In the Hands of the Lawyers
Archived108 replies · 10,120 views
Fuckin ell. As much as I love Hooky, if he's grieved, should he not let this go? It doesnae do him any favours and is turning quite a lot of his fanbase against him......as you can see from quite a few people and their posts on this site.
We all know Joy Division ended when Ian died, I'm glad now we know that it all started with the birth of Peter Hook.
"I'm doing the Joy Division book now, I'm two thirds of the way through it and it'll be out in September. It's called Inside Joy Division. It begins with my birth and it ends with Ian dying."
Can't we just have two New Orders? Keep everyone happy?
You know, like there's two Beats?
We could have Peter Hook's New Order, and Barney, Stephen, Gillian and Phil's New Order.
Job done.
Ha - thought this was gonna be about Hooky getting shirty with Disney - I mean blasphemous alterations to iconic album covers really aren't on, are they? 
Snorri xxx
El Jarvo wrote: Can't we just have two New Orders? Keep everyone happy?
It worked for Buck Fizz for a while. Whats the difference nowadays?
El Jarvo wrote: Can't we just have two New Orders? Keep everyone happy?
You know, like there's two Beats?
There were three "The Byrds" at one point. And at least two Boney Ms.
I don't see what Hooky actually has to gain by involving the lawyers. If he kills off the name New Order, he just pisses off even more of the people who once used to follow NO round the country to watch the band he was part of and pay his fooking wages by buying their albums.
lowlife wrote: I don't see what Hooky actually has to gain by involving the lawyers. If he kills off the name New Order, he just pisses off even more of the people who once used to follow NO round the country to watch the band he was part of and pay his fooking wages by buying their albums.
I seriously don't know what he's trying to achieve here? Has he got a leg to stand on, stopping them using the name? He publicly left the band, so the rest of them just want to carry on. There's doesn't appear to be any legal reason for them not being New Order, unless I'm missing something obvious. It's not like he was the principle songwriter, so he can't block them on that score.
Even if he does win, they're only going to tour as 'From New Order' or 'New Order Now' or summat and I don't see how it'll change their plans one iota?
Fans have already voted with their feet at the gigs last year. Hooky should take that on board. I hope this doesn't end up pointlessly costing him money.
Is there any proof that the other members cannot continue under the name New Order? That is, he might have a case if this was agreed in NO (if he, or any member leaves the name is gone scenario) His stance of 'change the band name if/when one member leaves' would make more sense if that applied to the lineup without Gillian (Get Ready to WFTSC era) as well.
Hooky quit NO, they didn't split up and now contain as many original members as they did during the Get Ready-Sirens Call years when he was happily performing under the name.
He's just a sad bitter man and this is the latest ill advised move on his part. Doubt it will stop NO from using the name, but will just alienate him further from fans.
Didn't Roger Waters try this with Pink Floyd in the 80s? Tried to stop them from using the name; he was the principal songwriter as well... but lost anyway.
It sounds like he's taking advice from his lawyers rather than full blown court proceedings which would cost a mint. Unless there's a specific document somewhere legally stating that New Order cannot exist without Peter Hook or his express consent I don't really see how he can win this one.
Plus if such a document or stipulation existed I doubt the other three would have gone on the road with the name in the first place; last year's "comeback" seemed to be meticulously planned.
As I say, it sounds like he's running it up the flagpole with his lawyers and they will tell him whether or not he's got a case. If he's advised against it by a lawyer only someone very very misguided and with lorryloads of disposable income would pursue a court action.
his lawyers wont be able to stop them going on as new order but he'll get more money from the residuals as compensation.
its all about the money at this stage.
you were standing in the courtroom when i saw your face i couldnt look at you i guess i knew it but i never realised that theres no proof and im down and all alone with the baselines i dont own you can take that away and with every pound i waste, your lawyer says i have no case, new order lives another day
and i was touched by the hand of lawyers i never knew it what aload of toss
effect return wrote: its all about the money at this stage.
What do you mean "at this stage"? 
Snorrimon wrote: Ha - thought this was gonna be about Hooky getting shirty with Disney - I mean blasphemous alterations to iconic album covers really aren't on, are they?
Snorri xxx
getting shirty good work
hibster wrote:
Snorrimon wrote: Ha - thought this was gonna be about Hooky getting shirty with Disney - I mean blasphemous alterations to iconic album covers really aren't on, are they?
Snorri xxx
getting shirty good work
Thanks for noticing... It was an off-the-cuff remark...
Snorri xxx
NotAMod wrote:
effect return wrote: its all about the money at this stage.
What do you mean "at this stage"?
yes good one.
i should have done law in uni.
Boring Boring Hooky
He's Bluffing or whats that smell, no not horse, no not chicken.
Yep defo Bullshiting.
I can understand why Hooky is upset but it does appear to be a case of bruised ego more than anything else. The rest of New Order appear to have the right to do what they are doing just as he does with The Light without being slagged off. Personally I like both but it is certainly true that the current New Order are not the same force without Hooky. He was probably the major factor that made them stand out. It is sad the way things have turned out but then, much as I love them I wish New Order never existed if you catch my drift.
Hooky,
You and Ian are my heroes but stop doing this with your ex-band mates. 
Let the sun shine. 
