33 replies · 3,697 views
So seeing as 'the other 3' have legally got the name New Order it has suddenly struck me that these 2 charity gigs are just the start of more to come. I presume they are thinking in the long term and maybe a new album & gigs will be on the horizon. After all Gillian is back in the fold and Hooky left rather than the band splitting up. There is bunse to be earnt. The question is does Bernard release the new BL album or turn it into a NO album? Or both?
I wouldn't bet against it.
I'm not sure they've "got the name". From what I can deduce they've bought a shelf company, changed its name to "New Order Limited" and are the 3 shareholders. I would guess that ownership of the name "New Order" is a different matter.
Vitalturn Company Limited is owned by all 4 members. That was formed in 1992 and its Principal Activities are quoted as "MUSICAL ENTERTAINERS AND SONGWRITERS PERFORMING AS 'NEW ORDER'"
Suggests to me that there is as you say more to come and its the 3 of them and no Mr Hook - at least not inside this vehicle.
And I guess that company was formed in 1992 to coincide with signing to London and tying up all the Factory loose ends.
The Paradise Man wrote: The question is does Bernard release the new BL album or turn it into a NO album? Or both?
I wouldn't bet against it.
Im pretty sure he wont release it as both New Order and Bad Loo, the precedent that would set would be dangerous. And silly.
However, I can see it being a New Order album. Why not? Its near enough for me.
Although, if that happens and a tour follows then that could mean that the Pantomime villain in all this, Hooky, has been telling the truth all along.
And would that change people views?
Gene wrote:
The Paradise Man wrote: The question is does Bernard release the new BL album or turn it into a NO album? Or both?
I wouldn't bet against it.
Im pretty sure he wont release it as both New Order and Bad Loo, the precedent that would set would be dangerous. And silly.
However, I can see it being a New Order album. Why not? Its near enough for me.
Although, if that happens and a tour follows then that could mean that the Pantomime villain in all this, Hooky, has been telling the truth all along.
And would that change people views?
Bernard and Steve intended on continuing as New Order in 2006 after Hooky quit. They've probably been wanting to since then, and now they have discovered that they can, so why not?
Idk, why people are excited about New Order releasing a new album, writing new material... Bad Lieutenant's album is barely listenable - and if it were under the name of New Order... well it's just a scary thought. But Bad Lieutenant were essentially what New Order are now (bar that indie singer). I'm not expecting anything good, sorry. I'd love to be proved wrong.
TBH I just give up, and that tone isnt at all obvious in my earlier post, sorry. To me, New Order without Hooky isnt New Order. New Order without Gillian wasnt either.
From here on in; whatever. Its all bollocks and they're all acting like cunts in their own way.
Gene wrote: Although, if that happens and a tour follows then that could mean that the Pantomime villain in all this, Hooky, has been telling the truth all along.
And would that change people views?
It would make the whole charity-gigs thing seem a little more cynical. If Hooky is right, and they pulled some 'dirty' (to use his word) backroom shenanigans to make this happen, then the charity gigs could be seen partially as cover for this. "You can't criticize us! It's for charity!"
(My experience in business/contract disputes is that everybody's usually a little bit right, so I suspect Hooky did get screwed, but it wasn't 'dirty.' If he walked, and then they dissolved the old company and formed this one, it sucks for him, but it's not illegal or unethical.)
I have no doubt they really want to help Shamberg, but I also suspect that at least part of the point of the new gigs was to test the waters for this latest version of New Order.
That still doesn't change that he's clearly stated in interviews how he doesn't consider Gillian a good musician etc....unless he's just saying that to the media/press because he's angry that she's rejoined them. Maybe Gillian was not a genius. But surely she contributed something to the band when she was there. But his statements about Gillian from recent interviews confuses me. (From the recent Spinner interview)
And the happiest moment in Bernard's life, as I recall, musically, was when Gillian left. So he must actually hate me more than he f---ing hates Gillian, because there's the biggest contradiction in terms I've ever seen in me f---ing life!
I don't think Bernard was likely to have been extremely happy that she left. Of course I don't know the band members, but I find it difficult to imagine that he would be happy about her leaving the band.
