New Order's Bernard Sumner: 'Peter Hook opened the gateways of hell'

http://www.nme.com/news/new-order/66742

New Order's Bernard Sumner has said that Peter Hook's decision to tour Joy Division's albums "opened the gateways of hell".

Hook's band The Light have recently been touring Joy Division's classic albums 'Unknown Pleasures' and 'Closer' in full and, in an interview with Billboard, Sumner said his old bandmate's shows had prompted him to work with New Order again.

When asked if he would have carried on with New Order if Hook hadn't played his 'Unknown Pleasures' tour, Sumner responded: Twenty million dollar question, that is. I don't know. But we did think, why should we hold back if he's doing that? He opened the gateways of hell. Sumner also gave his opinion on the bassist's recent announcement that he will tour the first two New Order albums with The Light in January next year, stating: "I think it sucks to be honest. We found out that he was touring 'Unknown Pleasures' through the press. He didn't tell us, which we thought was pretty low. It just seems like a real commercial thing to do.

"He seems to be doing it for the money," he added. "To me, Joy Division and New Order were never about that. I thought it was disrespectful to the rest of us. But I must admit that once he started doing it, we did think, 'What are we doing holding back with New Order?' So, in a way - if you'll excuse the pun - he showed us the light."

Speaking about his future plans with New Order, meanwhile, he said: "I'd just like to make another album. I'm getting a creative itch that I need to scratch. Playing live is great, but it's not a creative thing, really. It's a reproductive thing. I'd quite like to make an electronic record, because we've not made one for quite a while really."

Peter Hook revealed that The Light would tour New Order's first two albums last month. The newly announced performances, incorporating albums 'Movement' and 'Power, Corruption & Lies' plus classic singles dating from 1981 to 1983, will take place at London's Koko on January 17 and Manchester Cathedral the following day.

Hook recently published an autobiography, Unknown Pleasures – Inside Joy Division, in which he shares memories of his time in the band. Speaking to NME in the video which you can watch below, Hook revealed that he also plans to write a tell-all memoir of his time in New Order too, and promises plenty of "naughtiness" within.

Really looking forward to the new album!!

Been stating this from the beginning... that Barney reformed NO just to get back at Hooky.
I do find it interesting that Barney states they were "holding back" constantly. Holding back from what exactly? Not touring, not going overseas in tours often, not playing older music than what was on a common setlist?

I don't condone many of the words Hooky has used over the past few years, but it does go to show why they broke up...

This is why New Order upsets me

being sent to hell would be bad enough without paying for a meet and greet.

This is all now quite terribly sad now.

WE Knocked on the Doors of Hells startled chambers

I'd just like to make another album. I'm getting a creative itch that I need to scratch. Playing live is great, but it's not a creative thing, really. It's a reproductive thing. I'd quite like to make an electronic record, because we've not made one for quite a while really

This is good news anyway, I like the fact that when he talks about making new music his motivation is to get creative again, regardless of whether or not it is a commercially viable proposition in the age of illegal downloading..

Cranelane wrote:

I'd just like to make another album. I'm getting a creative itch that I need to scratch. Playing live is great, but it's not a creative thing, really. It's a reproductive thing. I'd quite like to make an electronic record, because we've not made one for quite a while really

This is good news anyway, I like the fact that when he talks about making new music his motivation is to get creative again, regardless of whether or not it is a commercially viable proposition in the age of illegal downloading..

Yes indeed.

Of course Bernard Sumner will try do something different to avoid comparisons with the "other" New Order. And a more based on electronics album is the right way to do that indeed.

68Pontiac wrote: Been stating this from the beginning... that Barney reformed NO just to get back at Hooky.
I do find it interesting that Barney states they were "holding back" constantly. Holding back from what exactly? Not touring, not going overseas in tours often, not playing older music than what was on a common setlist?

I don't condone many of the words Hooky has used over the past few years, but it does go to show why they broke up...

Yes, you have held that line - and it's still not right. Read the original interview - Barney did not reform the band. Hooky left, and Barney lays this our pretty clearly (and it's getting tiresome to keep pointing this out). When Barney is asked point blank if The Light's Unknown Pleasures tour prompted him to start touring with NO again (which is not the same thing as reforming the band, you can't reform if there was no split), he says "I don't know" initially. It's a very selective interpretation of this meaning "Barney reformed NO just to get back at Hooky". As for the holding back comments, my take is that he means he acknowledges it is different without Hooky being there, but if Hooky feel entitled to perform JD as the only member of the the original band, surely the remaining 4 members of New Order have an even greater entitlement to tour if they want?

Notice the difference - that's my interpretation of Barney's quote - I'm not stating it as a fact...

Let us not forget that he also stated that Stephen Morris needed a break, which considering Gillian's health at the time, is understandable.

CTB wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Been stating this from the beginning... that Barney reformed NO just to get back at Hooky.
I do find it interesting that Barney states they were "holding back" constantly. Holding back from what exactly? Not touring, not going overseas in tours often, not playing older music than what was on a common setlist?

