Hooky Speaks! No, seriously, he does!

New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

I saw them in NYC in October and while I would have loved that Hooky was with them, they were still rocking - not a tribute band at all (and I have seen plenty of tired alternative acts clearly doing it for the money in recent years)

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

One has to be irrationally anti-Hooky to say so. Even Barney knows they can't be New Order, they can't write music with the same quality without Hooky.

Barney, Steve and co. are cashing out to retire and never think about playing live ever again. Not that they're wrong, though, they're all nearing their 60s. Hooky is trying to do the same thing, but he seems to have managed his money way worse than Barney has, judging by the latter's yacht and SLK. Hence Hooky working his ass off, which is something I'll always admire in a person. Hooky, legally an ex-member of New Order, has a smaller cut than the rest in NewOrderNow, which is what he's fighting in court for. I don't see him winning anytime soon, and I bet that will drain most of the money he's making right now. They will all remain bitter enemies until they're older, the new record is out and the court fight has been resolved. Then, Barney (and maybe Steve too) will write his own memories of both JD and NO in addition to Hooky's, and that's the only thing I can look forward to.

All I was trying to say is that the current New Order are New Order, even if they have 3/4ths of the original or 'classic' lineup. I don't think they are merely a tribute band, and I'm sure I'm not the only fan in the world who thinks this.

Volturno wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

One has to be irrationally anti-Hooky to say so. Even Barney knows they can't be New Order, they can't write music with the same quality without Hooky.

Barney, Steve and co. are cashing out to retire and never think about playing live ever again. Not that they're wrong, though, they're all nearing their 60s. Hooky is trying to do the same thing, but he seems to have managed his money way worse than Barney has, judging by the latter's yacht and SLK. Hence Hooky working his ass off, which is something I'll always admire in a person. Hooky, legally an ex-member of New Order, has a smaller cut than the rest in NewOrderNow, which is what he's fighting in court for. I don't see him winning anytime soon, and I bet that will drain most of the money he's making right now. They will all remain bitter enemies until they're older, the new record is out and the court fight has been resolved. Then, Barney (and maybe Steve too) will write his own memories of both JD and NO in addition to Hooky's, and that's the only thing I can look forward to.

Why are you so sure about that? Hooky left- the others didn't fire him. Everybody in music 'works' their 'ass' off, whether they are New Order, or Hooky doing whatever he does. I highly doubt Hooky will be poor because of the current New Order. If there are past royalties issues, then have them solve that in private. I'm not saying Bernard's perfect, but these interviews are not really helping him. You must know Bernard well if you can assume even Bernard 'knows' they can't be New Order (sarcastic).

How many times does he have to say stuff like this?

The bass player left the band and they suddenly become a tribute band without him? The man's arrogance know's no boundaries. They didn’t reform behind his back and they never broke up anyway. Hooky left so surely they can do what they damn well want.

Having seen them live over the past year I can safely say they manage perfectly fine without him. I'm getting increasingly bored of his gobbing off to any paper or blog that will give him the time of day. I wish he would get over it and just move on.

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

They're not though, are they?

They might still be a New Order but they're definitely not 'the' New Order.

El Jarvo wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

They're not though, are they?

They might still be a New Order but they're definitely not 'the' New Order.

But they're clearly not a tribute band, though. Funny that I've never heard him in interviews claiming that New Order without Gillian were a tribute band even though the lineup was slightly different then.

Some groups change their lineups, it's simple and quite common. And that doesn't make them tribute bands. Hooky continues his bizarre comparisons...

I really think Tom Chapman's doing a good job in New Order, but it's obvious it would be much better if Hooky's still was with them. Now New Order has a new line up and that is it.

Volturno wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

One has to be irrationally anti-Hooky to say so. Even Barney knows they can't be New Order, they can't write music with the same quality without Hooky.

Barney, Steve and co. are cashing out to retire and never think about playing live ever again. Not that they're wrong, though, they're all nearing their 60s. Hooky is trying to do the same thing, but he seems to have managed his money way worse than Barney has, judging by the latter's yacht and SLK. Hence Hooky working his ass off, which is something I'll always admire in a person. Hooky, legally an ex-member of New Order, has a smaller cut than the rest in NewOrderNow, which is what he's fighting in court for. I don't see him winning anytime soon, and I bet that will drain most of the money he's making right now. They will all remain bitter enemies until they're older, the new record is out and the court fight has been resolved. Then, Barney (and maybe Steve too) will write his own memories of both JD and NO in addition to Hooky's, and that's the only thing I can look forward to.

What a ridiculously sycophantic perspective - amongst a whole lot of unsubstantiated hearsay, you allege New Order of cashing in by touring, and then commend and admire Hooky for doing the same thing?

Is it really 'irrationally anti-Hooky' to point out that the band he left are, in fact, still going? Looks like the irrationality is on your side of things....

Don't forget...

CTB wrote:

HAH! That is really all that needs to be said. PERFECT.

It is indeed a rare thing to see Hooky speak with such passion! The mystery unravels!

Volturno wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

One has to be irrationally anti-Hooky to say so. Hooky, legally an ex-member of New Order, has a smaller cut than the rest in NewOrderNow, which is what he's fighting in court for. I don't see him winning anytime soon, and I bet that will drain most of the money he's making right now. They will all remain bitter enemies until they're older, the new record is out and the court fight has been resolved.

Always wondered why people find they feel it neccessary to comment on something they havent got a f**king clue about.

🙄

tarbox23 wrote:

CTB wrote:

😂

leather-girl wrote:

Volturno wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

One has to be irrationally anti-Hooky to say so. Even Barney knows they can't be New Order, they can't write music with the same quality without Hooky.

Barney, Steve and co. are cashing out to retire and never think about playing live ever again. Not that they're wrong, though, they're all nearing their 60s. Hooky is trying to do the same thing, but he seems to have managed his money way worse than Barney has, judging by the latter's yacht and SLK. Hence Hooky working his ass off, which is something I'll always admire in a person. Hooky, legally an ex-member of New Order, has a smaller cut than the rest in NewOrderNow, which is what he's fighting in court for. I don't see him winning anytime soon, and I bet that will drain most of the money he's making right now. They will all remain bitter enemies until they're older, the new record is out and the court fight has been resolved. Then, Barney (and maybe Steve too) will write his own memories of both JD and NO in addition to Hooky's, and that's the only thing I can look forward to.

Why are you so sure about that? Hooky left- the others didn't fire him. Everybody in music 'works' their 'ass' off, whether they are New Order, or Hooky doing whatever he does. I highly doubt Hooky will be poor because of the current New Order. If there are past royalties issues, then have them solve that in private. I'm not saying Bernard's perfect, but these interviews are not really helping him. You must know Bernard well if you can assume even Bernard 'knows' they can't be New Order (sarcastic).

