Hooky missed

Tarbox23 wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Big Mouth Julio wrote: Think New Order may change a bit their style including more guitar and electronics if they decide to write new songs. Hooky's bass was their guiding instrument and they will miss its melodies

Hooky's bass was the lead instrument, but not the guiding one. Bernard, Steve, and Gillian would prepare a track (ie do the synth melodies, programmed bass, and live and programmed drums) and then Hooky would go in and jam out his distinctive lead basslines over what others had already put down. Hardly thier guiding instrument.

This is why people write books to set records straight. It may well be the case on some tracks but on others Hooky and Steve laid down the bass and drum parts and Bernard would go in and jam out a guitar and vocal line (often following the bass melody). This was the case on LWTUA for example.

And then there are many others that began as taped jam sessions with all of them, and later they would mine the tapes for good parts and then compose around that.

They never had just one approach to songwriting.

Exactly

Tarbox23 wrote:

The Paradise Man wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Big Mouth Julio wrote: Think New Order may change a bit their style including more guitar and electronics if they decide to write new songs. Hooky's bass was their guiding instrument and they will miss its melodies

Hooky's bass was the lead instrument, but not the guiding one. Bernard, Steve, and Gillian would prepare a track (ie do the synth melodies, programmed bass, and live and programmed drums) and then Hooky would go in and jam out his distinctive lead basslines over what others had already put down. Hardly thier guiding instrument.

This is why people write books to set records straight. It may well be the case on some tracks but on others Hooky and Steve laid down the bass and drum parts and Bernard would go in and jam out a guitar and vocal line (often following the bass melody). This was the case on LWTUA for example.

And then there are many others that began as taped jam sessions with all of them, and later they would mine the tapes for good parts and then compose around that.

They never had just one approach to songwriting.

Good points, gentlemen. Although with regards to LQTUA, there is one source that says the synth line came first. At any rate, obviously it would be great if Hooky were still in the group, but they didn't throw him out, he chose to leave.

With regards to The Light, I enjoyed the show a lot but I do wish he had played bass more.

I think Hooky's songwriting was more evident when they were still a rock group as Joy Division/early New Order. When you base a song around a riff, like a bass riff, you can get lots of mileage out of that general simplicity. That's one of the reasons JD were so prolific in such a short period of time. But when I listen to the song craft on Closer, I think it's of much higher quality than Unknown Pleasures. Isolation, Heart & Soul, Decades, and Colony especially come to mind.

As the songwriting evolved, Hooky's bass became more of an instrument that played leads as opposed to a 'lead instrument' the way its heard on much of Unknown Pleasures.

JV wrote: I think Hooky's songwriting was more evident when they were still a rock group as Joy Division/early New Order. When you base a song around a riff, like a bass riff, you can get lots of mileage out of that general simplicity. That's one of the reasons JD were so prolific in such a short period of time. But when I listen to the song craft on Closer, I think it's of much higher quality than Unknown Pleasures. Isolation, Heart & Soul, Decades, and Colony especially come to mind.

As the songwriting evolved, Hooky's bass became more of an instrument that played leads as opposed to a 'lead instrument' the way its heard on much of Unknown Pleasures.

You hit the nail on the head here I think...

New Order without Hooky = Electronic first album, not that bad nah?

Big Mouth Julio wrote: New Order without Hooky = Electronic first album, not that bad nah?

Well with some real drums and in a completely different musical era. Oh and without a guitar legend too.

Big Mouth Julio wrote: New Order without Hooky = Electronic first album, not that bad nah?

I

I agree Julio, BUT unfortunately Barney is senile. he cant remember writing good choons like the 1st Electronic album or Technique album.

This does remind me of The Stranglers. JJ Burnels style, which was similar to Hooky's, was grating Hugh Cornwell as the 1980's progressed. He wished that sometimes he'd play a more conventional style of bass and JJ seemed sidelined, but in that instance it was Hugh that left in the end and they continued as The Stranglers.

Any new material would be best if there is no 'bass as lead', as Tom Chapman will be on a hiding to nothing. From what footage I've seen, he coped well and didn't try to be another Hook, though it is a touch strange to see somebody else playing his lines. I want Barney and Steve to make a proper 'techno' album, but it will never happen!

Gillian back in the fold is great news and if they could leave Phil in the tour bus even better, because he just isn't needed! It's as if they're finding him things to do, but he is far too 'rock' for my liking and that doesn't sit well with New Order.

Onwards and Upwards.

This does remind me of The Stranglers. JJ Burnels style, which was similar to Hooky's, was grating Hugh Cornwell as the 1980's progressed. He wished that sometimes he'd play a more conventional style of bass and JJ seemed sidelined, but in that instance it was Hugh that left in the end and they continued as The Stranglers.

