108 replies · 10,120 views
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.
