NEW PETER HOOK INTERVIEW

In a latest issue of the UK's Bass Guitar Magazine (issue 36, out now), Peter Hook is interviewed by writer and author Joel McIver about his life and work with Joy Division, New Order, Monaco and the forthcoming Freebass project. Among many other topics, Hooky clarifies the status of New Order: when McIver asked him: " It's hard for fans to know what's really happening with New Order", he replied, "It isn't. New Order have split up, and that's it. The only thing that made it hard was that Bernard and Stephen decided to turn around and say that they hadn't split up. What I simply said was that I would consider New Order to have split if one of them had left. I wouldn't carry on – and I don't see how they could even consider it. I wouldn't consider carrying on with New Order as me and Stephen, or me and Bernard. I'd say, let's knock it on the head and fuckin' start again. But them two decided, whether it was out of anger or whatever, that they were gonna carry on as New Order. And I've said, you're not fuckin' New Order, mate! That was our argument. We've split up. I'm not working with Bernard or Stephen again." McIver also became the first journalist to hear music from Freebass, receiving an exclusive preview in Hooky's home studio, and writes about the new songs in the feature.

For more information visit http://www.bassguitarmagazine.com

Is Gillian a non-entity or something? It's not okay to carry on with New Order if Hooky leaves, or Stephen leaves or if Bernard leaves. But Gillian....she's replaceable? He thought it was okay to carry on after Gillian left. Why isn't it okay for Bernard and Stephen to do the same after he leaves? I'm not saying it would be the same, or that he is replaceable. It's just that his comments tick me off sometimes.

Liz wrote: Is Gillian a non-entity or something? It's not okay to carry on with New Order if Hooky leaves, or Stephen leaves or if Bernard leaves. But Gillian....she's replaceable?

yeah that's always bothered me too. I know other people have pointed out in these forums that the agreement was originally between the members of JD, i.e., pre-Gillian... but still it seems like an oversight-- esp. considering the marked decline in quality of their output ever since her departure! maybe she should have carried on alone as New Order...

Liz wrote: Is Gillian a non-entity or something? It's not okay to carry on with New Order if Hooky leaves, or Stephen leaves or if Bernard leaves. But Gillian....she's replaceable? He thought it was okay to carry on after Gillian left. Why isn't it okay for Bernard and Stephen to do the same after he leaves? I'm not saying it would be the same, or that he is replaceable. It's just that his comments tick me off sometimes.

Gillian quit the band to look after her and Stephens sick daughter. She was easily the most dispensable member of the band.

My favourite part of the Interview is where he says "I'm not working with Bernard or Stephen again"

worldinmotion wrote: "I'm not working with Bernard or Stephen again."

Why?

DigitalWaters wrote:

worldinmotion wrote: "I'm not working with Bernard or Stephen again."

Why?

Can't you read?

The fact that Barney and Stephen said they were going to continue on isn't what confused me. It was all the times Hooky said he was done with them and then said he would do a benefit concert for Tony Wilson, or a one-off festival, or release the remaining tracks they have in their "piggy bank", all of which require working with Bernard and Stephen. I wonder what has made him angry this time around to be back to the "never working with them again" stance. He seemed to backpedal for a while there.

Is there a direct link to the interview??

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

DigitalWaters wrote:

worldinmotion wrote: "I'm not working with Bernard or Stephen again."

Why?

Can't you read?

No. I'm blind, but I have a neural net that can interpolate digitised signals.

So why won't he work with them?

Seems a bit daft to be falling out with your life long buddies just 'coz they don't want to tour so much.

I call it Alan wilder victim syndrome.

I think it's a matter of perception among the members (or former, if Hooky wants to be considered a former member). Hooky perceives it that they've broken up, Bernard (and possibly Steve) have perceived it that Hooky's simply left the band (the band on hiatus, in other words).

(I've read an interview from Barney in a Japanese music magazine a month or so ago, and he's said something of the sort---that Hooky's left, but that he (Bernard) doesn't consider the band to have 'split up' literally, and that there was no formal agreement to 'break up' the band among the three (Bernard, Hooky, Steve).

But while I'm waiting for the song 'Miracle Cure' to be officially released, I'm curious as to what Freebass might sound like.

Why do I get the feeling with Hook it's all about the Benjamins (or, wait it's England - all about the Queenies)?

