What don't they just change their name to New Order 2 or something similiar
Archived57 replies · 3,473 views
Why should they have to?
HOOK QUIT. The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years. They ARE New Order, no matter what the Hook bootlickers around here whine about.
Rather than change the name of the band can't Tom Chapman just change his name to Peter Hook
50 Pound Note wrote: Why should they have to?
HOOK QUIT. The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years. They ARE New Order, no matter what the Hook bootlickers around here whine about.
The man is correct.
Name change went out the window when Gillian was replaced by Phil a decade ago. How about everyone rest their spincters about this.
Zachery Starkey wrote:
50 Pound Note wrote: Why should they have to?
HOOK QUIT. The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years. They ARE New Order, no matter what the Hook bootlickers around here whine about.
The man is correct.
I know I'd be called a Hooky bootlicker (or worse!) but I agree with you both, it's time Hooky put this argument to bed and got on with life after new order.
I quite like New Order Now as a name. Maybe they should play As It Is And When It Was.....
Then Hooky could change the name of The Light to Peter Hook's New Order. Can't wait to hear Jack all over Death Rattle on the Shergold!
Tim wrote: I quite like New Order Now as a name. Maybe they should play As It Is And When It Was.....
Then Hooky could change the name of The Light to Peter Hook's New Order. Can't wait to hear Jack all over Death Rattle on the Shergold!
i think someone suggested calling them "by hook or by crooks"
Nu Ordah wrote: When a football team sells a player they don't change their name
Agreed. They shouldn't have to change their name.
50 Pound Note wrote: The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years.
Which four out of the five members? I didnt realise either JD or No had five members?
Yet more ill informed judgement, but hey, what do you come to expect round these parts nowadays?
JamesieMCR wrote:
50 Pound Note wrote: The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years.
Which four out of the five members? I didnt realise either JD or No had five members?
Yet more ill informed judgement, but hey, what do you come to expect round these parts nowadays?
Joy Division disbanded, so to speak, 32 years ago. There's been 5 official members of New Order as we're assuming Chappy is currently only at hired hand status.
Possibly they could do the same as Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Doors, The Cars and Talking Heads:
New Order Revisited New Order of the 21st Century New New Order No New Just Order
Andy wrote:
JamesieMCR wrote:
50 Pound Note wrote: I didnt realise either JD or No had five members?
Yet more ill informed judgement, but hey, what do you come to expect round these parts nowadays?
Joy Division disbanded, so to speak, 32 years ago. There's been 5 official members of New Order as we're assuming Chappy is currently only at hired hand status.
JD - Curtis / Hook / Morris / Sumner
NO - Hook / Morris / Sumner - the original line up - just ask rob.
50 Pound Note wrote: Why should they have to?
HOOK QUIT. The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years. They ARE New Order, no matter what the Hook bootlickers around here whine about.
Here here 
JamesieMCR wrote:
50 Pound Note wrote: The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years.
Which four out of the five members? I didnt realise either JD or No had five members?
Yet more ill informed judgement, but hey, what do you come to expect round these parts nowadays?
Phil Cunningham, you moron - or did you just miss the fact that's he's been on stage playing Gillian's parts since 2001?
Or they could market themselves as a Re: Order tribute band and call themselves Re: Re: Order... Or Re2: Order... 
I kind of like NewOrderNow... Up-to-date and alive rather than living in the past... 
Snorri xxx
50 Pound Note wrote:
JamesieMCR wrote:
50 Pound Note wrote: The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years.
Which four out of the five members? I didnt realise either JD or No had five members?
Yet more ill informed judgement, but hey, what do you come to expect round these parts nowadays?
Phil Cunningham, you moron - or did you just miss the fact that's he's been on stage playing Gillian's parts since 2001?
Does Steve know about this?!
Out of Order Sirens on Order New Shed Hey Now New Order Barney and Crew I've got a cock like the M1
Joy Division - Curtis / Sumner [Albrecht] / Hook / Morris New Order I (1980) - Sumner / Hook / Morris (that's what Hooky considers the real NO members apparently) New Order II (1980-2001) - Sumner / Gilbert / Hook / Morris New Order III (2001-2007) - Sumner / Cunningham / Hook / Morris New Order IV (2011-2012) - Sumner / Gilbert / Cunningham / Chapman / Morris
I wonder... what if Hooky and Morris both left and it would have left only Sumner and Cunningham in charge - would it feel right to call their ensemble New Order? Or what if Sumner left New Order leaving Hooky, Morris and Cunningham? Would that be ok to consider them New Order? Or are New Order simply Sumner + whoever?
Lets also, not forget
NewOrderII.5 (1989-92, 1993-99) Sumner, Marr NewOrderVI (2008-2011) Sumner, Cunningham, Evans ABSOLUTELYNOTNEWORDEREVER (2011+) Sumner, Morris, Gilbert, Cunningham, Chapman
I don't think they should've gone with the name New Order in the first place, clearly the obvious name for them was Joy Division 2
Gary wrote:
Nu Ordah wrote: Witch doctors of Zimbabwe
Shouldn't that be Witch doctors of Zimbabwe 2?
I wonder if we are going to hear Hooky say I insisted on a name change when GIllian left but I was over ruled by Barney and Steve! Cos Im sure he would of insisted right!
