Bad Lootenant performing New Order tracks?

I'm guessing it will be what they did for the Sky Arts programme (though maybe not acoustic-stylee), Bizarre Love Triangle, Getting Away With It and LWTUA. All bases covered...

the acoustic blt barney did with doves at the ritz at the gretton gig was quality,i had been out all day though so i could be wrong:)

El Jarvo wrote:

(Take it you're going to Brighton, OB?)

Yup, see you there...

Hopefully nothing acoustic, don't care much for that. If any New Order songs are played at all the set will probably include something like Run Wild :(

Al -tend to agree with you, though it was nice to hear the sky acoustic versions (a la the Gretton Ritz gig) i would prefer em to stick to the Baaad lootenant stuff. not too nice for the new lads eh ! Im hoping these extra 4 tracks r better than the 1st 10 songs. These wonderful memories of ours need preserving - not being tarnished with half-baked attempts at nostalgia.

Got a feeling if they do play any New Order the tracks they play will not be the ones with lots of bass... i.e... Ruined in a Day and not Regret.

Hey Joe Hey Now What Are You Doing?

And maybe Bizarre Love Triangle (Shep Pettibone version)

Spotnick wrote: Well, Steve is part of the live band so it's 3/4 of what was New Order.

Yeah but it's not though is it? I mean who really accepted Phil as part of NO - he just wasn't.

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

No, leave the past behind and let the new thing live or die on its own merits.

[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: Got a feeling if they do play any New Order the tracks they play will not be the ones with lots of bass... i.e... Ruined in a Day and not Regret.

So basically all the crap ones then? :-)

They'll probably play Age of Consent, just to rub everyone's nose in it.

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

Well PIL will be with 2 of his late 80s members, one of whom is Bruce Smith from the mighty Pop Group, so not really a faceless session muso at all.

johnny james wrote:

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

Well PIL will be with 2 of his late 80s members, one of whom is Bruce Smith from the mighty Pop Group, so not really a faceless session muso at all.

True but still not Wobble or Levene, so still not really PIL.

jamie fairlie wrote:

Spotnick wrote: Well, Steve is part of the live band so it's 3/4 of what was New Order.

Yeah but it's not though is it? I mean who really accepted Phil as part of NO - he just wasn't.

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

No, leave the past behind and let the new thing live or die on its own merits.

The way I see it is this. Joy Division was Ian Curtis, Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook and Stephen Morris (and Gillian occasionally as a session musician). When Ian died, they weren't Joy Division anymore and became New Order. New Order was Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, Gillian Gilbert and Stephen Morris. When Gillian left, they stopped being New Order and became...something else. Maybe Bad Lieutenant collaborating with Peter Hook, I dunno. That's not to say they were out-and-out bad during that period (I have a soft spot for the title track from Waiting For The Siren's Call and even Krafty), but they just weren't New Order.

Some bands can go through ridiculous lineup changes while preserving what's essential about them (The Cure is probably the de facto example here, but also arguably Siouxsie and the Banshees or The Psychedelic Furs). Not Joy Division or New Order-those bands were far too dependent on the interplay between their four members. When one of those members leaves for whatever reason, the dynamic is irrevocably upset and it's all over. IMHO, saying you could have New Order without Gillian (or Peter for that matter) ignores the impact she had on the group's sound, which was substantial, and it also sounds a bit demeaning: It's like saying she wasn't important or didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things and was ultimately, to be blunt, disposable and replaceable. I can't speak for Gillian or anyone else, but I at least find that pretty upsetting. She was just as much New Order as Bernard, Peter or Steve was.

To slyly reference something else brought up on this forum:

New Order was:

25% Bernard Sumner 25% Peter Hook 25% Gillian Gilbert and 25% Stephen Morris.

Adding that up I think comes out to 110%.

After 20+ listens to the album as I travelled for work the last few days, yes, I drive lots of miles, I was thinking the same thing, and was actually going to pose this question.

My guess would be as follows, considering the composition of the band:

Hey Now What You Doing - because of Phil Turn - three guitars is nice Forbidden City - would be awesome with this lineup. Get the Message - a beefed up version LWTUA - simply because they will Regret - simply because they will Run Wild - Barney loves this one for some reason

That is 7 songs -- I expect 8 or so off the album to get aired out live. If I had my druthers, I would can Running Out of Luck and Dynamo from the live show and do the others.