Didn't Freebase do the theme to a show called The Tube? I heard it and was fairly uninspired - believe it or not, too much bass.

this sounds like an old interview in a recent mag, this is the state it was in about 6 months ago, i'm sure they've moved on since then.

can we put it to bed please, it's boring.

Same ol' same.... maybe they could carry on as NO by recording in seperate rooms and performing in seperate cubicles up on stage!

Jed Stephens wrote: this sounds like an old interview in a recent mag, this is the state it was in about 6 months ago, i'm sure they've moved on since then.

can we put it to bed please, it's boring.

I am inclined to agree that this may be an interview done a while ago. As I said earlier, it seems as though Hooky has softened his position a little over time.

I don't know about the issue being boring, but it sure is repetitive. I know Hooky probably gets asked about the split a lot, but if he handled himself properly in interviews, this would be over and done with by now.

Liz wrote:

I don't know about the issue being boring, but it sure is repetitive. I know Hooky probably gets asked about the split a lot, but if he handled himself properly in interviews, this would be over and done with by now.

Hooky has always (in teh last 15 years at least) been the most open member of the band, Barney always the least, it's a no win situation, if you tell people what's happening, you're accused of shouting your mouth off, if you say nothing, you're ignoring your fans. both have different personalities, neither is right or wrong.

What is boring is not the status of the band (I'm sure they'll make up and do something in the future, they've been at this point several times before), but people who call themselves fans slagging off members of the band because they don't agree with their opinion, I've been guilty of that, and I'm trying not to do it now.

Jed Stephens wrote:

Liz wrote:

I don't know about the issue being boring, but it sure is repetitive. I know Hooky probably gets asked about the split a lot, but if he handled himself properly in interviews, this would be over and done with by now.

Hooky has always (in teh last 15 years at least) been the most open member of the band, Barney always the least, it's a no win situation, if you tell people what's happening, you're accused of shouting your mouth off, if you say nothing, you're ignoring your fans. both have different personalities, neither is right or wrong.

What is boring is not the status of the band (I'm sure they'll make up and do something in the future, they've been at this point several times before), but people who call themselves fans slagging off members of the band because they don't agree with their opinion, I've been guilty of that, and I'm trying not to do it now.

The voice of reason!

I wish there was a way that this all could have played out where there was no mud slung in anyone's direction. My main concern is that with all these quotes flying about, some of which Hooky has said have been taken out of context, the more water there is under the bridge. There will be a point where there is so much resentment that there is no way to go back. This is why I feel that enough has been said on the subject and that Hooky should exercise caution while in an interview. If there is any chance at all that they will reunite down the road, it really has to be laid to rest for the time being. JMO....I don't think I am slagging on Hooky or any less a fan for saying so. I just think that Stephen, Bernard and Hooky should treat each other with respect.

To be honest this whole Free Bass thingymajig sounds well contentious.

As I haven't even heard anything remotely musical from it, I presume it's all a red herring (ha ha ha, did you just see that then, arf!) and the whole shebang is merely the sight and sound of Hooky, Rourke and Mani taking command inside Manchester fish market, yelling at passers by offering all and sundry complimentary portions of the aforenamed piscine treat. I would certainly be there like a shot waiting for first helpings, I tell you.

:p

I wish Freebass all the luck in the world but how long can it last? Hooky wants to play live and tour, but the other two members have other bands to devote time to, don't they? It seems that trying to find time to devote to each of the other bands and Freebass could be a problem that will again put a strain on all the members involved. Much like Revenge and Monaco I don't know if it will last past a couple of albums...

It's taking years for a Freebass release to appear and they are having trouble on agreeing when to perform live.

Sounds a bit like New Order!

Screw it. Barney, Hooky, and Stephen should have no baise like myself. Hate everyone equally, then you don't get into stupid tiffs like this.

DigitalWaters wrote: It's taking years for a Freebass release to appear and they are having trouble on agreeing when to perform live.

Sounds a bit like New Order!

Brian Barker wrote: Much like Revenge and Monaco I don't know if it will last past a couple of albums...

Well thats the next decade sorted then.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Brian Barker wrote: Much like Revenge and Monaco I don't know if it will last past a couple of albums...

Well thats the next decade sorted then.

And then they'll be 60...

everythings gone grey

Then again the same old story...

