38 replies · 39,811 views
Very interesting interview, with very interesting parts:
He also says this about NO now: "It never was like that for 30 years! And I begged them to work like that, so it must have been me who was the problem."
Hooky and Barney must have had their problems but they both seem genuinely nice guys. They should really sit down, shout at each other if need, and get on with it already.
If he wants to reconcile then maybe he should cancel the terrible idea of a Movement PCL tour.
Why kill your group then start touring it's classics?
Smells like a "movement" to me... but if he can reconcile with Barney it would be nice, although taking someone to court sure kicks the guts out of a relationship???
All hooky has to do is take back all the personal digs he made at gillian in particular and the rest of the band and things would move swiftly. if he had any grievances then im sure they could be sorted out with a bit of mutual respect. New Order doesnt need hooky though to be honest and thats something i thought id never say.
effect returned wrote: All Hooky has to do is take back all the personal digs he made at Gillian in particular and the rest of the band and things would move swiftly. if he had any grievances then I'm sure they could be sorted out with a bit of mutual respect. New Order doesn't need Hooky though to be honest and that's something i thought id never say.
Maybe the fact that grievances weren't being addressed was why he left in the first place?
As for his digs at his former band mates, well, that was a mistake to be sure as he alienated so many fans as we can see here from the general lack of support for his point of view but anyone who listens to any of New Order's great songs can hear just how much he contributed to the band so they obviously needed him when it mattered.. i.e. - when they were a creative force.
As for New Order not needing Hooky now, well lets wait til we hear their new album before passing judgement on that...
That is not to deny by the way that if Hooky hadn't met up with Curtis, Morris and Sumner in the first place we would never have heard of him as I am sure he himself would admit...
I was about to say, he had that t-shirt on in London earlier in the week ... er, and then spotted the Foyles sign on the wall behind him!
Least he hasn't got his sunglasses on his head. It's October, Hooky, and it was pissing down when you were at Foyle's! Poseur! 😄
Don't think I can bring myself to watch this. Felt quite melancholy watching him in town this week, don't need a repeat of that. Certainly my favourite member of New Order, had forgotten how much I genuinely liked the bloke. Shame it's all come to this.
Hooky was always my favourite member of Neworder.
But today I picked up his new book in HMV and just shook my head and put it back on the shelf.
I haven't even clicked on this vid, as I just don't care what he has to say anymore.
Very sad but there you go.
El Jarvo wrote: I was about to say, he had that t-shirt on in London earlier in the week ... er, and then spotted the Foyles sign on the wall behind him!
Least he hasn't got his sunglasses on his head. It's October, Hooky, and it was pissing down when you were at Foyle's! Poseur! 😄
Don't think I can bring myself to watch this. Felt quite melancholy watching him in town this week, don't need a repeat of that. Certainly my favourite member of New Order, had forgotten how much I genuinely liked the bloke. Shame it's all come to this.
Having started reading his book this morning, I know what you mean - it was much easier disliking the cartoon villain he has become over recent years, but when someone (whether it's Hooky himself or someone else) moderates what he says, it's hard not to see him as fundamentally sound bloke... To be honest, after the Hyde Park debacle, I'd kind of forgotten about them - it was only seeing Hooky's booky-wooky in Fopp this morning that got me back on here... And Close Range... Seriously? 
Snorri xxx
El Jarvo wrote: Certainly my favourite member of New Order, had forgotten how much I genuinely liked the bloke. Shame it's all come to this.
Precisely. It's funny, back in the 80s I didn't like him all that much, didn't much like the onstage persona and he often came across as a dick in interviews. Got to say though, that opinion changed in the 90s and he went above and beyond with the interviews he gave me for this site in 2005/6, plus giving his services free for NOOL Day in 2006. We also had lots of correspondence about a range of things from JD history snippets to up and coming local bands, and he seemed genuinely pleased to see me on the nostalgia talk tour pre-Light.