Other songs I think "work" for a three guitar attack or even two guitars and silly Barney dancing:

All the Way, Paradise, Leave Me Alone, Shadowplay, Turn My Way (w/ Jake filling in Billy C's vox), and Late at Night.

I just don't see anything with a lot of synths being played. GAWIT will not work in a re-worked style or without Neil's vocals. BLT could be re-worked, but really why would you do it.

Just my thoughts.

Blackett88 wrote:

jamie fairlie wrote:

Spotnick wrote: Well, Steve is part of the live band so it's 3/4 of what was New Order.

Yeah but it's not though is it? I mean who really accepted Phil as part of NO - he just wasn't.

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

No, leave the past behind and let the new thing live or die on its own merits.

The way I see it is this. Joy Division was Ian Curtis, Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook and Stephen Morris (and Gillian occasionally as a session musician). When Ian died, they weren't Joy Division anymore and became New Order. New Order was Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, Gillian Gilbert and Stephen Morris. When Gillian left, they stopped being New Order and became...something else. Maybe Bad Lieutenant collaborating with Peter Hook, I dunno. That's not to say they were out-and-out bad during that period (I have a soft spot for the title track from Waiting For The Siren's Call and even Krafty), but they just weren't New Order.

Some bands can go through ridiculous lineup changes while preserving what's essential about them (The Cure is probably the de facto example here, but also arguably Siouxsie and the Banshees or The Psychedelic Furs). Not Joy Division or New Order-those bands were far too dependent on the interplay between their four members. When one of those members leaves for whatever reason, the dynamic is irrevocably upset and it's all over. IMHO, saying you could have New Order without Gillian (or Peter for that matter) ignores the impact she had on the group's sound, which was substantial, and it also sounds a bit demeaning: It's like saying she wasn't important or didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things and was ultimately, to be blunt, disposable and replaceable. I can't speak for Gillian or anyone else, but I at least find that pretty upsetting. She was just as much New Order as Bernard, Peter or Steve was.

To slyly reference something else brought up on this forum:

New Order was:

25% Bernard Sumner 25% Peter Hook 25% Gillian Gilbert and 25% Stephen Morris.

Adding that up I think comes out to 110%.

Good old 'math' to the fore

Not to be too blunt, but the way you see it is wrong - with recorded output and US and UK gigs under their belt, NO were originally a 3-piece before Gillian joined, so she's not an original member at all. Also, I think calling Gillian a session muso for JD is fairly wide of the mark - performing one song on guitar at a single gig on while Barn had an injured hand does not qualify as a session muso really.

Gillian's contribution to the NO sound is a topic that used to be debated here a lot, but you can't call her an original member. I wouldn't spend too much effort on being upset on her behalf from any slights towards her you percieve, her departure from the band was amicable and understandable from what we know.

I don't think anyone who's a NO fan really diminshes Gillian's role anyway, which can't be said for poor Phil. Without Phil, there would've been no gigs or recorded output from NO since 2001, and as he's the only person other than Barn that's been in 3 NO-related bands (NO, Electronic and BL), obviously Barney rates him as a musical collaborator. I'm not sure how this works out as a percentage in terms of how much of NO is BL, but with Steve and Barn, it's at least 2/3 of NO before considering the Phil factor...

Just an opinion, mind CTB

To say New Order stopped being New Order when Gillian left is a bit silly. New Order existed before Gillian, and certainly Movement is based around the JD way of songwriting, minus the obvious. Gillian was an essential part of NO--so yeah they did lose something after '98. But select tracks from Get Ready and WFTSC stand the test of time, especially the underrated Here to Stay. Gillian left for completely different reasons than Hooky did, and I think these changes should be viewed differently.

jamie fairlie wrote:

Spotnick wrote: Well, Steve is part of the live band so it's 3/4 of what was New Order.

Yeah but it's not though is it? I mean who really accepted Phil as part of NO - he just wasn't.

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

No, leave the past behind and let the new thing live or die on its own merits.

Guess u are right, not many on here (including me) saw Phil as one of them...to me it was just that sort of 5th member that loads of bands carry around (Killers, Depeche Mode, Placebo etc.)and who always stands in the back in the dark and gets in handy when an original falls ill or leaves. Just not the real thing!

to say they stopped being new order when phil joined is wrong. i have record sleeves, gig tickets etc that prove otherwise.

does anyone think we will be getting a 15 song set? surely (for paris at least) it will be 45 mins tops?

for their own tour i reckon we'll be lucky to get an hour

CTB wrote:

Blackett88 wrote:

jamie fairlie wrote:

Spotnick wrote: Well, Steve is part of the live band so it's 3/4 of what was New Order.