There's also an interesting article about the Eccleshalls.

£3600 including flightcase!!!!

Chris Eccleshall points out that it's about 50 pence an hour in man hours.

mediamark wrote: There's also an interesting article about the Eccleshalls.

£3600 including flightcase!!!!

Chris Eccleshall points out that it's about 50 pence an hour in man hours.

does he point out that he doesn't answer emails either.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

nnn wrote:

Liz wrote: Is Gillian a non-entity or something? It's not okay to carry on with New Order if Hooky leaves, or Stephen leaves or if Bernard leaves. But Gillian....she's replaceable?

yeah that's always bothered me too. I know other people have pointed out in these forums that the agreement was originally between the members of JD, i.e., pre-Gillian... but still it seems like an oversight-- esp. considering the marked decline in quality of their output ever since her departure! maybe she should have carried on alone as New Order...

I'd like to point out (if I'm not mistaken, and if I am, somebody will point that out) that Barney, Hooky and Steve did do some work as New Order before Gillian ever actually became a part of the band...the earliest New Order gigs were done by just the three lads...no Gillian...

Just throwing that little tidbit out there...

Thank-fookin'-you,I'm glad someone brought that minor detail up.&,as someone else has mentioned,Gillian left the band because of personal reasons,it's not that she's replaceable at all.When I've seen N.O. post-Gillian,I've always felt that I'm not watching N.O.,it's not the same to me & it's just because Gillian isn't there.Nothing against Phil,but I would have rather just have had the remaining 3 carry on by themselves & not replace her

Its well known that Hooky and Barney have had major fallings out during the bands history and can rub each other the wrong way and both have big egos, etc. But I was surprised to read Hooky say he wouldnt work with Steve again. I always thought him to be the more level headed, laid back and amicable one of the three. So I dont know whats caused the divide there.

NO Regret wrote: Its well known that Hooky and Barney have had major fallings out during the bands history and can rub each other the wrong way and both have big egos, etc. But I was surprised to read Hooky say he wouldnt work with Steve again. I always thought him to be the more level headed, laid back and amicable one of the three. So I dont know whats caused the divide there.

I thought the exact same thing. Even when Hooky first announced that he was leaving the band, he spoke well of Stephen and mentioned being with him at some events I can't recall in his MySpace blog. Now He seems to be angry with Stephen as well and I wonder what happened.

The problem is that Hooky announced to the press their slit up before to the band. Think the guys didn't find it polite. Though what was written in Hooky's boxes during they south american tour may have called their attention.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

nnn wrote:

Liz wrote: Is Gillian a non-entity or something? It's not okay to carry on with New Order if Hooky leaves, or Stephen leaves or if Bernard leaves. But Gillian....she's replaceable?

yeah that's always bothered me too. I know other people have pointed out in these forums that the agreement was originally between the members of JD, i.e., pre-Gillian... but still it seems like an oversight-- esp. considering the marked decline in quality of their output ever since her departure! maybe she should have carried on alone as New Order...

I'd like to point out (if I'm not mistaken, and if I am, somebody will point that out) that Barney, Hooky and Steve did do some work as New Order before Gillian ever actually became a part of the band...the earliest New Order gigs were done by just the three lads...no Gillian...

Just throwing that little tidbit out there...

She DID have her own record sleeve page for Low Life. If that's not validation than nothing is.

the interview is actually, from a bassists point of view, pretty good, with lots of info on the eccleshall and a bit on the clone theory, but this thread is concentrating on one question within the interview, covering ground which has been covered plenty of times before.

I'm looking forward to seeing the next eccleshall in cherry red, that'll look gorgeous.

now where can i get £3600.00?

can anyone post up the full review, for us non-uk folk???

we would all promise, in return, to say "The British Empire rules!" if you did so.....

worldinmotion wrote: In a latest issue of the UK's Bass Guitar Magazine (issue 36, out now), Peter Hook is interviewed by writer and author Joel McIver about his life and work with Joy Division, New Order, Monaco and the forthcoming Freebass project. Among many other topics, Hooky clarifies the status of New Order: when McIver asked him: " It's hard for fans to know what's really happening with New Order", he replied, "It isn't. New Order have split up, and that's it. The only thing that made it hard was that Bernard and Stephen decided to turn around and say that they hadn't split up. What I simply said was that I would consider New Order to have split if one of them had left. I wouldn't carry on – and I don't see how they could even consider it. I wouldn't consider carrying on with New Order as me and Stephen, or me and Bernard. I'd say, let's knock it on the head and fuckin' start again. But them two decided, whether it was out of anger or whatever, that they were gonna carry on as New Order. And I've said, you're not fuckin' New Order, mate! That was our argument. We've split up. I'm not working with Bernard or Stephen again." McIver also became the first journalist to hear music from Freebass, receiving an exclusive preview in Hooky's home studio, and writes about the new songs in the feature.

