new order mentioned in new york times "we hate the 80s"

just a very brief reference:

The recording industry was slow to act, but over the last year and a half it has belatedly started trying to cash in on it all. Performers lost in the pop wilderness for a generation suddenly decided to get in touch with their old, often estranged mates, and get the band back together in the name of art, commerce or both. A raft of once-popular acts, from the danceable R&B group New Edition to the pop idols Duran Duran and George Michael to the more self-serious Tears for Fears to the standard-bearers of teenage angst, the Cure, all shook off the dust and signed new recording contracts in the past 18 months or so, releasing CD's of new music in some cases for the first time in 15 years. In the footsteps of Motley Crue's double album, the stylishly snarling Billy Idol, the dark darlings New Order and the famously burly rapper Heavy D will be releasing new albums as well.

the whole article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/arts/music/13leed.html? or if you don't like to register for nyt, or if it gets archived + removed, i saved it here: http://www.lossless.us/music/nyt-80s-20050213.htm

my first kneejerk reaction is, bloody hell, they mentioned new order in between billy idol and heavy d?!? :D

beyond that, new order doesn't really belong with the rest of the '80s bands that the article talks about. they did put out an album in the '90s. and despite the long hiatus, obviously they never stopped making music. plus it seems nyt never noticed this thing called get ready.

but it's a reminder of how new order gets lumped in as an "80's band". i suppose that, for a sizable group of music fans out there, new order is just blue monday or bizarre love triangle or shellshock off the pretty in pink soundtrack, and that's that.

The entire article is fairly boring and stupid. The NYT used to refer to NO as purveyors of "mope-rock."

gosh, and here i thought new order were pioneers of "sadcore"? :)

one interesting part of the article was the talk of ways of tapping into nostalgia, and how it differs for gen-x versus baby boomers.

It's not like they split up, ok they only did 1 album in the 90s, but they did plenty as side-projects.. the band never stopped.

yep, i agree, i said the same in my initial post.

it'll be interesting down the line, say 20 years from now. when we look back in 2025, how strongly could new order be labelled a representative of the '80s music? many of us probably consider their songs as timeless, not bound to a time period and getting dated in the process. but it's not necessarily a bad thing for an artist to fully express his or her time, no? technique seems to be hailed as capturing the ibiza feel of the summer of love, but it doesn't seem to have dated. of course, it does boast slightly better songwriting than, say, billy idol.

i'm also guessing that the general impression of "new order = a band of the '80s" will only get stronger as time goes by. certainly, in 2025 if not now, the '80s will be seen as the peak of new order. yes i love regret and i enjoy get ready and wftsc, but like nearly every longtime band, i'm not hopeful they'll change the world twice, so to speak.

I'm just wondering how pissed the folks are over at HeavyDOnline.com :p

I hate New Order being lumped in the same category as groups like Duran Duran and even Tears For Fears. For a start, they sound nothing like these groups! And secondly... New Order are far more experimental whilst these groups were most definitely 'pop' groups of the time. Admittedly... New Order are no longer at the cutting edge of British music, and are more 'pop' than ever before. Hard to believe that this group were originally influenced by punk music and Kraftwerk.

this is just a lazy article to fill up newspaper space, written by somebody who barely knows what they are talking about. this article could have been written in 2002... 2003... 2004... 2005... 2006... there has actually been a retro 80s dance "revival" the past few years before this, and any and every year you have hasbeens trying to cash in on past glory... just a bunch of bullshit

Originally posted by pumped full of drugs this is just a lazy article to fill up newspaper space, written by somebody who barely knows what they are talking about. this article could have been written in 2002... 2003... 2004... 2005... 2006... there has actually been a retro 80s dance "revival" the past few years before this, and any and every year you have hasbeens trying to cash in on past glory... just a bunch of bullshit

Well said.

Basically... what goes around, comes around eh? Just listen to the shite that Girls Aloud and Rachel Stevens are doing... so 80s retro dance (but in a naff way) its not true