Yeah but it's not though is it? I mean who really accepted Phil as part of NO - he just wasn't.

It would be really silly of them to do JD/NO songs - why not just stay as NO in that case with Barney surrounded by increasingly faceless session musos like John Lydon is doing with "PIL" at the moment.

No, leave the past behind and let the new thing live or die on its own merits.

The way I see it is this. Joy Division was Ian Curtis, Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook and Stephen Morris (and Gillian occasionally as a session musician). When Ian died, they weren't Joy Division anymore and became New Order. New Order was Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, Gillian Gilbert and Stephen Morris. When Gillian left, they stopped being New Order and became...something else. Maybe Bad Lieutenant collaborating with Peter Hook, I dunno. That's not to say they were out-and-out bad during that period (I have a soft spot for the title track from Waiting For The Siren's Call and even Krafty), but they just weren't New Order.

Some bands can go through ridiculous lineup changes while preserving what's essential about them (The Cure is probably the de facto example here, but also arguably Siouxsie and the Banshees or The Psychedelic Furs). Not Joy Division or New Order-those bands were far too dependent on the interplay between their four members. When one of those members leaves for whatever reason, the dynamic is irrevocably upset and it's all over. IMHO, saying you could have New Order without Gillian (or Peter for that matter) ignores the impact she had on the group's sound, which was substantial, and it also sounds a bit demeaning: It's like saying she wasn't important or didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things and was ultimately, to be blunt, disposable and replaceable. I can't speak for Gillian or anyone else, but I at least find that pretty upsetting. She was just as much New Order as Bernard, Peter or Steve was.

To slyly reference something else brought up on this forum:

New Order was:

25% Bernard Sumner 25% Peter Hook 25% Gillian Gilbert and 25% Stephen Morris.

Adding that up I think comes out to 110%.

Good old 'math' to the fore

Not to be too blunt, but the way you see it is wrong - with recorded output and US and UK gigs under their belt, NO were originally a 3-piece before Gillian joined, so she's not an original member at all. Also, I think calling Gillian a session muso for JD is fairly wide of the mark - performing one song on guitar at a single gig on while Barn had an injured hand does not qualify as a session muso really.

Gillian's contribution to the NO sound is a topic that used to be debated here a lot, but you can't call her an original member. I wouldn't spend too much effort on being upset on her behalf from any slights towards her you percieve, her departure from the band was amicable and understandable from what we know.

I don't think anyone who's a NO fan really diminshes Gillian's role anyway, which can't be said for poor Phil. Without Phil, there would've been no gigs or recorded output from NO since 2001, and as he's the only person other than Barn that's been in 3 NO-related bands (NO, Electronic and BL), obviously Barney rates him as a musical collaborator. I'm not sure how this works out as a percentage in terms of how much of NO is BL, but with Steve and Barn, it's at least 2/3 of NO before considering the Phil factor...

Just an opinion, mind CTB

First of all, I was being tongue-in-cheek with my "math" reference.

Second of all, while she may not have been an "original" member of New Order coming in after they'd already done a few songs and what not is sort of splitting hairs: I don't think NO's sound would have evolved in exactly the way it did without her input. (I didn't know exactly how many dates she did with Joy Division, by the way, I just knew she was involved with them in some fashion)

Put a different way, there are only two people in Iron Maiden left today who are founding members. It doesn't really matter though, because the lineup they have is widely regarded as the definitive one. Bruce Dickinson, Adrian Smith, Nicko McBrain and Janick Gers were not there from the very beginning and many of them left for a time in the 1990s before returning. The band arguably improved upon their arrival, changed for the worse when they left and dramatically improved again when they came back. While they were technically still Iron Maiden throughout that time period, very few people took them seriously until the "classic", "definitive" lineup came back

I'm not dismissing Phil either: I believe I did say I liked much of the output from that period and respect the direction the band went in, I just think it CHANGED and wasn't exactly what it was before. Even though Phil's addition did some good things for the band, to talk as if they could carry on exactly as before as if nothing had changed is a bit problematic, in my opinion.

While I'm not accusing anybody here of anything, I just think everyone's role should be acknowledged and respected. I'm responding more to discourse I'd heard other places and just wanted to voice my opinion, but it is just my opinion.

