Hooky's Response

EdelBrock wrote:

leather_girl wrote: http://consequenceofsound.net/2011/09/peter-hook-speaks-on-new-order-reunion/

“I don’t want to play with Bernard [Sumner] again, certainly don’t want to play with Gillian [Gilbert] or Stephen [Morris],”

Wow on the comment about Gillian and Steve. I knew there were issues between him and Barney, but it really looks like a bigger issue between him and Gillian (and then Steve who would obviously back her).... maybe this whole thing does have to do with the cancer issue....

Bernard Sumner has gone on record as saying that Hooky undermined and downgraded Gillian's contributions to New Order and that Gillian thought Hooky was a sexist pig, and that Steve didn't like how Hooky regarded Gillian as a lesser member of the group. This is one of the reasons Hooky isn't on Republic very much. Bernard said this in the Nolan book.

It amazes me how people are trying to make Bernard and the other members of NO the villians in this story.

On a positive note, they are helping a long time friend, medical expenses in the USA are extremely high. I hope these 2 shows are a great financial success and aid him in his cancer treatment.

Nuff said from me.

Maybe we'll finally get a decent bass...

Zachery Starkey wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

leather_girl wrote: http://consequenceofsound.net/2011/09/peter-hook-speaks-on-new-order-reunion/

“I don’t want to play with Bernard [Sumner] again, certainly don’t want to play with Gillian [Gilbert] or Stephen [Morris],”

Wow on the comment about Gillian and Steve. I knew there were issues between him and Barney, but it really looks like a bigger issue between him and Gillian (and then Steve who would obviously back her).... maybe this whole thing does have to do with the cancer issue....

Bernard Sumner has gone on record as saying that Hooky undermined and downgraded Gillian's contributions to New Order and that Gillian thought Hooky was a sexist pig, and that Steve didn't like how Hooky regarded Gillian as a lesser member of the group. This is one of the reasons Hooky isn't on Republic very much. Bernard said this in the Nolan book.

It amazes me how people are trying to make Bernard and the other members of NO the villians in this story.

Thanks for the reminder... clears that right up then!

NotAMod wrote: I used to be the moderator with the red/yellow True Faith-94 avatar :) Still helping out where possible but not really into moderation any more. Bit of a thankless task as I'm sure you can imagine.

Anyway back to discussing the Hooky response... that Murdoch bastion of credibility and integrity The Sun is also running with his initial statement.

Not using names? Remember ya now A***.

robB wrote: Peter Hook Responds To This Week's Events Posted on Friday, 9 September 2011

I first I heard about this on Monday and it has taken me completely by surprise! Everyone knows that NEW ORDER without PETER HOOK is like QUEEN without FREDDIE MERCURY, U2 without THE EDGE, SOOTY without SWEEP!

On a more serious note, I do not understand the decision THE OTHER THREE have taken. I wish they had approached me first. I do not agree with the methods they have used and feel it would have been courteous and professional to have spoken to me in advance of the announcements. It is very sad.

Love PETER HOOK x Sept ‘11

Or maybe JOY DIVISION without IAN...

You're a contradictory cunt Hooky...

NotAMod wrote:

I agree but I find it odd that in all the Hooky related statements issued over the past days that this sentiment has not been conveyed by the man himself. I've double checked what he's said to the press and Michael Shamberg has not been mentioned once which is a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, Hooky's a gregarious bloke and I'm sure he's concerned about any health issues regarding Mr Shamberg but it's a bit strange he neglected to mention it.

Most of the comments have revolved around his own "hurt" and "inconvenience" at what the others are doing rather than encouraging donations to Mr Shamberg's cause. Arguably if he had come at this from a positive angle the fan-base would be nagging Bernard and co to make peace instead. To be fair to "The Other Three" the basis of these gigs were plainly stated from the off; they are charitable.

I thought that was odd too, about Hooky not mentioning Shamberg.

anything he has had to say to michael he has said in private, not everything needs to be discussed in the public domain

i think more than enough has been explained within that rolling stone article, so im not going to add anything here.

what i will say though is that when you don't know the FACTS you should not jump to conclusions. there are no angels here.

[orange]Jack[/orange] wrote: anything he has had to say to michael he has said in private, not everything needs to be discussed in the public domain

i think more than enough has been explained within that rolling stone article, so im not going to add anything here.

what i will say though is that when you don't know the FACTS you should not jump to conclusions. there are no angels here.

Do you think they should have asked Hooky to be involved?

Do you think he should have accepted if they did?

Still too soon?

[orange]Jack[/orange] wrote: there are no angels here.

That about sums it up for me. Wise words from the youngster.

NotAMod wrote:

condemnation wrote: On a positive note, they are helping a long time friend, medical expenses in the USA are extremely high. I hope these 2 shows are a great financial success and aid him in his cancer treatment.

I agree but I find it odd that in all the Hooky related statements issued over the past days that this sentiment has not been conveyed by the man himself. I've double checked what he's said to the press and Michael Shamberg has not been mentioned once which is a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, Hooky's a gregarious bloke and I'm sure he's concerned about any health issues regarding Mr Shamberg but it's a bit strange he neglected to mention it.