It's clear he left, I don't disagree. I never said NewOrder aren't working their ass off, they surely are, it's just that Hooky is bashed for doing so, and I think that's unfair. At least he's doing something that hasn't been done before with JD/NO records. Barney and co. are basically playing "Singles" live, which I'm a bit tired of, but they're doing what they think is right, and I admire them just as well. Also, I don't have to know Bernard, it's common sense. Whether Hooky is arrogant or not that's another matter, but it's obvious that he was a vital part of New Order's sound. They can't (and won't try to) imitate it.

CTB wrote:

What a ridiculously sycophantic perspective - amongst a whole lot of unsubstantiated hearsay, you allege New Order of cashing in by touring, and then commend and admire Hooky for doing the same thing?

Is it really 'irrationally anti-Hooky' to point out that the band he left are, in fact, still going? Looks like the irrationality is on your side of things....

Don't forget...

I was not criticizing New Order for making money with their own work, perhaps "cashing out" was a poor choice of words. I just meant that they're getting old and they're cashing out (like in a casino) while they still can.

Volturno says "Barney and co. are basically playing "Singles" live".

While the majority of concert-goers (not the discerning fans that populate this board) would probably be satisfied with that, it's not strictly true. Shadowplay, Isolation, Age of Consent, 586, Your Silent Face, Love Vigilantes, Elegia and Close Range don't fit that bill. A few of the singles they played (Thieves Like Us, Round & Round & 1963) hadn't been performed in decades. Additionally, Here to Stay had never been performed live.

The Light have certainly been working hard, but to suggest that New Order are just phoning it in is inaccurate.

Andy wrote: Volturno says "Barney and co. are basically playing "Singles" live".

While the majority of concert-goers (not the discerning fans that populate this board) would probably be satisfied with that, it's not strictly true. Shadowplay, Isolation, Age of Consent, 586, Your Silent Face, Love Vigilantes, Elegia and Close Range don't fit that bill. A few of the singles they played (Thieves Like Us, Round & Round & 1963) hadn't been performed in decades. Additionally, Here to Stay had never been performed live.

The Light have certainly been working hard, but to suggest that New Order are just phoning it in is inaccurate.

Shadowplay and Isolation are big JD songs; Age of Consent is even more popular; 586 and Your Silent Face are welcome additions, I really like NewOrderNow playing them; Elegia is nice, but I don't like it being played in festivals and such; Close Range sounds terrible judging by the videos, Tom Chapman couldn't even play the proper lines. Here To Stay was a big surprise, very good.

You're right, though, they are trying, maybe it's the bad taste that the São Paulo gig left in my mouth. Still, I'd pay just to see them not play BLT and Blue Monday.

Without doubt, Hooky's is basically a JD tribute band, pretty absurd to suggest otherwise. Didn't he even call it a celebration of Joy Division? And of course making money is a big part of it, thou I'm sure he has had some fun and likes the attention.

New Order currently... well, it's not the same, they are different and older. Saying they are a tribute band is rather harsh, Hooky is bitter obviously. Of course money is a big part also whatever they might say, and the attention of bigger crowds than Bad Loo. Currently, "new" New Order plays old songs for a crowd that expects to hear old songs. Competently, but rather blandly, with little to challenge the audience. More like a traditional big label rock band, not much spontaneity. I don't think that is Bernard's strength, being the cliched traditional front man, especially at this stage of his career. On the plus side, at least they have offered a little variety in the playlist, showing some respect for their back catalogue, and did revamp 586 nicely. I assume some of this is from advice from outside the band. They have not even bothered to learn any Lost Sirens songs. If "new" New Order is plugged in creatively for real, they should show it soon... they have been doing the reunion tour with "pleasing the crowd with oldies show" for over a year, and will continue that with the upcoming festivals this summer. Sorry, but they are mostly a "dinosaur" group at this point, playing oldies, taking the path of least resistance. Enjoy the shows and have a good time, but it is what it is.

Now if you look back to 2005-6 when Hooky was still in the band, they were awfully boring in my opinion, playing the same songs in standard fashion with much of the show using obviously prepared backing tapes (quite lame). Much of a tribute dinosaur band at that point anyway, not like there has been a big dropoff in quality. Of course, there is no Hooky to share the spotlight now or offer an opinion... Bernard is obviously very happy about that.

If you like, have fun at the shows, nothing wrong with that, do it while you are able. This is the end stage of their careers. If Bernard, Steve, Gillian create anything new that is good, it's a bonus. Probably won't be essential but maybe they have a few surprises left, who knows. I doubt Hooky will try anything new after the debacle of Freebass.

It's just another day, In a life, Of a superstar........

Stoo wrote: It's just another day, In a life, Of a superstar........

No matter who you are.

Volturno wrote: Still, I'd pay just to see them not play BLT and Blue Monday.

They didn't play Blue Monday in 2001 (Glasgow), although I wasn't there. Apparently, the crowd were a bit miffed that they didn't on that occasion!

😎

NotAMod wrote:

Volturno wrote: Close Range sounds terrible judging by the videos, Tom Chapman couldn't even play the proper lines.

Er how often did they actually play Close Range last year? The way you go on about it it's like Chapman was murdering it on a regular basis so he's a crap bassist but as far as I know they played twice in grand total. More fool them for trying to add an old album track back into the set I guess, the main thing they get criticised for not doing on here. Obviously it was a bit under rehearsed but it's hardly an accurate barometer of how good Chapman is at replicating the bass lines. There is a bit of a broad consensus (not bias) that he's doing them justice.

It's the same as The Light having received plaudits for replicating the Joy Division/early New Order sound well, which they do.

Bias cuts both ways really...

I simply mentioned it. They played it twice, you're right, but I've never said that a terrible performance makes him a crap bassist. He did play it very very poorly, but it doesn't mean he can't do it properly. By the way, it's not foolish to play old album tracks, it's foolish to play them "under-rehearsed", which is more of an understatement IMO.

You can see there's even a bass track playing in the background, mostly during the lower register bits.

I remember the good old days when New Order never hit a bum note. Virtuosity was the order of the day. Sobriety and clinical precision is surey lacking in this, the vilest of New Odours!

Andy wrote: I remember the good old days when New Order never hit a bum note. Virtuosity was the order of the day. Sobriety and clinical precision is surey lacking in this, the vilest of New Odours!

LOL!

I'll criticize NewOrderNow (or, in other words, New Order) for being a has-been tribute act if we don't get some kind of non-Lost Sirens new material by, say, the end of 2014. Until then, they're writing new material, they've been playing album deep tracks, they've been reworking old standards, and they sound really, really tight. If they're still touring The Setlist a year from now with no new stuff on the horizon, then maybe the detractors will have a point.

Volturno wrote:

I simply mentioned it. They played it twice, you're right, but I've never said that a terrible performance makes him a crap bassist. He did play it very very poorly, but it doesn't mean he can't do it properly. By the way, it's not foolish to play old album tracks, it's foolish to play them "under-rehearsed", which is more of an understatement IMO.

You can see there's even a bass track playing in the background, mostly during the lower register bits.

I'm not sure what this set of YT vids proves, Tom seems to play it perfectly well from what I can see/hear, a little changed but nothing wrong as such. It's a little unfair comparing it to Finsbury Park which has clearly had overdubs done later (Hooky even seems to stop playing at one point, visually at least).

leather-girl wrote:

Coops wrote: New Order a New Order tribute act, apparently

Without a trace of irony, too.