As for Bad Lieutenant (the original topic of this thread), I have no problem with them playing New Order/Joy Division songs at some point, but, for the moment, I think they should concentrate on defining their own sound and getting people on board with that before they start delving into their respective back catalogs.

I'm dismissing Phil, in terms of a contributor towards the New Order sound.

It was all Hooky

I have to agree with Blackett88 - the general consensus on this board seems to be that when New Order were at their best (everything up to and including Republic) is exactly when and only when Gillian was a member. Whether it was her contributing directly or just making the total more than the sum of the parts ("synergy" - pretentious word but apt!) doesn't matter but I don't think you should ever under estimate what she added.

Back to the original topic though and I hope they stand on their own material - deffo no point dwelling in the past -even such an illustrious one! If they were past-looking the members of JD,NO et al would never have invented such a new sound in the first place and none of us would have liked them, so I hope they don't start now.

They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne.

Go and see either of them nowadays though and it's like a Stone Roses/Talking Heads greatest hits set. But they've established themselves as solo artists now so I reckon as far as they see it, why not explore your back catalogue?

The vast majority of the crowd will be up for a bit of NO and quite understandably but if it's imporatnt to them to get taken seriously they need to stick to their guns and just play the new stuff.

That said if the album's as awful as everyone's saying then a bit of NO/JD might be a welcome relief. Would take a lot more than the promise of a few dodgy NO covers to drag me along to any of their gigs though.

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne. .

Agreed. That's how New Order did it also.

Buck Hill wrote:

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne. .

Agreed. That's how New Order did it also.

Good point. I forgot about them!

As mentioned previously, Getting Away With It would be nice. Although I do agree with G, they should do BL exclusively.

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne.

pretty sure byrne's still refrained from playing any stone roses songs.

NO,they wont do new order songs for a while.

but later they might end up doing an all joy division set at a future charity concert at M.E.N ARENA

I don't understand the argument against Bad Lieutenant performing New Order, Joy Division, and Electronic songs. If I was seeing BL live I would be upset if they only played BL songs. The set list would be much stronger with some NO and Electronic songs I'm sure. The band has three guitar players, it would be a waste not to play some of those great guitar songs that Bernard has in his back catalog. It would be great to hear Getting Away With It, Forbidden City, Vivid, Regret, Ruined In A Day, Run, These Days, or something like that.

What about playing Blur songs, too, then?

Buck Hill wrote:

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne. .

Agreed. That's how New Order did it also.

Yup.

David Byrne started playing Talking Heads song in concert pretty early in his solo career. When I saw him in 2001, he played 7 or 8 Talking Heads songs.

Surf Western wrote: I don't understand the argument against Bad Lieutenant performing New Order, Joy Division, and Electronic songs. If I was seeing BL live I would be upset if they only played BL songs. The set list would be much stronger with some NO and Electronic songs I'm sure. The band has three guitar players, it would be a waste not to play some of those great guitar songs that Bernard has in his back catalog. It would be great to hear Getting Away With It, Forbidden City, Vivid, Regret, Ruined In A Day, Run, These Days, or something like that.

The argument reflects a somewhat childish personal resentment towards Bernard Sumner that some of the folks here at NOOL feel. No one complained when Monaco played Blue Monday or Age of Consent with David Potts doing his best Bernard impersonation last year. But if Bad Lieutenant, whose leader was the leader and principal songwriter in New Order, want to do NO songs, well, thats just wrong.

I would like to see BL play some New Order and JD songs. After all, two of the principal bamd members who wrote those songs.

I would imagine, as Jack said, that BL will do NO songs that don't have big lead bass lines on them. I would actually love to hear them do Ruined in a Day. I'd actually like to hear BL do True Faith, as thats one of Bernards best lyrics.

If they do do NO or JD that have really big Hooky bass lines, I am sure they will be played on guitar or synth, they will figure a creative away around it. I am sure they don't want to insult Hooky by having thier bass player simply rip him off.

They should stick to their own tracks me thinks.

Why do a gig performing 10 of there own and 2 New Order tracks?

http://neworderinfoweb.piczo.com

El Jarvo wrote:

How many New Order songs did Hooky regularly play when he started off Revenge, and then indeed Monaco? The odd Dreams Never End after a couple of years? A Lonesome Tonight?

...and wisely, he avoided the hits ("Blue Murder" excepted)...