For more information visit http://www.bassguitarmagazine.com

blah, blah, blah! i think we've heard all this before.

michael preda wrote: I call it Alan wilder victim syndrome.

Alan Wilder was integral when it came to arrangements and deserved a plethora of song writing credits. The band, Depeche Mode, had a difficult time finding their way after he left. They did it though after two albums. New Order can do the same thing, if they want to. Alan Wilder never went around trashing Depeche Mode or sounding happy saying, "I'll never work with Dave, Martin and Andy again. Depeche Mode is finished." Totally different attitudes. Hook should let sleeping corpses lie. As far as I know, he doesn't own the name "New Order." If he wants to leave, that's his choice. It doesn't sound as if he was forced out.

i could careless if they get back together . they are getting up in age and i enjoy all the music they have made just as it is.

Edward Schatz wrote:

michael preda wrote: I call it Alan wilder victim syndrome.

Alan Wilder was integral when it came to arrangements and deserved a plethora of song writing credits. The band, Depeche Mode, had a difficult time finding their way after he left. They did it though after two albums. New Order can do the same thing, if they want to. Alan Wilder never went around trashing Depeche Mode or sounding happy saying, "I'll never work with Dave, Martin and Andy again. Depeche Mode is finished." Totally different attitudes. Hook should let sleeping corpses lie. As far as I know, he doesn't own the name "New Order." If he wants to leave, that's his choice. It doesn't sound as if he was forced out.

True, but IMO, DM are DM, and NO are NO.

Edward Schatz wrote:

michael preda wrote: I call it Alan wilder victim syndrome.

Alan Wilder was integral when it came to arrangements and deserved a plethora of song writing credits. The band, Depeche Mode, had a difficult time finding their way after he left. They did it though after two albums. New Order can do the same thing, if they want to. Alan Wilder never went around trashing Depeche Mode or sounding happy saying, "I'll never work with Dave, Martin and Andy again. Depeche Mode is finished." Totally different attitudes. Hook should let sleeping corpses lie. As far as I know, he doesn't own the name "New Order." If he wants to leave, that's his choice. It doesn't sound as if he was forced out.

Is there NO without the bass lines? I doubt it. It would simply sound like one of Barney's side projects... each and everyone of us would be itching for Hook's bass lines, just as much as we would be starving for Barney's vocals if we heard a NO song with a new voice.

Let's face it, the three of them (Barney, Hooky, and Steve) are NO. There is no replacing that magic musically. There are plenty of bands that became less than they were ousting an integral member, and many that went solo that fell flat on thier faces.

I don't think any side project, by any of the members will ever come close tho the musical genious of NO. Whether Barney and Hooky want to admit it, they need each other musically to achieve pinnacle work.

Edward Schatz wrote:

michael preda wrote: I call it Alan wilder victim syndrome.

Alan Wilder was integral when it came to arrangements and deserved a plethora of song writing credits. The band, Depeche Mode, had a difficult time finding their way after he left. They did it though after two albums. New Order can do the same thing, if they want to. Alan Wilder never went around trashing Depeche Mode or sounding happy saying, "I'll never work with Dave, Martin and Andy again. Depeche Mode is finished." Totally different attitudes. Hook should let sleeping corpses lie. As far as I know, he doesn't own the name "New Order." If he wants to leave, that's his choice. It doesn't sound as if he was forced out.

Totally different attitude, totally different band history. Depeche Mode never had an agreement about the band's name status if one member left. Also, unlike New Order, Depeche Mode do not credit the whole band for songs--all the credit goes to Martin Gore. All of New Order's songs have always credited the band.

You forgot to mention that Depeche Mode are utter Bollocks :)

Jed Stephens wrote: I'm looking forward to seeing the next eccleshall in cherry red, that'll look gorgeous.

now where can i get £3600.00?

