Skip to content

Merchandise at The Light shows ... is it poor taste?

Archived

68 replies · 4,006 views

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

This guy says it is

Judging by the stories I've heard from people who've worked with Peter Hook and interviews with him I've read, the guy is about as awful at being a person as he is amazing at writing bass lines—i.e., he is apparently pretty much a shitty dude. So my first reaction to hearing that Hook was embarking on a tour playing songs by Joy Division with a band that includes neither of his former Joy Division bandmates—who recently reached some sort of breaking point after several decades of putting up with him and finally booted him out of New Order—was to mentally roll my eyes and make barfing motions. Earlier today, after I remembered that Hook's tour desecrating Ian Curtis's memory makes its Chicago appearance tonight at the Metro, I tried to look at it again from his side. Your old band, which ended tragically with the death of a friend and maybe never reached its true potential, becomes 20-some years after the fact one of the single most important influences on an entire decade's worth of new music—and suddenly far more popular than it's ever been. The temptation must be insane to make a quick swoop around America collecting what are basically piles of money waiting to be picked up. You could forgive somebody, especially one personally estranged from the former members of the group, for just saying "fuck it" and going for the payday regardless of how tasteless it might seem from the outside. I almost empathized.

Then I saw the above photo of Hook's Joy Division merch (via the Metro's Instagram page) and now I'm actually making barf motions IRL just to work out some of how grossed out I am by Peter Hook. It's one thing for him to launch his own traveling mini mall of Joy Division T-shirts, but design-wise these things are basically explosive diarrhea all over the band's impeccable aesthetic reputation. The lack of thought, feeling, or effort that went into the designs—I'm assuming the ones playing on the "Mind the Gap" sign are there somewhere out of frame—is negligent enough to almost qualify as a malicious attack on the band's legacy. Peter Saville is probably spinning in his . . . well, not in his grave, since he's not dead, but maybe in some sort of staggeringly tastefully appointed condo somewhere.

The merchandise picture is in the link. What say you?

0 likes

I personally thought it was weak they had better t-shirts the last time they came for the UP tour, they had better t-shirts.

0 likes

About everything Hooky has done recently has been distateful, the T-shirts are the least of his worries.

Peter Hook ... is about as awful at being a person as he is amazing at writing bass lines—i.e., he is apparently pretty much a shitty dude.

You know, I've admired Hooky for years and loved him as a bassist and a musician. But what with all the recent Gillian bashing and other unsavoury antics I'm afraid I'm starting to believe this is true. I think we've been seeing Hooky's true character revealed in recent months

0 likes

I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

0 likes

I bought one of the t-shirts hence that means I have poor taste. Big union jack on the front, manchester england underneath and the peterhook/celebration of joydivision/light on the top back.

Meh. I like it. :D

0 likes

Vince Se wrote: I bought one of the t-shirts hence that means I have poor taste. Big union jack on the front, manchester england underneath and the peterhook/celebration of joydivision/light on the top back.

Meh. I like it. :D

Fair enough, I didn't,t realise they mentioned the light, I thought they were simply joy division t shirts

0 likes

The writer also got his facts wrong. Hook wasn't booted out, he left.

0 likes

His legacy, more than entitled to make some money out of it. The amount of kids going 'round with Unknown Pleasures T-shirts over here is unreal & that can't be a bad thing.

0 likes

Surface wrote: I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

What? And 'The Other Three' who have 'forced' the name New Order are going to share the profit of any merchandise that they sell at any of their gigs (now or in the future) with Hooky? Poppy cock. If he is going out there playing the music then he deserves all the profit, whether it be from ticket sales or merchandise. :brow:

0 likes

Jesus christ, mellow out. Poor taste, not at all. I like the shirt, I bought one. The tour, I saw both in Boston. (See my review) After reflecting on this whole thing, I've come to realize that shame on the rest of the band for not touring their music(NO that is). Their set-lists neglected so many songs. Between Barney's whining and Stephen's bored look, I say Congrats to Hooky for taking it on the road and kicking ass. Cheers Hooky, F'em all and play.

0 likes

I couldn't decide between the Union Jack shirt and the LWTUA shirt. Went with LWTUA, but now I think I should have just gotten both.