However, some of the stuff he's come out with post-schism has been difficult to reconcile, and he hasn't spoken to me since I suggested he could have found a better way of resolving the differences than fuelling Bernard's self-righteous indignation with rent-a-quote dissing. A shame.
That said, the new book is a great read, even if it does suffer from a lack of historical accuracy in various places (we have enough recordings proving they did play Closer songs live, we have the setlist that shows they didn't open with Exercise One at the first JD gig, we know that Bournemouth 79 was a full show that Ian sang all of before his fit etc etc). He's also effusive in his praise of Bernard as a musician, which is a major positive. I will look forward to seeing the Light in a few weeks again, and can't wait for the Movement/PCL gigs, even if it will be as much for the settings and company as the performers. What's more, I really hope he writes the New Order book next!
Is there any way back? You can never say never, though there needs to be quite a few apologies.
Tim wrote:
El Jarvo wrote: Certainly my favourite member of New Order, had forgotten how much I genuinely liked the bloke. Shame it's all come to this.
Precisely. It's funny, back in the 80s I didn't like him all that much, didn't much like the onstage persona and he often came across as a dick in interviews. Got to say though, that opinion changed in the 90s and he went above and beyond with the interviews he gave me for this site in 2005/6, plus giving his services free for NOOL Day in 2006. We also had lots of correspondence about a range of things from JD history snippets to up and coming local bands, and he seemed genuinely pleased to see me on the nostalgia talk tour pre-Light.
However, some of the stuff he's come out with post-schism has been difficult to reconcile, and he hasn't spoken to me since I suggested he could have found a better way of resolving the differences than fuelling Bernard's self-righteous indignation with rent-a-quote dissing. A shame.
That said, the new book is a great read, even if it does suffer from a lack of historical accuracy in various places (we have enough recordings proving they did play Closer songs live, we have the setlist that shows they didn't open with Exercise One at the first JD gig, we know that Bournemouth 79 was a full show that Ian sang all of before his fit etc etc). He's also effusive in his praise of Bernard as a musician, which is a major positive. I will look forward to seeing the Light in a few weeks again, and can't wait for the Movement/PCL gigs, even if it will be as much for the settings and company as the performers. What's more, I really hope he writes the New Order book next!
Is there any way back? You can never say never, though there needs to be quite a few apologies.
Thanks - that is a good way of summarizing the entire thing. Still don't think I'm going to buy and read this book, but it's good to have the perspective you have.
The other phrase that strikes me as perfect is "cartoon villain". It's just so maniacal and laughable at the same time, and is perfect because it obviously means there's still a lot of growing up to do.
My own take, albeit a total guess, on this is that like any bad divorce, it's now all lawyer-lead. While there may be a few long faces at he start, there is general will to mediate and agree. Then the lawyers will put their arms around you and promise to sort everything out in your favour. They say things like "don't let their kids laugh at your kids" and "don't let him say that about you" and all of your mates agree with them. A few dozen grand later and you're in so deep that the only option is to press on and hope you can at least recover your outlay to date. In the mean time, it's hard to express the hurt and irrevocable loss of trust that goes on. The effect of the stress on those involved may never be understood. Again, a total guess but I reckon the mud that's being slung on legal papers would make the stuff appearing in the books and press look like Christmas cards.
I've been involved in the sort of thing a couple of times and it is breathtaking to see how much money the lawyers end up with, as a percentage of what's being torn apart. It's also bewildering how little compassion the lawyers show for the real people involved. They'll generate conflict and continue to fight until there is nothing left for anyone but themselves.
Artists and musicians are perceived as the anti-lawyers; the ones we turn to for the human side; to show us how to express love, pain, fear and joy; the ones to help us forget the nastiness in the world and to ridicule the stuffed suits and bastards. To see the artists who have fulfilled that role more than any other enter this silly game makes me feel quite sad.