Blah blah blah.....no matter what he says, New Order are New Order.

No, it's not. It's Now Order

leather-girl wrote: All I was trying to say is that the current New Order are New Order, even if they have 3/4ths of the original or 'classic' lineup. I don't think they are merely a tribute band, and I'm sure I'm not the only fan in the world who thinks this.

It's quite easy to fill stadiums, festivals, whatver with the single hits. Why not also include album songs which also deserve the fans respect? Things like that makes me think are they playing just for money. Just my opinion.

Stoo wrote: How many times does he have to say stuff like this?

The bass player left the band and they suddenly become a tribute band without him? The man's arrogance know's no boundaries. They didn’t reform behind his back and they never broke up anyway. Hooky left so surely they can do what they damn well want.

Having seen them live over the past year I can safely say they manage perfectly fine without him. I'm getting increasingly bored of his gobbing off to any paper or blog that will give him the time of day. I wish he would get over it and just move on.

See the amount of things that old Hooky is doing to make money. The name New Order is very strong and easy to make money with it. Think the old bass player deserves a piece of this pie too!

Aracri wrote: Some groups change their lineups, it's simple and quite common. And that doesn't make them tribute bands. Hooky continues his bizarre comparisons...

I really think Tom Chapman's doing a good job in New Order, but it's obvious it would be much better if Hooky's still was with them. Now New Order has a new line up and that is it.

Fook off Luis!

Will not pay you a beer ever again! kkkkkkk

What about our journey to Colombia in April?!?!?!

tarbox23 wrote:

CTB wrote:

HAH! That is really all that needs to be said. PERFECT.

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote: All I was trying to say is that the current New Order are New Order, even if they have 3/4ths of the original or 'classic' lineup. I don't think they are merely a tribute band, and I'm sure I'm not the only fan in the world who thinks this.

It's quite easy to fill stadiums, festivals, whatver with the single hits. Why not also include album songs which also deserve the fans respect? Things like that makes me think are they playing just for money. Just my opinion.

Everybody in music is in it to make a living, to some degree, but I think New Order have tact. Not all songs they play are singles, either. Naturally quite a few would be singles, but claiming they don't do any album songs is just ridiculous. I know you like Hooky, but you can look at New Order's setlists for proof. To be fair, some would be singles, because people want to hear some of the famous songs. And if it only was for the money, why would they take the time to rework the songs, or create video backgrounds?

leather-girl wrote:

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote: All I was trying to say is that the current New Order are New Order, even if they have 3/4ths of the original or 'classic' lineup. I don't think they are merely a tribute band, and I'm sure I'm not the only fan in the world who thinks this.

It's quite easy to fill stadiums, festivals, whatver with the single hits. Why not also include album songs which also deserve the fans respect? Things like that makes me think are they playing just for money. Just my opinion.

Everybody in music is in it to make a living, to some degree, but I think New Order have tact. Not all songs they play are singles, either. Naturally quite a few would be singles, but claiming they don't do any album songs is just ridiculous. I know you like Hooky, but you can look at New Order's setlists for proof. To be fair, some would be singles, because people want to hear some of the famous songs. And if it only was for the money, why would they take the time to rework the songs, or create video backgrounds?

Maybe cause I am just an old bastard fan who likes the old fookin'stuff

Oh, and most bands around the world play quite a few of their singles live. It's not really common for bands to play mainly album tracks or do album tours. So, I don't understand that criticism from Hooky's fans.

I'm getting paranoid now! my posts are vaishing!

I'll try again

I love both bands, they're both good live, but I'm bored with the album tours, some songs just don't work live, I much prefer New Orders reworking of 596 to Hooky's version with that god awful long intro where everyone will just go to the bog and miss the rest of it, but I prefer his Temptation

It all depends on the types of audiences who attend. More knowledgeable fans want variety... less knowledgeable fans just wait around for a few songs they are familiar with, and those fans want the songs to sound exactly like the recording. If you don't get enough of the hard core base, you need to patronize the casual fair-whether dweebs. At a large stage at a festival, hundreds will just walk away if they do not recognize a song. Hooky's Light Division and Barney's Old Order sort of cater to different audience demographics, with some crossover. Will the novelty wear off?

Hmmm....It just seems that Hooky is always trying to take a shot at New Order whenever he can. Even when he's been doing promo for New Order releases...

On the legal side of things Hooky dissolved his partnership with New Order Ltd and started a new company. No problem with that. The man has to earn a living and he seems to be doing alright, that's great. However my understanding of the situation is that when Mr Hook dissolved his partnership with his old company, the company (N.O) should also have been dissolved and they have no right to continue trading under that name. I don't agree with that and I think they should be allowed to continue as they are. They are 3/4 of the original line up, that's good enough for me.

But that's not my main beef with Hooky, I'm just fed up of him slagging his old band off. A lot of what he says is just plain nasty. Has he looked at their set lists? There's quite a few album tracks in there as well as the hit's. Not everyone that's gone to the gigs know all these songs but the hits they will. I thought the set's have been well balanced. Tribute band they certainly ain't.

Andy wrote: I remember the good old days when New Order never hit a bum note. Virtuosity was the order of the day. Sobriety and clinical precision is surey lacking in this, the vilest of New Odours!

It's not about bum notes, Chapman played different lines altogether.

Stoo wrote: On the legal side of things Hooky dissolved his partnership with New Order Ltd and started a new company. No problem with that. The man has to earn a living and he seems to be doing alright, that's great. However my understanding of the situation is that when Mr Hook dissolved his partnership with his old company, the company (N.O) should also have been dissolved and they have no right to continue trading under that name. I don't agree with that and I think they should be allowed to continue as they are. They are 3/4 of the original line up, that's good enough for me.

I think you've got all that completely upside down. He's very much part of the original Ltd Company, just not the new one that was formed without him for New Order (Now) going forward.

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote: All I was trying to say is that the current New Order are New Order, even if they have 3/4ths of the original or 'classic' lineup. I don't think they are merely a tribute band, and I'm sure I'm not the only fan in the world who thinks this.

It's quite easy to fill stadiums, festivals, whatver with the single hits. Why not also include album songs which also deserve the fans respect? Things like that makes me think are they playing just for money. Just my opinion.

Well, any group that plays live and you have to pay the tickets to see them perform obviously is doing it for money, right? (except benefit concerts, of course)

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

Aracri wrote: Some groups change their lineups, it's simple and quite common. And that doesn't make them tribute bands. Hooky continues his bizarre comparisons...

I really think Tom Chapman's doing a good job in New Order, but it's obvious it would be much better if Hooky's still was with them. Now New Order has a new line up and that is it.

Fook off Luis!

Will not pay you a beer ever again! kkkkkkk

What about our journey to Colombia in April?!?!?!

Not confirmed yet...

When he meant it, he meant it!