0 likes

Those business class tickets aren't gonna pay themselves.

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote:

Surface wrote: I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

What? And 'The Other Three' who have 'forced' the name New Order are going to share the profit of any merchandise that they sell at any of their gigs (now or in the future) with Hooky? Poppy cock. If he is going out there playing the music then he deserves all the profit, whether it be from ticket sales or merchandise. :brow:

Not exactly the same thing, seeing as he left the band of his own volition. If the other 3(ish) are still legally NO, then surely its their right to sell NO merch? As far as I can tell, Hooky is the only one who regards his departure as a split...

0 likes

What a prick of a reviewer. He'd made his mind up before he started. Oooh, a musician who's headstrong. Shouldnt be allowed. Fuck off and listen to Aled Jones or One Direction if the real worlds too much for you.

I know Hooky-bashing is the current thing but we're scraping the barrel if frigging T-shirts are the problem now.

0 likes

CTB wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

Surface wrote: I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

What? And 'The Other Three' who have 'forced' the name New Order are going to share the profit of any merchandise that they sell at any of their gigs (now or in the future) with Hooky? Poppy cock. If he is going out there playing the music then he deserves all the profit, whether it be from ticket sales or merchandise. :brow:

Not exactly the same thing, seeing as he left the band of his own volition. If the other 3(ish) are still legally NO, then surely its their right to sell NO merch? As far as I can tell, Hooky is the only one who regards his departure as a split...

Yes that's what I was saying.

0 likes

The designs look like cheap £5 knock off you can buy from stalls in Camden Market. Shame.

0 likes

I bought the UP black t-shirt but would love a England + Joy Division one :clap:

I am wearing it on my avatar :evil4:

0 likes

Poor taste is wearing a band tee shirt past the age of 19 isn't it, no?:laugh:

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote:

CTB wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

Surface wrote: I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

What? And 'The Other Three' who have 'forced' the name New Order are going to share the profit of any merchandise that they sell at any of their gigs (now or in the future) with Hooky? Poppy cock. If he is going out there playing the music then he deserves all the profit, whether it be from ticket sales or merchandise. :brow:

Not exactly the same thing, seeing as he left the band of his own volition. If the other 3(ish) are still legally NO, then surely its their right to sell NO merch? As far as I can tell, Hooky is the only one who regards his departure as a split...

Yes that's what I was saying.

OK, but I mean that NO are a current, ongoing concern which Hooky left. He's not in the band anymore, so it makes sense he gets nothing from NO merchandise now. JD was different, it was an abandoned entity after Ian's passing. Is Hooky entitled to profit solely from the sale of JD merch at the expense of the surviving members of JD (or in Ian's cae, his estate)? I wouldn't have thought so, although legality and morality are different things...

0 likes

CTB wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

CTB wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

Surface wrote: I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

What? And 'The Other Three' who have 'forced' the name New Order are going to share the profit of any merchandise that they sell at any of their gigs (now or in the future) with Hooky? Poppy cock. If he is going out there playing the music then he deserves all the profit, whether it be from ticket sales or merchandise. :brow:

Not exactly the same thing, seeing as he left the band of his own volition. If the other 3(ish) are still legally NO, then surely its their right to sell NO merch? As far as I can tell, Hooky is the only one who regards his departure as a split...

Yes that's what I was saying.

OK, but I mean that NO are a current, ongoing concern which Hooky left. He's not in the band anymore, so it makes sense he gets nothing from NO merchandise now. JD was different, it was an abandoned entity after Ian's passing. Is Hooky entitled to profit solely from the sale of JD merch at the expense of the surviving members of JD (or in Ian's cae, his estate)? I wouldn't have thought so, although legality and morality are different things...

Non audio merchandise should in no way demand royalties from those not performing at that particular gig. If Hooky was selling audio recorded by JD then of course B & S should receive royalties but using the name on t-shirts etc? No. The fact that the band is dead makes no difference. Same if NO sell t-shirts at Brussels and Paris. Hooky is not involved so he gets no royalties.

I still don't see it as New Order whether it be for charity or not. The fact that Hooky was not invited stinks. A farce, but that's another story. It's a ploy to sell more tickets. (Because it's for charity good on them however).