BigDipper wrote: I can understand why Hooky is upset but it does appear to be a case of bruised ego more than anything else. The rest of New Order appear to have the right to do what they are doing just as he does with The Light without being slagged off. Personally I like both but it is certainly true that the current New Order are not the same force without Hooky. He was probably the major factor that made them stand out. It is sad the way things have turned out but then, much as I love them I wish New Order never existed if you catch my drift.
The trouble seems to be the name "New Order". If they continued as Bad Lieutenant we wouldn't hear so many complaints from Hooky as now. 
Would he mind if his ex-band mates only play New Order's songs or albums calling themselves Bad Lieutenant? I think he would.
This is cuckoo! Circumstances are different this time anyway, Hooky is very much here and making his presence felt, unlike when Ian left. It's not like the same respect is due. New Order is not Hooky's band in the same sense that Joy Division was identified with Ian.
Even if he succeeded in getting an embargo, which seems unlikely, they would still be referred to as 'the artists formerly known as New Order' whatever their new name. It would be a hollow victory.
Thought this thread was going to be about Disney.
I just don't get it
It's got to a point now where I'm genuinely concerned that Hooky is obsessed, I do understand that if something has been a part of most of your adult life that it can't be easy to move on, but it really can't be good for his health.
I hope he can find a way to let this go and enjoy what he is doing now and in the future.
Big Mouth Julio wrote: If they continued as Bad Lieutenant we wouldn't hear so many complaints from Hooky as now.
And they wouldn't have a 1/10th of the fans attending their gigs. :\ohwell:
you would have thought that he would have noticed that a contingency plan is already in place before this round of the name battle started. They have already put out the replacement name if needs be "neworder now" 
I can't be bothered adding my views anymore. My final comment - Hero to Zero, which is really sad as I see the guy around the village quite a lot. I sometimes feel like putting a fans view across to him but I reckon he has a mental block on this issue, so probably no point.
russell club wrote: you would have thought that he would have noticed that a contingency plan is already in place before this round of the name battle started. They have already put out the replacement name if needs be "neworder now"
El Jarvo wrote:
Big Mouth Julio wrote: If they continued as Bad Lieutenant we wouldn't hear so many complaints from Hooky as now.
And they wouldn't have a 1/10th of the fans attending their gigs. :\ohwell:
hooky was bitching about BL before all this and i doubt there would have been a big difference in the crowds when its essentially the same line up.
bernard's vocals are an advantage for the band,hooky cant replicate them to any serious degree while bernard continues to gig.
they also have steve,the best musician in the group.
effect return wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
Big Mouth Julio wrote: If they continued as Bad Lieutenant we wouldn't hear so many complaints from Hooky as now.
And they wouldn't have a 1/10th of the fans attending their gigs. :\ohwell:
hooky was bitching about BL before all this and i doubt there would have been a big difference in the crowds when its essentially the same line up.
No difference in crowds between BL and New Order?
You sure?
BL couldn't hope to sell out anywhere like the Troxy. They couldn't even sell out the Electric Ballroom!
El Jarvo is quite right, they wouldnt be falling out over the name if the name was value-less. Equally, if the Bad Loo album had been released under the NO name it would've sold stackloads more. Which makes me wonder what the next one will be named...
Wait til the Peter Hook & Monaco 2013 tour though. New Order-lite if ever there was. Bernard should have sued.
Despite his twangy basslines, can't say I'll miss Hooky - his latter years 'stage prowling' and bellowing down the mic were embarrassing. Stay in your spot unless yr Mark King, or Lemmy.
He should take up golf or yoga, find some inner calm instead of all this vengeful grieving.
effect return wrote:
bernard's vocals are an advantage for the band,hooky cant replicate them to any serious degree while bernard continues to gig.
they also have steve,the best musician in the group.
Genetic wrote: Equally, if the Bad Loo album had been released under the NO name it would've sold stackloads more.
In terms of the core NO personnel who actually wrote the BL album it was mainly just Bernard and Phil. Steve only contributed to about 2 or 3 tracks overall and doesn't play on any of the other 13 or so tracks. Similarly Tom Chapman and Gillian were not involved in the songwriting. I think Alex James from Blur actually co-wrote more of it than Steve.
It was never going to be passed off as a New Order album so even as a hypothetical point that doesn't work.
On the other hand, from today if a core writing group of Phil, Steve, Bernard and Gillian decide to try and create something new under the "New Order" name then why not? They've got 75% of the 1980-1998 line-up and 75% of the 2001-2006 line-up... there are bands out there with far fewer original members on board
NotAMod wrote: On the other hand, from today if a core writing group of Phil, Steve, Bernard and Gillian decide to try and create something new under the "New Order" name then why not? They've got 75% of the 1980-1998 line-up and 75% of the 2001-2006 line-up... there are bands out there with far fewer original members on board
Makes sense to me but, like those other bands you refer to, sometimes it aint so simple. Ex-members dont like money being made from a band name they feel they have a part share of.
Again, look at what happened to Bucks Fizz, its all very similar.
El Jarvo wrote:
effect return wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
Big Mouth Julio wrote: If they continued as Bad Lieutenant we wouldn't hear so many complaints from Hooky as now.
And they wouldn't have a 1/10th of the fans attending their gigs. :\ohwell:
hooky was bitching about BL before all this and i doubt there would have been a big difference in the crowds when its essentially the same line up.
No difference in crowds between BL and New Order?
You sure?
