Hooky: "Bernard and Steve tried to sue me for libel"

Yahoo! Music: Any word on whether Sumner and Morris have read your Joy Division memoir?

Hook: They tried to stop Unknown Pleasures. They tried to sue me for libel, and they demanded the book as evidence in a libel prosecution. But they didn’t succeed, because there was no grounds. No grounds at all. Bernard, Stephen, and I have talked a lot about these stories in the book. I’m not betraying anything by doing it. But I’ve been in the room with Bernard and Steve, and we’ve talked about a story, and they’ve told it in a completely different way. I’m going, “No, that’s not what happened.” And I’ll tell my version, and they’ll go, “No, that’s not what happened!” So memory is completely subjective. As I say in my book, this book is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...as I remember it! We’d been offered band books in the past, but the thing about a band book is that it would have to be a compromise. While New Order was together, could never have written that Joy Division book. In a way, because we’re not working together, it’s easy, because the book that you would write while you’re together would be pasteurized, homogenized and have to please everybody.

The whole interview is a good read: http://ca.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/peter-hook-talks-joy-division-order-unknown-pleasures-233908730.html

Volturno wrote:

Yahoo! Music: Any word on whether Sumner and Morris have read your Joy Division memoir?

Hook: They tried to stop Unknown Pleasures. They tried to sue me for libel, and they demanded the book as evidence in a libel prosecution. But they didn’t succeed, because there was no grounds. No grounds at all. Bernard, Stephen, and I have talked a lot about these stories in the book. I’m not betraying anything by doing it. But I’ve been in the room with Bernard and Steve, and we’ve talked about a story, and they’ve told it in a completely different way. I’m going, “No, that’s not what happened.” And I’ll tell my version, and they’ll go, “No, that’s not what happened!” So memory is completely subjective. As I say in my book, this book is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...as I remember it! We’d been offered band books in the past, but the thing about a band book is that it would have to be a compromise. While New Order was together, could never have written that Joy Division book. In a way, because we’re not working together, it’s easy, because the book that you would write while you’re together would be pasteurized, homogenized and have to please everybody.

The whole interview is a good read: http://ca.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/peter-hook-talks-joy-division-order-unknown-pleasures-233908730.html

Everybody has a different point of view. I'd rather read a band book that didn't make some people angry or irritated. Didn't one of the former members of The Cure disputed Hooky's claims about The Cure disliking JD? It wasn't in court, but still....

I thought Hookys book was great, I enjoyed reading it alot and Im sure I'll re-read it again in the future. I didnt take it as detailed account of everything I took it as his memories, written down. I think its a given that its going to be from his point of view and that not everyone would agree with it but thats the same with all autobiographies, isnt it? Hooky was clearly pissed off with the issues around the Van, trivial as they may sound now, but I want to read how he felt about things like that. Not an even-handed seeing-it-from-their-point-of-view banal piece. In fact, I felt he held back (or was edited back) regarding his feelings on the other members of the band; they were even relatively complementary or quite even handed.

To be honest, he came across alot better in the book than he seems to in interviews nowadays. Funny how shooting from the hip isnt always the best way, aint it?

😴

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]

I can't decide which is worse: jokes about Stephen beating Gillian (and yes, I know he was referring to Brotherdale but I read that as 'lol, I saw the paper and for a second thought that...') or jokes about Gillian 'shagging' her way into New Order. Ugh. PLEASE STOP TALKING.

Housey wrote: I can't decide which is worse: jokes about Stephen beating Gillian (and yes, I know he was referring to Brotherdale but I read that as 'lol, I saw the paper and for a second thought that...') or jokes about Gillian 'shagging' her way into New Order. Ugh. PLEASE STOP TALKING.

Agreed. The bit about Gillian is just ... That is just so disrespectful.

Housey wrote: I can't decide which is worse: jokes about Stephen beating Gillian (and yes, I know he was referring to Brotherdale but I read that as 'lol, I saw the paper and for a second thought that...')