"Don't play ya fookin guitar here again!"

the new (old)new order should do a uk tour playing a classic lp a night. then a encore of greatest hits that is what other 80's bands do to very critical acclaim, ie, the cure. bunnymen,simple minds.... just an idea.. oh yeah. hooky's doing it

neil larkcom wrote: the new (old)new order should do a uk tour playing a classic lp a night. then a encore of greatest hits that is what other 80's bands do to very critical acclaim, ie, the cure. bunnymen,simple minds.... just an idea.. oh yeah. hooky's doing it

Not all songs from albums work live though....New Order should just tour the songs they want to play, instead of doing 'album tours'...New Order already have decent reviews without having to do that kind of tour, you know.

leather-girl wrote: Not all songs from albums work live though....New Order should just tour the songs they want to play, instead of doing 'album tours'...New Order already have decent reviews without having to do that kind of tour, you know.

As much as I may like them to, a Republic 20th Anniversary tour just isnt gonna happen😄 .

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote: All I was trying to say is that the current New Order are New Order, even if they have 3/4ths of the original or 'classic' lineup. I don't think they are merely a tribute band, and I'm sure I'm not the only fan in the world who thinks this.

It's quite easy to fill stadiums, festivals, whatver with the single hits. Why not also include album songs which also deserve the fans respect? Things like that makes me think are they playing just for money. Just my opinion. Everybody in music is in it to make a living, to some degree, but I think New Order have tact. Not all songs they play are singles, either. Naturally quite a few would be singles, but claiming they don't do any album songs is just ridiculous. I know you like Hooky, but you can look at New Order's setlists for proof. To be fair, some would be singles, because people want to hear some of the famous songs. And if it only was for the money, why would they take the time to rework the songs, or create video backgrounds?

Maybe cause I am just an old bastard fan who likes the old fookin'stuff

In the case of a successful band as New Order, the audience of a concert doesn't consists only by huge/hardcore fans... So is quite difficult to make a balanced/decent setlist to please everybody. Hits are the only way to do a gig for most and not only for the "extremists" (including me). C'est la vie.

Beyond that, New Order is such a different band since a long time and not after Hooky's quit. I remember an interview published in Brazil in the late 80's in which Steve Morris said if New Order had changed their next record could be a "True Faith Part II" or something like that. Well, after 1993 they did "True Faith-94", "Blue Monday-95", "1963 '95" and released a handful of compilations and remixes of their back catalogue. In other words, to do a lots of money with their past isn't a post-Hooky's departure practice. Both, the record company AND the band won ($) with that.

But I'm not pissed off. I still love New Order and his different incarnations (from Joy Division to this new lineup), but of course the band that I learned to admire when I was 11 doesn't exist anymore since much time. Bands are made of human beings and they change their minds over the years...

leather-girl wrote:

Not all songs from albums work live though.

That's what I said

..but surely seeing bernard struggle to sing the whole of 'movement' or ' pc&l' would be hilarious. obviously omitting dream never end and doubts even here.

on a serious note, i just hoe they continue to vary the setlist a little. re-visit a few more old tunes. ie. hurt,village,this time of night,all day long, and anything off of technique.

now a 25 anniversary tour of technique is a goer.

I think Barney would sound fine singing Dreams Never End. It would more interesting (for everyone involved) if Chappy had a go, though.

http://digboston.com/listen/2013/02/interview-peter-hook-of-joy-division-and-new-order/?utm\_source=feedburner&utm\_medium=feed&utm\_campaign=Feed%3A+Digboston+%28DigBoston%29

“Hooky” recently spoke to me by phone from his room at the Prescott Hotel in San Francisco.

Do you still really not care if you, as you write on page 203, “piss off any journalist”?

(laughs) I’ve had journalists be wonderful and I’ve had jouralists be awful. It doesn’t stop you really. You do have to learn to cope with that. You’ve got to trust what you’re doing, and believe in what you’re doing yourself

I was surprised to read that you and Bernard Sumner (Joy Division and New Order’s guitarist) had Santana stickers on your scooters when you were teenagers.

I’m still a great fan of Santana. I think you realize that there’s a place for everything in your head, isn’t there? Santana and that album in particular [1970's Abraxas] reminds me of being 16-17 and just discovering life. I still have a great love for it, a great fondness.

I did love Deep Purple, you know. That idea of getting rid of all the old musicians and sweeping them away like sort of to create a new world was such a young and naïve way of thinking. It was actually quite weird because as a 56-year-old old fart, I wanted to get rid of myself, which is quite scary. I’m so glad I didn’t, because I enjoy being a musician just as much now as I did when I was 21, so I’m very glad I didn’t get my own way, to say the least.

Did you interact with Morrissey or Mark E. Smith (later of The Fall) at the Sex Pistols show in Manchester on June 4, 1976?

No. They were all strangers to us. There were very few people there, only about forty. The venue must have held three or four hundred.

Once the The Sex Pistols came on … you were literally in awe. It wasn’t the magnificence of it. It wasn’t like seeing Led Zeppelin do “Stairway To Heaven” or anything like that. It touched a raw nerve in your body.

Throughout the book, you make it clear that you were very proud of Joy Division’s music as well as the fact that you “managed to stay cool, credible, and independent.” Were there any bands that you considered to be worthy adversaries in terms of creativity and integrity? Psychedelic Furs, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Gang of Four: They all made fantastic, fantastic first records. Siouxsie were to me the closest thing to Joy Division. On the second album, when they got the proper guitarist and the proper bass player, to me they went a bit more normal, shall we say.

Joy Division, 1980 (Ian Curtis, Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris, Peter Hook) What about The Fall? I’ve always had a very, very strange relationship with [Fall lead singer and songwriter] Mark E. Smith. I am so competitive. Because he was in Manchester, he was sort of too close and too much in competition to ever be friends. Whilst I like some of The Fall’s music, I think he’s a really clever geezer, [we] don’t have great relationship.

It took me years, actually, to admit to liking The Smiths. Until [their 1986 album] The Queen is Dead, I fucking hated them, for no other reason than that they were in competition with New Order. Morrissey was always very outspoken in his distaste for Joy Division. He thought they were miserable and gloomy, and shit basically. You sort of learn to live together. When I got to The Queen Is Dead, I heard that LP, I though, ‘Ah shit, I can’t pretend I don’t like ‘em anymore!’ I had to give in. It’s a great record.

Linus Solanki wrote:

**I was surprised to read that you and Bernard Sumner (Joy Division and New Order’s guitarist) had Santana stickers on your scooters when you were teenagers.**I’m still a great fan of Santana. I think you realize that there’s a place for everything in your head, isn’t there? Santana and that album in particular [1970's Abraxas] reminds me of being 16-17 and just discovering life. I still have a great love for it, a great fondness.

That's the best thing he (Hooky) said recently... 😂

Don't think this one has been posted yet:

PETER HOOK: WOULD ANYTHING SURPRISE YOU IN THIS WORLD?