BL couldn't hope to sell out anywhere like the Troxy. They couldn't even sell out the Electric Ballroom!
im sure,the novelty of name returning was a big factor in the sell outs,a lot of people who always regretted not seeing the band live had their chance to see them.
id like them to get bigger crowds but i dont see a huge change in the bands punter appeal apart from jake going and gillian coming back.
I think the issue Hooky has (and I'm sure I've read/watched him say it somewhere - "you may have two thirds..") is that he feels New Order are himself, Bernard & Steve i.e. what became of Joy Division's demise and therefore if 1 of the 3 left, it's significant enough that the remaining 2 can't still be called New Order if they add someone in.
Not saying I agree but I think that's his point, particularly in light of his recent comments re: Gillian coming back.
Guilty Partner wrote: I think the issue Hooky has (and I'm sure I've read/watched him say it somewhere - "you may have two thirds..") is that he feels New Order are himself, Bernard & Steve i.e. what became of Joy Division's demise and therefore if 1 of the 3 left, it's significant enough that the remaining 2 can't still be called New Order if they add someone in.
Not saying I agree but I think that's his point, particularly in light of his recent comments re: Gillian coming back.
Interesting thoughts. 
NotAMod wrote:
Genetic wrote: Equally, if the Bad Loo album had been released under the NO name it would've sold stackloads more.
In terms of the core NO personnel who actually wrote the BL album it was mainly just Bernard and Phil. Steve only contributed to about 2 or 3 tracks overall and doesn't play on any of the other 13 or so tracks. Similarly Tom Chapman and Gillian were not involved in the songwriting. I think Alex James from Blur actually co-wrote more of it than Steve.
It was never going to be passed off as a New Order album so even as a hypothetical point that doesn't work.
On the other hand, from today if a core writing group of Phil, Steve, Bernard and Gillian decide to try and create something new under the "New Order" name then why not? They've got 75% of the 1980-1998 line-up and 75% of the 2001-2006 line-up... there are bands out there with far fewer original members on board
Exactly. The writing/creative core of BL was Bernard, Phil, and Jake Evans, and, to be fair, they did try to do something that wasn't straight up New Ordery by making a more guitar based album with light touches of electronics and having Jake do lead vocals on a few tracks and backing vocals on the rest.
Steve didn't play on most of the album because he was dealing with family issues (when Bernard first announced BL, he said it was he and Steve) so his presence was missing...but the three tracks that Steve played on and co wrote (Poisonous Intent, Running Out of Luck, Run Away) bear his imprint and are distinctively more New Ordery, and, live, BL sounded better due to his drumming.
When BL started working on their second record, Steve was was a full time member of the band, they were writing and recording in his studio, Chapman had become comfy in the lineup, and, according to Phil, Gillian was spending more and more time in the studio with them, leading me to believe that she must have been jamming and writing with them.
It must have been so tempting to want to use the name New Order again, especially since there was 75 percent of the original line up writing and recording together.
And that name means a lot. As New Order, they are selling out large venues, headlining big dance festivals, getting a lot of press....to be fair, BL tried to make it as BL. When they did their first tour, they were doing seven BL songs in the set (when NO toured GR and WFTSC, they only did 3 to 4 songs from each album during a show)..............and it must have been frustrating for BL to go onstage with the crowd chanting "New Order! New Order!".
On top of that, I think Jake wanted to be known as a songwriter in his own right (and he should be, he is very talented).....so it must have made sense for them to go back to New Order.
As for Hooky...well....I love Hooky....but he quit the band. They went on without him. Simple as that.
And, to be honest, New Order sound better live now than they did on the 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2006 tours.
There are many bands that exist with just the lead singer and some other musicians. If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
At the end of the day I shouldn't think anyone outside of this forum could give a flying fuck if Hooky was in New Order or not.
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
You're suggesting we'd be forced to choose. I reckon if that ever happened (and fuck knows its possible) I wouldnt be suprised to see equal ticket sales, give or take, assuming they both peformed in equal sized venues.
Hooky,
Stop it. Be quiet. You left the band. What the band does now is frankly, none of your business now - as long as you get the residuals royalties for old record sales and performances of old songs. You don't have a say anymore in what happens in the future. You've got a say in what The Light do. They are your band now. New Order aren't your band anymore.
Write new songs. Record new songs. Tour new songs. Stop being a nostalgia act to yourself. Stop vowing revenge, and the wrath of lawyers, onto people you used to work with.
If I left my girlfriend, I wouldn't dare presume to be able to ban her from seeing anyone in future. You left New Order, and therefore, what they do now is not in your influence.
This is ridiculous, and undignified. You cannot stop them being New Order now and if you say it isn't New Order anymore, then it also wasn't New Order when Gillian was looking after her sick children and almost dying of cancer.
Let it go.
mark reed wrote: Hooky,
This is ridiculous, and undignified. You cannot stop them being New Order now and if you say it isn't New Order anymore, then it also wasn't New Order when Gillian was looking after her sick children and almost dying of cancer.
Let it go.
leather_girl wrote: ...yet they were allowed to use the name New Order when Gillian left and they continued?
I'm glad you keep making this point leather_girl. Hooky is obviously blind to the facts.
Bloody facts...
RobbieAmbrose wrote:
leather_girl wrote: ...yet they were allowed to use the name New Order when Gillian left and they continued?
I'm glad you keep making this point leather_girl. Hooky is obviously blind to the facts.
Bloody facts...
Those facts are a pain in the arse aren't they? Sure they'll be turned into some spun old whiny bollocks bordering on fiction in the book.
