NEW PETER HOOK INTERVIEW

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.