I know you’re not a petty man, but if you really want to twist the knife…hire [former Warsaw drummer Steve] Brotherdale. Then call Stephen Morris up and say, ‘Hey, Steven … guess who’s our drummer!’ [laughs] You know, he works at McDonald’s. As a manager? I don’t think he was a manager when I went there, but he just got prosecuted for beating up his wife. Because it was in the ‘paper: Ex-Joy Division Drummer: Wife-Beater! Wild.

You know what? You got a lot of help, really. That is to say—I mean, as much as I hate to admit it, Bernard [Sumner] was a really great help in the beginning. So was Ian Curtis. And they encouraged you. I mean, the reason I played high was because I couldn’t hear the low notes—my speakers were that bad. My speakers cost $15—and they sounded like $15, even though $15 in 1976 was a lot of money. It sounded terrible, and you couldn’t hear it! The only way you could hear it was to play high. And Ian Curtis in particular said, ‘That’s what you should concentrate on. It sounds fantastic when you play high. Play high.’ And every time we came to rehearse, he’d say, ‘Hooky, play high, play high—driving along, driving along!’ And it was quite simple—and then Bernard encouraged me to get a chorus pedal, because he said, ‘Because you’re playing high, you need to fatten it up a bit,’ and that’s how I got an Electro-Harmonix chorus. And then Martin Hannett said to me, ‘Hooky, you’ve got a shit bass amp. You should have the best bass amp in the world.’

You know what it’s like? It’s like that really really hot girl in high school, that everyone says, ‘Oh, don’t go for her, she’s trouble.’ But you’ve got to fuck her. You’ve got to go for her anyway! And you do—and it’s amazing. Going back to New Order again, every so often over the years, I would see bootlegs of New Order concerts, and Gillian would every so often kind of muff it—she would be in the wrong key or something—and Stephen would come out from behind the drumkit and really sarcastically put her finger on the right key, roll his eyes, and go back behind the kit. Did that really go on, or was I just imagining that? I’m afraid so, yes. She was never the most … accomplished musician. If she hadn’t been shagging the drummer, I don’t think she would have got the gig, to be honest. That was one of the puzzles with New Order: the happiest I ever saw Bernard in New Order was when she left! And that has really puzzled me. I guess the thing is: he must hate me more! [cackles]

Found this one very interesting, and potentially controversial as well.

Posted my pearl-clutching outrage in the 'libel' thread.

The bit about Gillian is just ... And considering the reasons she left, I doubt that Bernard was glad she left.

Another day, another ill-advised Hooky interview. His constant attempts to belittle Gillian's role within the band are extremely distasteful. I used to have a lot of respect for Hooky, but that's all gone and i'm glad he's no longer part of New Order.

Volturno wrote: Don't think this one has been posted yet:

PETER HOOK: WOULD ANYTHING SURPRISE YOU IN THIS WORLD?

I know you’re not a petty man, but if you really want to twist the knife…hire [former Warsaw drummer Steve] Brotherdale. Then call Stephen Morris up and say, ‘Hey, Steven … guess who’s our drummer!’ [laughs] You know, he works at McDonald’s. As a manager? I don’t think he was a manager when I went there, but he just got prosecuted for beating up his wife. Because it was in the ‘paper: Ex-Joy Division Drummer: Wife-Beater! Wild.

You know what? You got a lot of help, really. That is to say—I mean, as much as I hate to admit it, Bernard [Sumner] was a really great help in the beginning. So was Ian Curtis. And they encouraged you. I mean, the reason I played high was because I couldn’t hear the low notes—my speakers were that bad. My speakers cost $15—and they sounded like $15, even though $15 in 1976 was a lot of money. It sounded terrible, and you couldn’t hear it! The only way you could hear it was to play high. And Ian Curtis in particular said, ‘That’s what you should concentrate on. It sounds fantastic when you play high. Play high.’ And every time we came to rehearse, he’d say, ‘Hooky, play high, play high—driving along, driving along!’ And it was quite simple—and then Bernard encouraged me to get a chorus pedal, because he said, ‘Because you’re playing high, you need to fatten it up a bit,’ and that’s how I got an Electro-Harmonix chorus. And then Martin Hannett said to me, ‘Hooky, you’ve got a shit bass amp. You should have the best bass amp in the world.’

You know what it’s like? It’s like that really really hot girl in high school, that everyone says, ‘Oh, don’t go for her, she’s trouble.’ But you’ve got to fuck her. You’ve got to go for her anyway! And you do—and it’s amazing. Going back to New Order again, every so often over the years, I would see bootlegs of New Order concerts, and Gillian would every so often kind of muff it—she would be in the wrong key or something—and Stephen would come out from behind the drumkit and really sarcastically put her finger on the right key, roll his eyes, and go back behind the kit. Did that really go on, or was I just imagining that? I’m afraid so, yes. She was never the most … accomplished musician. If she hadn’t been shagging the drummer, I don’t think she would have got the gig, to be honest. That was one of the puzzles with New Order: the happiest I ever saw Bernard in New Order was when she left! And that has really puzzled me. I guess the thing is: he must hate me more! [cackles]

Found this one very interesting, and potentially controversial as well.

First off this interview and interviewer are disgustingly sycophantic towards Hooky. I mean, did this interviewer watch Deep Throat before talking to the Hookster?

Regret the "last true New Order song." Really?????? No I think that Crystal, Someone Like You, Close Range, Primitive Notion, Here To Stay, Krafty, WFTSC, Turn, and even I'll Stay With You and Hellbent are real New Order songs...they all came out after 2000 and you can clearly hear Hooky on them.

Hooky "the soul of New Order"? Please. For real? So Bernard's songwriting, vocal, synth, and production skills don't matter in New Order? Steve's drumming and programming don't matter? Gillian's synth melodies don't matter? Heck, Phil has even contributed some cool guitar parts in latter day NO.

Lastly....

The sexism that Hooky displays towards Gilllian in this interview and the way the interviewer eats it up is truly offensive.

I don't think Hooky meant that Regret was the last New Order, I think he sees it as the last song by New Order when it still was New Order in his opinion, as for the original set of principles, formation and relations, I'd guess.

Volturno wrote: I don't think Hooky meant that Regret was the last New Order, I think he sees it as the last song by New Order when it still was New Order in his opinion, as for the original set of principles, formation and relations, I'd guess.

Last but not the least...

Volturno wrote: I don't think Hooky meant that Regret was the last New Order, I think he sees it as the last song by New Order when it still was New Order in his opinion, as for the original set of principles, formation and relations, I'd guess.

Didn't he say in an interview (one of many) that the best New Order line-up was when Gillian wasn't there - i.e. from 2001... Or was he contradicting himself again? 😕

😎

New Order is like Crystal of course!

Nick King wrote:

Didn't he say in an interview (one of many) that the best New Order line-up was when Gillian wasn't there - i.e. from 2001... Or was he contradicting himself again? 😕

😎

Conradictory indeed. On the NME piece that inspired the "I should be in the band" thread, he says Regret was the last real new order tune, then describes Crystal as a "great new order tune". Make up your mind Hooky.

ZASmusic wrote:

First off this interview and interviewer are disgustingly sycophantic towards Hooky.