Yawn. Let it go Hooky. Now I have given him gruff for the cover band stuff, but I did just buy the Live from Oz version of No Love Lost. Pretty good.
Genetic wrote:
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
You're suggesting we'd be forced to choose. I reckon if that ever happened (and fuck knows its possible) I wouldnt be suprised to see equal ticket sales, give or take, assuming they both peformed in equal sized venues.
oh please.
look, i love Hooky, and saw The Light in Boston and loved them...
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
you go to see a band live, you want to hear the original singer of the band sing the songs the way you remember them.
typical person has a choice to see either Hook's New Order or Sumner's New Order, they are going to pick Sumner's. just the way the world works. no idea why this is even up for debate. i guarantee Hooky would agree.
Tarbox23 wrote:
Genetic wrote:
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
You're suggesting we'd be forced to choose. I reckon if that ever happened (and fuck knows its possible) I wouldnt be suprised to see equal ticket sales, give or take, assuming they both peformed in equal sized venues.
oh please.
look, i love Hooky, and saw The Light in Boston and loved them...
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
you go to see a band live, you want to hear the original singer of the band sing the songs the way you remember them.
typical person has a choice to see either Hook's New Order or Sumner's New Order, they are going to pick Sumner's. just the way the world works. no idea why this is even up for debate. i guarantee Hooky would agree.
WHY ARE YOU BRINGING ME INTO THIS?
I really hope they can get to a point where both parties draw a line under this and go about their business as new order and the light. Washing all the dirty linen in public does hooky no favours at all.
I guess the sniping in the press keeps the publicity machine going for both sides but when does it become damaging. It's sad because as hard as I try all the hooky stuff in the press over the last year has really turned 'the light' off for me. Always been a hooky fan, from revenge thru freebass, went to the factory opening, saw freebass, read the book was aghast at mani's outburst and defensive when fuc51 slagged hooky off.... So I'm not a hater .... But a lot less angry stories in the media would do wonders
Here's hoping we reach a point where new order exist as new order, hooky tours some new stuff (maybe throw in some gun world porn) and both parties bolster their pensions before reforming and playing a technique tour before retiring
Tarbox23 wrote:
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
True but if he roped Pottsy in on vocals it'd sound pretty similar. Look, this is all hypothetical bollocks about a bollocks situation.
Im out.
Genetic wrote:
Tarbox23 wrote:
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
True but if he roped Pottsy in on vocals it'd sound pretty similar. Look, this is all hypothetical bollocks about a bollocks situation.
Im out.
Talked with Potty a few months ago and he said there's no chance for a Monaco return.
No, I don't know just why No, I don't know just why Which way to turn I've got this ticket to use...
Julio, stop trying to rip off 79 order by putting in lyrics at the end of your post.
You don't do it half as well as he does
NotAMod wrote: Julio, stop trying to rip off 79 order by putting in lyrics at the end of your post.
You don't do it half as well as he does
Quite agree.
Leave that sort of thing to 79 Order and his genius lyric choices.
johnny wrote:
NotAMod wrote: Julio, stop trying to rip off 79 order by putting in lyrics at the end of your post.
You don't do it half as well as he does
Quite agree.
Leave that sort of thing to 79 Order and his genius lyric choices.
That was one of 79 order's... It just got lost in the post...
Snorri xxx
NotAMod wrote:
Big Mouth Julio wrote: Talked with Potty a few months ago
Freudian slip?
No, ya arse actually
Snorrimon wrote:
johnny wrote:
NotAMod wrote: Julio, stop trying to rip off 79 order by putting in lyrics at the end of your post.
You don't do it half as well as he does
Quite agree.
Leave that sort of thing to 79 Order and his genius lyric choices.
That was one of 79 order's... It just got lost in the post...
Snorri xxx
Oh! I always knew your preference for English men! 
Big Mouth Julio wrote:
Snorrimon wrote:
johnny wrote:
NotAMod wrote: Julio, stop trying to rip off 79 order by putting in lyrics at the end of your post.
You don't do it half as well as he does
Quite agree.
Leave that sort of thing to 79 Order and his genius lyric choices.
That was one of 79 order's... It just got lost in the post...
Snorri xxx
Oh! I always knew your preference for English men!
I suspect if Ally ever got forced into homosexuality he would prefer an Englishman with a sense of humour, over a Brazilian midget.
Burt Burterson wrote:
Big Mouth Julio wrote:
Snorrimon wrote:
johnny wrote:
NotAMod wrote: Julio, stop trying to rip off 79 order by putting in lyrics at the end of your post.
You don't do it half as well as he does
Quite agree.
Leave that sort of thing to 79 Order and his genius lyric choices.
That was one of 79 order's... It just got lost in the post...
Snorri xxx
Oh! I always knew your preference for English men!
I suspect if Ally ever got forced into homosexuality he would prefer an Englishman with a sense of humour, over a Brazilian midget.
