Hooky's Response — Forum Archive

11 Sep 2011, 05:55

Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote:

NotAMod 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

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.

Fair dos, he's obviously entitled not to say anything about a private matter. I just spotted in the statements that the Shamberg topic had not really been touched on.

I don't think most fans have drawn absolute conclusions on it all. We can only go on what's written in various interviews and the press so far which just seems incredibly bitter (from both sides). Anyone with half a brain knows that there are dealings behind the scenes which none of us have knowledge of. No average fan really knows who's in the moral right or wrong in any of those dealings. Could be Bernard, could be Hooky... only the lawyers know.

Your new avatar is wonderful, Ally. I would just like to quickly point out, however, that if we live in a world where it's up to lawyers to decide what's "morally right" we really are all completely fucked.

Still, quite feisty round these parts now innit. I look forward to New New Order playing subsequent benefit gigs for the long-term unemployed, ie - me and Mick. ROCK 'N' ROLL, NOT DOLE etc.

I remember IAN doing a benefit for me about 1979 Dole Division at Darwen Cemetry Pub. :laugh:

11 Sep 2011, 06:30

Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: I would just like to quickly point out, however, that if we live in a world where it's up to lawyers to decide what's "morally right" we really are all completely fucked.

Good point, Fradders :D

What I meant was in these business (Plc company?) conflicts Hooky and Bernard seem to be having your average fan has no clue who's acting "fairly" or not. Lawyers as you point out are probably not the best judge of that. They're brilliant at judging their hourly rate tho :nod:

Ties in with the whole "not jumping to conclusions" I spose.

11 Sep 2011, 08:19

condemnation wrote:

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"?

Majority of fans on this forum, I thought that was implicit? didn't realise you would need some help with that. It wasn't just the votes I was referring to, although that does paint a picture, if you look across the various threads the trend is anti-Hook and way more folk are being critical of Hook that any other band member. And it really isn't hard to see why, is it?

You have been following how this has unfolded over the last 5 years? you've seen the bile that Hook has been spewing towards other band members, in public, continually and the lack of respect he has shown towards them?. It's not unreasonable to understand that a lot of folk would be dissapointed in the way that he has been carrying on.

And yes I am challenging Jack's comments. He has a real vested interest here, it's his Dad FFS, that's why we can't take his view as independent. There are no independent views as far as I can tell, just different opinions. So for Jack to poor scorn on others views ('FACTS' etc) and present his own as the truth is ripe for challenge or to be discredited.

I enjoy reading others views, wouldn't dismiss anyone's comments as 'trash' like you have as it's just opinion which is all we've got. But I do know the way that Hook has been mouthing off for the last 5 years, disrespecting the achievements of others while inflating his own to an embarrassing level....'when I wrote Unknown Pleasures' - is deserving of 'feedback'.

And now he's condemning the first piece of genuinely good New Order news for years and you wonder why he's getting some stick?!

11 Sep 2011, 08:22

CTB wrote:

James Thomas wrote:

condemnation wrote: 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!.

Obviously you draw a crowd when you visit a backwater that gets very little in the way of culture.

Ease up, I know it's easy to sneer when you come from the cultural hub that is Yorkshire

:laugh:

I thought you might pick up on that!

11 Sep 2011, 08:24

condemnation wrote:

underdog69 wrote: The best possibility is seeing two completely different takes on song material by those who we must admit are our heroes. Now... let's move on kiddies.

I've stated before, the New Order shows are going to go well, the money is being raised for a good cause and will also bring hope to New Order fans around the World that the band may continue touring, when most people thought it wouldn't happen again. The fans will be ecstatic, and rightly so.

I'm repaeating myself again, for those that may not have seen me mention that in other threads. Just sick of the constant flaming, that's all.

But not sick of Hook's constant flaming over the last 5 years?

Can't have it both ways pal.

11 Sep 2011, 08:35

soviet wrote: I think it's pretty clear that Hooky's "Queen without Freddie Mercury, U2 without The Edge" comment was made tongue in cheek. Did the Sooty and Sweep reference (and then the exclamation mark) not give it away?

I met Hooky a couple of years ago at a 'How Not To Run A Club' book signing. They say you should never meet your heroes, but he was really nice, very gracious to all the fans that turned out to meet him. I may not agree with all the things he's been up to recently, but he's a nice guy, he's put a lot back into Manchester, and he's helped create some absolutely fantastic music. We should all show him a bit more trust and respect.

He always is. He's brilliant at the meet and greet stuff. But ultimately we're his customers. So I don't get too carried away with this.

The opening part of his statement....on one hand, you've got to take it as tongue in cheek. He even says that's not serious. Fair enough. But given how he's been bigging himself up lately, and the flack he's had for his (un) healthy ego, you can't help but think he's been badly advised on that one. It's available for interpretation at best and leaves himself wide open for more shit at worst.

11 Sep 2011, 08:40

Gene wrote:

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.

Designed for its audience son.

:nod:

11 Sep 2011, 10:27

Johnny Giles wrote:

Gene wrote:

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.

Designed for its audience son.