Oh give us a break - he never even comes CLOSE to insinuating that -

Housey wrote: or jokes about Gillian 'shagging' her way into New Order. Ugh. PLEASE STOP TALKING.

No, you are implying that Hook insinuated Gillian sought out New Order and slept with them to get into the band....

Hook said, "If she hadn’t been shagging the drummer, I don’t think she would have got the gig, to be honest."

And, come on, it IS pretty much true, and I bet Gillian would laugh about it. It was totally New Order to have the drummer's girlfriend join the band. Probably involving some Rob Gretton fiendish smile.

You guys have gone off the deep end of over-sensitivity, and Housey is purposefully misconstruing crap to paint Hooky as evil.

I thought the most interesting bit in the interview was when he said he would stop at Regret. I was curious which LP would be the last one he toured.

Also, that Sumner was the one to recommend the chorus pedal.

I still disagree with Hooky that Bernard allegedly was 'happiest' when she left. And nobody was a classically trained musician, so there was no need to single out Gillian for allegedly not being the best musician.

I am starting to come around more to Hooky's side of things tho.

I really didn't like all the Ian Curtis imagery at the New Order Now show I saw in NYC last autumn. Felt really cultish. All the cheers and lighters in some silly reverence of the holy icon of Ian when Atmosphere was played was just juvenile.

Hook doesn't do any of that crap, he just plays the music.

And, he IS more daring to play all these non-hits, learning all these old songs that they never or rarely played live. Especially in contrast to New Order Now who tread it safe with the hits, which is clearly a more 'selling-out' type deal. Sure, they are all making money off this, but certainly New Order Now are making more, so it is pretty silly of them to accuse Hook of cashing in.

I guess I am just starting to see Hook as the underdog here, and I think New Order have been too hard on him -- we all know Hooky has a big mouth, but that is what you get with him, it has been that way for decades, it is Hooky - I picture him strutting around the stage in 1988 all clad in leather with his bass down to the floor, and wouldn't expect anything less.

Neither side is right, or wrong, but I am finding myself becoming more loyal to the black sheep lately...

tarbox23 wrote: I am starting to come around more to Hooky's side of things tho.

I really didn't like all the Ian Curtis imagery at the New Order Now show I saw in NYC last autumn. Felt really cultish. All the cheers and lighters in some silly reverence of the holy icon of Ian when Atmosphere was played was just juvenile.

Hook doesn't do any of that crap, he just plays the music.

And, he IS more daring to play all these non-hits, learning all these old songs that they never or rarely played live. Especially in contrast to New Order Now who tread it safe with the hits, which is clearly a more 'selling-out' type deal. Sure, they are all making money off this, but certainly New Order Now are making more, so it is pretty silly of them to accuse Hook of cashing in.

I guess I am just starting to see Hook as the underdog here, and I think New Order have been too hard on him -- we all know Hooky has a big mouth, but that is what you get with him, it has been that way for decades, it is Hooky - I picture him strutting around the stage in 1988 all clad in leather with his bass down to the floor, and wouldn't expect anything less.

Neither side is right, or wrong, but I am finding myself becoming more loyal to the black sheep lately...

Most bands around the world, 'tread it safe' with the hits/singles type songs when they tour, with the exception being some songs from their new album. Now, it's true New Order haven't played songs from Lost Sirens, but other than that, they're doing what most bands in the world do. Most of the audience for New Order gigs will probably be a mixture of hardcore and casual fans, so it's not really sensible to mainly play b-sides or obscure album tracks. I do wish they could play some songs from Lost Sirens, but then again, I don't know why they haven't and I will not judge them for that.