Wrote above the spirit of Fred Mercury mixed with the blood of Elton John and George Michael
New Zealand Auckland Vector Arena, 27th February 2012
Australia Melbourne Festival Hall, 1st March 2012 Brisbane Future Music Festival, Doomben Racecourse, 3rd March 2012 Perth Future Music Festival, Arena Joondalup, 4th March 2012 Sydney Hordern Pavilion, 7th March 2012 Sydney Future Music Festival, Royal Randwick Racecourse, 10th March 2012 Melbourne Future Music Festival, Flemington Racecourse, 11th March 2012 Adelaide Future Music Festival, Ellis Park, 12th March 2012
US Miami Ultra Music Festival, Friday 23rd March 2012
UK Manchester Apollo, 26th April 2012 **SOLD OUT** Manchester Apollo, 27th April 2012 Birmingham Ballroom, 29th April 2012 London Brixton Academy, 2nd May 2012 **SOLD OUT** London Brixton Academy, 3rd May 2012 Glasgow Academy, 5th May 2012
Europe Nuits Sonores Festival, Lyon, France, 20th May 2012 Exit Festival, Novo Sad, Serbia, 12th-15th July 2012 Benicàssim Festival, Spain, 12th-15th July 2012
No cease and desist yet. Better lawyers needed?
Genetic wrote:
Tarbox23 wrote:
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
True but if he roped Pottsy in on vocals it'd sound pretty similar. Look, this is all hypothetical bollocks about a bollocks situation.
Im out.
I made the point in another thread (Monaco gigs I believe) that Hooky will need to draft someone else to do vocals if he wants to tour playing New Order material. I've been to a number of Hooky gigs but I would not pay to hear him do New Order vocals while Jack plays the bass. If Hooky is not exclusively playing bass, I have no interest in hearing New Order selections performed by him.
I'm with Al; New New Order should do something like rename themselves NewOrder2.0. Pretty simple. 75% of New Order are still in the band, so you'd have to say Hooky only has a 25% chance of shutting them down.
Hooky said he'd "left the band". That means "the band" hadn't stopped; he'd just "left".
Hooky n the light do a good job, NewOrder2.0 (well 3.0 to be fair seeing as we had the non Gillian line up) do a good job too. Just reach a compromise.
Sad to hear this news.
does this mean that they'll have to split the name? Sumner and Co can be called "NEW ORD.." and Hooky can tour called as "....ER."
The fact that Bernard and Co didn't attempt to carry on as New Order when Hooky first announced that the band had split suggests that they did reluctantly accept his argument that without Hooky there is no "New Order", I guess the fact that BL got a lukewarm reception made them look into the possibility of carrying on as NO without him and brought matters to where they now stand.
cranelane wrote: The fact that Bernard and Co didn't attempt to carry on as New Order when Hooky first announced that the band had split suggests that they did reluctantly accept his argument that without Hooky there is no "New Order", I guess the fact that BL got a lukewarm reception made them look into the possibility of carrying on as NO without him and brought matters to where they now stand.
I suppose that is one way to look at it. Another is that as Gillian was involving herself in BL sessions it made sense to return to playing under the name of the best band in the world.
Hooky is a legend, but he left.
I think it was due to legal issues. Gillian coming back meant that the % of original members swung the issue so they could use the name again from what i have heard.
cranelane wrote: The fact that Bernard and Co didn't attempt to carry on as New Order when Hooky first announced that the band had split suggests that they did reluctantly accept his argument that without Hooky there is no "New Order", I guess the fact that BL got a lukewarm reception made them look into the possibility of carrying on as NO without him and brought matters to where they now stand.
Ironic that Hookys current band, The Light, is named after that which he can't apparently see… as has been said in another context, he is entitled to his own opinion on the matter, but not to his own facts.
cranelane wrote: The fact that Bernard and Co didn't attempt to carry on as New Order when Hooky first announced that the band had split suggests that they did reluctantly accept his argument that without Hooky there is no "New Order", I guess the fact that BL got a lukewarm reception made them look into the possibility of carrying on as NO without him and brought matters to where they now stand.
I disagree. Steve and Gillian weren't initially involved with the project so Bernard rightly chose not to use the New Order name.
Andy wrote:
cranelane wrote: The fact that Bernard and Co didn't attempt to carry on as New Order when Hooky first announced that the band had split suggests that they did reluctantly accept his argument that without Hooky there is no "New Order", I guess the fact that BL got a lukewarm reception made them look into the possibility of carrying on as NO without him and brought matters to where they now stand.
I disagree. Steve and Gillian weren't initially involved with the project so Bernard rightly chose not to use the New Order name.
This is the voice of Truth, not the song :p
Although I understand the band rightfully playing live as New Order, I sincerely hope they stick to their pact, oath or whatever and don't record new stuff under that name. It is not New Order without Hooky, it is not New Order without Gillian. And most importantly, it is not New Order with Phil Cunningham filling in. I stick to this point of view and try to erase from memory that awful last album. From cover to lyrics to music. Goodbye New Order, hello Bad Lieutenant! I hope.
What pact is that? I want them to record as New Order as the only difference is the bass player is different and towards the end of the last recordings it felt that thay had to compromise simply so he could get his trade mark sound on there, but hey - time moves on and with the influence of younger members like Tom and Phil as well as Gillian being back , we may all be suprised with waht they come up with.
Just my view though
Leo Order wrote: Although I understand the band rightfully playing live as New Order, I sincerely hope they stick to their pact, oath or whatever and don't record new stuff under that name. It is not New Order without Hooky, it is not New Order without Gillian. And most importantly, it is not New Order with Phil Cunningham filling in. I stick to this point of view and try to erase from memory that awful last album. From cover to lyrics to music. Goodbye New Order, hello Bad Lieutenant! I hope.
By that logic they shouldn't have released get ready or wftsc without Gillian.
Makes no sense does it? New album please as new order.