Hmmmm, me too

Boing Boing Baggies Baggies wrote: You forgot to mention that Depeche Mode are utter Bollocks :)

Perhaps to you, but i'd take them over the human league any day. And your all right about my Alan Wilder theory, yet the loss is the same and apparent in both bands. You can't replace hooky with some rogue bassist you find on the spot. And you can't replace Alan with Peter "king kong" gordeno, and Christian Eigner.Thats just the travesty of losing musical heroes and such.

EdelBrock wrote: Is there NO without the bass lines? I doubt it. It would simply sound like one of Barney's side projects... each and everyone of us would be itching for Hook's bass lines, just as much as we would be starving for Barney's vocals if we heard a NO song with a new voice.

Let's face it, the three of them (Barney, Hooky, and Steve) are NO. There is no replacing that magic musically. There are plenty of bands that became less than they were ousting an integral member, and many that went solo that fell flat on thier faces.

I don't think any side project, by any of the members will ever come close tho the musical genious of NO. Whether Barney and Hooky want to admit it, they need each other musically to achieve pinnacle work.

Quite - New Order without any of the 3 main personnel isn't New Order...

Hence, why Barney and Steve are continuing with Bad Lieutenant...

Tarbox23 wrote: can anyone post up the full review, for us non-uk folk???

we would all promise, in return, to say "The British Empire rules!" if you did so.....

Here you go, and you don't need to mention the empire thing, any empire sucks, it just means we're an invading bunch of bastards!

Hope that's OK

"The British Empire rules!"

:)

Nick King wrote:

Quite - New Order without any of the 3 main personnel isn't New Order...

Hence, why Barney and Steve are continuing with Bad Lieutenant...

Totally.

Boing Boing Baggies Baggies wrote: You forgot to mention that Depeche Mode are utter Bollocks :)

If I would translate that into North American English, that would mean that Depeche Mode suck? Did I get it right?

I don't think DM suck, but they sure are not at the same level as NO IMO. It's simple, to me nothing is better than New Order except that one other band named Joy Division.

Anyway back to the topic, I think the main problem with New Order right now is lack of communication. They need to meet up with each other, sit at a round table and discuss the status of the band. Not the lawers, not the agents, just the three of them (sorry Phil). Instead, I have the impression that we're dealing with men in mid-life crisis who act like children.

Thanks a ton Jed!

Funny, there's a lot on the Eccleshalls (more information there than everywhere else I've seen put together) and Yamahas, but they don't mention the Shergolds once.

ooooh i can JUST see myself on the monaco pic!

another interview, thought i might as well post it herefor people to read

http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/peter-hook

An excellent READ.Thanks for the link JACK.

[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: ooooh i can JUST see myself on the monaco pic!

never mind, there's always a mirror!

make sure you keep your dad busy tonight, there's something on ebay he'll want, and I want it too!

what would that be jed????

[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: another interview, thought i might as well post it herefor people to read

http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/peter-hook

Great article Jack.

So Bernard is at fault for recording Fine Time? I find myself quickly on hookey's side all of a sudden...

Old Lead Foot wrote: what would that be jed????

I bet I know! Don't worry, Jed, I'm not interested. Good luck!

Chase wrote:

Old Lead Foot wrote: what would that be jed????

I bet I know! Don't worry, Jed, I'm not interested. Good luck!

Clone theory, lost it to some folk playing tw*t in lancaster, what would he want it for!

I've got one any way, I'm just being greedy and trying to get a collection of 'em.

gutted, chase the bastard down and have him flogged. btw in response to your avatar "i can, a shallow bay"

better luck next time with yer clone purchases, you could always get hookys gig list off his my spaz page and bid when he's out of the country

Old Lead Foot wrote: gutted, chase the bastard down and have him flogged. btw in response to your avatar "i can, a shallow bay"

better luck next time with yer clone purchases, you could always get hookys gig list off his my spaz page and bid when he's out of the country

I bet he's even got mine by now

Git.

Still, I totally understand the mentality, there's been a few unique things I've bought en-masse for the same reason.....once they're gone there's bugger all you'll be able to do.