She's not a very good musician, I'm afraid, and she didn't add that much to the band. It was a problem with both of us. We were very happy when she left. And personally I thought New Order Mark 2 were far superior to New Order Mark 1, but that's life, isn't it? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, aren't they?
Mark 1, as he calls it, was the 'classic' lineup- Bernard, Steve, Hooky, Gillian. How can he claim that Mark 2 (lineup without Gillian) was far superior to Mark 1 (lineup that was their most recognisable?)
So even if Hooky ends up being correct (to some degree) about New Order, that still doesn't change my impressions regarding the statements he made that I quoted here.
I'm curious as to what the shareholder split is. If it's 33 1/3 % to each principal, the Other Two suddenly wield a LOT of power in that relationship.
If I'm Barney, I'm going to insist on at least 50%. But if I'm Gillian, and the others need me to come play in order for this to work, I'm going to hold out for an equal share.
Gene wrote: If he walked, and then they dissolved the old company and formed this one, it sucks for him, but it's not illegal or unethical.)
No - the other company is still there. They each have several companies they are shareholders of.
Simon Simpson wrote: No - the other company is still there. They each have several companies they are shareholders of.
Okay, thanks. I was wondering about that.
Well it's well known that I along with most on here find the New Order sound without Hooky's bass is bland. I don't think Bernard likes his bass sound anymore. He seems to prefer the traditional 'hide in the background' bass sound. So given all this, if they do make a new record it will be BL esque anyway. Still, I look forward to it anyway, if it does happen.
Gene wrote: TBH I just give up, and that tone isnt at all obvious in my earlier post, sorry. To me, New Order without Hooky isnt New Order. New Order without Gillian wasnt either.
From here on in; whatever. Its all bollocks and they're all acting like cunts in their own way.
I just wonder if the unusual surge of activity around Total this summer had anything to do with the current situation. Makes me wonder.
I had a feeling when I read the Clash Interview that something was going on...
I think that sometime after the FOM fest, Bernard and co found out they could legally use the name New Order again, the BL album was becoming more electronic, which means more input from Bernard and Steve and less from Phil and Jake, Gillian seemed like she wanted to start making music again...
So they went for it. New Order is back, but without Hooky.
As for people's crits of BL's Never Cry Another Tear...
The album was written mostly by Bernard, Jake and Phil. Jake was never in NO and Phil wasn't a longtime writing member of NO..
So it was a bit more indie rock sounding...
But..
On the three tracks on NCAT that Steve played on and co wrote...those are three of the best tracks on the album and very New Ordery....
So....with Gillian on board....imagine the dance track that the The Other Two put out recently combined with Bernard's vocals and guitar and some more synths...
It won't have Hook's bass but it's New Ordery enough for me.
leather_girl wrote: That still doesn't change that he's clearly stated in interviews how he doesn't consider Gillian a good musician etc....unless he's just saying that to the media/press because he's angry that she's rejoined them. Maybe Gillian was not a genius. But surely she contributed something to the band when she was there. But his statements about Gillian from recent interviews confuses me. (From the recent Spinner interview)
And the happiest moment in Bernard's life, as I recall, musically, was when Gillian left. So he must actually hate me more than he f---ing hates Gillian, because there's the biggest contradiction in terms I've ever seen in me f---ing life!
She's not a very good musician, I'm afraid, and she didn't add that much to the band. It was a problem with both of us. We were very happy when she left. And personally I thought New Order Mark 2 were far superior to New Order Mark 1, but that's life, isn't it? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, aren't they?
Mark 1, as he calls it, was the 'classic' lineup- Bernard, Steve, Hooky, Gillian. How can he claim that Mark 2 (lineup without Gillian) was far superior to Mark 1 (lineup that was their most recognisable?)
So even if Hooky ends up being correct (to some degree) about New Order, that still doesn't change my impressions regarding the statements he made that I quoted here.
Wasn't new order mk1 just the 3 boys? For the first ceremony release and first tour?
Although I don't condone some of the comments hooky has allegedly said, something must have broken the camels back. Perhaps the reasons for new order to reform are the very reasons why hooky left. Eg he wanted NO to spend 2 years making an an album followed by an extensive tour, the others didn't. And now they do.