Weren't the likes of Sunrise, and Failures, played for fun and for the Vikings, rather than as a sad attempt to bask in former glories?

There are several songs from the Electronic catalog I think would be great live from this group. And for that matter, Phil Cunningham worked on some of the Electronic stuff if I am not mistaken. So there you go....

Barney...leave 'em alone.

Who's Joe? wrote: There are several songs from the Electronic catalog I think would be great live from this group. And for that matter, Phil Cunningham worked on some of the Electronic stuff if I am not mistaken. So there you go....

Anything with Neil Tennant in makes me throw up YUK

I think they should stick solely to BL stuff until they've become a bit established, then throw the odd NO track into the encore.

Ryan wrote: I think they should stick solely to BL stuff until they've become a bit established, then throw the odd NO track into the encore.

How long is "established?" Years? Do you think BL is a long-term project, or another one-off thing along with Miracle Cure & the upcoming Jaques Le Conte stuff? It will be interesting to see, either way.

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Buck Hill wrote:

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne. .

Agreed. That's how New Order did it also.

Yup.

David Byrne started playing Talking Heads song in concert pretty early in his solo career. When I saw him in 2001, he played 7 or 8 Talking Heads songs.

If you're classing 'pretty early in his solo career' as 2001 then your sadly mistaken. I first saw David Byrne playing solo touring the 'Rei Momo' album at the Glasgow Barrowlands in November 1989. The only Head's reference in the gig was when he slotted the chorus of 'Mr Jones' into the middle of a track off Rei Momo. Lasted all of 30 seconds.

Saw him again in '92 at the Edinburgh Playhouse, once again zero Talking Heads. First time I saw him play anything by Talking heads was the Royal Concert Hall in '94 when he played 'Burning Down The House', 'This Must Be The Place' and one other track which I can't remember. The crowd weren't expecting it so the reaction was insane. Since then his sets have been 50/50 between Heads' material and solo stuff. Seen him literally dozens of times.

So aye, getting back on topic, as I stated earlier, David Byrne didn't play any Talking Heads material for about the first 5 years of his solo career!

bulgy_eyes wrote: I have to agree with Blackett88 - the general consensus on this board seems to be that when New Order were at their best (everything up to and including Republic) is exactly when and only when Gillian was a member. Whether it was her contributing directly or just making the total more than the sum of the parts ("synergy" - pretentious word but apt!) doesn't matter but I don't think you should ever under estimate what she added.

Back to the original topic though and I hope they stand on their own material - deffo no point dwelling in the past -even such an illustrious one! If they were past-looking the members of JD,NO et al would never have invented such a new sound in the first place and none of us would have liked them, so I hope they don't start now.

Maybe with Gillian in the room, Steve was more willing to impress, his mind was more focused on the music and with her gone he's as focused as a ADHD kid in Math class.

nataliet wrote:

Ryan wrote: I think they should stick solely to BL stuff until they've become a bit established, then throw the odd NO track into the encore.

How long is "established?" Years? Do you think BL is a long-term project, or another one-off thing along with Miracle Cure & the upcoming Jaques Le Conte stuff? It will be interesting to see, either way.

I don't know really. I think we just need to actually see what the whole live situation is like first. Once we get a taste it will become clear if NO/Electronic tracks could or should be implemented.

In terms of it being a short- or long-term project, I hope it remains long-term (Bernard seems happy, and that's the main thing), but at the same time (going by what Hooky said recently, re: happy to see BL live), I hope it's short-term and they just fucking reconcile and make another NO record already!

I would think they will play Bad Lt. songs as the main part of the show but finish with a couple old classics, then a couple more with an encore. Love Will Tear Us Apart for sure. Would they give Transmission a try? Getting Away With It maybe, they already have done the acoustic. Crystal maybe. Run Wild, Barney seems to love it. Something built on the acoustic style BLT?

True Faith and Blue Monday seemed like programmed karaoke tracks in the end, I would hope that they would avoid that style.

Barney doesn't need to pander too much, but then might pander a little, why not, it's been a 30 year career. I find it unlikely that he would not play a few old songs to finish the shows, and fans would appreciate it. Barney is too old to make a clean break totally.

walk on stage, play 10 BL songs without acknowledging the audience in any way, walk off stage.

job done

GlasVegas wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Buck Hill wrote:

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne. .

Agreed. That's how New Order did it also.

Yup.