As for why New Order have perhaps made more money for gigs, is that the name brand of 'New Order' is more known around the world than 'Peter Hook and The Light'. Also, like it or not, there seems to be more 'demand' around the world (especially at big festivals etc) for New Order playing their songs, than Peter Hook doing album tours of JD (and now New Order albums?). Even if New Order weren't intending on cashing in, there probably would be more festivals/gig promoters around the world willing to invite New Order to play (especially at festivals and bigger venues), than Peter Hook and The Light, which has a different kind of audience, and a different niche. And at least New Order have expressed the desire to make new material, in quite a few interviews, or at least hinted at it, instead of complaining about illegal piracy on and on and on....We get it, Hooky, it's a problem, but still, that shouldn't stop Hooky expressing the desire to make something new.

As for me? I like Hooky's bass playing, but I'm not a fan of his big mouth type personality in interviews. I just simply prefer people who have more tact regarding what they say to the press/public.

leather-girl wrote:

tarbox23 wrote: I am starting to come around more to Hooky's side of things tho.

I really didn't like all the Ian Curtis imagery at the New Order Now show I saw in NYC last autumn. Felt really cultish. All the cheers and lighters in some silly reverence of the holy icon of Ian when Atmosphere was played was just juvenile.

Hook doesn't do any of that crap, he just plays the music.

And, he IS more daring to play all these non-hits, learning all these old songs that they never or rarely played live. Especially in contrast to New Order Now who tread it safe with the hits, which is clearly a more 'selling-out' type deal. Sure, they are all making money off this, but certainly New Order Now are making more, so it is pretty silly of them to accuse Hook of cashing in.

I guess I am just starting to see Hook as the underdog here, and I think New Order have been too hard on him -- we all know Hooky has a big mouth, but that is what you get with him, it has been that way for decades, it is Hooky - I picture him strutting around the stage in 1988 all clad in leather with his bass down to the floor, and wouldn't expect anything less.

Neither side is right, or wrong, but I am finding myself becoming more loyal to the black sheep lately...

Most bands around the world, 'tread it safe' with the hits/singles type songs when they tour, with the exception being some songs from their new album. Now, it's true New Order haven't played songs from Lost Sirens, but other than that, they're doing what most bands in the world do. Most of the audience for New Order gigs will probably be a mixture of hardcore and casual fans, so it's not really sensible to mainly play b-sides or obscure album tracks. I do wish they could play some songs from Lost Sirens, but then again, I don't know why they haven't and I will not judge them for that.

As for why New Order have perhaps made more money for gigs, is that the name brand of 'New Order' is more known around the world than 'Peter Hook and The Light'. Also, like it or not, there seems to be more 'demand' around the world (especially at big festivals etc) for New Order playing their songs, than Peter Hook doing album tours of JD (and now New Order albums?). Even if New Order weren't intending on cashing in, there probably would be more festivals/gig promoters around the world willing to invite New Order to play (especially at festivals and bigger venues), than Peter Hook and The Light, which has a different kind of audience, and a different niche. And at least New Order have expressed the desire to make new material, in quite a few interviews, or at least hinted at it, instead of complaining about illegal piracy on and on and on....We get it, Hooky, it's a problem, but still, that shouldn't stop Hooky expressing the desire to make something new.

As for me? I like Hooky's bass playing, but I'm not a fan of his big mouth type personality in interviews. I just simply prefer people who have more tact regarding what they say to the press/public.

Eimi,

I will introduce you to Hooky. He is not the devil you have figured!

Bernard Sumner is a thousand times more boring

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

Eimi,

I will introduce you to Hooky. He is not the devil you have figured!

Bernard Sumner is a thousand times more boring

I don't think anyone is the devil...and I don't care who is or isn't boring....

Hooky, we all beg you to reform Monaco!!! We believe in you and that you will create more beautiful tunes. Stop giving excuses and stop getting at New Order by playing NO albums (sure, as a sort of punishment for them). We understand that you enjoy playing music, but don't waste your time on playing old songs, when you can create new ones! And write a two-volume book on New Order, please.

leather-girl wrote:

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

Eimi,

I will introduce you to Hooky. He is not the devil you have figured!

Bernard Sumner is a thousand times more boring

I don't think anyone is the devil...and I don't care who is or isn't boring....

Of course you do not like Hooky. It is obvious.

