Very outdated, and not in a cool way. Lyrically it's not bad, but musically it sounds like any lame pop band from 1987 could have recorded it. The song is so bad, it's almost offensive. So dated, it hurts.
J
Dates
· UTC
1963 SUCKS
Archived56 replies · 1,244 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Hope you're not expecting anyone to agree with you on here
I think it's overrated. I like the 1995 Arthur Baker mix better. A great song and a worthy b-side to True Faith, but could never understand how people could say it should been the a-side. The outro bass, the keyboard, and the "I just want to feel free" lyrics are top class.
MLANH- "My Life Ain't No Holiday" wrote: Very outdated, and not in a cool way. Lyrically it's not bad, but musically it sounds like any lame pop band from 1987 could have recorded it. The song is so bad, it's almost offensive. So dated, it hurts.
J
Piss off. Everybody has a song they might not like. But that's a lame ass argument.
YOU PISS OFF! The fuck do you think you are telling me to piss off. I obviously LOVE the band, and I love 98.2% of all their songs like they were my children. If there's one song of theirs which I cannot stand, why can't I vent about it a little bit without being scoffed at? Chump.
J
This is an assessment that carries little weight. If you're going to say a NO track sounds dated, why not cite something like State of the Nation where both the production is kind of ridiculous and the songwriting is subpar. 1963 has a classic NO progression.
Can't say it is any more dated (or outdated) than Face Up or Fine Time, perhaps. Lyrics are fair. I mean, I was never completely worked up over the song as a favorite, but I wouldn't turn it off if it was on the turntable or the cd changer.
To me, it doesn't sound like anything else going on at the time with a slight nod to the instruments, perhaps. It's rather obvious with the synths that it's not something that would necessarily be programmed the same way these days. Other than that, I don't really see the argument on the song. 
The 95 version is nice, though. It got tuned the right way, in my opinion. Dropped the wah wah synths and took it more into a upbeat "dance rock" song. In a way.
I guess where I was coming from with "dated" was that although other NO songs also kind of sound dated, they at least have a distinguished New Order feel. I'm not the biggest Stephen Hague fan. I think Republic is sub par, but I do enjoy the song True Faith. I just think that 1963 sounds very melodramatic, and just kind of generic, honestly (music, not lyrics). I respect what they're trying to do, but I just think the song kind of sucks. I think it sounds just waay too cheesy for my liking. By the way, I think the song Subculture on the other hand embodies everything that "electronic" New Order is about.
J
melly wrote: The 95 version is nice, though. It got tuned the right way, in my opinion. Dropped the wah wah synths and took it more into a upbeat "dance rock" song. In a way.
I often play both the original Hague mix and the 1995 version; I wouldn't want to be without the keyboard arrangement of the former or the Hooky bass of the latter. Maybe someone should combine them, but then since they're both lead elements they might not fit together equally.
State of Love and Trust wrote: 1963 does not suck. End of.
Spot on Jack.
I guess my problem with this thread is the title. Although there are certain NO songs that are not my favorites, I don't think I'd ever characterize any of their songs as "sucks." That adjective should be saved for Christina Aguilera's next single. Personally, the Arthur Baker re-mix of 1963 is one of my faves, and that version even cracked the list of my Top 10 NO songs on an earlier thread.
Since we're on the topic here, can I use this thread to debate what the lyrics to 1963 mean? 
Just kidding...Lord knows that horse has been beaten to death 1,000 times on here already.
If you don't like the song, you don't need to dwell on it. If you don't like New Order, you shouldn't even be here.
MLANH- "My Life Ain't No Holiday" wrote: YOU PISS OFF! The fuck do you think you are telling me to piss off. I obviously LOVE the band, and I love 98.2% of all their songs like they were my children. If there's one song of theirs which I cannot stand, why can't I vent about it a little bit without being scoffed at? Chump.
J
It'll be even less of a holiday round here for you if we have any more outbursts like that!
For what it's worth, or not, while I used to really like 1963 back in the day, I rarely play it these days. There may be a Digital version in the offing though, as I have started sequencing it. You never know!
Now State of the Nation, there's a song that failed the test of time. Stonewall worst 10 NO tracks ever. Unmitigated shite.
it doesn't suck. it rocks. it doesn't sound dated.
surprisingly little of new order's output sounds dated.
Think the original is shit, meself. Remember sticking this on the old turntable (that's gram-o-phone to you kids), playing it through and just thinking, "Where's Hooky?"