David Byrne started playing Talking Heads song in concert pretty early in his solo career. When I saw him in 2001, he played 7 or 8 Talking Heads songs.

If you're classing 'pretty early in his solo career' as 2001 then your sadly mistaken. I first saw David Byrne playing solo touring the 'Rei Momo' album at the Glasgow Barrowlands in November 1989. The only Head's reference in the gig was when he slotted the chorus of 'Mr Jones' into the middle of a track off Rei Momo. Lasted all of 30 seconds.

Saw him again in '92 at the Edinburgh Playhouse, once again zero Talking Heads. First time I saw him play anything by Talking heads was the Royal Concert Hall in '94 when he played 'Burning Down The House', 'This Must Be The Place' and one other track which I can't remember. The crowd weren't expecting it so the reaction was insane. Since then his sets have been 50/50 between Heads' material and solo stuff. Seen him literally dozens of times.

So aye, getting back on topic, as I stated earlier, David Byrne didn't play any Talking Heads material for about the first 5 years of his solo career!

By early in his solo career I meant early '90's. I didn;t actually get to see him play until 2001. Met him after the show...he is a nice guy!

El Jarvo wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote: The argument reflects a somewhat childish personal resentment towards Bernard Sumner that some of the folks here at NOOL feel. No one complained when Monaco played Blue Monday or Age of Consent with David Potts doing his best Bernard impersonation last year. But if Bad Lieutenant, whose leader was the leader and principal songwriter in New Order, want to do NO songs, well, thats just wrong.

Which is all nonsense, obviously. That Monaco gig was a one-off reformation of a band that hadn't existed for nigh on 10 years. They could play whatever they wanted. And did.

How many New Order songs did Hooky regularly play when he started off Revenge, and then indeed Monaco? The odd Dreams Never End after a couple of years? A Lonesome Tonight?

And how many New Order songs did Electronic ever play?

I'd rather see BL rise or fall on the strength of their own material, no matter how much people are clammering for Bernard's back catalogue.

Point taken, and I understand where you are coming from. That being said, I would enjoy hearing BL do some NO songs. Just my preference.

El Jarvo wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote: The argument reflects a somewhat childish personal resentment towards Bernard Sumner that some of the folks here at NOOL feel. No one complained when Monaco played Blue Monday or Age of Consent with David Potts doing his best Bernard impersonation last year. But if Bad Lieutenant, whose leader was the leader and principal songwriter in New Order, want to do NO songs, well, thats just wrong.

Which is all nonsense, obviously. That Monaco gig was a one-off reformation of a band that hadn't existed for nigh on 10 years. They could play whatever they wanted. And did.

How many New Order songs did Hooky regularly play when he started off Revenge, and then indeed Monaco? The odd Dreams Never End after a couple of years? A Lonesome Tonight?

And how many New Order songs did Electronic ever play?

I'd rather see BL rise or fall on the strength of their own material, no matter how much people are clammering for Bernard's back catalogue.

They also played Failures from Joy Division :D

Looks like they will be http://www.teletext.co.uk/planetsound/news/bf1ea34429da46b86eecccaf89e27be7/Exclusive+Sumner+on+tour.aspx

Yup, I saw that Ceefax bit as well so it looks like he's not ruling out playing anything from his long career, JD and even Electronic included. Hooky has said that he plans to get a ticket for the Manc gig although admitted that "it would be rather macabre to stand in front of the bassist and give him the thumbs up" (when he's playing the parts I wrote!). I should think that might be incredibly nerwracking for BL's bass player, knowing Hooky was there to see how he handled those quintessentially Hookesque lines.

Ps I saw Electronic live and they never played any Order songs. Neither did Monaco when I saw them. I suppose having two members (one permanent, the other a recent-ish replacement) from your former band - as Barney will have - is too tempting when it comes to featuring old songs in the set. Those feeling that Hooky wishing BL well/going to the MCR gig is an olive branch might be guilty of wishful thinking.

steven kelly wrote: Looks like they will be Link

"We could play for seven hours"???

He never did that with New Order! :p

Good stuff - if he plays "Love Will Tear Us Apart", expect a "C'MON!" from me! :p

Nick King wrote:

steven kelly wrote: Looks like they will be Link

"We could play for seven hours"???

He never did that with New Order! :p

Good stuff - if he plays "Love Will Tear Us Apart", expect a "C'MON!" from me! :p

I guess Barney loves to play now since he finally got rid of that annoying bassist who was ruining his good buzz.