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote:

CTB wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

CTB wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

Surface wrote: I like Peter and have spoken to him a couple times and he has always seemed a nice fella. However I do think selling t shirts of jd for personal financial gain is just wrong. If he is sharing the profit with Bernard and Steve fair enough.

What? And 'The Other Three' who have 'forced' the name New Order are going to share the profit of any merchandise that they sell at any of their gigs (now or in the future) with Hooky? Poppy cock. If he is going out there playing the music then he deserves all the profit, whether it be from ticket sales or merchandise. :brow:

Not exactly the same thing, seeing as he left the band of his own volition. If the other 3(ish) are still legally NO, then surely its their right to sell NO merch? As far as I can tell, Hooky is the only one who regards his departure as a split...

Yes that's what I was saying.

OK, but I mean that NO are a current, ongoing concern which Hooky left. He's not in the band anymore, so it makes sense he gets nothing from NO merchandise now. JD was different, it was an abandoned entity after Ian's passing. Is Hooky entitled to profit solely from the sale of JD merch at the expense of the surviving members of JD (or in Ian's cae, his estate)? I wouldn't have thought so, although legality and morality are different things...

Non audio merchandise should in no way demand royalties from those not performing at that particular gig. If Hooky was selling audio recorded by JD then of course B & S should receive royalties but using the name on t-shirts etc? No. The fact that the band is dead makes no difference. Same if NO sell t-shirts at Brussels and Paris. Hooky is not involved so he gets no royalties.

I still don't see it as New Order whether it be for charity or not. The fact that Hooky was not invited stinks. A farce, but that's another story. It's a ploy to sell more tickets. (Because it's for charity good on them however).

Why should Hooky have been invited? He left the group of his own volition. And I don't recall Bernard or Steve receiving invites when Hooky decided to tour JD albums in their entirety. Not having a go but if you're going to slam Bernard & Steve then at least be consistent and apply your logic to Hooky as well.

0 likes

Using a copyrighted name/logo on a t-shirt probably requires paying a flat licensing fee.

This differs from earning royalties based on quantities sold of music or books.

0 likes

To save space and not keep quoting.... As the 2 gigs are for charity then yes Hooky should have been invited. He knew and worked with Shamberg too. Bernard and Steve turned down the invite to tour the JD albums. I am not bashing B or S by the way. I'm a big fan but I just think Hooky gets a bad press and at the end of the day he is the most willing, nostalgic and enthusiastic about the back catalogue. I for one love that about him.

0 likes

Moaning on about T shirts you don't like at gigs seems pretty pointless. Who gives a toss? Plus I can't take anyone who uses the words "making barf motions IRL" in an article seriously.

The Paradise Man wrote: As the 2 gigs are for charity then yes Hooky should have been invited.

Errr I think it's fair to say that since 2007 Hooky has been pretty vocal about how much he disliked being in New Order towards the end and how he flatly doesn't like Bernard or his methods. That's his well documented stance and even people who aren't New Order fans know it. Is it really a shock they didn't invite him? Especially after all the slaggings going on in print for literally years now?

Obviously, Hooky's more than entitled to do what he likes and there's a lot I admire about the man; he's a great musician and I love all his bands (well, except Freebass) but come on, it was no huge surprise The Other Three didn't pick up the phone.

There is obviously a chunk of stuff between them which is not public... but until that's revealed :shrug: It's quite sad, I'd much rather Hooky were on stage with them at these upcoming gigs. He'll be missed but of his own admission he doesn't want to be a part of New Order any more; he's been saying so repeatedly since 2007.

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote: The fact that Hooky was not invited stinks. A farce, but that's another story.

OK, what's your God's honest opinion on Hooky walking out of New Order in 2006 then unilaterally announcing to the press that the band were over before the others knew of his decision? Or were the Other Three lying in their press statement of the time? How do you think that past action equates to them not inviting Hooky on these forthcoming charity dates?

Seriously, I'm curious.

I'm a big fan of Hooky and The Other Three but I'm keen to remain impartial in this. Getting sycophantic to either side just seems utterly pointless. It's obvious that there's past form here on both sides here and it's important as fans we remember that rather than slavishly going "Yeah! We love 'bandmember' and the others are wankers."