Most of the comments have revolved around his own "hurt" and "inconvenience" at what the others are doing rather than encouraging donations to Mr Shamberg's cause. Arguably if he had come at this from a positive angle the fan-base would be nagging Bernard and co to make peace instead. To be fair to "The Other Three" the basis of these gigs were plainly stated from the off; they are charitable.

Personally, I've got tickets for both gigs so I'm relatively happy that at least some of my money will be going towards Mr Shamberg's health care. Anyone's who a "proper fan" as you stated in another thread should know Michael's contribution towards New Order's success. I'm pretty sure he's not sitting around going "anyone else doing New Order videos is like Freddie leaving Queen". Egos should be shelved.

Surely, this is a similar scenario with proceeds of The Light's live album going to victims of the Australian floodings. Something you can identify with, condemnation?

It's a positive note, as you say.

I think the major difference here is, Peter Hook & The Light release is exactly that. It's the Light's tribute to Joy Division and Ian Curtis, recorded live, with proceeds going to benefit the victims of the Queensland floods. He didn't do it as Joy Division, or New Order, there is no cash cow there to be milked. And Jack answered regarding Hooky and Michaels illness, so you can understand it being a private matter.

Bad Lieutenant could have done 2 benefit shows with special guest Gillian Gilbert, sell that out and there you go.. Peter Hook & The Light , has toured the World and has been a great success, made a lot of fans happy. People will go and see Peter Hook & The Light and also go and see New Order minus Peter Hook and enjoy them.

Also, touring around the World, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow! There is a pot, filled with bills. Rowing the boat across the Channel, doing 2 shows under New Order, there is O risk involved and a lot to gain.

Johnny Giles wrote:

[orange]Jack[/orange] wrote: anything he has had to say to michael he has said in private, not everything needs to be discussed in the public domain

i think more than enough has been explained within that rolling stone article, so im not going to add anything here.

what i will say though is that when you don't know the FACTS you should not jump to conclusions. there are no angels here.

Now could you remind your Dad about the benefits of keeping matters private? He's not exactly been the master of discretion the last few years has he?

And where have you got the facts from? You only have your Dad's interpretation to go on, probably the most twisted, biased and fucked up perspective out there.

So please don't patronise us with your all knowing comments, you're hardly offering an independent view and as you can see from the various threads the majority of fans have lost patience with Hooky and have become weary of the hypocrisy in his statements.

You're defending your Dad and good on you for that but you also come over as a tad naive. maybe time to give the boards a break?

Um, majority of fans? You think they all come onto this forum?? What planet are you coming from? If anyone may be closer to the facts, it's Jack! So if you are discrediting his posts, then what about the trash coming from the rest of the forum?

What sort of independent view are you looking for? One from Stephen Morris, who said "You know me Hooky, I just go with the flow"?

robB wrote: Peter Hook Responds To This Week's Events Posted on Friday, 9 September 2011

I first I heard about this on Monday and it has taken me completely by surprise! Everyone knows that NEW ORDER without PETER HOOK is like QUEEN without FREDDIE MERCURY, U2 without THE EDGE, SOOTY without SWEEP!

On a more serious note, I do not understand the decision THE OTHER THREE have taken. I wish they had approached me first. I do not agree with the methods they have used and feel it would have been courteous and professional to have spoken to me in advance of the announcements. It is very sad.

Love PETER HOOK x Sept ‘11

You can see both sides...

But Hooky left NO without telling them?

I take it Barney is Sooty?!

Johnny Giles wrote: you can see from the various threads the majority of fans have lost patience with Hooky and have become weary of the hypocrisy in his statements.

What threads are these? It all seems about 50/50 to me. Unless you want to sit down and start adding them up.

Dont try to speak for everybody. Tedious fucker.

Gene wrote:

Johnny Giles wrote: you can see from the various threads the majority of fans have lost patience with Hooky and have become weary of the hypocrisy in his statements.

What threads are these? It all seems about 50/50 to me. Unless you want to sit down and start adding them up.

Dont try to speak for everybody. Tedious fucker.

Well in the other thread 28 people have voted for the new New Order as being a more legitimate band, vs 1 person for the Light, so it's hardly 50/50 is it? I'd say there's a fair few dissonant voices like yourself but on the whole a large majority of fans are happy to see the band up and running again, even without Hooky. As evidenced by the fact that both shows sold out within about an hour yesterday.

Having been away for 3 years, and as such untainted by the boards opinion it seems all a bit childish on Hook's part. He doesn't want to be in the band, but doesn't want the others to carry on - yet he wants to flog every last ounce out the the JD legacy and The Hacienda.

I'm not too fussed on the idea of them all hugging it out and them getting back together. In an ideal world New Order would've ended with Factory.

Sooty and Sweep have split up, Sooty is going on tour with original member Sue and is continuing with the same management and road crew. Sweep is not happy, he has become a DJ and is getting someone to write a book for him.

Johnny Giles wrote:

Gene wrote:

Johnny Giles wrote: you can see from the various threads the majority of fans have lost patience with Hooky and have become weary of the hypocrisy in his statements.