But you need to know his side of the story before kicking his arse.

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

leather-girl wrote:

Big Mouth Julio wrote:

Eimi,

I will introduce you to Hooky. He is not the devil you have figured!

Bernard Sumner is a thousand times more boring

I don't think anyone is the devil...and I don't care who is or isn't boring....

Of course you do not like Hooky. It is obvious.

But you need to know his side of the story before kicking his arse.

I like Hooky's bass sound; not a fan of his big mouth. And I did read the interview, but I disagree with some of what he said.

leather-girl wrote: Most bands around the world, 'tread it safe' with the hits/singles type songs when they tour, with the exception being some songs from their new album. Now, it's true New Order haven't played songs from Lost Sirens, but other than that, they're doing what most bands in the world do. Most of the audience for New Order gigs will probably be a mixture of hardcore and casual fans, so it's not really sensible to mainly play b-sides or obscure album tracks.

but the Factory Records/Rob Gretton version of New Order never had this attitude back in the past.

I have no issue with them cashing in and just being entertainers "giving the audience what they want" nowadays, but it IS painful to see them go back on their original ethic. They have become the 1970s prog-rock bands that they used to despise... how are they different from a commercial entity like Jefferson Starship touring on "We Built This City" in the 1980s?

Hooky is NOT just giving the people what they want. He has NOT sold out. He is playing every single song, whether it was a hit or not, no matter how difficult to perform, no matter who likes it, and no matter how small the venue.

I find that to be more in tune with the contrarian, punk-spirited New Order that I grew up with in the 1980s. Hooky is proving you can keep that integrity, even as you grow older.

tarbox23 wrote:

leather-girl wrote: Most bands around the world, 'tread it safe' with the hits/singles type songs when they tour, with the exception being some songs from their new album. Now, it's true New Order haven't played songs from Lost Sirens, but other than that, they're doing what most bands in the world do. Most of the audience for New Order gigs will probably be a mixture of hardcore and casual fans, so it's not really sensible to mainly play b-sides or obscure album tracks.

but the Factory Records/Rob Gretton version of New Order never had this attitude back in the past.

I have no issue with them cashing in and just being entertainers "giving the audience what they want" nowadays, but it IS painful to see them go back on their original ethic. They have become the 1970s prog-rock bands that they used to despise... how are they different from a commercial entity like Jefferson Starship touring on "We Built This City" in the 1980s?

Hooky is NOT just giving the people what they want. He has NOT sold out. He is playing every single song, whether it was a hit or not, no matter how difficult to perform, no matter who likes it, and no matter how small the venue.

I find that to be more in tune with the contrarian, punk-spirited New Order that I grew up with in the 1980s. Hooky is proving you can keep that integrity, even as you grow older.

Perhaps I care less about how New Order were in the Factory era because I started listening to them in 2002. Also, while I do have both Joy Division's albums, I'm not a huge fan, so I'm not that obsessive about what Hooky's doing. And perhaps the Factory way of doing things may be difficult today. The Hacienda and Factory may have been influential, but I'm too young to remember, so I don't see New Order as sellouts. Unless they keep touring like this for several more years with nothing new.

tarbox23 wrote:

leather-girl wrote: Most bands around the world, 'tread it safe' with the hits/singles type songs when they tour, with the exception being some songs from their new album. Now, it's true New Order haven't played songs from Lost Sirens, but other than that, they're doing what most bands in the world do. Most of the audience for New Order gigs will probably be a mixture of hardcore and casual fans, so it's not really sensible to mainly play b-sides or obscure album tracks.

but the Factory Records/Rob Gretton version of New Order never had this attitude back in the past.

I have no issue with them cashing in and just being entertainers "giving the audience what they want" nowadays, but it IS painful to see them go back on their original ethic. They have become the 1970s prog-rock bands that they used to despise... how are they different from a commercial entity like Jefferson Starship touring on "We Built This City" in the 1980s?

