Saturday. This was of note because a) albums aren't usually released on Saturdays and there was talk about this unique release day at the time, and b) this was the first album I bought as soon as it came out - release day, in my mind. I very well could be wrong - it's been know to happen daily, but the fact that I see so many varying dates attributed to the release day of DFN sent me down a rabbit hole trying to find actual evidence. Sept. 6 (a Tuesday) and Sept 19 (a Monday) are both mentioned a lot online - usually in articles written after-the-fact. But I did find this newspaper review dated Sept 24 (a Saturday!) that says the album "hits store today."

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://media.winnipegfreepress.com/images/hip-94-d4n-album-review.jpg">https://media.winnipegfreepress.com/ima ... review.jpg</a><!-- m -->

None of this really matters -- maybe there was a limited early release or something like that -- I'm just coming to grips that maybe my memory is flawed. As the song says, we don't go to hell...the memories (of DFN's release) do cratch: . At the very least, that review of DFN I linked to is worth a read.

As for the "unnamed musician," it'll be very hard to convince me that wasn't Chris Murphy.

Hey, it's not the band he hates...it's their fans.

[edgoffin]

p. 114. DFN release date is incorrectly listed as September 6, 1994. Should be September 19, 1994.

In my mind, DFN was released on a Saturday.

I remember it as a Saturday as well. I was living in Kingston at the time, and the music store downtown stayed open until midnight on Friday to sell the album. The band were rumoured to playing a show in town to celebrate the release. I tried to find it with no luck. That said, I was in my early 20s and just out of university -- practically every day in my social calendar felt like a Friday or Saturday.

The unnamed musician. Patrick has some really nice things to say about Gord and his support for the band on Twitter, and there were a few articles about when Gord solo shared a festival bill with Sloan. I haven't heard it yet, but Andrew has a song that name checks Gord as well on the new release. I don't think it could be a comment from any band member who every toured with the band, based on how well they treated openers and those who joined them as side musicians. Could just as much be a musician having a bit of sarcastic fun. I have the sense Gord would have got a laugh from the comment.

[direwolf74]

I remember it as a Saturday as well. I was living in Kingston at the time, and the music store downtown stayed open until midnight on Friday to sell the album. The band were rumoured to playing a show in town to celebrate the release. I tried to find it with no luck.

I'm pretty sure you're correct about the Saturday release thing. I remember a buddy and I walked into a 7-11 a couple days before the official release, and to our surprise we noticed a DFN counter display filled with CD and cassette copies already on sale. (yes, you could buy music at 7-11 back then). We couldn't believe our luck. I remember driving around with friends in my car blasting the CD that day, and everybody saying "how did you get this? I thought it wasn't out until the weekend." Good times.

[direwolf74]

Finished the book this morning. Overall I'd say it was a highly enjoyable, informative, and heartbreaking read. It also makes a great companion piece to Barclay's other book Have Not Been the Same. My only real gripe is the chapter about Hip cover bands. I found it boring and unnecessary. And as other folks have pointed out, it was placed too early in the book and interrupted the excellent & more interesting chapters on the band's rise to fame.

I also would have liked a little more insight and analysis of the music itself, as well as the recording process for each album. But since the band didn't participate, I expected it wouldn't get too deep into that stuff. So it's not so much a complaint, but more of a wish for future books about the band. Hopefully we'll get a deeper, more intimate story from the band members themselves eventually. Rob is rumored to be writing his memoirs, so we have that to look forward to (hopefully).

Some of my favorite bits from this book were the road stories from the various opening bands:

Kate Fenner talking about being able to hear Gord's rants through her in-ear monitors on stage in crystal clear quality. How she could hear things he was saying that the audience couldn't, and just marveling at how his brain worked.

Ian Blurton's story about the crazy show in Dallas with the guy crowdsurfing in a wheelchair, fights in the mosh pit, and the pregnant woman lying on the stage.

Jim Cuddy's story about Blue Rodeo and the Hip opening for the Eagles, and how pissed off the Eagles were when the Hip refused to cut their set short.

Robert Plant taking a liking to them when they opened the Page & Plant shows in '95.

[potsie]

I was also surprised to hear about the band being somewhat threatened by Chris Brown and Kate Fenner's involvement in the 2000 tour. Weird that it was Brown, an outsider, who ended up calling a band meeting while on the road to clear the air and dispel any notion that he and Fenner were working with Gord on his solo project.

The picture Chris Brown paints is one of tension within the band at that time. It is a credit to the Hip's professionalism that despite whatever feelings they had towards each other at that time, the discord never manifested on stage. The 2000 "Evening with" shows were some of the best in their career.

One thing missing is the resolution -- who played peace maker or mediator. That's where insight from the band would have been interesting. I equate it to REM, where Bill Berry played that role. After he left, they made one so-so and one terrible album, before bringing in a stronger willed producer who could mediate within the band. Barclay highlights the conflict, but there are cases where I wanted to know how they then got to a decision.

I'm hoping we get this one day. The personal dynamics within the band are something I'm interested in. Is there one member that was the "glue guy" that kept it all together? Was anyone ever close to packing it up? Anyone ever storm out of a recording session, upset over creative differences? How were these differences resolved? [/quote]