from todays Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jul/14/new-order-split-peter-hook?CMP=twt_gu
Dates
· UTC
Joyless divisions: the end of New Order
Archived58 replies · 5,453 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Well, seeing as I don't get a chance to read this particular paper....hmmm...good story. Nothing new, but a good story.
"The sound was in our heads," Morris says, "but the machines were barely capable of doing it. The future was happening, but often it sounded a bit shit."
I think this will finally put an end to the daft rumours of them getting back together......as much as we'd all love one more tour it isnae gonna happen.
That quote from Stephen is a classic 
Jesus, this is proper boring now, isn't it?
Am I the only one thinking "they doth protest too much" though. We get it. You broke up. So what?
Headline slots at the V or somesuch Festival next year then? Kerching!
I always thought the Grauniad had a better class of reader. Some of those reader comments are plain stoopid. Is that where all the News of the Screws readers have migrated?
OK, so Peter should probably have informed/consulted the rest of the band about buying rights to the Hacienda name as a courtesy. But Bernard really can't complain about Peter playing JD songs when BL have played NO songs... bit hypocritical.
So neither of them have been perfect, but really hasn't been worth the spectacular fallout.
Mind you, god knows what the mystery event on the Brazil tour was
father jack wrote:
Mind you, god knows what the mystery event on the Brazil tour was
NOOL should have a competition on that one - give out some prizes.
That'll be a test of how truly sad some of us are!
father jack wrote: Mind you, god knows what the mystery event on the Brazil tour was
Barney and Hooky shared a hot meat sandwich.
With Julio as the filling. 
They knew then they'd reached their lowest ebb.
The comment about the "thing" that happened in Brazil which Hooky wouldn't talk about is interesting.
Noticed on another post someone (Jack?) saying that what Craig Gill told me in January about them splitting up over royalty share was "total rubbish" - I'd be interested to know if he *knows* it to be rubbish or suspects it to be.
Because part of me wonders is that the conversation that happened in Brazil.
Were they discussing starting to write new material and use some of the leftover WFTSC tracks, and did Bernard hit Hooky over royalty share before it got off the ground? Who knows. But whatever happened in Brazil, both parties talk about lots of other problems they have, and give details, but *neither* party wants to discuss to the Brazil thing, which says to me it's about money because money is exactly the kind of thing I imagine neither party would *want* to say they fell out over.
Craig seemed pretty bloody certain about it - it wasn't a kind of "Well here's what I think".
That's not to say, of course, that he was being honest. Maybe he has a personal grudge or bias somewhere.
On a side note, I'm in the Hooky camp on this split. Why the fuck can't he form a Joy Division tribute band? I know a couple of lads locally who have done it so why can't Hooky? Bernard's comment about Hooky "taking our legacy" or whatever is nonsense. Hooky is no less a member of Joy Division than Bernard and the fact that Bernard doesn't like an idea and Hooky does, does not make the idea wrong or a bad one.
father jack wrote: OK, so Peter should probably have informed/consulted the rest of the band about buying rights to the Hacienda name as a courtesy. But Bernard really can't complain about Peter playing JD songs when BL have played NO songs... bit hypocritical.
So neither of them have been perfect, but really hasn't been worth the spectacular fallout.
Mind you, god knows what the mystery event on the Brazil tour was
I don't think Bernard is frustrated that Hooky is playing JD songs in itself; after all, NO did some JD songs live later years in their career and so does BL. But the difference is that BL play a setlist with new BL songs and older NO/JD songs mixed. And with Steve and Phil (he was part of NO at WFTSC you know). It's not like you have Bernard touring with musicians other than Steve, Phil and Hooky playing NO albums live. This is not criticism but there is a difference in what they do.
To me it seems the grudge Bernard has against Peter Hook stems from his aggrievance at Hooky buying the Hacienda name, and perhaps it all kind of escalated in a tit for tat way from there? I dunno, just my speculation. Whatever, it's just sad to see it all come down to this.
I've heard the rumour that in Brazil some boxing was included between both parties. just a rumour ;)
http://www.nme.com/news/new-order/58054
Funnily, nme's sloppy coverage of the split, makes it appear that they fell out over Hooky forming freebass. No mention of the hac or the JD tours
poorshakes wrote: http://www.nme.com/news/new-order/58054
Funnily, nme's sloppy coverage of the split, makes it appear that they fell out over Hooky forming freebass. No mention of the hac or the JD tours
The NME????!!!!