Biginoil wrote: I am not a massive fan of lawyers, in case anyone was wondering.
Totally agree. It's not called the Adversarial System for nowt.
💀
The brass balls of this.
"The way New Order reformed without me was cowardly and terrible."
Hook left. LEFT. Was not fired. Unless he has been lying to us for five years. He did not want to participate in future New Order activity. Whatever the reasons behind those decisions are entirely between them.
Hook decided the band had split, without the consent of the rest of the band. It was not that they reformed without him. New Order did not have a bass player from mid 2007 onwards. They did not reform "without him" : he chose not to be present. To say that New Order don't exist anymore because Hook is not there is arrogant. Still, Hook's always had a full opinion of himself since around birth (probably).
And as for their reinvigoration being cowardly and terrible? Hook hides behind the glories of 33 years ago and he's now performing/singing the 1981-1983 New Order catalogue where he did not sing on 95% of the material and whilst New Order themselves are an actual ongoing entity. Who is cowardly and terrible? He's a museum piece, grinding out the same old stuff endlessly.
He's clearly angry that New Order dare to carry on after he chose to commit the "do or die" move, thinking they wouldn't carry on without him, and being wrong.
Someone really needs to advise him to say less in interviews. These are predictable and unhelpful. And no, not every Joy Division song was good. "Autosuggestion"? Nein danke.
Well as a New Order fan since 1981 I think this incarnation of the band is great, Tom is such a great bass player and Hooky could'nt replace him. I don't wanna see him back in the band. Anyway he's happy with his interviews, book writing and tribute band, doubt he could find the time !
Cranelane wrote:
effect returned wrote: All Hooky has to do is take back all the personal digs he made at Gillian in particular and the rest of the band and things would move swiftly. if he had any grievances then I'm sure they could be sorted out with a bit of mutual respect. New Order doesn't need Hooky though to be honest and that's something i thought id never say.
Maybe the fact that grievances weren't being addressed was why he left in the first place?
As for his digs at his former band mates, well, that was a mistake to be sure as he alienated so many fans as we can see here from the general lack of support for his point of view but anyone who listens to any of New Order's great songs can hear just how much he contributed to the band so they obviously needed him when it mattered.. i.e. - when they were a creative force.
As for New Order not needing Hooky now, well lets wait til we hear their new album before passing judgement on that...
That is not to deny by the way that if Hooky hadn't met up with Curtis, Morris and Sumner in the first place we would never have heard of him as I am sure he himself would admit...
Its possible but at the risk of being pedantic he claimed unilaterally that the band split up and if i were in his position id have said "my legitimate concerns werent being addressed so im going off to do my own thing until its sorted out" and put the onus on new order to sort something out if there was anything to sort out.
I agreed with hookys criticisms of the way wftsc was handled ,time and money wise, but apart from that he tried to get his own way regardless of the groups democracy and resorts now to nostalgia tours.
I wouldnt take away from anything musically hooky did pre his departure but im more of a "today and now" type person so my view is yeah new order created great songs but whens the next one coming?
Hooky has an irritating habit nowadays of denouncing stuff that isnt publicly as well received like "republic" as mainly bernard's and the other two's music while highlighting his role in stuff that is better received.
As a musician i find that disgusting because in a group you have to stand by your own material because as a group your collectively responsible for the work being done with all the praise or criticism that comes with it, i doubt hooky will hand back royalties or profit from sales from republic in the near future.
i dont think a new order album needs hookys bass to be honest because it got to the stage where it was obligatory on everything they put out before he left but your right its probably better to wait until we've heard the album.
Nail almost hit squarely. It's all about royalties, and a feud that has been going on since the demise of Factory. Ever wondered why only Bernard-written songs get played at gigs? Let's just say that someone who shall remain nameless but not beardless didn't get the same royalty split after the demise of Factory that he did before, and it has rankled somewhat ever since.