Agree with them playing live using the New Order name but never releasing new studio stuff. Just my opinion
Surface wrote: What pact is that? I want them to record as New Order as the only difference is the bass player is different and towards the end of the last recordings it felt that thay had to compromise simply so he could get his trade mark sound on there, but hey - time moves on and with the influence of younger members like Tom and Phil as well as Gillian being back , we may all be suprised with waht they come up with.
Just my view though
To change the name of the band if any of the original members left. It's not New Order without Hooky's bass.
This "pact" is a lovely rock'n'roll tale but unfortunately unless it exists as a legal document with specific stipulations it'll mean diddly-squat in the real world. We all know how shite they were with paperwork back in the Factory days and verbal contracts aren't worth the oxygen they're spoken with.
The only relevant documentation which probably exists for post-1992 New Order would be from when they signed to London Records/Warners and went from being on a "social experiment" to being on a profit-driven label. That's where all the song writing percentages will have been divvied up and other terms agreed. If that contract backs up what Hook is trying to do then perhaps he has a case, who knows.
Either way, we're 31 years on from the last time this "pact" was allegedly used. All of them are a hell of a lot older, approaching retirement, less youthfully idealistic and aside from anything else nobody actually died this time. Essentially, one member couldn't get on with the others and left; the democratic will of the remaining 75% was to continue.
As R.E.M. said around the time Bill Berry left in 1997 "A three legged dog is still a dog".
I'd be amazed if this got anywhere near the courts, frankly.
Hicksy wrote: By that logic they shouldn't have released get ready or wftsc without Gillian.
Makes no sense does it? New album please as new order.
As far as I know, Gillian was still a part of the band when they recorded Get Ready, she just didn't make part of the tour due to serious health issues. As for WFTSC, I couldn't care less about that album. I vote for a new album as Bad Lieutenant, with Gillian replacing Phil Cunningham. And if they really don't wanna let go of those Smiths-esque guitar lines, I really hope they invite Johnny Marr, instead!
BigDipper wrote: I can understand why Hooky is upset but it does appear to be a case of bruised ego more than anything else. The rest of New Order appear to have the right to do what they are doing just as he does with The Light without being slagged off. Personally I like both but it is certainly true that the current New Order are not the same force without Hooky. He was probably the major factor that made them stand out. It is sad the way things have turned out but then, much as I love them I wish New Order never existed if you catch my drift.
He left his problem LONG LIVE THE NEW NEW ORDER
Bad Lieutenant + Gillian playing as New Order, that would be absolutely fine by me. It doesn't seem right that one person namely Hooky can dictate what name they play as, especially when as has now become apparent, this now has vast financial implications. Hooky's tactics are classic dog in a manger. Moreover, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but he apparently left of his own free will. New Order is a well known name, a name with emotive associations and a span of history in pop culture in its own right, regardless of its derivations - Bad Lieutenant although a brilliant name for a band, not so much. Songs released under the New Order name will receive far greater attention than the exact same songs would if released under the Bad Lieutenant name. Guys of that age cannot be expected to start afresh like teenagers, even if they don't seem to me to be as nearing their dotage as would appear from some comments here! If the others (whoever they are, I haven't been keeping track) carry on as New Order and for some reason it doesn't work out, that will be obvious soon enough anyways, and I daresay that would be the end of New Order, but it would be a real end, and not this artificial legal-technicality excuse for a reason.
bernard, stephen ,gillian ,phil, and tom will hopefully write more songs. there sure as hell isn't anyone else in today's music world making music i care to hear. if danny kirwan returns then all is right with the world. and for you fans that hate wftsc, i hope bernard arranges longer versions of dracula's castle , jet stream, i told you so , guilt, working overtime, hellbent, such a good thing ,and world in motion in gaelic. and no, echo and the bunnymen are not creating anything new and interesting anymore .
NO Regret wrote: you were standing in the courtroom when i saw your face i couldnt look at you i guess i knew it but i never realised that theres no proof and im down and all alone with the baselines i dont own you can take that away and with every pound i waste, your lawyer says i have no case, new order lives another day
and i was touched by the hand of lawyers i never knew it what aload of toss
ha ha, I love it.
Joanne Bailey wrote:
NO Regret wrote: you were standing in the courtroom when i saw your face i couldnt look at you i guess i knew it but i never realised that theres no proof and im down and all alone with the baselines i dont own you can take that away and with every pound i waste, your lawyer says i have no case, new order lives another day
and i was touched by the hand of lawyers i never knew it what aload of toss
ha ha, I love it.
Getting a bit boring innit!
Doing what i do have to be neutral,so good look to both camps! neworder now the light
both equally suprising really to be honest,new order now selling out gigs and the light selling out gigs and having to get bigger venues to cope with demand!
if only they would come back together..............
Now that would be a fanastic show....
Hard to be neutral though when your first love is New Order, and not Joy Division.
Which is where I find myself. Oh well.
Doing what i do have to be neutral,so good look to both camps! neworder now the light
both equally suprising really to be honest,new order now selling out gigs and the light selling out gigs and having to get bigger venues to cope with demand!
if only they would come back together..............
Now that would be a fanastic show....
What would be interesting would be to see both bands doing gigs with completely new original material as new order did when they started, see how each of them stand on their own, I thnk they would both be excellent, who said you have to be in just one camp!
El Jarvo wrote:
Hard to be neutral though when your first love is New Order, and not Joy Division.
