Skip to content

Re-issues: UNCUT magazine review

Archived

16 replies · 1,488 views

This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.

Nice one-page review of the re-issues in this month's UNCUT. The author says lots of nice things about the band & their development, and usefully points out that most songs from the 80s are about Barney's cock. However, he rates "Technique" above all the others and, sin-of-all-sins, he gives "Brotherhood" a better write-up than "P,C&L", which means he's a wankstain with no credibility whatsoever. Inevitably, I still won't be buying them, fucking pile of half-arsed wank that they are.

Can Warner Bros. sue me for this, BTW?

0 likes

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: However, he rates "Technique" above all the others and, sin-of-all-sins, he gives "Brotherhood" a better write-up than "P,C&L", which means he's a wankstain with no credibility whatsoever. Inevitably, I still won't be buying them, fucking pile of half-arsed wank that they are.

I just needed to quote this and say how much I fucking pissed myself after reading the first half of your post, then abruptly coming to that bit. LOL

I'll download them first, then buy 'em if I happen to walk past them on the rack I guess.

0 likes

http://www.uncut.co.uk/music/new_order/reviews/12189

NEW ORDER:

Movement 3* Power, Corruption & Lies 3* Low-Life 5* Brotherhood 4* Technique 4*

There’s a film by mardy avant-garde writer BS Johnson called You’re Human Like The Rest Of Us, whose title expresses how many of us came to feel about New Order in the 1980s. And it’s something that these five gloriously different (and sparkily remastered) albums spell that out in frequently superb ways.

In 1981, New Order were making records that sounded like what they were in 1981, namely Joy Division with something important missing. Movement sounds better now than it did then, largely because then everyone was comparing it to Closer rather than what it actually was, which is an experiment in inventing the 1980s. “Dreams Never End” is still the best song, an almost panic-stricken Peter Hook writing his best pop song; but it’s the bonus disc (all these albums have brilliant bonus discs) that shows the way, most notably on “Everything’s Gone Green” and “Temptation”.

The early ‘80s were singles years for New Order, and Power Corruption & Lies is an odd mixture of confident pop and hesitant experiment. Again, the bonus disc shines (“Blue Monday”, “Thieves Like Us” and, musically, the last gasp of Joy Division, “Murder”). But then – Low-Life, the first New Order album that sounds like an album. Bernard Sumner’s most human lyrics (largely about his penis) gel with the pop axis of Gillian Gilbert and Stephen Morris - and Hooky’s bass, which is still, literally, breath-taking (seven and half minutes into the 12” of Perfect Kiss, something happens which makes your heart take off, and it’s Peter Hook doing it).

By the time of Brotherhood, there was an increased tension between the frequent beauty of the music and the band’s Northern self-consciousness (Hooky as bluff biker pirate, Bernard as occasionally coarse lyricist). You can hear it as far back as “Your Silent Face”’s “You’ve caught me at a bad time/So why don’t you piss off?” and you hear it once more in “Every Little Counts”’ “I think you are a pig/ You should be in a zoo” (and you can also almost hear Gillian Gilbert rolling her eyes at the same time). It’s a bit unfair to say you wouldn’t have got that sort of thing with Ian Curtis, but that’s the point, really. This was New Order becoming New Order and if anyone was entitled to not be Joy Division, they certainly were.

And around this time the bonus discs – normally with reissues a sort of cave where the mutant siblings and the ugly mistakes sit around with something horrible from a Kid Jensen session – really start to make sense. Because New Order, more than any other band, always maintained two parallel careers. There were the albums – gnomic, obscure, with difficult sleeves and song-titles that weren’t the choruses of the songs – and there were the singles. New Order were, amazingly, a dance act. The bonus tracks stopped being bracketed as “(From the soundtrack of the short film Belgian Doom)” and started being bracketed as “(Shep Pettibone Remix)”. You approached a New Order album with caution in case it bit you; you approached a New Order single with baggy shorts and excitement. All these albums range from good to great; but the singles – “Bizarre Love Triangle”. “Sub-Culture”, “Perfect Kiss” - range from marvellous to astonishing.