Could be why Hooky's so full of shit, can't get this bloke's tongue out of his arsehole.

Personally I'd be amazed if they started playing any Lost Sirens stuff live as for the last 20 years they've pretty much stuck to hits and crowd-pleasers. I'd also be amazed if anything new emerged before 2015 as they've only just started writing, plus they're gigging and they're notoriously slow-working at the best of times (or 'Best Of' times, see what I did there?). I'm also amazed I've managed a whole post without using the words 'fuck', 'cunt' or 'Melanie C'. PS My best wank over Mel, I staved it off so long I jizzed in my eye. So masturbation DOES make you blind. Half-blind at least. What an embarrassing day at the optician's that was.

JG wrote:

Housey wrote: I'll criticize NewOrderNow (or, in other words, New Order) for being a has-been tribute act if we don't get some kind of non-Lost Sirens new material by, say, the end of 2014. Until then, they're writing new material, they've been playing album deep tracks, they've been reworking old standards, and they sound really, really tight. If they're still touring The Setlist a year from now with no new stuff on the horizon, then maybe the detractors will have a point.

Most tours New Order have undertaken have included a healthy number of new tracks. I would be surprised if these upcoming gigs didn't feature some of the Lost Sirens material. The 2011/12 dates were unique in a way, in that it's the first time they've gone on an extensive tour without having an album to promote. So I wouldn't take recent gigs as an indicator of what they're likely to do in the future when they've got new material to promote. They're back in the studio now so there will be a new record at some point.

Plenty of reason to be optimistic about New Order as a going concern and having new tracks as part of their live set.

Wouldn't be surprised if they open the next set in Lima playing Sister & Brother [eek3]

Another lengthy(and illustrated) one:

Interview: Peter Hook taps into the unknown

[...] To be honest, if they haven't done what they done to me at the start I wouldn't have written it, because I don't think any of us are going to come out of it shiny, the way people came out of the Joy Division book. Shall we say, the New Order one will certainly show the darker side of all our natures.

And it'll have another heartbreaking ending.

It will have a heartbreaking ending as well.

Can you envision any reconciliation with Bernard Sumner?

Well, no. I was reading his latest interview which I found to be absolutely disgusting, in Spinner, which I'm doing a big answer to at the moment, because he's so wrong, there's so many mistakes in there, and its absolutely insulting. In a way I suppose I should be flattered that I'm still worthy of such attention. Where really he's got his fame back, he's got his group back, he's doing supposedly exactly what he wants to do. And you know, I was reading a paragraph where he says how great and how happy everyone is backstage, intimating that it was only me that ruined everything. Which I thought was hilarious! And it reminded me of those interviews that actors do, when they sit on the couch, and go "What's it like working on Peyton Place" or whatever? – "Oh we're just one big happy family!" And then you sit there thinking what a bunch of shit.

You can't stand each other, you know! I thought that was so ridiculous. We're grown men, 57 as he is now. To act like that is pathetic. And I hate myself for playing up to it. But we're all just human.

Looks like he forgot that "Crystal" was originally a Bernard solo song for Corvin Dalek or someone similar.

Volturno wrote: Another lengthy(and illustrated) one:

Hooky: Well, no. I was reading his latest interview which I found to be absolutely disgusting, in Spinner, which I'm doing a big answer to at the moment, because he's so wrong, there's so many mistakes in there, and its absolutely insulting. In a way I suppose I should be flattered that I'm still worthy of such attention.

Erm, over the past 7 years, all I've really read are Hooky interviews slagging the other band members off, and he's surprised that they (finally) respond??? 😕

😎

markreed wrote: Looks like he forgot that "Crystal" was originally a Bernard solo song for Corvin Dalek or someone similar.

Are you the sane guy who wrote this?

http://www.thefinalword.co.uk/content/view/1121/38/

what do you reckon?

markreed wrote: what do you reckon?

I don't think so.

Volturno wrote: I don't think Hooky meant that Regret was the last New Order, I think he sees it as the last song by New Order when it still was New Order in his opinion, as for the original set of principles, formation and relations, I'd guess.

Well he's either full of shit now or he has been in the past because I remember reading an interview with him in a Big Issue in 2001(I bought it, I wasnt selling them, these are my gardening clothes) when he was telling Jeremy Vine how great it was to back and how he felt New Order were back to their best and he was looking forward to the next album which would be even more New Order than the current one blah blah fecking blah.

And Im pissed off because I believed him.

Coops wrote:

Volturno wrote: I don't think Hooky meant that Regret was the last New Order, I think he sees it as the last song by New Order when it still was New Order in his opinion, as for the original set of principles, formation and relations, I'd guess.

Well he's either full of shit now or he has been in the past because I remember reading an interview with him in a Big Issue in 2001(I bought it, I wasnt selling them, these are my gardening clothes) when he was telling Jeremy Vine how great it was to back and how he felt New Order were back to their best and he was looking forward to the next album which would be even more New Order than the current one blah blah fecking blah.

And Im pissed off because I believed him.

I was guessing, really. Sometimes it's hard to know when he's constantly changing views or means something else. He said Lost Sirens has some great tunes, but it's post-Regret, so it's not New Order?

Volturno wrote:

Coops wrote:

Volturno wrote: I don't think Hooky meant that Regret was the last New Order, I think he sees it as the last song by New Order when it still was New Order in his opinion, as for the original set of principles, formation and relations, I'd guess.

Well he's either full of shit now or he has been in the past because I remember reading an interview with him in a Big Issue in 2001(I bought it, I wasnt selling them, these are my gardening clothes) when he was telling Jeremy Vine how great it was to back and how he felt New Order were back to their best and he was looking forward to the next album which would be even more New Order than the current one blah blah fecking blah.

And Im pissed off because I believed him.

I was guessing, really. Sometimes it's hard to know when he's constantly changing views or means something else. He said Lost Sirens has some great tunes, but it's post-Regret, so it's not New Order?

Who really cares what Hooky says about lately? I don't care. I think it's better to enjoy the gigs (New Order Now and The Light, to me both of them sounds quite nice live) and the latest good recordings they made together.

You guys take Hooky's irrational, spiteful, emotional rants too seriously. Do you think he has thought these rambling statements through beforehand? Really, I've always thought of "Regret" as the swansong for New Order, the last great song, as far as the Factory era definition of New Order. The new stuff was just bonus, not really the same. I'm guessing that is what Hooky is trying to articulate.

I think there is some truth in what Hooky rants in these interviews, though it is often very skewed from a subjective viewpoint, plus you have to weed out the most spiteful comments. Seems like Bernard didn't really communicate much at all with Hooky, which in a workplace or family (and New Order was like both in a way) can lead to huge resentment when somebody refuses to talk to another member. I think there probably is truth in that neither Hooky or Bernard considered Gillian a full member of the band. I think that Hooky considered the 3 ex-JD members as equal partners at the start of New Order, but that by the late 80s that Bernard considered himself the traditional frontman and boss, which pissed off Hooky... so Hooky then would try to piss off Bernard in response. At that point onward both Bernard and Hooky would try to annoy each other... both likely behaved very selfishly.