I knew you were going to post something like that :wink:

11 Sep 2011, 10:35

Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote: I would just like to quickly point out, however, that if we live in a world where it's up to lawyers to decide what's "morally right" we really are all completely fucked.

Hey now.

:p

11 Sep 2011, 10:36

Here's a thought.

We all make decisions on the basis of what we know. If what we know is not the full picture, some of those decisions and opinions may change in the light of new information. Saying, for example, "You're wrong,I have facts you don't, and I won't tell you them", does make it difficult to know all the relevant information.

11 Sep 2011, 10:38

I still think the light concept is pointless. Even if they do sound pretty good, i find the whole thing quite embarrassing.

Also Hooky's quote from the RS interview, "ultimately it’s my music they’re playing", i don't think it is his music.

So there.

11 Sep 2011, 10:50

mark reed wrote: Here's a thought.

We all make decisions on the basis of what we know. If what we know is not the full picture, some of those decisions and opinions may change in the light of new information. Saying, for example, "You're wrong,I have facts you don't, and I won't tell you them", does make it difficult to know all the relevant information.

Right. If you know what's really going on, but you're not going to say anything about it, it's not really fair to give people a hard time because YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH, WHICH I KNOW BUT WON'T TELL YOU.

11 Sep 2011, 10:59

blunt laser wrote: I still think the light concept is pointless. Even if they do sound pretty good, i find the whole thing quite embarrassing.

Also Hooky's quote from the RS interview, "ultimately it’s my music they’re playing", i don't think it is his music.

So there.

I think Hooky is oddly possessive about things like his shared legacy with Bernard and Steve. Somewhere along the line he resented Bernard for being a lead singer and actually embracing the role. Wasn't Gillian quoted as saying she thought Hooky wished he were the frontman? Fact is, New Order's fortunes increased with Bernard's improved singing and his and Steve's focus on technology, not with awesome bass solos.

11 Sep 2011, 11:01

blunt laser wrote: I still think the light concept is pointless. Even if they do sound pretty good, i find the whole thing quite embarrassing.

Also Hooky's quote from the RS interview, "ultimately it’s my music they’re playing", i don't think it is his music.

So there.

Yeah that caught me off..

Hooky says they are playing HIS music?

So Hooky wrote Steve's drum parts, wrote Gillian's keyboard parts, wrote Bernards vocal, guitar, and synth parts, and wrote all of the songs?

So Hooky was like the Martin Gore of New Order then? Huh?

11 Sep 2011, 12:02

Seeing that Hooky is said to have been constantly flaming his ex band mates for the last 5 years I and wondering is this actually the case and life being too short to go over every single interview he has done since the break up I picked one 30 minute interview from July 2009 and in that interview his only negative reference to Bernard was a comment about the soft polished sound on Republic and a feeling that recording Sirens reminded him of Republic, He preferred Get Ready which was "edgier".

He also said at one stage that "New Order music is mine" but quickly added "It's all ours really".

But most interestingly is that he said they would never make another record as New Order "unless there was a lot of healing" and asked about playing live as New Order again he said that he wouldn't discount it if it was for charity or something like that "I would not say no" and likewise if they were offered "a ridiculous amount of money" which is the part of his answer to the question that Hooky detractors could latch on to as further proof of his general wickedness while those sympathetic to him would point to the other part of his answer as proof that if approached he may even now have considered taking part in the October gigs. It must also be born in mind that this interview was conducted before the commencement of the UP tours which have been called the final straw by Bernard.. So,while a lot has happened since then it is interesting that he didn't then rule out playing with them in circumstances like those that have now come about.Link The reference to playing again is in part 3 of the interview near the beginning.

11 Sep 2011, 12:45

El Jarvo wrote: I want to know what Tom Chapman thinks about all this.

Whoever the fuck he is?

Chappy, as the new New Order bassist will now be fondly referred to as, is probably shitting himself. Obviously the others believe he's up to the challenge though.

I want to know what Jake Evans has on his mind...

11 Sep 2011, 13:43

Housey wrote:

mark reed wrote: Here's a thought.

We all make decisions on the basis of what we know. If what we know is not the full picture, some of those decisions and opinions may change in the light of new information. Saying, for example, "You're wrong,I have facts you don't, and I won't tell you them", does make it difficult to know all the relevant information.

Right. If you know what's really going on, but you're not going to say anything about it, it's not really fair to give people a hard time because YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH, WHICH I KNOW BUT WON'T TELL YOU.

That's the point. All this stuff about arguments behind closed doors, or dodgy business stuff that's happened, that has been alluded to but not detailed, makes it a bit rich to be judged by others who know a lot more and aren't or don't or can't say.

11 Sep 2011, 13:53

El Jarvo wrote: I want to know what Tom Chapman thinks about all this.

What a surprise? Nice job.

11 Sep 2011, 14:21

If Hooky is going to stop the gigs by court decision, I'll... :chainsaw:

11 Sep 2011, 14:26

Bere wrote: If Hooky is going to stop the gigs by court decision, I'll...

Eh? Has this been mentioned elsewhere?