A bit of perspective :shrug:

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote: To save space and not keep quoting.... As the 2 gigs are for charity then yes Hooky should have been invited. He knew and worked with Shamberg too. Bernard and Steve turned down the invite to tour the JD albums. I am not bashing B or S by the way. I'm a big fan but I just think Hooky gets a bad press and at the end of the day he is the most willing, nostalgic and enthusiastic about the back catalogue. I for one love that about him.

Not true at all, they received no invite and Hooky has admitted as much himself. In this recent Guardian interview, he declared 'If I'd asked him [Bernard] for permission, they'd have told me to fuck off anyway.'

So it's pretty hypocritical to criticise Bernard, Steve & Gillian for not asking Hooky when he couldn't even extend that courtesy himself.

0 likes

NotAMod wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote: The fact that Hooky was not invited stinks. A farce, but that's another story.

OK, what's your God's honest opinion on Hooky walking out of New Order in 2006 then unilaterally announcing to the press that the band were over before the others knew of his decision? Or were the Other Three lying in their press statement of the time? How do you think that action equates to them not inviting Hooky on these charity dates?

Seriously, I'm curious.

I'm a big fan of both Hooky and The Other Three but I'm keen to remain impartial in this. Getting sycophantic to either side just seems utterly pointless. It's obvious that there's past form here on both sides here and it's important as fans we remember that rather than slavishly going "Yeah! We love "bandmember" and the others are wankers."

Just a bit of perspective :shrug:

Well I'm certainly not a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favour by flattering influential people. I judge people on their merits. The whole thing is a sorry tale of 2 friends who now don't speak. Who really knows what went on? The press certainly don't. I just think it would have been a nice gesture on their part to at least ask Hooky if he wanted to be involved especially since he worked with Mr Shamberg. Hey, they may have got along just fine and buried the hatchet! As for Hooky leaving the band.... If my memory serves me well didn't Bernard walk out of New Order in 1989 to record as Electronic? No one knew then if they would ever get back together.

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote: I still don't see it as New Order whether it be for charity or not. The fact that Hooky was not invited stinks. A farce, but that's another story. It's a ploy to sell more tickets. (Because it's for charity good on them however).

Sell more tickets to who exactly?

You suggesting people would not be turning up if it was billed as "Sumner, Morris, Gilbert and Cunningham play the music of New Order?" which might possibly be a more apt description, and wouldn't lead to any pontification about whether they're the real deal or not.

By the same suggestion, did you also not see it as New Order for the past two albums and last 10 years worth of gigs because Gillian was missing?

0 likes

The Paradise Man wrote: As for Hooky leaving the band.... If my memory serves me well didn't Bernard walk out of New Order in 1989 to record as Electronic? No one knew then if they would ever get back together.

That's reaching, and you know it. There's a big difference between band members going off and doing their own thing after an album next to going to the press and unilaterally announcing that the band are no more when the other band members supposedly (going by their press statement) had not been consulted in advance.

What happened in 1989/1993 and 2006 is completely different. Even throughout the nineties each member of New Order (including Hooky) refrained from commenting too specifically on New Order's future. The most common quote was "we have no plans to record together in the forseeable" which does not equal "New Order are finished".

0 likes

El Jarvo wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote: I still don't see it as New Order whether it be for charity or not. The fact that Hooky was not invited stinks. A farce, but that's another story. It's a ploy to sell more tickets. (Because it's for charity good on them however).

Sell more tickets to who exactly?

You suggesting people would not be turning up if it was billed as "Sumner, Morris, Gilbert and Cunningham play the music of New Order?" which might possibly be a more apt description, and wouldn't lead to any pontification about whether they're the real deal or not.

By the same suggestion, did you also not see it as New Order for the past two albums and last 10 years worth of gigs because Gillian was missing?

You know me too well. Yes and yes. New Order died in 1993, I've said this elsewhere. Sure there was some good stuff on the last 2 albums but for me it was nowhere near the real deal.

0 likes

You're leaving NewOrderOnline

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

Destination:
Continue ↗