I don't condone many of the words Hooky has used over the past few years, but it does go to show why they broke up...

Yes, you have held that line - and it's still not right. Read the original interview - Barney did not reform the band. Hooky left, and Barney lays this our pretty clearly (and it's getting tiresome to keep pointing this out). When Barney is asked point blank if The Light's Unknown Pleasures tour prompted him to start touring with NO again (which is not the same thing as reforming the band, you can't reform if there was no split), he says "I don't know" initially. It's a very selective interpretation of this meaning "Barney reformed NO just to get back at Hooky". As for the holding back comments, my take is that he means he acknowledges it is different without Hooky being there, but if Hooky feel entitled to perform JD as the only member of the the original band, surely the remaining 4 members of New Order have an even greater entitlement to tour if they want?

Notice the difference - that's my interpretation of Barney's quote - I'm not stating it as a fact...

Not sure why so many automatically run to Barney's defense. Now maybe my words "reform" weren't the best... but the band had F'ed off like they did in the past after WFTSC... so it wasn't "reformed" like in a long split, but rather after putting the band on ice that I was referring to.

Why not discuss the blaring contradiction with Barney's statement. How were the other band members "holding back" when the band was on ice and they weren't touring that much for WFTSC (at least to Hooky's standards)?

Hooky could not replace Tom ! let him carry on his tribute band I say !

"Holding Back"? Well, if one member of the band who isn't even in the band anymore wants to tour all the JD songs, why can't the remaining four members play the material they wrote and performed together? If The Light had gone off and done their own stuff, it is possible BL would still be a going concern. Though I understand taking back the JD/NO legacy and working with it instead of letting it go into the hands of Hooky.

markreed wrote: "Holding Back"? Well, if one member of the band who isn't even in the band anymore wants to tour all the JD songs, why can't the remaining four members play the material they wrote and performed together? If The Light had gone off and done their own stuff, it is possible BL would still be a going concern. Though I understand taking back the JD/NO legacy and working with it instead of letting it go into the hands of Hooky.

But you aren't answering the question... all you are mentioning is some anger you have at Hooky for leaving NO because th rest of NO didn't want to tour and when they did a limited tour, play the same songs (most sequenced and not "rocking out") and not revisit most of the back catalog...

WHAT was Barney holding back on? If anything, they were doing the exact opposite of holding back... it seems to me that Hooky was doing far more holding back and he got tired of doing it.... thus his reason for leaving and touring with the Light.

So again, what was Barney & Co. "holding back" on?

Holding Back? Well, I presume the easy option would've been to just plough on with New Order regardless once Hooky went, and carry on anyway. Maybe Barney was 'holding back' because it was just him & Phil, as Stephen and Gillian had a health issue. Stephen came back first and played drums in BL and then with GG given the all clear....?

Isn't it obvious what he means?

He declared right from the start that New Order weren't 'split up' (as Hooky was telling the world). However, they didn't actually do anything with New Order since that point, until eventually they did. In other words, they stopped holding back.

Johnny James wrote: Isn't it obvious what he means?

He declared right from the start that New Order weren't 'split up' (as Hooky was telling the world). However, they didn't actually do anything with New Order since that point, until eventually they did. In other words, they stopped holding back.

Agreed.

Johnny James wrote: Isn't it obvious what he means?

He declared right from the start that New Order weren't 'split up' (as Hooky was telling the world). However, they didn't actually do anything with New Order since that point, until eventually they did. In other words, they stopped holding back.

Yes, spot on. Not sure how this could be interpreted any other way.

*/rant on

The thing that pisses me off most is this..... This band is NOT NEW ORDER, their name should be "The rest of New Order featuring so and so...." when a member leaves for what ever reason, those remaining persons should not be called "that Bands original name"

Sumner even stated in 2009 that he no longer wished to make music as New Order.

*/rant off

I am going to see New Order for the first time on October 23rd in Toronto, I am pissed that Peter Hook is not part of the band!(I missed my chance to see Hooky a few years ago with his band "The Light") Why can't these two or three, or whatever grow up for the Fans, stop hiding behind lawyers, and get over it!!!

68Pontiac wrote:

Johnny James wrote: Isn't it obvious what he means?

He declared right from the start that New Order weren't 'split up' (as Hooky was telling the world). However, they didn't actually do anything with New Order since that point, until eventually they did. In other words, they stopped holding back.

But that doesn't put in context Barney's full quote:

"He seems to be doing it for the money. To me, Joy Division and New Order were never about that. I thought it was disrespectful to the rest of us. But I must admit that once he started doing it, we did think, 'What are we doing holding back with New Order?' So, in a way - if you'll excuse the pun - he showed us the light."

In his quote really seems to be discussing one of two things: 1- doing it "for the money." Hooky was doing it, so why can't they. As that is the direct context of the quote mentioned. 2 - They were holding back because they didn't want to do anything with the band, but once Hooky was "doing it for the money" they weren't going to hold back and allow him to do it without pissing in his Cheerios. Trying to show how the Light was not NO.

