Peter Hook Goes Back In Time, Via The NME Archive video

NME has always loved Joy Division and New Order - so we invited Peter Hook to have a nostalgic root around our archive cupboard. Hooky's new book 'Unknown Pleasures: Inside Joy Division.

http://www.nme.com/nme-video/peter-hook-goes-back-in-time-via-the-nme-archive/1834496942001

as always Linus, thanks for the link .... but I'll pass on this one

Strange, I thought Hooky only ever looked forward.

Interesting but seems like an advert for NME.

All those years I had been convinced that the NME never helped at all and were almost biased against JD/NO, then the Godlike geniuses award happenes and from then on they're best mates (all of them, not just Hooky)?

Jul wrote: All those years I had been convinced that the NME never helped at all and were almost biased against JD/NO, then the Godlike geniuses award happenes and from then on they're best mates (all of them, not just Hooky)?

Really? I'm showing my age here but i remember when Brotherhood was released the NME gave it a pretty good review. Something about NO being a beacon of light shining through the darkness...I cant find it on t'inernet though. According to this thread Technique seemed to get a good review too: http://www.neworderonline.com/forums/MessageList.aspx?ThreadID=47401&PageIndex=1

Jul wrote: All those years I had been convinced that the NME never helped at all and were almost biased against JD/NO, then the Godlike geniuses award happenes and from then on they're best mates (all of them, not just Hooky)?

I remember nothing, sorry different. As I recall, both NME and Melody Maker wanked themselves dry every time there was a peek out of NO. You have to remember in the 80s they were (a) inverted snobs versus the Simply Reds of this world, and (b) desperate to fill shitloads of space. A band like New Order - able to shift copies but still fashionably 'indie' - were right up their proverbial street. And yes, Technique got a 9 out of 10 ('This is a very Fine Time indeed' - pure Oscar Wilde) and (like Republic) a massive two-part interview from abroad.

Michael Monkhouse wrote:

Jul wrote: All those years I had been convinced that the NME never helped at all and were almost biased against JD/NO, then the Godlike geniuses award happenes and from then on they're best mates (all of them, not just Hooky)?

I remember nothing, sorry different. As I recall, both NME and Melody Maker wanked themselves dry every time there was a peek out of NO. You have to remember in the 80s they were (a) inverted snobs versus the Simply Reds of this world, and (b) desperate to fill shitloads of space. A band like New Order - able to shift copies but still fashionably 'indie' - were right up their proverbial street. And yes, Technique got a 9 out of 10 ('This is a very Fine Time indeed' - pure Oscar Wilde) and (like Republic) a massive two-part interview from abroad.

I'm in agreement with Jul. I can't remember New Order, especially, being very popular with the folk at NME.

NME seemed to view New Order with a touch of disdain - a lads' band they simply had to report on because their readership expected it, to a lesser degree. The Smiths were much more the darlings of the NME intelligensia.

Melody Maker too. Wasn't it them that run the piece on New Order 'hooligans' at the Brixton AIDS benefit?

I remember NME and Melody Maker being pretty favourable apart from Steve Sutherland. Can't recall which one he wrote for but actually he turned round and gave Low Life a great review

Who cares what a music magazine did or didn't think of the band? Sometimes it's dependent on the editors working there. Their opinions are irrelevant.

I can't really remember a particular instance, apart from McCullough claiming that Hook and Gretton had mental deficiencies all the way back in Joy Division. I hadn't had acces to NMEs in the 80's, so I haven't read the actual reviews until late '90s. It was just a general feeling that the press were giving New Order a hard time, or at least harder than other acts. Things like "Factory against the London media/music industry". Classic us against them stuff. Part regional, part pseudo-political, part whatever. Of course, it might all have been a part of Tony Wilson's genius ploy?

leather-girl wrote: Who cares what a music magazine did or didn't think of the band? Sometimes it's dependent on the editors working there. Their opinions are irrelevant.