Hooky is NOT just giving the people what they want. He has NOT sold out. He is playing every single song, whether it was a hit or not, no matter how difficult to perform, no matter who likes it, and no matter how small the venue.

I find that to be more in tune with the contrarian, punk-spirited New Order that I grew up with in the 1980s. Hooky is proving you can keep that integrity, even as you grow older.

It sorta seems like you do have an "issue with them cashing in and just being entertainers". I think the majority of the people on these boards could tell you how they differ from Jefferson Starship. Some might even be able to educate you on Jefferson Airplane/Starship (formed in the mid-sixties, definitely not prog-rock, toured "We Built this City" in the 1980s because it was released in *gasp*, the 1980s, when they were called just Starship). Is their evolving name why you chose to use them as an example? Do you believe the remaining members no longer have the right to be called New Order?

I understand your point. I was disappointed back in 1985 when they started pulling singles off the albums. I was uncomfortable when they did "World in Motion". I was underwhelmed by Republic and its half-hearted tour. I got over it. The fact is, I've enjoyed every subsequent tour more and more since that 1993 nadir.

Housey wrote: I can't decide which is worse: jokes about Stephen beating Gillian (and yes, I know he was referring to Brotherdale but I read that as 'lol, I saw the paper and for a second thought that...') or jokes about Gillian 'shagging' her way into New Order. Ugh. PLEASE STOP TALKING.

I didn't see it that way at all.

tarbox23 wrote:

No, you are implying that Hook insinuated Gillian sought out New Order and slept with them to get into the band....

Hook said, "If she hadn’t been shagging the drummer, I don’t think she would have got the gig, to be honest."

And, come on, it IS pretty much true, and I bet Gillian would laugh about it. It was totally New Order to have the drummer's girlfriend join the band. Probably involving some Rob Gretton fiendish smile.

You guys have gone off the deep end of over-sensitivity, and Housey is purposefully misconstruing crap to paint Hooky as evil.

I thought the most interesting bit in the interview was when he said he would stop at Regret. I was curious which LP would be the last one he toured.

Also, that Sumner was the one to recommend the chorus pedal.

I agree completely, it's not insulting and it didn't really matter, but it's clear she didn't get in for writing great tunes or anything. People are extremely sensitive about Hooky's views and jokes, so it's no wonder some here will think even worse of him now.

As for Regret, I do believe Hooky likes most of Get Ready and knows much of it is still New Order, but I guess he doesn't see it worthwhile to play the whole record.

leather-girl wrote: I still disagree with Hooky that Bernard allegedly was 'happiest' when she left. And nobody was a classically trained musician, so there was no need to single out Gillian for allegedly not being the best musician.

How could we know if he was happy or not? There isn't much info about backstage NO 2001-2002.

tarbox23 wrote: I am starting to come around more to Hooky's side of things tho.

I really didn't like all the Ian Curtis imagery at the New Order Now show I saw in NYC last autumn. Felt really cultish. All the cheers and lighters in some silly reverence of the holy icon of Ian when Atmosphere was played was just juvenile.

Hook doesn't do any of that crap, he just plays the music.

And, he IS more daring to play all these non-hits, learning all these old songs that they never or rarely played live. Especially in contrast to New Order Now who tread it safe with the hits, which is clearly a more 'selling-out' type deal. Sure, they are all making money off this, but certainly New Order Now are making more, so it is pretty silly of them to accuse Hook of cashing in.

I guess I am just starting to see Hook as the underdog here, and I think New Order have been too hard on him -- we all know Hooky has a big mouth, but that is what you get with him, it has been that way for decades, it is Hooky - I picture him strutting around the stage in 1988 all clad in leather with his bass down to the floor, and wouldn't expect anything less.

Neither side is right, or wrong, but I am finding myself becoming more loyal to the black sheep lately...

It is obviously challenging and a lot more passionate than what NewOrderNow is doing. I doubt it is that hard to play I'll Stay With You, for instance, since me and my amateur group could play it really close to the original after few rehearsals.