In the spinner article he states that NO mark 1 was the lineup with all four of them (with Gillian). At least that is what he meant in that interview. When he said mark 1 he clearly didn't mean just the three men.
Zachery Starkey wrote: I had a feeling when I read the Clash Interview that something was going on...
I think that sometime after the FOM fest, Bernard and co found out they could legally use the name New Order again, the BL album was becoming more electronic, which means more input from Bernard and Steve and less from Phil and Jake, Gillian seemed like she wanted to start making music again...
So they went for it. New Order is back, but without Hooky.
As for people's crits of BL's Never Cry Another Tear...
The album was written mostly by Bernard, Jake and Phil. Jake was never in NO and Phil wasn't a longtime writing member of NO..
So it was a bit more indie rock sounding...
But..
On the three tracks on NCAT that Steve played on and co wrote...those are three of the best tracks on the album and very New Ordery....
So....with Gillian on board....imagine the dance track that the The Other Two put out recently combined with Bernard's vocals and guitar and some more synths...
It won't have Hook's bass but it's New Ordery enough for me.
Yes agreed. I was always very dubious at all the promotion that went on surrounding Total. Bernard appearing on Channel 5's The Wright Stuff and the infamous signing at HMV Manchester (He should have done a signing tour with Steve. They would have sold loads more). It has all been leading up to this and New Order for the future. Keeping the faith!
Housey wrote:
Gene wrote: Although, if that happens and a tour follows then that could mean that the Pantomime villain in all this, Hooky, has been telling the truth all along.
And would that change people views?
It would make the whole charity-gigs thing seem a little more cynical. If Hooky is right, and they pulled some 'dirty' (to use his word) backroom shenanigans to make this happen, then the charity gigs could be seen partially as cover for this. "You can't criticize us! It's for charity!"
(My experience in business/contract disputes is that everybody's usually a little bit right, so I suspect Hooky did get screwed, but it wasn't 'dirty.' If he walked, and then they dissolved the old company and formed this one, it sucks for him, but it's not illegal or unethical.)
I have no doubt they really want to help Shamberg, but I also suspect that at least part of the point of the new gigs was to test the waters for this latest version of New Order.
That's right. Nobody heard no news about BL and O2 albums after that.
Housey wrote:
Gene wrote: Although, if that happens and a tour follows then that could mean that the Pantomime villain in all this, Hooky, has been telling the truth all along.
And would that change people views?
It would make the whole charity-gigs thing seem a little more cynical. If Hooky is right, and they pulled some 'dirty' (to use his word) backroom shenanigans to make this happen, then the charity gigs could be seen partially as cover for this. "You can't criticize us! It's for charity!"
(My experience in business/contract disputes is that everybody's usually a little bit right, so I suspect Hooky did get screwed, but it wasn't 'dirty.' If he walked, and then they dissolved the old company and formed this one, it sucks for him, but it's not illegal or unethical.)
I have no doubt they really want to help Shamberg, but I also suspect that at least part of the point of the new gigs was to test the waters for this latest version of New Order.
That's right. Nobody heard no news about BL and O2 albums after that.
mark reed wrote: you'd be naive to think they'll only do two shows.
Brixton, December, I reckon.
What date in December do you reckon then, Mark?
Wasn't it you five years ago who 'reckoned' they were playing Brixton, before it was announced ... cos your mate worked there? And then they did announce a gig there! 
El Jarvo wrote:
mark reed wrote: you'd be naive to think they'll only do two shows.
Brixton, December, I reckon.
What date in December do you reckon then, Mark?
Wasn't it you five years ago who 'reckoned' they were playing Brixton, before it was announced ... cos your mate worked there? And then they did announce a gig there!
hehe... well my money is on very early December or late November then Brazil, then either quick US, or back to Manc date if it doesn't precede the Brixton thang. If that makes any sense at all. Which it probably doesn't.
Burt Burterson wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
mark reed wrote: you'd be naive to think they'll only do two shows.
Brixton, December, I reckon.
What date in December do you reckon then, Mark?
Wasn't it you five years ago who 'reckoned' they were playing Brixton, before it was announced ... cos your mate worked there? And then they did announce a gig there!
hehe... well my money is on very early December or late November then Brazil, then either quick US, or back to Manc date if it doesn't precede the Brixton thang. If that makes any sense at all. Which it probably doesn't.