How about "Louie Louie" in the third encore?

Nick King wrote:

Good stuff - if he plays "Love Will Tear Us Apart", expect a "C'MON!" from me! :p

And from me as well!

I can see both sides of the issue re: BL standing on its own merit vs. playing back catalog stuff, but I gotta say somewhat selfishly that I don't mind hearing the old stuff & it beats paying $$ for a 40 minute set.

Anyone heard who if anyone will open for them?

I hope they do actually play some Electronic songs, I've always been a huge fan of them. Joy Division would be fine, but what JD really fit the BL vibe? If they do announce US dates I will definitely go see them, even if NYC is a 7 hour drive.

Well that's told us.Now what did New Order/Electronic sound like?

RM wrote: Well that's told us.Now what did New Order/Electronic sound like?

God knows!

You'd be sad if they didn't dip into the past surely?

Johnny Giles wrote:

GlasVegas wrote:

Buck Hill wrote:

GlasVegas wrote: They need to do their own shit exclusively if they want to get taken seriously. That's what you've got to do starting out when you've got all that baggage. That's how Ian Brown did it. That's how David Byrne did it. You got zero Stone Roses songs from Brown for about the first 5 years of his solo career. Ditto with Byrne. .

Agreed. That's how New Order did it also.

Good point. I forgot about them!

Fazakerly.

So does Bernard need to do it all over again??. When you've survived the JD situation, re-written the book like NO did and painfully squeezed into the shoes of the biggest indie icon out there.....the need to prove anything??, to be taken seriously??....hmm, lets work that one through. Lesser artists going it alone for the first time without an equivalent legacy might find the decision is forced on them. No such insecurities needed here. Been there, done that, see you later.

Yeah but of the two examples I mentioned (Ian Brown and David Byrne) you would struggle to define them as 'lesser artists'. OK, Brown did have quite a bit to prove but David Byrne was going out on tour having split Talking Heads up at the very height of their commercial success and having not played live, with Talking Heads or otherwise, for 5 years. He sold out three nights at the Barras in a day and remember, this was back in '89 when getting tickets for a sold out show involved fans (not touts) queuing in the rain on the morning they were released.

Believe me, everyone at that show was DESPERATE for Talking Heads material, I reckon the majority of them (me included) had never even heard 'Rei Momo', the latin influenced thing he was touring. But he stuck to his guns, played all the new stuff (with a sixteen piece backing band. On the Barra's stage!) and I think with hindsight the gig and his reputation as an artist were all the better for it.

El Jarvo wrote:

[orange]TheAotearoan[/orange] wrote: You'd be sad if they didn't dip into the past surely?

It'll be Barney on karaoke though, won't it?

Nobody should Hooky's bass parts, except Hooky.

Those unplugged versions were just shit, I thought.

Now, as I keep asking, can anyone lend me a lighter?

It's not Barney on karoke. He wrote a large portion of the music in New Order, as well as the lyrics.

If no one should play Hooky's bass parts except for Hooky, then no one should sing Bernards vocal parts or play his guitar parts.

But...wait....didn't David Potts do just that at that Monaco gig?

AND NO ONE HERE COMPLAINED.

So, whats the difference?

Me, personally, I don't care.

I am looking forward to seeing BL in Chicago, and I hope they do some New Order songs.

And I liked Monaco's versions of Age of Consent and especially thier Gary Gliter-esque version of Blue Monday.

And if I go see Freebass (which i hope to) and they play some NO songs and Gary Briggs sings Barney's parts...thats okay too!

Zachery Starkey wrote: But...wait....didn't David Potts do just that at that Monaco gig?

AND NO ONE HERE COMPLAINED.

I thought Al had already answered that on page 2?

Team Gillian

Zachery Starkey wrote:

El Jarvo wrote:

[orange]TheAotearoan[/orange] wrote: You'd be sad if they didn't dip into the past surely?

It'll be Barney on karaoke though, won't it?

Nobody should Hooky's bass parts, except Hooky.

Those unplugged versions were just shit, I thought.

Now, as I keep asking, can anyone lend me a lighter?

It's not Barney on karoke. He wrote a large portion of the music in New Order, as well as the lyrics.

If no one should play Hooky's bass parts except for Hooky, then no one should sing Bernards vocal parts or play his guitar parts.

But...wait....didn't David Potts do just that at that Monaco gig?

AND NO ONE HERE COMPLAINED.

So, whats the difference?

