The morning after the pantomime horse the night before.

Guilty Partner wrote:

You're gonna have to point me in the direction of what-you-consider-to-be a 'good' New Order performance then?! Just so that we can compare notes. 511 or 316, perhaps?

Reading 1993 - perfect

I can hear the guffaws already but I really rate Montreaux. You'll probably hate it for being sterile (granted the crowd is a dud) but it's a great performance musically and a great song selection. The fact that they are quite sedate is fine by me - I preferred their aloof, understated dignity on stage, when they hardly addressed the audience, as opposed to endless whoops, Carry-On humour and guys dressed in horse suits.

The beauty of New Order was that even though they could be cold, clinical and devastating onstage, fans were in on the joke - they were funny bastards off the stage. Now that they're funny bastards ALL the time, use autocues, backing singers, taped vocals and keyboards, crap dancing, dodgy duets...it's all got a bit silly.

Al Jarvis wrote:

brade27 wrote:

Guilty Partner wrote:

You're gonna have to point me in the direction of what-you-consider-to-be a 'good' New Order performance then?! Just so that we can compare notes. 511 or 316, perhaps?

Reading 1993 - perfect

I can hear the guffaws already but I really rate Montreaux. You'll probably hate it for being sterile (granted the crowd is a dud) but it's a great performance musically and a great song selection. The fact that they are quite sedate is fine by me - I preferred their aloof, understated dignity on stage, when they hardly addressed the audience, as opposed to endless whoops, Carry-On humour and guys dressed in horse suits.

The beauty of New Order was that even though they could be cold, clinical and devastating onstage, fans were in on the joke - they were funny bastards off the stage. Now that they're funny bastards ALL the time, use autocues, backing singers, taped vocals and keyboards, crap dancing, dodgy duets...it's all got a bit silly.

I think they feed off their audience, like any performers. Montreaux looks a little sedate, cos the audience were the same. I saw them in Denmark the day before (or after?) and they were a different animal. Can still remember stage-lights switching to green and Temptation kicking in and the entire place just going OFF. You can see them dancing around like chumps when the audience are into it on this year's dates, but at somewhere like Coachella they just looked bored off their tits cos they were performing before NIN fans, all waiting for the 'main act'.

I believe you, with perhaps the exception of Steve who always seems to look bored out of his mind

What great set at Glastonbury, was amazing and NO F*****g Blue Monday to ruin it. Keep up the good work

Al Jarvis wrote: In what way? Loads of us from here were there and it was like a wake. I don't think any of the gigs were that good, per se, in 1993, and they did the exact same setlist from the US onwards. Reading 93 promised a lot, and failed to deliver. Went out with a fizzle instead of a bang. For a 'final' gig Reading 89 was infinitely better.

I don't know, Al. I've heard only the bootleg, but Reading 1993 seems like a mixed event. On one hand you have a band in the worst mood possible, and overall a mediocre performance. BUT there are glorious moments like Fine Time and Perfect Kiss... my only regret of the times I've seen New Order is I never got those two essential songs. We've had others... there were no Isolation or Crystal at Reading 1993, so I don't complain. But I'd really love to get Perfect Kiss live at least once, though I know it's so unlikely and I'm so happy we got back EGG! Anyway I agree the spirit and quality of that gig are nothing when compared to the triumphant comeback of 1988 or some great gigs like Paris 2002...