Then Technique came along and the two halves of New Order’s music joined up. Technique is first of all the most accessible New Order album; most of the songs sound stylistically similar to one another (with the exception of Fine Time, which seems to be from another disco altogether), it’s a poppy album (so much so that they were sued by, of all people, John Denver for tune theft), and Bernard Sumner had finally learned to sing. And best of all, what he’s singing is stuff about his life, rather than, say, pretend Ian Curtis lyrics or references to that mighty old pleasure zone of his. Technique is a powerfully contradictory album; not only is it an Ibiza record that’s New Order’s least techno-ey, but it’s a chirpy, upbeat album with mature lyrics inspired by the singer’s divorce.

After Technique, Factory Records ended, there were solo projects, and New Order returned with the one album of theirs I can hardly listen to, Republic (but which also contains one of their greatest singles, Regret). With these five very different albums, and a dozen or so great singles, from “Ceremony” to “World In Motion”, New Order had both invented and been invented by the 1980s. Best of all, during that time, they’d learned that yes, they were human like the rest of us.

DAVID QUANTICK

0 likes

I expect the standard review structure for these CDs in all the magazines etc...

history of the band blah blah, influential blah blah, recycled overview of that particular album etc etc...

...but little mention of the extra tracks or the sound quality. Considering that these elements are the only reason for the releases it seems odd that no journalist will bother to comment on them.

One of the reasons why I don't buy or read any of the music mags in existence today. Nothing worth reading in them, ever!

0 likes

The guy who wrote the article is DAVID QUANTICK and he has a very dry and crazy humor like that , I always listen to him on Q radio and he is always like that and he usually says bad things about all the artist that he plays on the radio , even on live radio, so for him to say something nice about new order means he is happy and pleased with their music, even if he uses crazy humor.

0 likes

johnny james wrote: I expect the standard review structure for these CDs in all the magazines etc...

...but little mention of the extra tracks or the sound quality. Considering that these elements are the only reason for the releases it seems odd that no journalist will bother to comment on them.

there's a huge paragraph about the bonus discs there..

he nailed it right on the head..

however, very little talk about the quality or technical details..

decent review..

later -1

0 likes

expect the standard review structure for these CDs in all the magazines etc...

history of the band blah blah, influential blah blah, recycled overview of that particular album etc etc...

...but little mention of the extra tracks or the sound quality. Considering that these elements are the only reason for the releases it seems odd that no journalist will bother to comment on them.

One of the reasons why I don't buy or read any of the music mags in existence today. Nothing worth reading in them, ever!

Totally agree. It's funny, when I was a youngster, I used to think reviews in the NME, Rolling Stone, etc were so important and crucial, now I couldn't care less what any magazine thinks. It's just one knobs opinion - it's utterly meaningless.

And it's even worse now as, like you said, it's just formulaic drivel. It's like they just read a press release, sort of listen to the album one time and write a review that fits the general consensus of everyone else.

The only credible source for reviews I think is to go on discogs.com. If a release has at least 25 votes or so and is rated an average of 4.5 or more, it's almost guaranteed to be total quality.

0 likes

but he does mention the sound quality etc

"sparkily remastered"

how much in depth do you want?

0 likes

-1 wrote:

however, very little talk about the quality or technical details..

later -1

It's because 95% of people don't give a shit

0 likes

hibster wrote: but he does mention the sound quality etc

"sparkily remastered"

how much in depth do you want?

Brilliant! Now they can advertise "NO Remasters: Now 50% sparklier!" :D

0 likes

Major Tarantino wrote:

-1 wrote:

however, very little talk about the quality or technical details..

later -1

It's because 95% of people don't give a shit

Couldn't agree more. Only the most discerning fans will notice a difference with most only noticing it being "louder" or "brighter" by chance. Once it's compressed into an mp3 and pumped at an unholy volume through a fucking pair of earbuds it doesn't matter much anyway. Sad but true. Welcome to the future where we have the amazing technology to make everything sound like it was pumped through a tin can on a string...

0 likes

A LOT OF PEOPLE DO CARE ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY...

why is it called a 're-master' then? whats the point?

why not just reissue budget versions of the same disc..

that would accomplish the same purpose....

IF THEY'RE GOING TO CALL IT A REMASTER

OF COURSE PEOPLE WILL CARE ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY...

why are people arguing about missing beats, wrong tracklistings, missing mixes, etc..

BECAUSE THERE'S A BONUS DISC ALSO..

it's not about downloads...

i haven't seen one person on this board, say they were going to download it yet..

most either wanted the CD, or were just going to skip it altogether..

later -1

0 likes

tiresome.