There is bally all difference between the NME these days or The Sun.
One thinks it's a music paper, whilst the other, a newspaper.
They are both vile pieces of work, run and edited by complete wankers.
poorshakes wrote: http://www.nme.com/news/new-order/58054
Funnily, nme's sloppy coverage of the split, makes it appear that they fell out over Hooky forming freebass. No mention of the hac or the JD tours
The reader comments are interesting at the bottom of the article. It is interesting to see how a bystander sees it all (as opposed to us who are all caught up in it!) and it seems that public opinion aint with Hooky............
jake atkinson wrote:
poorshakes wrote: http://www.nme.com/news/new-order/58054
Funnily, nme's sloppy coverage of the split, makes it appear that they fell out over Hooky forming freebass. No mention of the hac or the JD tours
The reader comments are interesting at the bottom of the article. It is interesting to see how a bystander sees it all (as opposed to us who are all caught up in it!) and it seems that public opinion aint with Hooky............
To be honest the comments of the scrawny teenagers who read the NME are hardly a reflection of public opinion.I'm pretty sure that the "public" apart from the people who log on here are hardly even aware that they have broken up or that they ever existed. The main purpose of this article taking a Hooky quote out of context seems to be to fill a little space and to flog t-shirts...to skinny teens.
"We were important to people,"
"I know that our all bickering physically hurts the fans and destroys what they loved."
It was always special It was like water down the drain I'm intoxicated Every time I hear your name I try to remember But nothing is the same It was always special it was like water down the drain
jake atkinson wrote:
The reader comments are interesting at the bottom of the article. It is interesting to see how a bystander sees it all (as opposed to us who are all caught up in it!) and it seems that public opinion aint with Hooky............
Reader comments give a brand new meaning to the word patethic, don't know which are worse, the spiteful ones or the ones from Wonderland begging them to get back together nevertheless because someone would like to hear BM live. Gone, over, they were great, let's remember them how they were. Although I'd still like to know what the hell had happened in Brasil :\ohwell: .
With the kind of Lowest Common DenomIndie-nator crap that the NME usually peddle, it's a wonder any of its readers give three flying shitting monkeys about bands like New Order anymore.
BrianMcGee wrote:
Were they discussing starting to write new material and use some of the leftover WFTSC tracks, and did Bernard hit Hooky over royalty share before it got off the ground? Who knows. But whatever happened in Brazil, both parties talk about lots of other problems they have, and give details, but *neither* party wants to discuss to the Brazil thing, which says to me it's about money because money is exactly the kind of thing I imagine neither party would *want* to say they fell out over.
But arguement over royalties wouldn't be a "private" thing as it was quoted, it would still very much be business?
Rorschach wrote: "We were important to people,"
"I know that our all bickering physically hurts the fans and destroys what they loved."
It was always special It was like water down the drain I'm intoxicated Every time I hear your name I try to remember But nothing is the same It was always special it was like water down the drain
They don't need to get back together. I enjoyed BL live and The Light look good on YouTube ...
El Jarvo wrote:
father jack wrote: Mind you, god knows what the mystery event on the Brazil tour was
Barney and Hooky shared a hot meat sandwich. With Julio as the filling.
Maybe they're disgusted with themselves because they made a home-movie together entitled
Two Mancs And One Cup
El Jarvo wrote:
father jack wrote: Mind you, god knows what the mystery event on the Brazil tour was
Barney and Hooky shared a hot meat sandwich.
With Julio as the filling.
They knew then they'd reached their lowest ebb.
And they had a stomachache for that! 
What a gross behaviour!
Does the reason matter anymore? I understood it was Barney saying he wanted to do a solo LP and Hooky thinking that it was unfair to just pick up and drop NO whenever it suited BS. But who knows? We all have our opinions. Mine is probably clear from elsewhere. I wish them all the best.
Though, to be honest, despite my reservations - The Light's Unknown Pleasures live in Australia CD is cracking. That band could show a shedload of potential and make a grand record. Though there is little money in 'new' material these days, writing and recording some new stuff at home could be very cheap.