Me, personally, I don't care.

I am looking forward to seeing BL in Chicago, and I hope they do some New Order songs.

And I liked Monaco's versions of Age of Consent and especially thier Gary Gliter-esque version of Blue Monday.

And if I go see Freebass (which i hope to) and they play some NO songs and Gary Briggs sings Barney's parts...thats okay too!

Just to point out, I complained. Repeatedly.

Well the cats out of the bag... Barney has now said they will play N0/JD, Electronic songs as well as "Out of control"

I wish "Miracle cure" would make the cut, but Out of control should prove interesting.

As for JD songs I say LWTUA and She's lost control.

As for NO songs I say BLT, Temptation and BM. Maybe Love vigilantes?

As for Electronic, just GAWI.

Steve has more or less confirmed they will be playing NO/JD songs in this months' MOJO.I say 'more or less',it was said in the usual Steve way,you know what I mean..

For my pennys' worth,I'm not at all interested in what amounts to a half-arsed tribute band MOR-ing & car-crashing their way thru' any NO/JD stuff whatsoever,& it hurts me to say that,but it's close to becoming a sad(bass-less) parody.Sorry,but I really don't see the point,even if they have every right.Leave it alone

Johnny Giles wrote: And why not?. It'll be more fun than just hearing the new ones. Remember that?? fun?!.

Wait a damn minute here! FUN?!? Music isn't about fun!! It's about being cooler than others and not selling out!!! Proving shit to people who don't like your new stuff anyway!!!!

I'll bring the chicken. :p

Johnny Giles wrote:

We're 20 years on from when the likes of Byrne went solo and Electronic started out. The music biz has changed it's skin at least twice since then. Bands don't make money from album sales anymore, the arse has fallen out of that cash cow. Gig income is vital. So if we want bands to promote their new album in a way which we believe is mandatory for them to be treated seriously then maybe we need to be prepared to pay serious money to hear it?.

Until the industry big cheeses can work out a way of making DRM work in the artists favour, gigs will be the main fund raiser, the way of covering the cost of making the record and pay themselves. If Bad Loo are going to get decent coin from their shows they have to offer up the old faves as well as the new stuff. And why not?. It'll be more fun than just hearing the new ones. Remember that?? fun?!. Even though these small gigs may not generate much dosh they need to set the scene for a bigger tour in 2010. Give folk something to anticipate.

When most of NOs contemparies are only making ends meet by touring remastered LPs on the 25th anniversary, I don't reckon Steve, Bernard and Hooky are doing too bad. And if playing golden oldies alongside new material, whatever band they're in, allows them to defer the day when they have to join the chicken-in-a-basket circuit then more power to them.

interesting article by steve albini on finance for bands starting out here

nataliet wrote:

Johnny Giles wrote: And why not?. It'll be more fun than just hearing the new ones. Remember that?? fun?!.

Wait a damn minute here! FUN?!? Music isn't about fun!! It's about being cooler than others and not selling out!!! Proving shit to people who don't like your new stuff anyway!!!!

I'll bring the chicken. :p

the chicken's still dancing....

hibster wrote:

Johnny Giles wrote:

We're 20 years on from when the likes of Byrne went solo and Electronic started out. The music biz has changed it's skin at least twice since then. Bands don't make money from album sales anymore, the arse has fallen out of that cash cow. Gig income is vital. So if we want bands to promote their new album in a way which we believe is mandatory for them to be treated seriously then maybe we need to be prepared to pay serious money to hear it?.

Until the industry big cheeses can work out a way of making DRM work in the artists favour, gigs will be the main fund raiser, the way of covering the cost of making the record and pay themselves. If Bad Loo are going to get decent coin from their shows they have to offer up the old faves as well as the new stuff. And why not?. It'll be more fun than just hearing the new ones. Remember that?? fun?!. Even though these small gigs may not generate much dosh they need to set the scene for a bigger tour in 2010. Give folk something to anticipate.

When most of NOs contemparies are only making ends meet by touring remastered LPs on the 25th anniversary, I don't reckon Steve, Bernard and Hooky are doing too bad. And if playing golden oldies alongside new material, whatever band they're in, allows them to defer the day when they have to join the chicken-in-a-basket circuit then more power to them.

interesting article by steve albini on finance for bands starting out here

And you see why BL and Freebass both did it independantly

hibster wrote:

the chicken's still dancing....

Like a drunk tramp with burned feet?