Any new material would be best if there is no 'bass as lead', as Tom Chapman will be on a hiding to nothing. From what footage I've seen, he coped well and didn't try to be another Hook, though it is a touch strange to see somebody else playing his lines. I want Barney and Steve to make a proper 'techno' album, but it will never happen!

Gillian back in the fold is great news and if they could leave Phil in the tour bus even better, because he just isn't needed! It's as if they're finding him things to do, but he is far too 'rock' for my liking and that doesn't sit well with New Order.

Onwards and Upwards.

"Gillian back in the fold is great news and if they could leave Phil in the tour bus even better, because he just isn't needed! It's as if they're finding him things to do, but he is far too 'rock' for my liking and that doesn't sit well with New Order."

Who would play guitar on 1963 and rythem guitar on a number of other songs if Phil wasn't there - suppose they would have to sequence more to free up Gillian.

I reckon he adds more depth to the songs - makes for a fuller sound. On the footage it's ace seeing Gillian playing stuff live that was previously sequenced.

Surface wrote: "Gillian back in the fold is great news and if they could leave Phil in the tour bus even better, because he just isn't needed! It's as if they're finding him things to do, but he is far too 'rock' for my liking and that doesn't sit well with New Order."

Who would play guitar on 1963 and rythem guitar on a number of other songs if Phil wasn't there - suppose they would have to sequence more to free up Gillian.

I reckon he adds more depth to the songs - makes for a fuller sound. On the footage it's ace seeing Gillian playing stuff live that was previously sequenced.

1963 doesn't have or need any rhythm guitar - At least on the original recorded version. If Barney went to back to actually playing guitar, instead of simple chords, things would be even better. Most New Order songs didn't have rhythm guitar until the latter years (when the songs were much more of a R 'n' R structure) they just weren't needed which is one of things that made New Order great. Gang of Four were/are a great band where a second guitarist would of ruined things.

Gillian can play second guitar when required, she did for 20 years! It just seems with Phil, as you say, is 'beefing up the sound' to many tracks that simply don't need to be beefed up! New Order aren't a garage band. If Joy Division had of had a second guitarist they would of sounded shite (Ian did 'play' when Barney was on synths).

The fact that Gillian used to look as though she wasn't doing anything atall was one aspect of New Orders greatness. Less was definitely more. Whereas Phil has a brit-pop hangover and is the antithesis of what New Order used to be. In footballing terms, he is a kind of John O Shea. I'm just wondering who the Sunderland of bands are these days?! :)

komakino wrote: This does remind me of The Stranglers. JJ Burnels style, which was similar to Hooky's, was grating Hugh Cornwell as the 1980's progressed. He wished that sometimes he'd play a more conventional style of bass and JJ seemed sidelined, but in that instance it was Hugh that left in the end and they continued as The Stranglers.

Hooky's style has never sounded like JJ's ever. JJ style is rooted in RnB and quite traditional in it's use - though pretty melodic. I've always thought Hooky fills the role of lead guitarist more than bass player.

almansoglasnost wrote: ok, so tom can play the old stuff well. some like him more, some less, but you can't say he's a disaster. on the other hand hooky's presence on stage will be missed always by any NO fan. but that's live. many people are wondering about a new album. I have my doubts there. because in my opinion tom will sound like tom there. so the sound we'll get would be closer to BL. it'd be crazy to expect him to sound like hooky on an album. in fact if that's the case everyone would be pointing at him like "oh, he's trying to sound like hooky and he's not". so I doubt I want another album as NO because that one won't sound as NO... do I make any sense?

Alejo,

I would say: "life is short but love is long"...

almansoglasnost wrote: ok, so tom can play the old stuff well. some like him more, some less, but you can't say he's a disaster. on the other hand hooky's presence on stage will be missed always by any NO fan. but that's live. many people are wondering about a new album. I have my doubts there. because in my opinion tom will sound like tom there. so the sound we'll get would be closer to BL. it'd be crazy to expect him to sound like hooky on an album. in fact if that's the case everyone would be pointing at him like "oh, he's trying to sound like hooky and he's not". so I doubt I want another album as NO because that one won't sound as NO... do I make any sense?

Alejo,

I would say: "life is short but love is long"...

komakino wrote:

Surface wrote: "Gillian back in the fold is great news and if they could leave Phil in the tour bus even better, because he just isn't needed! It's as if they're finding him things to do, but he is far too 'rock' for my liking and that doesn't sit well with New Order."

Who would play guitar on 1963 and rythem guitar on a number of other songs if Phil wasn't there - suppose they would have to sequence more to free up Gillian.

I reckon he adds more depth to the songs - makes for a fuller sound. On the footage it's ace seeing Gillian playing stuff live that was previously sequenced.