Opposite here m8
Jed Stephens wrote:
Doing what i do have to be neutral,so good look to both camps! neworder now the light
both equally suprising really to be honest,new order now selling out gigs and the light selling out gigs and having to get bigger venues to cope with demand!
if only they would come back together..............
Now that would be a fanastic show....
What would be interesting would be to see both bands doing gigs with completely new original material as new order did when they started, see how each of them stand on their own, I thnk they would both be excellent, who said you have to be in just one camp!
Wise words Steve 
El Jarvo wrote:
Hard to be neutral though when your first love is New Order, and not Joy Division.
Which is where I find myself. Oh well.
Likewise...
Now, if he performed New Order songs...
Nick King wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
Hard to be neutral though when your first love is New Order, and not Joy Division.
Which is where I find myself. Oh well.
Likewise...
Now, if he performed New Order songs...
We would still be in the pub down the road....
Burt Burterson wrote:
Nick King wrote: Likewise...
Now, if he performed New Order songs...
We would still be in the pub down the road....
True! :p
RobbieAmbrose wrote:
mark reed wrote: Hooky,
This is ridiculous, and undignified. You cannot stop them being New Order now and if you say it isn't New Order anymore, then it also wasn't New Order when Gillian was looking after her sick children and almost dying of cancer.
Let it go.
leather_girl wrote: ...yet they were allowed to use the name New Order when Gillian left and they continued?
I'm glad you keep making this point leather_girl. Hooky is obviously blind to the facts.
Bloody facts...
When Gillian left they continued with her blessing. It's hardly the same situation at all - I'm surprised how many people are blind to that fact.
If there's language in the contracts specifying ownership of the New Order name or some kind of agreement in case of a split - which is not that farfetched, given that they were not on the best of terms at the time - then Hooky may have a case. It's very unlikely the others would not have considered this, so he may not. We don't know, because we don't know the whole story.
Personally I don't consider post-Gillian New Order to really be New Order either, but I hardly have a say in the matter. None of us knows what sort of legal agreement was made with the move to London, so none of us has any business telling any of them their business.
Tarbox23 wrote:
Genetic wrote:
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
You're suggesting we'd be forced to choose. I reckon if that ever happened (and fuck knows its possible) I wouldnt be suprised to see equal ticket sales, give or take, assuming they both peformed in equal sized venues.
oh please.
look, i love Hooky, and saw The Light in Boston and loved them...
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
you go to see a band live, you want to hear the original singer of the band sing the songs the way you remember them.
typical person has a choice to see either Hook's New Order or Sumner's New Order, they are going to pick Sumner's. just the way the world works. no idea why this is even up for debate. i guarantee Hooky would agree.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Bless him, but Barney's vocals have never been a strong selling point for New Order. Most folks "beyond us nuts in this forum" couldn't even tell you his name. If he had left and it were Hooky, Stephen, and Gillian continuing on, do you really think people would prefer seeing Barney with a new band, or the others with a replacement singer?
New Order was never like the Cure, where the singer is the core of the band and everyone else is replaceable. They've always been the whole that was greater than the sum of the parts - obvious when you consider the side projects, or the absence of lyrics pages in their albums - which is why these recent developments are such a shame.
I'm sure if The Other Three record new stuff it'll be decent, and better than Bad Lieutenant (which was, let's face it, pretty forgettable), but it won't be the same. Nor do I have high hopes for any future Hooky solo projects - Monaco worked because he had Potts to bounce off of.
Chase wrote: Bless him, but Barney's vocals have never been a strong selling point for New Order. Most folks "beyond us nuts in this forum" couldn't even tell you his name. If he had left and it were Hooky, Stephen, and Gillian continuing on, do you really think people would prefer seeing Barney with a new band, or the others with a replacement singer?
Oh, please, you seriously think most folks who have heard a few New Order hits wouldn't know the singer is Bernard Sumner?
I recall Electronic being termed a super-group, for good reason. Most casual music fans were aware of both Sumner and Marr's credentials.
With your logic, casual indie music fans wouldn't know that Lou Reed sang with the Velvet Underground, Ian McCulloch with Echo, or Dave Gahan with Depeche Mode? Those are all similar bands in the sense they were fairly democratic and were all greater than the sum of the parts. And most even casual fans are going to know the lead singers' names.
And your straw man argument is silly. Of course folks might rather go see 3/4 of a band without their original singer (see 1980s Black Sabbath, 1980s Led Zeppelin, etc) than just the original singer on his own.
But that isn't what is going on here.
If both bands were playing the same evening, we have the option to either go see the bassist, or the original band with original lead singer minus the bassist. Not a tough call for a casual 1980s new wave fan.
Yes I do think "most folks who have heard a few New Order hits wouldn't know the singer is Bernard Sumner". The Order have never been on the cover of Rolling Stone, none of them are in any particular danger of getting a signature guitar named after them, and their high water mark was nineteen years ago. People who are really into music may know the name, casual listeners most likely not.
Electronic being termed a "supergroup" was a bit of silly journalistic excess. It lasted for what, three whole songs? It applied in the sense that the contributors had all been successful in other bands; that didn't make them the Traveling Wilburys.