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Joy Division - Curtis / Sumner [Albrecht] / Hook / Morris New Order I (1980) - Sumner / Hook / Morris (that's what Hooky considers the real NO members apparently) New Order II (1980-2001) - Sumner / Gilbert / Hook / Morris New Order III (2001-2007) - Sumner / Cunningham / Hook / Morris New Order IV (2011-2012) - Sumner / Gilbert / Cunningham / Chapman / Morris
Maybe it should be Newest Order.
God knows what they'd do if someone else left!
50 Pound Note wrote: Why should they have to?
HOOK QUIT. The band now has 4 of the 5 members who have been in it over the last 30 years. They ARE New Order, no matter what the Hook bootlickers around here whine about.
I agree why should they?
mark reed wrote: Lets also, not forget
NewOrderII.5 (1989-92, 1993-99) Sumner, Marr NewOrderVI (2008-2011) Sumner, Cunningham, Evans ABSOLUTELYNOTNEWORDEREVER (2011+) Sumner, Morris, Gilbert, Cunningham, Chapman
They haven't been the same since Billy Corgan left.
Gary wrote: Rather than change the name of the band can't Tom Chapman just change his name to Peter Hook
New Order Now, and I really think that's the real "legal" name right now, because if hooky goes and says "hey, you can't use 'new order'" they would say "we are not using 'new order', we are using 'new order now' (troll face)" (?) but it's true, it could be happening
marco-sampler wrote: New Order Now, and I really think that's the real "legal" name right now, because if hooky goes and says "hey, you can't use 'new order'" they would say "we are not using 'new order', we are using 'new order now' (troll face)" (?) but it's true, it could be happening
I doubt that's the case. The Troxy CD was released under 'New Order', not New Order Now. I highly doubt Hooky's legal team can stop New Order from using the name New Order. I highly doubt there is legal proof that they cannot use the name New Order. 
Does it ever occur to anybody that the website name could possibly be that many domain names using the phrase/words neworder were unavailable? 
Not just websites related to the band (fansites etc) but even other sites? Stop reading too much into it. No matter what Hooky says, I highly doubt the band members will give into his demands and change the name just because Hooky left, unless they had to from a legal/law POV. (And like I've said, I don't really think Hooky's side would have a real legal reason from stopping them from using the name).
leather_girl wrote:
I doubt that's the case. The Troxy CD was released under 'New Order', not New Order Now. I highly doubt Hooky's legal team can stop New Order from using the name New Order. I highly doubt there is legal proof that they cannot use the name New Order.
Precedent re: "The Floyd" etc would suggest that he can't stop them from using the name but unfortunately for the fans he is doing the next best thing which is to block the Lost Sirens release :\ohwell:
leather_girl wrote:
No matter what Hooky says, I highly doubt the band members will give into his demands and change the name just because Hooky left, unless they had to from a legal/law POV. (And like I've said, I don't really think Hooky's side would have a real legal reason from stopping them from using the name).
What "legal" right had Hooky to leave the band and announce that they had split, I wonder 
Nu Ordah wrote: Final Solution could be a good name
That's absolute genius, but perhaps a bit too radical for them these days, New Division may be more apt :\ohwell:
Why don't they change their name? Because (a) They will not be as big of a draw booking-wise (b) There is absolutely no need to.
If The Cure are still The Cure, having had staff rotation of at least 12 people, then New Order are certainly still New Order.
Kraftwerk in summer 1971 (see The Beat Club TV performance on YouTube) contains *nobody* from the current line-up. We still call them Kraftwerk today, and we still regard that 1971 performance as Kraftwerk, because as with The Cure, in each case you are watching a selection from a pool of once-members.
Much as I'm a major Hooky fan, one has to admit that his only argument appears to be that they "said" that if any member left they would change the name. And as stated before, they didn't change it in 2001 and he didn't object, so unless this is written on a legally binding document somewhere I can't see why he's spending his energy on this.
Among the gigs I am going to this summer, I am going to see one show with 90 minutes of Joy Division songs, featuring one original member, and another show with 90 minutes of New Order songs, featuring three original members. I can't see how this isn't the best possible scenario for fans. It also allows New Order more room in their set for older New Order songs (Elegia, 586, Age of Consent, Round and Round etc).
And personally I'd rather this over seeing New Order do a gig with a 30/70 split of JD/NO songs and Bernard muttering his way through 24 Hours and Shadowplay nailed to a click track.
Brian Hyphen wrote: Why don't they change their name? Because (a) They will not be as big of a draw booking-wise (b) There is absolutely no need to.
Much as I'm a major Hooky fan, one has to admit that his only argument appears to be that they "said" that if any member left they would change the name. And as stated before, they didn't change it in 2001 and he didn't object, so unless this is written on a legally binding document somewhere I can't see why he's spending his energy on this.
Agreed.
By 'Eck! My Neck! wrote: O2+3
Isn't that The Other 5? Or will they then get mistaken for a 5ive cover band?
Snorri xxx
Considering they're lighter without Hooky's heavy bass, they should call themselves The Light New Order.
They should change the name to New Order Online so the url of this website would be ultimately official
My mate from staines says they is gonna call themselves 'Rod, Jane & Freddy' init? Ditching the electronics, guitars and hangers on to go all acoustic.