1963 doesn't have or need any rhythm guitar - At least on the original recorded version. If Barney went to back to actually playing guitar, instead of simple chords, things would be even better. Most New Order songs didn't have rhythm guitar until the latter years (when the songs were much more of a R 'n' R structure) they just weren't needed which is one of things that made New Order great. Gang of Four were/are a great band where a second guitarist would of ruined things.

Gillian can play second guitar when required, she did for 20 years! It just seems with Phil, as you say, is 'beefing up the sound' to many tracks that simply don't need to be beefed up! New Order aren't a garage band. If Joy Division had of had a second guitarist they would of sounded shite (Ian did 'play' when Barney was on synths).

The fact that Gillian used to look as though she wasn't doing anything atall was one aspect of New Orders greatness. Less was definitely more. Whereas Phil has a brit-pop hangover and is the antithesis of what New Order used to be. In footballing terms, he is a kind of John O Shea. I'm just wondering who the Sunderland of bands are these days?! :)

Actually there are about 3 guitar tracks on 1963. The picky part, some rhythm guitar and distorted chords. Listen hard though as they are very low in the mix.

I think Phil does add something worthy to new order live. And don't forget without him we might not have new order at all. However I do agree that he overplays on this track and it's distracting.

Thanks for responding - i couldn't be bothered, clearly he must have a duff stereo if he can't hear the guitar parts!

NO Regret wrote:

komakino wrote:

Surface wrote: "Gillian back in the fold is great news and if they could leave Phil in the tour bus even better, because he just isn't needed! It's as if they're finding him things to do, but he is far too 'rock' for my liking and that doesn't sit well with New Order."

Who would play guitar on 1963 and rythem guitar on a number of other songs if Phil wasn't there - suppose they would have to sequence more to free up Gillian.

I reckon he adds more depth to the songs - makes for a fuller sound. On the footage it's ace seeing Gillian playing stuff live that was previously sequenced.

1963 doesn't have or need any rhythm guitar - At least on the original recorded version. If Barney went to back to actually playing guitar, instead of simple chords, things would be even better. Most New Order songs didn't have rhythm guitar until the latter years (when the songs were much more of a R 'n' R structure) they just weren't needed which is one of things that made New Order great. Gang of Four were/are a great band where a second guitarist would of ruined things.

Gillian can play second guitar when required, she did for 20 years! It just seems with Phil, as you say, is 'beefing up the sound' to many tracks that simply don't need to be beefed up! New Order aren't a garage band. If Joy Division had of had a second guitarist they would of sounded shite (Ian did 'play' when Barney was on synths).

The fact that Gillian used to look as though she wasn't doing anything atall was one aspect of New Orders greatness. Less was definitely more. Whereas Phil has a brit-pop hangover and is the antithesis of what New Order used to be. In footballing terms, he is a kind of John O Shea. I'm just wondering who the Sunderland of bands are these days?! :)

Actually there are about 3 guitar tracks on 1963. The picky part, some rhythm guitar and distorted chords. Listen hard though as they are very low in the mix.

I think Phil does add something worthy to new order live. And don't forget without him we might not have new order at all. However I do agree that he overplays on this track and it's distracting.

Well no one that I can see has made any mention of Blue Monday. After reading the review of the Brussels gig at the Water Rats site, I gave it a good close listen and my recommendation is that they rework it with a synth bass and give Tom Chapman a rest for BM!

Aaron Gerritz wrote: Well no one that I can see has made any mention of Blue Monday. After reading the review of the Brussels gig at the Water Rats site, I gave it a good close listen and my recommendation is that they rework it with a synth bass and give Tom Chapman a rest for BM!

I think that Tom sounded fine on BM, liked his high playing at the end.

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Aaron Gerritz wrote: Well no one that I can see has made any mention of Blue Monday. After reading the review of the Brussels gig at the Water Rats site, I gave it a good close listen and my recommendation is that they rework it with a synth bass and give Tom Chapman a rest for BM!

I think that Tom sounded fine on BM, liked his high playing at the end.

I have just been listening to New Order's rendition of Blue Monday from UMF Miami. I know this is going to shock everyone to hear me say it, but Chapman does a good job on Blue Monday now. He has improved greatly from the first gigs in the fall. I do miss Hooky being in the band but Chapman is now holding his own playing bass!

Um die ecke wrote: Chapman is now holding his own playing bass!

DIRTY BOY!!

Bruuuue Mundaaee wrote: Judging all the comments, it's evident that the Paris and Brussels shows were GREAT. It really sucks that I couldn't be there, and it looks as if Tom Chapman did an ace job playing bass.

BUT....I'm sure some would agree that Hooky was missed. It's sad how things have turned out.

Here's an ode to a magical time...when Hooky ruled the stage as BASS GOD back in 1985 (Toronto, International Centre - THe Perfect Kiss):

[/quote

Are you Hooky in disguise?

Only joking, quality video