Two reasons:

1. It's a nostalgia thing. Those of us old enough to remember the 80's enjoy casting our minds back and remembering the "good old days" when NO were in their prime and we were young and excited about music. You probably don't have to worry too much about nostalgia LG, as i suspect you're in the enviable position of being too young to look back at your past as your glory days. But one day...

2. As Hooky says in the interview, the NME (along with the likes of John Peel whom the NME loved, and for whom NO played a posthumous gig in 2005) created this little world that you wanted to be a part of. Hooky aspired to be in the NME, and getting on the cover could make a real difference to a band's fortunes. What he read in those pages probably informed his and the other JD members' listening tastes to some degree. In an age of youtube and file sharing the NME may not matter much, but thirty years ago it mattered to the fans who read it and the bands who wanted to be (or were) in it.

Debaser wrote:

leather-girl wrote: Who cares what a music magazine did or didn't think of the band? Sometimes it's dependent on the editors working there. Their opinions are irrelevant.

Two reasons:

1. It's a nostalgia thing. Those of us old enough to remember the 80's enjoy casting our minds back and remembering the "good old days" when NO were in their prime and we were young and excited about music. You probably don't have to worry too much about nostalgia LG, as i suspect you're in the enviable position of being too young to look back at your past as your glory days. But one day...

2. As Hooky says in the interview, the NME (along with the likes of John Peel whom the NME loved, and for whom NO played a posthumous gig in 2005) created this little world that you wanted to be a part of. Hooky aspired to be in the NME, and getting on the cover could make a real difference to a band's fortunes. What he read in those pages probably informed his and the other JD members' listening tastes to some degree. In an age of youtube and file sharing the NME may not matter much, but thirty years ago it mattered to the fans who read it and the bands who wanted to be (or were) in it.

I admit you have a point, but to be honest, even if I was alive 30 years ago, I wouldn't be taking a critic's opinions that seriously. Maybe that's just my personality. But my personality aside.... I may be wrong, but I had the impression that New Order were not exactly 'attention seeking' as a band to want to be adored by the NME. Artists on Factory didn't seem to be that way, or that's what I've heard. Of course, some attention in the media is better than no attention, but they probably kept doing what they did regardless of what some writer at the NME thought of them. And of course, NME doesn't have the same reviewers they did 30 years ago; it's obvious their opinions on various bands would change, because you have different people, with different opinions.

leather-girl wrote: Artists on Factory didn't seem to be that way, or that's what I've heard.

It's fair to say the arse dropped out of the Mondays' world as soon as they got a huge spread in the NME. What was it that did for them in the end? A load of homophobic comments, I think? I know they gave them a voice and they ended up sounding like dickheads anyway.

Ms Girl (whose posts I always enjoy) is right of course, it ain't really important, just interesting. I got into NO circa 89 and I have definite memories of both MM and NME going weak at the knees over 'em - maybe Technique was the breakthrough? Hell, MM was one of the few rags to give One True Passion a good review - Q slated it ('Hook, Line and Sinking'). In 93 I was nuts over the band but even I drew the line at descriptions like 'the most important band since the Beatles or the Stones', 'the inventors of 80s music', or Bernard as 'a Brian Eno for the nineties!' - but that was Paul Lester for you. Hell, this was three years after a footie record, the period of super-disappointing 'Republic', and three years before super-disappointinger RTP! Maybe it was Technique that did it, but journos like Lester creamed their pants every time the band was mentioned. The only negative thing I remember reading was NME's review of 'Spooky' who said it was the first decent thing they'd done all year 'after a truckload of remixes, an anti-climactic LP and a duff spin-off (Other Two): The synths seem to swirl round forever and it's been a criminally long time since I wanted a NO record to go on for three minutes, let alone forever.' I could be wrong as it's been a long time and I was more interested in drinking and masturbating back then, but these're my memories...