0_o wrote: You guys take Hooky's irrational, spiteful, emotional rants too seriously. Do you think he has thought these rambling statements through beforehand? Really, I've always thought of "Regret" as the swansong for New Order, the last great song, as far as the Factory era definition of New Order. The new stuff was just bonus, not really the same. I'm guessing that is what Hooky is trying to articulate.

I think there is some truth in what Hooky rants in these interviews, though it is often very skewed from a subjective viewpoint, plus you have to weed out the most spiteful comments. Seems like Bernard didn't really communicate much at all with Hooky, which in a workplace or family (and New Order was like both in a way) can lead to huge resentment when somebody refuses to talk to another member. I think there probably is truth in that neither Hooky or Bernard considered Gillian a full member of the band. I think that Hooky considered the 3 ex-JD members as equal partners at the start of New Order, but that by the late 80s that Bernard considered himself the traditional frontman and boss, which pissed off Hooky... so Hooky then would try to piss off Bernard in response. At that point onward both Bernard and Hooky would try to annoy each other... both likely behaved very selfishly.

That sounds pretty much spot on to me, I'm sure they're both hard work to deal with on a personal level, Hooky is great with fans but that's very short term, Bernard normally less so, but he seems to have calmed a little lately. a few years ago on here everyone was frustrated that they would never hear what was happening with the band, then when Hooky told them they hated it as it wasn't what they wanted to hear.

I don't know about the inter-band politics, none of us do, we can only guess from what two people say, one that says too much and one that says too little, so we're still guessing, at the end of the day, New Order were a great band, New Order (now) are a good live band and Hooky and the light are a good band, untill we hear new original material from them both we can't make a full judgement.

In general, I can understand how singers of bands (especially if they participate in songwriting quite a bit) want to take leadership (consciously or subconsciously), or at least be perceived that way. Maybe Hooky wanted to be a frontman?

leather-girl wrote: ...Maybe Hooky wanted to be a frontman?

Pure speculation, but I have certainly thought this for many, many years. Especially when he needlessly doubled up on live vocals.

I thoroughly enjoy Hooky's drop as a lead vocalist—especially so with The Light. But damn...! Give your right arm a rest, will ya? You're as bad a Martin Gore in that aspect.

leather-girl wrote: In general, I can understand how singers of bands (especially if they participate in songwriting quite a bit) want to take leadership (consciously or subconsciously), or at least be perceived that way. Maybe Hooky wanted to be a frontman?

Interesting point, they all gave singing a go at first. Personally I never took to Hook's overpowering stage persona - bass round the ankles, accompanying each twang with a flourish making Hendrix look like Chris Lowe, those pointless backing vocals - like he wanted to take over. The Light give great gigs and no one plays like Hook but technically I don't rate him as a singer or songwriter. PS My ambition (after the usual) is to make a post so pointless that Rocket Mick doesn't thank me.

http://www.alancross.ca/process/CreateJournalEntryComment?moduleId=11245948&entryId=32793457&finalize=true

Peter Hook is on the phone from a hotel room near JFK airport and has about half an hour to chat before he heads out to Long Island for another book signing on the tour promoting his newest book, Inside Joy Division. He's anxious to talk about the book, but he also has some things about New Order he would like cleared up.

Over the last couple of years, the Joy Division/New Order world has devolved into Team Hooky on one side and The Other Three on the other. And given some of the issues that divide the camps, I wouldn't expect detente anytime soon.

But more on that later. Let's start with the book.

Alan Cross: Why write this book? There's been so much myth and legend built up around Joy Division over the last thirty-plus years, what else is there left to tell?

Peter Hook: That's just it. I wanted to tell the other side of the myth. I was very careful and I did wonder about debunking the myth. But as an inspirational tale--and it was the Sex Pistols that inspired me--I thought that was the best thing to do. So whilst I revel in the wonderful mystery and myth that surrounds Joy Division, you do think, well, there is another side to it. And I think that was the bit that needed telling.

AC: How many people were at the Lesser Free Trade Hall that night? [The famous Sex Pistols show on June 4, 1976]

PH: Only about forty.

AC: And you were there with Bernard [Sumner] and who else?

PH: My great friend Terry [who became a Joy Division roadie] and Bernard's wife, Sue.

AC: I had heard that you went out the next day and rigged up an amplifier through an old tone arm?

PH: Yeah. What we did was...I went out and bought a bass the next day. It was quite an odd thing to walk into that concert as a 9-to-5 civil servant and to walk out an hour-and-a-half later as a fully-fledged punk in a group when you had no experience and no instrument. It was pretty radical. I bought a bass the next day and Bernard and I went along to his gran's because he already had a guitar that his parents had bought him for Christmas.

We wired up the two guitars to his gran's record player, an old-fashioned phonograph. We wired the jack leads into the needle. Bernard was always very good at things like that. And we played along and destroyed her stereogram. She was not happy with these two lunatics that she had acquired.

AC: Once of the things I find fascinating about Joy Division is the evolution of the bands' sound. Things got progressively darker. Why?

PH: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And to your ear, it got darker. The music did get better and within six months we were writing songs that did belie our age. They sounded like they should have been been written by much more mature--and dare we say, experience--musicians. And I think that's the problem Bernard and I had with Martin Hannett. When he did Unknown Pleasures, he did something wonderful and mature sounding and very, very classic. And Bernard and I wanted to sound like the fresh, young snappy Sex Pistols because it was only six months ago that we were inspired by them. I'm very glad that Martin got his own way on that one and I didn't because Bernard and I would have made a compete mess of it.

AC: Tell me a human story about Joy Division.

PH: Being in a group is a very difficult job and to witness the machinations behind it and to get something as well-known as Joy Division is these days and how hard it was for the people involved. You know, the holding down of a day job so that you could do Joy Division. The arduous stuggle that Ian had with his illness and then with his illness crumbling around him.It was just a difficult world. And I think that's what people forget. They look at the glamour of a group and they don't know what goes on behind the scenes and in many ways don't want to know because it destroys the glamour.

I found that with New Order and the fact that New Order and I are still fighting over their unauthorized use of the name. People do not like it. They just want to hear the music and have a good time. But life's not like that. You have to take the rough with the smooth.

AC: There must have been some massive legal tangle over who owned what with Joy Division.

PH: No. We've never had any problems with Joy Division.

AC: Really?

PH: Joy Division was a partnership that still functions today. And although Bernard, Stephen and I argue because they accuse me of stealing the music when in fact they played the music before me--which is another one of their delightful little contradictions that I find difficult to live with. That's supposedly why they took New Order away from me. It was because I was playing Joy Division music. But anyone is entitled to play anyone's music. And the fact that they played it before me in Bad Lieutenant doesn 't seem to come into the equation. But Joy Division functions quite well in its own way. We don't really milk it. We have thousands and thousands of people that milk via eBay and the Internet that milk it, so we just happily collect the royalties from the records that are out.

AC: It's kinda like the Sex Pistols. They put out just the one record but there are thousands of them out there. You put out the two records and...same thing. How many bootlegs do you think there are?