0 likes

-1 wrote: A LOT OF PEOPLE DO CARE ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY...

why is it called a 're-master' then? whats the point?

why not just reissue budget versions of the same disc..

that would accomplish the same purpose....

IF THEY'RE GOING TO CALL IT A REMASTER

OF COURSE PEOPLE WILL CARE ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY...

why are people arguing about missing beats, wrong tracklistings, missing mixes, etc..

BECAUSE THERE'S A BONUS DISC ALSO..

it's not about downloads...

i haven't seen one person on this board, say they were going to download it yet..

most either wanted the CD, or were just going to skip it altogether..

later -1

I appreciate your passion but lay off the caps please!

I do realize there are those that do care about sound quality but it is far from the amount of people you seem to think. I care, I know several other who care, but most could care less.

So... why remaster? Simply put, marketing. Remastering is a buzzword. I have no doubt that a mastering engineer scruitinized over the tracks and gave them a more modern sound(a touch of compression here and there, re-EQing, and then spanked down with a limiter) but in the end it's all to offer a product that they'll hope you will buy. The bonus discs are a nice touch for those who don't have the songs but make no mistake: Warners didn't undertake this project simply for sound quality, they did it for profit. It's the driving force behind every business. If they reissued the same old discs, nobody would flock to buy them. Tag them with "remastered" and add new tracks and now they have a marketable product. I haven't followed much of the discussion of tracklistings, missing beats, etc. but if this is the case, then somebody was asleep at the wheel and it show no concern for "any" quality.

0 likes

Bentley wrote:

-1 wrote: A LOT OF PEOPLE DO CARE ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY...

why is it called a 're-master' then? whats the point?

why not just reissue budget versions of the same disc..

that would accomplish the same purpose....

IF THEY'RE GOING TO CALL IT A REMASTER

OF COURSE PEOPLE WILL CARE ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY...

why are people arguing about missing beats, wrong tracklistings, missing mixes, etc..

BECAUSE THERE'S A BONUS DISC ALSO..

it's not about downloads...

i haven't seen one person on this board, say they were going to download it yet..

most either wanted the CD, or were just going to skip it altogether..

later -1

I appreciate your passion but lay off the caps please!

I do realize there are those that do care about sound quality but it is far from the amount of people you seem to think. I care, I know several other who care, but most could care less.

So... why remaster? Simply put, marketing. Remastering is a buzzword. I have no doubt that a mastering engineer scruitinized over the tracks and gave them a more modern sound(a touch of compression here and there, re-EQing, and then spanked down with a limiter) but in the end it's all to offer a product that they'll hope you will buy. The bonus discs are a nice touch for those who don't have the songs but make no mistake: Warners didn't undertake this project simply for sound quality, they did it for profit. It's the driving force behind every business. If they reissued the same old discs, nobody would flock to buy them. Tag them with "remastered" and add new tracks and now they have a marketable product. I haven't followed much of the discussion of tracklistings, missing beats, etc. but if this is the case, then somebody was asleep at the wheel and it show no concern for "any" quality.

I concur, but I bought all 5 as to appease the Roman Empire of Warner.

0 likes

I am as disappointed with these releases as anyone.

Yes, the bonus discs could be better.

Yes, the discs may have been mastered without any real dynamics in mind (need to hear em first).

BUT

I got into this band by first hearing them on shitty AM radio/crappy tapes off mates and totally loved them. The songs blew me away then and they still do now.

Also Factory vinyl pressings were invariably shite, 2p pieces were often used to hold the stylus down. No one discussed mastering etc then!.

Point is, the songs were life changing and beautiful.

A major new release may just bring some new fans to the party....ones who love what really matters....the tunes.

That cant be such a bad thing eh?.

0 likes

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: Nice one-page review of the re-issues in this month's UNCUT. The author says lots of nice things about the band & their development, and usefully points out that most songs from the 80s are about Barney's cock. However, he rates "Technique" above all the others and, sin-of-all-sins, he gives "Brotherhood" a better write-up than "P,C&L", which means he's a wankstain with no credibility whatsoever. Inevitably, I still won't be buying them, fucking pile of half-arsed wank that they are.

Can Warner Bros. sue me for this, BTW?

I concur

0 likes

You're leaving NewOrderOnline

This link goes to an external website we don't operate, which has its own privacy policy and terms.

Destination:
Continue ↗