Lou Reed is, if anything, much better known to nonmusicians than the Velvet Underground - perfect example of my point, he's nothing like Sumner. Echo was always mainly about McCulloch and Sergeant, so much so that it (a) didn't work without either and (b) works fine with only the two of them. Depeche Mode is hardly "democratic" - that's been Martin Gore's personal project almost since the moment Vince Clarke left. OTOH, New Order didn't even put their names on their albums until the move to London, and they've always credited everyone equally.
As for my hypothetical, I'm well aware of what the actual situation is. My point was that people are going to see "New Order Now" because there are 3 of them, not because Barney's inherently the most popular member. The original claim was that a night with Barney would handily outsell a night with Hooky even if the Other Two were completely out of the picture:
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
That's utter bollocks. It's as stupid as arguing about whether McCartney or Lennon are more popular, or Jagger vs. Richards. It's appalling how eager some are to pick sides, when the truth is that we're all losers in this.
What if you're not trying to take sides, but you end up doing so (sort of) because of what you're interested in?
I like Joy Division, but I like New Order a bit more. Which is why, if given the choice, I'd rather see New Order perform New Order tunes (maybe with a few JD songs I don't mind that), than Hooky performing JD albums in full. Even if Hooky did New Order album tours, I'd rather hear those songs sung by Bernard than by Hooky (I'm not saying Hooky's a bad singer per se; I liked quite a few Monaco tunes).
But if Hooky does what he's doing, I don't mind that, and I don't mind those that are interested in what he's doing to go see him live.
Exactly.
I'd much rather see 75-80% of New Order 1981-2006 perform New Order material than 25% of Joy Division 1977-1980 perform Joy Division material.
Yes I do think "most folks who have heard a few New Order hits wouldn't know the singer is Bernard Sumner". The Order have never been on the cover of Rolling Stone, none of them are in any particular danger of getting a signature guitar named after them, and their high water mark was nineteen years ago. People who are really into music may know the name, casual listeners most likely not.
I dont think many casual listeners would spend a great deal of money or time going to a new order gig to be honest so ultimately its the people really into the music who count.
Casual listeners tend to go to festivals and happen to chance hearing a performace.
What on earth are you on about - so the dillema is - Do you want to see the singer out of NO singing the songs he wrote or do you want to see someone singing the songs that the bloke out of NO wrote. I reckon 100% would go for the former.
Chase wrote:
Tarbox23 wrote:
Genetic wrote:
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
You're suggesting we'd be forced to choose. I reckon if that ever happened (and fuck knows its possible) I wouldnt be suprised to see equal ticket sales, give or take, assuming they both peformed in equal sized venues.
oh please.
look, i love Hooky, and saw The Light in Boston and loved them...
but to most folks (i.e. beyond us nuts in this forum) Bernard Sumner IS New Order. he sings the songs.
you go to see a band live, you want to hear the original singer of the band sing the songs the way you remember them.
typical person has a choice to see either Hook's New Order or Sumner's New Order, they are going to pick Sumner's. just the way the world works. no idea why this is even up for debate. i guarantee Hooky would agree.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Bless him, but Barney's vocals have never been a strong selling point for New Order. Most folks "beyond us nuts in this forum" couldn't even tell you his name. If he had left and it were Hooky, Stephen, and Gillian continuing on, do you really think people would prefer seeing Barney with a new band, or the others with a replacement singer?
New Order was never like the Cure, where the singer is the core of the band and everyone else is replaceable. They've always been the whole that was greater than the sum of the parts - obvious when you consider the side projects, or the absence of lyrics pages in their albums - which is why these recent developments are such a shame.
I'm sure if The Other Three record new stuff it'll be decent, and better than Bad Lieutenant (which was, let's face it, pretty forgettable), but it won't be the same. Nor do I have high hopes for any future Hooky solo projects - Monaco worked because he had Potts to bounce off of.
Chase wrote: Yes I do think "most folks who have heard a few New Order hits wouldn't know the singer is Bernard Sumner". The Order have never been on the cover of Rolling Stone, none of them are in any particular danger of getting a signature guitar named after them, and their high water mark was nineteen years ago. People who are really into music may know the name, casual listeners most likely not.
Electronic being termed a "supergroup" was a bit of silly journalistic excess. It lasted for what, three whole songs? It applied in the sense that the contributors had all been successful in other bands; that didn't make them the Traveling Wilburys.
Lou Reed is, if anything, much better known to nonmusicians than the Velvet Underground - perfect example of my point, he's nothing like Sumner. Echo was always mainly about McCulloch and Sergeant, so much so that it (a) didn't work without either and (b) works fine with only the two of them. Depeche Mode is hardly "democratic" - that's been Martin Gore's personal project almost since the moment Vince Clarke left. OTOH, New Order didn't even put their names on their albums until the move to London, and they've always credited everyone equally.
As for my hypothetical, I'm well aware of what the actual situation is. My point was that people are going to see "New Order Now" because there are 3 of them, not because Barney's inherently the most popular member. The original claim was that a night with Barney would handily outsell a night with Hooky even if the Other Two were completely out of the picture:
Gary wrote: If you take Steve and Gillian out of the equation and you had Bernard's New Order and Hooky's New Order we all know which one would sell more tickets.
That's utter bollocks. It's as stupid as arguing about whether McCartney or Lennon are more popular, or Jagger vs. Richards. It's appalling how eager some are to pick sides, when the truth is that we're all losers in this.
Well if I went to see the Rolling Stones, I would expect Mick Jagger to be in the band,
Well if I went to see the Rolling Stones, I would expect Mick Jagger to be in the band,
well said.