The version they released in 93 - or 94 - or 95 - or whenever - is much better once they slapped a load more bass guitar across it. Sounded 'beefier' to me and not so trite.
I wasn't born yet, so wouldn't know :) I really like it, another great NO POP song, agree with those who say the original is lacking Hooky's bass a bit, but don't like the arrangement of the 90's version, so much, combine them? Could be good...
SHEDi xxx
Al Jarvis wrote: Think the original is shit, meself. Remember sticking this on the old turntable (that's gram-o-phone to you kids), playing it through and just thinking, "Where's Hooky?"
The version they released in 93 - or 94 - or 95 - or whenever - is much better once they slapped a load more bass guitar across it. Sounded 'beefier' to me and not so trite.
I actually disagree with you. The original's sound has a more emotional feel to it. The first version I listened to was the Arthur Baker 95 version, and I cried when I heard it because it is a sad song---it was OK, but I like the original version off of Substance better.
I used to play it a lot, back when True Faith/Substance came out - yup, not too much bass (but that was obviously the Stephen Hague influence there), but still very boppy...
Must confess that I haven't listened to the 1995 version that much - preferred the jazzed-up version of "Let's Go" from that single, although I did enjoy the Jane Horrocks video (like Chris) :)
So, sucks? No (should be reserved for "State Of The Nation"!) - just a lovely little song with confusing lyrics! :p
SHEDimon wrote: I wasn't born yet, so wouldn't know :)
haha
now what's the song really about? 
I still think the original stands up ok these days. I liked the 95 mix with more bass as well, but the original's a rough diamond. A cracking B-side.
As for the video, I wouldnae trust anyone who likes that fookin thing. Jane Horrocks climbing out of a box and walkin' along a road in the country 
was that all about?
SHEDSRUS wrote: \I remember it being ace live in 1899.
my word! i suppose it is a bit outdated, isn't it? 
;)
i really like the song. it does sound a bit 'eighties' but that doesn't mean it can't be any good.
I hated this song when I first heard it, but it grew on me. Now I like it, especially the 1995 version.
MLANH- "My Life Ain't No Holiday" wrote: I love 98.2% of all their songs like they were my children.
Never minding the frankly scary context of this comment surely this thread means you've just disowned one of your children? 
I'll get onto the Social 
1963 is a fine tune with both the 87 and 95 versions showing different sides to it. It's not quite as strong as True Faith but as far as NO b-sides go it's got to be one of their best; top 5 at least? As has been mentioned I also think the outro on the 87 version is class 
There's a truckload of other NO songs I'd put in the "sucks" category long before I'd go anywhere near 1963. Shell-shock, State of the Nation and Sub-culture 12" to name but a few and they were proper singles!
SHEDSRUS wrote: I like 1963, I remember it being ace live in 1899, great video also.
The Victorians love 1963!
and yes, i think 1963 is a grower on me. I never really liked it stuck on the end of Substance, but now...
No more f'ing saudade wrote:
melly wrote: The 95 version is nice, though. It got tuned the right way, in my opinion. Dropped the wah wah synths and took it more into a upbeat "dance rock" song. In a way.
I often play both the original Hague mix and the 1995 version; I wouldn't want to be without the keyboard arrangement of the former or the Hooky bass of the latter. Maybe someone should combine them, but then since they're both lead elements they might not fit together equally.
Agreed on that there, Sau. I could see the combination of them yielding a few strengths more on the song as a whole - the solidity of the 95's bass/ production with the untrained fragility in B's vocals.. and somehow intermittent allowances for the synths sort of as a spotty nod to the former composition. Perhaps the synths would be best reserved solely for the chorus bits.. no, the chorus follow synth was pretty simple, but the break inbetween the chorus and the next lyric set is nice.
If I had any clue of how to go about doing that myself I might would make my own mashed version. Maybe I oughta research into that.
(off topic, but your title has put that Love and Rocket's song back into my head. I'd curse you, but I hadn't heard it in a while and it's not as bad as having "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark stuck in there. 
)
melly wrote: (off topic, but your title has put that Love and Rocket's song back into my head. I'd curse you, but I hadn't heard it in a while and it's not as bad as having "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark stuck in there.
Sorry. I've never heard the Love & Rockets tune, the whole screenname just came from having listened to bossanova for too long. Even the Peter Saville Soundtrack works better as background music for me now. 