Either way, its not at all what many on this board see Barney... as if he's a victim in this mess.
Hooky left, there were reasons for it. He didn't discuss it with the band, there were reasons for it. Barney & Co started up NO because of Hooky leaving, there are reasons for it. Trying to paint one with a black hat and another with a white hat is silly... they both have a hand in this.

JHC

Don't you remember Hooky's phrases on his boxes during the South America Tour in 2006, finishing with "The End"???

This story just began after Waiting for the Sirens Call was released!

Rogue Warrior wrote: */rant on

The thing that pisses me off most is this..... This band is NOT NEW ORDER, their name should be "The rest of New Order featuring so and so...." when a member leaves for what ever reason, those remaining persons should not be called "that Bands original name"

Sumner even stated in 2009 that he no longer wished to make music as New Order.

*/rant off

I am going to see New Order for the first time on October 23rd in Toronto, I am pissed that Peter Hook is not part of the band!(I missed my chance to see Hooky a few years ago with his band "The Light") Why can't these two or three, or whatever grow up for the Fans, stop hiding behind lawyers, and get over it!!!

If you want to believe that they aren't New Order, OK. I don't care. But many fans are willing to accept this lineup as another version of New Order. And don't you know that people change their minds? Just because Bernard said in an interview a few years ago, that he didn't want to make music as New Order any more, doesn't mean his feelings would stay the same forever.

By your logic, I suppose the lineup without Gillian in the early 2000s wasn't New Order as well? That's rubbish! I disagree with your simple-minded attitude that bands should change their name once a member leaves for whatever reason. Lots of bands continue (whether we like it or not) under the same name, even if one member leaves. Friendships and personal relationships are complicated and we would never know what the issues are. I don't think it's as simple as 'grow up'...you sound more immature and childish than the quotes I've read from Bernard and Hooky in lots of interviews in the recent years. I may be a young person, but I'm not naive to think that they are hiding behind lawyers, or that they need to 'get over it'. If you have such a problem with the current New Order, why the hell are you even going to see them in the first place?

Rogue Warrior wrote: */rant on

The thing that pisses me off most is this..... This band is NOT NEW ORDER, their name should be "The rest of New Order featuring so and so...." when a member leaves for what ever reason, those remaining persons should not be called "that Bands original name"

Hm let's see...

Barney's distinctive unsure and still-boyish sounding vocals still there? Check. All of the synths and beats I love about the band still there? Check. Stephen's incredible drumming still there? Check. The unique, distinctive bass sound still there? Check.

I'm sorry but this band is still New Order to me. No name change needed. I went to their concert in Sept and it's clear that the very things that make me like the band so much are still present. Hooky's bass lines can be replicated. The sound can be replicated. Tom has proven it. It may not be a 100% true replication, but it's damn near it.

BizarreBlueMonday wrote: Barney's distinctive unsure and still-boyish sounding vocals still there? Check. All of the synths and beats I love about the band still there? Check. Stephen's incredible drumming still there? Check. The unique, distinctive bass sound still there? Check.

You've just described Re-Order to a tee. 👍

Cranelane wrote:

I'd just like to make another album. I'm getting a creative itch that I need to scratch. Playing live is great, but it's not a creative thing, really. It's a reproductive thing. I'd quite like to make an electronic record, because we've not made one for quite a while really

This is good news anyway, I like the fact that when he talks about making new music his motivation is to get creative again, regardless of whether or not it is a commercially viable proposition in the age of illegal downloading..

This assessment is spot on.

The Barney/Hooky debate rages on and on...

I don't know what really went on and at this point I don't care all that much. I love New Order, and I do hope that they make up at some point ( the stars and planets would line up, world peace would be declared, etc)...I doubt it will happen but I do have hopes. It's happened in the past right? I don't know who did what, although from what I have read I do lean to Barneys side in this. I'm happy he wants to create new music as New Order.I will buy it when it comes out. Peter Hook can do his thing and when he puts out another album of new material I'll give it a shot.

Rogue Warrior wrote: */rant on

The thing that pisses me off most is this..... This band is NOT NEW ORDER, their name should be "The rest of New Order featuring so and so...." when a member leaves for what ever reason, those remaining persons should not be called "that Bands original name"

Sumner even stated in 2009 that he no longer wished to make music as New Order.

*/rant off

This line of thinking makes me wonder what other bands the person who said this likes. For example, The Beatles would have not ever existed as The Beatles during the years they actually had a record contract.

AC/DC...Forget getting to Back in Black...they had another lead singer, even before Bon Scott...

Depeche Mode, The Cure and Oasis would have had to have called it a day after the first albums from each band.

There's tons more....

Anyone seen Hooky's latest tweet?

😄

And, even better, Wolfram's response!

😄 😄

El Jarvo wrote: Anyone seen Hooky's latest tweet?

😄

And, even better, Wolfram's response!

😄 😄

I don't tweet , what is it Al ?