It'd have to be very early December i.e. 1st or 2nd if it was before Brazil seeing as Sau Paulo is Dec 3rd
Looked at Brixton Academy site and there's a few free nights available in December yet to be filled?
johnny wrote:
Burt Burterson wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
mark reed wrote: you'd be naive to think they'll only do two shows.
Brixton, December, I reckon.
What date in December do you reckon then, Mark?
Wasn't it you five years ago who 'reckoned' they were playing Brixton, before it was announced ... cos your mate worked there? And then they did announce a gig there!
hehe... well my money is on very early December or late November then Brazil, then either quick US, or back to Manc date if it doesn't precede the Brixton thang. If that makes any sense at all. Which it probably doesn't.
It'd have to be very early December i.e. 1st or 2nd if it was before Brazil seeing as Sau Paulo is Dec 3rd
For some reason i had in my head as December 8 as when i definitely couldnt afford to not go to Brazil this year or probably next year. OK that leaves a bit more room for homecoming dates.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Idk, why people are excited about New Order releasing a new album, writing new material... Bad Lieutenant's album is barely listenable - and if it were under the name of New Order... well it's just a scary thought. But Bad Lieutenant were essentially what New Order are now (bar that indie singer). I'm not expecting anything good, sorry. I'd love to be proved wrong.
I completely 1000000000000000000 agree!!!! BL last album sounds like reject songs from the last electronic album. Forget the album, just tour because thats were the money is. Do all the NO catalogue. That should buy Barney another boat.
I don't know anyone who works at Brixton these days, so can't tell you anything we don't alrwady know!
mark reed wrote: I don't know anyone who works at Brixton these days, so can't tell you anything we don't alrwady know!
I do ;-)
I've got my man on the case.
I dunno... I don't see this going much further than the charity gigs. Barney hated to tour, it was Hooky pushing to tour. I bet the reason for this new company is to overtake the royalties of NO stuff and cut Hooky out of the loop.
Again, I think the charity will occur then Barney will end the tours with a statement along the lines "We know when to stop" which will be a swipe at Hooky doing the JD tours.
It looks more like an undercutting, rather than a reforming of a band with most members. Legal, but dirty.
EdelBrock wrote: I dunno... I don't see this going much further than the charity gigs. Barney hated to tour, it was Hooky pushing to tour. I bet the reason for this new company is to overtake the royalties of NO stuff and cut Hooky out of the loop.
Again, I think the charity will occur then Barney will end the tours with a statement along the lines "We know when to stop" which will be a swipe at Hooky doing the JD tours.
It looks more like an undercutting, rather than a reforming of a band with most members. Legal, but dirty.
Not quite sure I agree here, as Hooky appears to think that NO will tour after the charity gigs (backed up by the apparent festival appearance in South America), which is one of the many things he's clearly unhappy about.
You think they'll stop after the charity gigs and that's being dirty? That's not leaving them with many alternatives to do the 'right' thing.
The mechanical royalties issue is a non-starter, given that Hooky was co-writer on all their output which can't be undone (ie he still gets royalties from the songs he co-wrote). The performance royalties for post-Hooky NO are admittedly a bit different, but keep in mind Hooky's been performing exclusively JD stuff for over a year now without the other two JD members present...
jake atkinson wrote:
mark reed wrote: I don't know anyone who works at Brixton these days, so can't tell you anything we don't alrwady know!
I do ;-)
I've got my man on the case.
Let's find out in Brussels.
EdelBrock wrote: I dunno... I don't see this going much further than the charity gigs. Barney hated to tour, it was Hooky pushing to tour. I bet the reason for this new company is to overtake the royalties of NO stuff and cut Hooky out of the loop.
Again, I think the charity will occur then Barney will end the tours with a statement along the lines "We know when to stop" which will be a swipe at Hooky doing the JD tours.
It looks more like an undercutting, rather than a reforming of a band with most members. Legal, but dirty.
There s no way that New Order can cut Peter Hook out of royalties, he helped write the songs and has songwriting credits on everything they have ever done. You don't get royalties for playing songs live. New Order have reformed because they always intended t carry on after Hooky quit and now they are legally able to.
