The NEW ORDER name

Legal Precedent - Pink Floyd

Amidst creative differences within the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985, and began a legal battle with the remaining band members regarding their continued use of the name and material. In December 1985 Waters "issued a statement to EMI and CBS invoking the 'Leaving Member' clause" on his contract. In October 1986, he initiated High Court proceedings to formally dissolve the Pink Floyd partnership. In his submission to the High Court he called Pink Floyd a "spent force creatively". Gilmour and Mason opposed the application and announced their intention to continue as Pink Floyd. Waters claims to have been forced to resign much like Wright some years earlier, and he decided to leave Pink Floyd based on legal considerations, stating " ... because, if I hadn't, the financial repercussions would have wiped me out completely."] In December 1987, an agreement between Waters and Pink Floyd was reached.

Go 'Barney's Band'

I agree entirely with the sentiment of 'long live New Order', but the NO situation is very different to Floyd - unlike Hook, Waters actually was the creative force behind Floyd's most successful work (predominantly lyrics and several vocals for Dark Side of the Moon and Wish you were here, and pretty much everything from Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut (credited as '...by Roger Waters, performed by Pink Floyd')- I think the non-Waters songs on those last 3 albums could be counted on one hand. The non-Waters Floyd albums were pretty dire stuff, even by their standards.

So, while the comparison/precedent might look good on paper, it doesn't really stand up - Waters had much more 'right' to the band name because of his demonstrated input of their successful work. Had Hooky written lyrics or sung lead on anything since 1981, then maybe the comparison would have more weight, but the scenarios are too different to be precedents.

Long live Barney's Band!

CTB wrote: I agree entirely with the sentiment of 'long live New Order', but the NO situation is very different to Floyd - unlike Hook, Waters actually was the creative force behind Floyd's most successful work (predominantly lyrics and several vocals for Dark Side of the Moon and Wish you were here, and pretty much everything from Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut (credited as '...by Roger Waters, performed by Pink Floyd')- I think the non-Waters songs on those last 3 albums could be counted on one hand. The non-Waters Floyd albums were pretty dire stuff, even by their standards.

So, while the comparison/precedent might look good on paper, it doesn't really stand up - Waters had much more 'right' to the band name because of his demonstrated input of their successful work. Had Hooky written lyrics or sung lead on anything since 1981, then maybe the comparison would have more weight, but the scenarios are too different to be precedents.

Long live Barney's Band!

Agreed , just think the argument is weighted in New Order's favour.

Long live Barney's band !

Agree with and add. What are the real intentions of Gilbert, Morris and Sumner. Is it, they did a couple of gigs last October to help a friend and thought, wow this is good, as per the press or are they serious in going back into the studio to develop, produce and release new material.

If the former then I reckon Hooky should let them get on with it, because most people going to the shows already have the music in one format or other and for the newbies, can't see them rushing out to the record shops to bulk buy the complete back catalogue as you can buy it through various online sites second hand, so no royalties there for him.

If the latter, then yeah, he could have a point, but only so far in any old stuff like sirens left overs etc and any other unreleased stuff being issued. Otherwise all the new material would be written without his input and regardless of how well it sold and further promotions / tours then I can't see what he would be entitled to.

So let New Order as they are now and Hooky with his Light(on maybe) do their own thing. I still don't want Hooky to end up really bitter and twisted and even more of us sitting on the fence jump into Barneys' side.

Should add, was at both and they were excellent.

I know Hooky keeps talking lawyers, But have any papers even been filed? As far as I know this isn't even going to court yet. And if or when they do, we should have access to them. Then we can read what he really wants. I say he cant stop them from continuing. Its just going to be about his % that he thinks he deserves. Then New Order can sue him for using Joy Division in his adds, and get their %.

Captain Solo wrote: ...I still don't want Hooky to end up really bitter and twisted...

Too late.

He calls it 'feisty' though.

:\ohwell:

I wonder what the Floyd message boards were like at the time?

They used to be, in the early days of the Internets, pre the 2005 Live 8 show, still very much David vs Roger. It's a lot more mellow now.