I'm gutted actually that I slept in and never got the rackmount chorus that Roger was selling. Clones are all well and good, but much too badly behaved for serious studio recording (then again, given the way Hooky commissioned those Hot's, who knows), so I figure they'd have used something else, like a rackmount chorus.

BTW, I'm sure he's already done this, but, you get a deeply fucked up, ring modulated racket if you jame the main mode selector switch in the middle.

Jed Stephens wrote:

[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: ooooh i can JUST see myself on the monaco pic!

never mind, there's always a mirror!

make sure you keep your dad busy tonight, there's something on ebay he'll want, and I want it too!

you got lucky - we were at the united match!

[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote:

Jed Stephens wrote:

[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: ooooh i can JUST see myself on the monaco pic!

never mind, there's always a mirror!

make sure you keep your dad busy tonight, there's something on ebay he'll want, and I want it too!

you got lucky - we were at the united match!

I see financial opportunities here Jack.

If there's a clone or something on ebay, we slip you twenty quid so you can need a lift to Leeds or somewhere at about the time the auction's closing

Doctor? wrote: I'm gutted actually that I slept in and never got the rackmount chorus that Roger was selling. Clones are all well and good, but much too badly behaved for serious studio recording (then again, given the way Hooky commissioned those Hot's, who knows), so I figure they'd have used something else, like a rackmount chorus.

BTW, I'm sure he's already done this, but, you get a deeply fucked up, ring modulated racket if you jame the main mode selector switch in the middle.

That's on the flanger version, right? I've got the (older?) edge switch one. Puts some bite on the signal that comes in handy sometimes.

The Clone Theory's not that hard to record with, really: hit it with as hot a signal as you can (easy with an active bass), and put some dynamic noise reduction on the other end.

I don't know what it is about it, but it's got a distinctive sound I've never heard from any other chorus.

Aye, mine was the "newer" (lol) chorus/flanger version.

Sounded delicious, but I had a really vile tranny amp at the time, and by the time I got a better amp, some fucker had nicked the pedal.

EH's pedals are all ruddy bonkers, mate of mine has a few, there's another chorus thing with a very silly name that eludes me, and of course the legendary Big Muff, nothing shreds a signal like that thing.

Never really thought that because it's not crappy digital, you can cook the inputa a bit to reduce the noise floor (which is usually a mezzanine ) Never had mine long enough to get it into the studio.

How does this compare to the original?

Micro Clone Theory

mediamark wrote: How does this compare to the original?

Micro Clone Theory

I've not tried one myself, but they are apparently not as good, if you get the opportunity (doubtful) to do a side by side comparison let us know.

Steve: Bummer about the stolen pedal. Is the ludicrous name "Electric Mistress" by any chance? Yeah, EHX's are just as weird as their names would indicate.

Howard Davis (the original designer of the CT) himself recommends giving it a hot input. Hopefully you'll get to use that tip someday.

Mark: I've never tried one of the new ones, so I'm talking out my ass, but I *believe* the circuit is supposed to be basically the same, and Howard Davis is or was consulting on the new EHX pedals so that could be true.

There are some differences:

• The new one has battery power (I think?) and therefore might be less noisy.

• The new one is stereo, the old one had a wet output and a dry output. Stereo isn't necessarily a good thing.

• The new one has chorus 1, chorus 2, and vibrato, with chorus 1 having a fixed depth. Chorus 2 should get you closer to the old one, but it lacks the chorus/vibrato blend knob (which I've never completely figured out anyway, it seems to go between 100% wet (vib) and 50/50, rather than wet to dry with full chorus in the center).

• The old one has no flange or edge switch. I don't think Hooky's ever used a flanger; it's possible some of his grit comes from the edge switch, which is why I got that one, but I could be wrong.

• The edge version has a different analog delay chip than the flange version or the new one. Some people say they can hear a difference. I don't know if that's true.

There, more than you ever wanted to know without really answering your question. Without having ever heard one I'd guess it'll probably do the Hooky sound pretty well.

All probably true, but at the end of the day, in the mix, most people (other than us, bunch of anoraks that we are) couldn't tell the difference between a clone theory and boss super chorus, I sometimes tell myself it's a case of the emperors new clothes, but then play the clone and convince myself it's not.

Yeah, I'm not even sure I could tell the difference in a mix. I've definitely gotten attached to the sound of mine, but that's mostly delusional I'm sure.