Tim wrote: Nail almost hit squarely. It's all about royalties, and a feud that has been going on since the demise of Factory. Ever wondered why only Bernard-written songs get played at gigs? Let's just say that someone who shall remain nameless but not beardless didn't get the same royalty split after the demise of Factory that he did before, and it has rankled somewhat ever since.
Bernard written songs?
Tim wrote: Nail almost hit squarely. It's all about royalties, and a feud that has been going on since the demise of Factory. Ever wondered why only Bernard-written songs get played at gigs? Let's just say that someone who shall remain nameless but not beardless didn't get the same royalty split after the demise of Factory that he did before, and it has rankled somewhat ever since.
Good point, on Factory I seem to recall it was an equal split between the 4 of them.
effect returned wrote: i dont think a new order album needs hookys bass to be honest because it got to the stage where it was obligatory on everything they put out before he left but your right its probably better to wait until we've heard the album.
Won't Lost Sirens have Hooky's bass on it, or do you think they've totally mixed him out? ![[ohwell]](/emoticons/ohwell.gif){kind=small}
El Jarvo wrote: Won't Lost Sirens have Hooky's bass on it, or do you think they've totally mixed him out?
Even though I quite like Hellbent it's obvious that the bass on it is a bit "phoned in"; it's not even there for the first couple of minutes of the song and then suddenly appears, noodles up the scale a bit, noodles down before fading. Not one of his more memorable riffs. That may not be Hooky's fault though, he might have wanted more of himself on there and/or the track mixed differently but was overruled. Who knows.
Despite everything I do hope there is Hooky bass on Lost Sirens, it is meant to be the "final" Hook/Morris/Sumner co-write after all.
Tim wrote: Nail almost hit squarely. It's all about royalties, and a feud that has been going on since the demise of Factory. Ever wondered why only Bernard-written songs get played at gigs? Let's just say that someone who shall remain nameless but not beardless didn't get the same royalty split after the demise of Factory that he did before, and it has rankled somewhat ever since.
I wonder was the split unfavourable just to Hooky or did this also apply to The Other Two, with Bernard getting the biggest slice and the other 3 getting equal amounts...
Cranelane wrote:
Tim wrote: Nail almost hit squarely. It's all about royalties, and a feud that has been going on since the demise of Factory. Ever wondered why only Bernard-written songs get played at gigs? Let's just say that someone who shall remain nameless but not beardless didn't get the same royalty split after the demise of Factory that he did before, and it has rankled somewhat ever since.
I wonder was the split unfavourable just to Hooky or did this also apply to The Other Two, with Bernard getting the biggest slice and the other 3 getting equal amounts...
Generally performance royalties are split equally within the band with backing singers etc getting a wage, thats what usually happens.
Id be surprised if there was any different with new order but i dont know for sure.
The way it works normally is, bands are paid a fee or a percentage of the gate,then they receive performance royalties for gigs that appear on tv,radio etc.
Songwriting royalties are different, it could well be if bernard wrote most of the songs in the factory time he would be probably have got a more favourable deal with songwriting royalties from republic onwards and possibly a better share of the back catalogue royalties as a result of being so punk or generous during the factory time.
If tim is right and only bernard written songs are being played which are essentially the hits then you would have to say that bernard isnt being unreasonable claiming what he is entitled to and a bit extra.
Along with electronic money that was lost on factory for making hookys revenge album.
It could well be that bernard is earning more from the songs because he is getting paid for the band doing a cover of his work but its all guesswork on my part.
I know from experience its better that everyone gets what they are in entitled to in a band when it comes to credit or money because resentment builds up.
El Jarvo wrote:
effect returned wrote: i dont think a new order album needs hookys bass to be honest because it got to the stage where it was obligatory on everything they put out before he left but your right its probably better to wait until we've heard the album.
Won't Lost Sirens have Hooky's bass on it, or do you think they've totally mixed him out?
ill judge the songs first.