PH: Millions of bootlegs. I sign them every night and gaze in awe at the sheer volume of them. I do take it as a great compliment.

AC: What's the weirdest one you've found.

PH: It's amazing how, given that Joy Division had such a limited catalogue, the very clever ways they can reinvent them. Considering that the 7-inch of An Ideal for Living was limited to a thousand and the 12-inch limited to two thousand, I must have signed 20,000. God knows what's going on on that bloody Internet! It's magic!

Again, when you compare it to the illegal downloading of music from the Internet and the way it's affected record sales, you do begin to feel a little picked on, shall we say.

AC: Are you starting to feel that with the royalty cheques?

PH: Your royalties are diminishing greatly. And this is one of the problems I had with the others suddenly deciding to take away New Order from me. That's a big asset of a company. And I felt that that the way they did it was sly and underhanded and, in my opinion, illegal. Which is why I'm seeking a legal remedy to it at the moment. You do have to look after yourself in this day and age. Musicians have to be businessmen to survive. Those wonderful days of the 80s and 90s when the record companies used to do everything but change your nappy have gone. And you need to look at the human side. Behind running a group these days...well, it's not very glamorous because to survive is very difficult?

AC: One thing I love about the book is the timelines. How the hell did you assemble those with such precision?

PH: I have to say they weren't very clouded because there was no sex, drugs and rock'n'roll to take your memory away. There are also a lot of fan sites--and the fans sites are very good. Although there were some errors that I was delighted to rectify with the book. The one thing I would have loved to do was put the correct lyrics in the book because when you download the lyrics the vast majority have the wrong words in them which changes the connotations. But I wasn't able to do that.

AC: This so much more comprehensive with Deborah's book. [Deborah Curtis, Ian's widow, and her book, Touching from a Distance.]

PH: But Deborah's book was about her relationship with Ian. And to be honest with you, I don't think she could give a shite about the group.

AC: But for longest time, her book was the definitive account of Joy Division.

PH: I supposed it was because at the time, it was the only personal account. I did read Debbie's book and it did make me feel quite sodding guilty because there was a sexism on our part. We did keep it for the boys and exclude everyone else. But you do what you did at the time and you can't really change the past, can you?

AC: The track-by-track deconstruction of all the songs from the records is also really good because it gives you a personal viewpoint of what those songs are all about.

PH: It was quite odd doing that. I never thought that would be the one thing that people would pick up on so much. And yet people are really, really happy about that. I wish I had a dollar for every person that said "Yeah, I put the record on and listen to it while I read the descriptions." Wow! That's brilliant! As I go through the New Order book [Hooky's next project is a personal insider's account of that band] I'm going to have to write abotu the tracks like that because people really do seem to really like it.

AC: Let's follow up on this New Order book. That's going to be interesting.

PH: The interesting thing about Joy Division is that the band wasn't really sullied by sex, drugs or rock'n'roll in the cliched sense of the word. Whereas New Order--me, in particular--fell for all those dark sides of the music business. But we went through some great things. We were signed to Quincy Jones' label in America. We went through acid house. We went through Madchester. We saw Manchester change beyond belief. We ended up doing the World Cupt for the England World Cup song. I mean, we've got a lot of things we went through as a group beyond the grubby stuff. We headlined Glastonbury three times! New Order played a big role in music history itself, so I won't be doing just the naughty bits.

C'mon back for part two of this interview. I'll supply a link when it's ready.

leather-girl wrote: In general, I can understand how singers of bands (especially if they participate in songwriting quite a bit) want to take leadership (consciously or subconsciously), or at least be perceived that way. Maybe Hooky wanted to be a frontman?

Not Joy Division case. It was a democratic band.

Even the bass player could sing (Interzone)

Hooky thinks New Order headlined Glastonbury 3 times. No Hooky, they played it 3 times but only headlined once (1987)

Thanks again wrote: Hooky thinks New Order headlined Glastonbury 3 times. No Hooky, they played it 3 times but only headlined once (1987)

Correct, I was at all three

Perhaps Hooky could headline Glastonbury with his superb DJing skills?

Arm's lost control again wrote: Perhaps Hooky could headline Glastonbury with his superb DJing skills?

LOL

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote: In general, I can understand how singers of bands (especially if they participate in songwriting quite a bit) want to take leadership (consciously or subconsciously), or at least be perceived that way. Maybe Hooky wanted to be a frontman?

Not Joy Division case. It was a democratic band.

Even the bass player could sing (Interzone)

Erm, I was talking about New Order....

Arm's lost control again wrote: Perhaps Hooky could headline Glastonbury with his superb DJing skills?

Are you suggesting putting a stylus on the end of his arm so he could be a sort of human record player (rather than using a pre-mixed Mixmag CD)?

Linus Solanki wrote:

PH: ...And this is one of the problems I had with the others suddenly deciding to take away New Order from me. That's a big asset of a company. And I felt that that the way they did it was sly and underhanded and, in my opinion, illegal. Which is why I'm seeking a legal remedy to it at the moment...

Notice a subtle shift of wording there... it used to be "when I split the band", now it's "I've had New Order taken away from me". Can someone who left a band later claim he had said band stolen from him?

also:

Linus Solanki wrote:

PH: Joy Division was a partnership that still functions today. And although Bernard, Stephen and I argue because they accuse me of stealing the music when in fact they played the music before me--which is another one of their delightful little contradictions that I find difficult to live with. That's supposedly why they took New Order away from me. It was because I was playing Joy Division music. But anyone is entitled to play anyone's music. And the fact that they played it before me in Bad Lieutenant doesn 't seem to come into the equation. ....

Trainspotter mode here, but technically Hooky got the whole ball rolling himself in this regard when Revenge covered "Failures" at live outings back in the early 90s. Electronic didn't do JD tracks live, but Revenge and Monaco did them frequently - how is that different to what BL did?

And, how can you possibly fail to see the difference between a few JD and NO tracks in a BL/Revenge/Monaco show, and an entire evening composed of JD albums played in their entirety, complete with sampled sound fx, etc? A bit disingenuous I think.

Only an opinion, mind...

CTB wrote:

Notice a subtle shift of wording there... it used to be "when I split the band", now it's "I've had New Order taken away from me".

Also, in this interview at least, he brought the subject up before the interviewer had chance to. Ive never noticed that before. He's not tired of talking about it, is he?😄

Very curious. Hooky didn't have New Order taken from him : he walked away, he quit, he left, he resigned : he chose to leave New Order, and thus, put New Order 'down'.

If the remaining members want to pick the band back up without him, that's up to them. If they didn't ask him to rejoin well, firstly he had chosen to leave, and secondly, I see the sense in not working with someone who is probably trying to sue you and screaming about it to any interviewer.

After all, you don't ring up your ex-wife and ask her if she fancies another try when you want another relationship, don you? Well, you can if you want, but I wouldn't.

Part 2 http://www.alancross.ca/a-journal-of-musical-things/2013/2/13/my-interview-with-peter-hook-part-2-what-if-ian-curtis-hadnt.html