What threads are these? It all seems about 50/50 to me. Unless you want to sit down and start adding them up.

Dont try to speak for everybody. Tedious fucker.

As Skullcrusher has pointed out, it's a bit fucking obvious from browsing about the board what the mood is towards Hooky. Sorry if I offended you and your precious little hero, Hooky wooky.

Let's look at the significance of the pole shall we? 1 in 28 voted New Order more legitimate (according to your calculations). No surprise, seeing it's a New Order forum, not a Peter Hook forum. But, lets put these figures out and translate them to the real World. Lets say that? You are basically saying that 2800 people would go to a New Order show compared to 100 at a Peter Hook show?

In no way am I undermining New Order, but having seen The Light on numerous occasions, I can assure you there were more than 100 people there. Let's try 1500-2000!.

I get it, this forum is your school playground, the way you are talking suggests you must be in the 11-12 year old range?

For all that the post Technique USA89 tour 'haitus' was painful and uncertain, at least it was fucking quiet.

Jack certainly had it right with his 'no angels' comment. Only a child would suppose otherwise.

I love Hooky. Have done for years. But I'm not with him on this. He's not a cunt, or anything like it.

If only Hooky would decide to write a new 'Music for Pleasure' - both his & ours. And leave the Other3 to being the latest new Neworder.

Here's the Rolling Stone interview if anybody would like to read it. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/peter-hook-saddened-and-upset-at-new-order-reunion-news-20110909

Johnny Giles wrote: Sorry if I offended you and your precious little hero, Hooky wooky.

You'd been doing quite well until that bit. That line makes you sound like a nine year old.

Must try harder.

As you're obviously interested, I like all the proper members equally; if the term 'like' can be applied to individuals in a music group. Ive never met any of them in person.

I wonder what would have been Hooky's response had the Other 3 told him in advance about their plans to reform? And if he had objected to them using the name would they have changed it to something else, and similarly if Hooky has told Bernard and Steve of his plans to tour U.P. would they have given their assent? And if they hadn't would he have abandoned his plans... I reckon that even though I have sympathy for Hooky with regard to this latest turn of events and think its a pity that he is now firmly out in the cold it does seem to me that the majority of noolers are tending not to see it that way and the general vibe on here seems to be that it is all his own fault..

I think part of the problem is that EVERYBODY ELSE (management etc.) is playing nicely together and Hooky is the outlier. Couple that with the relentless cash-in he's been pursuing over the last few years (and I'm not necessarily judging that-- I have How Not To Run a Club, after all), and yeah, he's not going to muster a lot of sympathy in many quarters.

cranelane wrote: its a pity that he is now firmly out in the cold it does seem to me that the majority of noolers are tending not to see it that way and the general vibe on here seems to be that it is all his own fault..

It is his own fault, he left the band. Bit like Torres leaving Liverpool and then moaning if they win the league. Hooky left of his own accord. If they carry on I'd say they have every right to, same way he had no problem when Gilbert left.

The likelyhood would've been if he hadn't left, they may have took a couple of years break again and we'd have possibly had another N.O. album by now.

Bottom line is, when he announced he was leaving he gave up any say in what New Order did after that.

condemnation wrote:

Johnny Giles wrote:

Gene wrote:

Johnny Giles wrote: you can see from the various threads the majority of fans have lost patience with Hooky and have become weary of the hypocrisy in his statements.

What threads are these? It all seems about 50/50 to me. Unless you want to sit down and start adding them up.

Dont try to speak for everybody. Tedious fucker.

As Skullcrusher has pointed out, it's a bit fucking obvious from browsing about the board what the mood is towards Hooky. Sorry if I offended you and your precious little hero, Hooky wooky.

Let's look at the significance of the pole shall we? 1 in 28 voted New Order more legitimate (according to your calculations). No surprise, seeing it's a New Order forum, not a Peter Hook forum. But, lets put these figures out and translate them to the real World. Lets say that? You are basically saying that 2800 people would go to a New Order show compared to 100 at a Peter Hook show?

In no way am I undermining New Order, but having seen The Light on numerous occasions, I can assure you there were more than 100 people there. Let's try 1500-2000!.

I get it, this forum is your school playground, the way you are talking suggests you must be in the 11-12 year old range?

Poll, not pole. That is, unless your spelling is in the 11-12 year old range. Incidentally, I'd be guessing JG's NO gig attendance would outstrip your 'numerous' attendances of The Light featuring a Nice Red Prop Bass Guitar, but I don't have the stats to back that up.

What a terrific argument you pose here - lots of people went and saw Hooky tour the Joy Division Tribute act. Popularity equals quality, just take a look at the charts for evidence...and of course, it is impossible to see the Light and yet still regard it as less legitimate than the other 80% of the band performing together. Because everything is that black and white, isn't it?

Looking at the RS article, Hooky says

But I do know at this point in time there have been some really underhand, dirty business dealings[emphasis mine] that have enabled them to do this that I don’t agree with and I’m very saddened and upset by it.

That's a hell of an accusation.