He can't stop the gigs going ahead, no more than he could stop Re-order gigging and playing the songs that he co-wrote.

There might be some shenanigans over the use of the name, but that's about it.

11 Sep 2011, 15:00

Nobby posted an article from a german magazine. It says that Hooky is checking for legal measures.

Let's hope it may be just because of the name or something.

11 Sep 2011, 16:17

Bere wrote: Nobby posted an article from a german magazine. It says that Hooky is checking for legal measures.

There's an NME interview from about 1991 where Hooky claimed to have "eight solid inches that never let him down. Not ever." To save Peter time and effort, I can confirm that the legal European metric equivalent measurement is 20.3cm.

I look forward to a Christmas card from Hook Towers, Alderley Edge.

11 Sep 2011, 16:29

NOOL:Where the fans are as bitter as the band

I think in the end people who fancy seeing a JD cover band can do so with The Light, where as dad dancing hooligans still clinging onto their viking memories can see the reformed New Order. It's really the best for both camps as everyone can get what they'd like, and yes it's a shame to see a band we all love act like squabbling children on a shitty Christmas morning, we can just hope one side of them gives us great music and great performances. Or we can just wait till the JD/NO rockband edition that will no doubt come out.

11 Sep 2011, 16:56

Another Hooky interview published today on the Metro NY web site. Naturally, covers recent events. He describes him and Bernard as "the worst of bitter sworn enemies" so I doubt there will be any Christmas cards or bouquets of flowers exchanged any time soon.

"Candid" is probably an understatement.

11 Sep 2011, 17:25

NotAMod wrote: Another Hooky interview published today on the Metro NY web site. Naturally, covers recent events. He describes him and Bernard as "the worst of bitter sworn enemies" so I doubt there will be any Christmas cards or bouquets of flowers exchanged any time soon.

"Candid" is probably an understatement.

"I’ve got hundreds of rehearsal tapes of Joy Division and New Order. I found a wonderful one the other day that had the whole New Order set without vocals, which sounded great..."

Whatever could he mean?

:laugh:

11 Sep 2011, 17:38

NotAMod wrote: Another Hooky interview published today on the Metro NY web site. Naturally, covers recent events. He describes him and Bernard as "the worst of bitter sworn enemies" so I doubt there will be any Christmas cards or bouquets of flowers exchanged any time soon.

"Candid" is probably an understatement.

It's a shame that no material (pre-dating WFTSC) will ever get released at this stage. It's been stated many times that Bernard didn't want any more JD live material to be released, so I guess it's the same with New Order.

So, we will probably be lucky to get the WFTSC outtakes.

11 Sep 2011, 19:28

condemnation wrote:

NotAMod wrote: Another Hooky interview published today on the Metro NY web site. Naturally, covers recent events. He describes him and Bernard as "the worst of bitter sworn enemies" so I doubt there will be any Christmas cards or bouquets of flowers exchanged any time soon.

"Candid" is probably an understatement.

It's a shame that no material (pre-dating WFTSC) will ever get released at this stage. It's been stated many times that Bernard didn't want any more JD live material to be released, so I guess it's the same with New Order.

So, we will probably be lucky to get the WFTSC outtakes.

Stated where? There are now seven discs of live Joy Division available to fans. Two of which aren't especially listenable. And we have New Order's live DVDs. Granted, I would love some quality footage documenting 1983, 1989, and 1993 all on one disc, as those are the most pivotal years in their career. But if the remasters hadn't been such an absolute cock up, I would go so far as to say New Order have spoiled their fans with alternate mixes and live material.

11 Sep 2011, 20:07

JV wrote:

condemnation wrote: It's been stated many times that Bernard didn't want any more JD live material to be released, so I guess it's the same with New Order.

So, we will probably be lucky to get the WFTSC outtakes.

Stated where?

That is a good point actually. I don't really recall reading any interviews with Bernard where he specifically says he "doesn't want" further Joy Division material released. I do remember around the time of the Joy Division remasters in 2007 that he reportedly considered the ULU gig on the Closer reissue "a favourite". There is admittedly that aspect to Bernard where he doesn't like dwelling on the past.

The Rare and Unseen Footage DVD was released as recently as 2008 which was overseen principally by Hooky and Steve so it does seem possible the band can release older stuff.

I agree with JV really... there are more than enough Joy Division live albums out there, not to mention Still, the Peel Sessions and discs 3 and 4 of Heart & Soul. Do we really need more?

That said, it would be nice to hear some '81 to '93 era New Order gigs at some point. A few have leaked out from various blogs over the years but something official would be good. Unfortunately, I wouldn't trust Rhino to make a cup of tea without burning the place down much less oversee a collection of live albums :shrug:

11 Sep 2011, 20:52

Tock wrote:

ewok wrote: God he looks more & more of a twat day by day.

hahaha -- a TWAT!

11 Sep 2011, 21:06

I agree that we probably have enough live JD to do us for a while. After all, no matter how many gigs you have it's still the same repetoire of songs.

But yeah...more early live NO would be nice. The live versions of 5-8-6 I've heard are so much better than the album version.