Michael Monkhouse wrote: Ms Girl (whose posts I always enjoy) is right of course, it ain't really important, just interesting. I got into NO circa 89 and I have definite memories of both MM and NME going weak at the knees over 'em - maybe Technique was the breakthrough? Hell, MM was one of the few rags to give One True Passion a good review - Q slated it ('Hook, Line and Sinking'). In 93 I was nuts over the band but even I drew the line at descriptions like 'the most important band since the Beatles or the Stones', 'the inventors of 80s music', or Bernard as 'a Brian Eno for the nineties!' - but that was Paul Lester for you. Hell, this was three years after a footie record, the period of super-disappointing 'Republic', and three years before super-disappointinger RTP! Maybe it was Technique that did it, but journos like Lester creamed their pants every time the band was mentioned. The only negative thing I remember reading was NME's review of 'Spooky' who said it was the first decent thing they'd done all year 'after a truckload of remixes, an anti-climactic LP and a duff spin-off (Other Two): The synths seem to swirl round forever and it's been a criminally long time since I wanted a NO record to go on for three minutes, let alone forever.' I could be wrong as it's been a long time and I was more interested in drinking and masturbating back then, but these're my memories...

Thank you. That's some interesting info.

Thank you LG! I always like reading your contributions. The reason I remember that period so well is that it was way before the media explosion and there was a certain pride in sauntering down to your local newsagent's every week and scouring the press for info then sharing it with all my friends, sorry friend. Sad innit!

Michael Monkhouse wrote: Thank you LG! I always like reading your contributions. The reason I remember that period so well is that it was way before the media explosion and there was a certain pride in sauntering down to your local newsagent's every week and scouring the press for info then sharing it with all my friends, sorry friend. Sad innit!

I'm a little too young to remember that, but I appreciate the different perspectives of different fans.

Peter going back in time you say!?!

UpDownTurnAround wrote: Peter going back in time you say!?!

My interesting correspondence with Leather Girl has got me trying to remember how MM and NME perceived NO back in my passionate period ('89 - '94). It's been bleedin' years and maybe it's down to Technique but I'm sure they were held in quite some regard. Memories: 1990 - NME gave Revenge a cover story, MM gave One True Passion a VERY RARE good review and NME called I'm Not your Slave (a shite mix of a shiter song, even superfan Claude Flowers disliked it) 'good and chart-bound, no messin'. Other publications' Revenge reviews could be lukewarm (Select '"A new lease of life"? Despite rumours of loud guitars and Hooky's reputation as a beery yob, no radial new direction is apparent') but were often savage (Q 'Hook, Line and Sinking... God this is bad. Really bad. Not even so bad it becomes interesting, just - urgh! Where do I begin?... 1 star and that's just for It's Quiet, which is too little too late')

• The Lec, whose output was a staggering one, 6-month old 45, did a coupla gigs SUPPORTING Depeche Mode with a HANDFUL OF UNFINISHED TRACKS... And look what happened http://www.feeleverybeat.co.uk/live/nme18august1990page1.jpg 1991 - Lec's album gets droolingly received as 'one of the greatest albums ever made' http://www.feeleverybeat.co.uk/albums/melodymaker25may1991.jpg The Other Two's Tasty Fish - to my mind, presisely the kind of synthpop the mags (and Tony Wilson himself) looked down on, got another front-page feature and masturbatory interview: 'the pop single of the year'. 1993 - 3 years on from a fucking footie record, in the midst of a shite (by their standards) album and a single UK mainland gig, and (we didn't know it but) before a wilderness period... NO are 'the most important group since the Beatles or the Rolling Stones' (NME), 'incapable of making an anything less than great record' (Republic, anyone?) and 'the inventors of 80's pop so GET DOWN ON YOUR KNEES AND START GROVELLING' (MM)... Sure, there were dissenting voices. I mentioned the Spooky review before and both mags gave World a bad review (NME: GO AWAY!, MM: bland, mercenary, perfunctory), but that's understandable with groups as gutsy as Nirvana and Suede going around. 94 - Fuck all for a year then a Christmas package. Were Simply Red to pull a stunt like that they'd be massacred. Not NO, in fact journos seemed happy to have something to say about them again. So there you go, booze and porn may have buggered my memories slightly. But this was the kind of thing we were reading back then.