I used to think Hooky was simply pissed because they didn't bother talking with him about getting back after he left, then decided to make it his mission to "fuck NO over" for no reason. Then he revealed the drinking prolem, rehab, the legal maneuvers and all that. Also the money bit is non-sense, they're making millions in a world tour playing "Singles" versus Hooky playing dozens of intimate gigs. There was a NOOLer that posted a thread saying NONow already had a world tour in mind and the charity thing was just a test; he ended up completely right, you don't get that many gigs right off the bat without some actual planning.

What was most surprising IMO was the attempt at suing for libel. I'd get absolutely furious if it was me. It's not a book about their privacy, it's about a period in Peter Hook's life that he shared with them. I found it absurd, really.

tarbox23 wrote:

but the Factory Records/Rob Gretton version of New Order never had this attitude back in the past.

I have no issue with them cashing in and just being entertainers "giving the audience what they want" nowadays, but it IS painful to see them go back on their original ethic. They have become the 1970s prog-rock bands that they used to despise... how are they different from a commercial entity like Jefferson Starship touring on "We Built This City" in the 1980s?

Hooky is NOT just giving the people what they want. He has NOT sold out. He is playing every single song, whether it was a hit or not, no matter how difficult to perform, no matter who likes it, and no matter how small the venue.

I find that to be more in tune with the contrarian, punk-spirited New Order that I grew up with in the 1980s. Hooky is proving you can keep that integrity, even as you grow older.

No strictly true, the 1998 NO shows (not Factory era, but certainly Rob Gretton era) had no new product to promote, in a lot of ways the 2011/12 tours are similar to the 1998 period in that they are not promoting 'new' stuff, but are more a live celebration of the band after a relatively long period of inactivity, sort of 'gearing up to do another album' shows. Granted, there are far more live shows this time around than 1998, but it's still similar, and Hooky was very much a part of the 98 stuff...

Disagree that Hooky's shows are less of a cash in than what NO are doing now, playing entire albums in sequence (especially 30+ year old ones) seems a lot more brazenly nostalgic to me, especially given the merchandising that goes with them. At least NO have tweaked some of the arrangements for live, and are planning new material - that seems more in the spirit of the old NO than Hooky barking out Ian and Barney's vocals barely playing his bass, playing the same old setlist year in and out...just an opinion, mind

Volturno, I don't know the band, but I find it hard to imagine Bernard or Steve's attitude was 'I'm so happy she left!' considering she had to leave only because of health issues in her family.

I want some more Hooky DJ gigs -

If he hadn't been at school with Bernard, I don't think he would have got the gig, to be honest...

Housey wrote: jokes about Gillian 'shagging' her way into New Order.

I certainly view Phil Cunningham in a different light after reading that...

I will say this: I don't think Hooky is 'evil,' far from it. I just think he's crass and makes really tasteless jokes and statements (and that's what he was doing here) and he needs to edit what comes out of his mouth a bit.

I do like his bass playing. In fact, I dabble in bass (poorly) because of him. If he was to bury the hatchet and come back, I'd be very happy about it. And I think I've always been pretty clear that I don't assume that anybody is the good guy/bad guy in the whole NO fallout-- we just don't know what really happened, and even though I'm an Other Two superfan, I would never assume that they're not capable of being assholes.

But he needs to play his bass and quit taking the media bait so much. It's not serving him and it's really shaded the way I feel about him. (I'm sure he's losing sleep at night over that.)

I'll say this as a woman: comments about getting a job because of who you were sleeping with are kinda loaded for us. Whether it's true or not in this case, it's a shitty thing to say.
And nobody held a gun to this man's head and forced him to be in a band with The Worst Musician Who Ever Musicianed, so I wish he'd stop bitching about it.

leather-girl wrote: As for why New Order have perhaps made more money for gigs, is that the name brand of 'New Order' is more known around the world than 'Peter Hook and The Light'. Also, like it or not, there seems to be more 'demand' around the world (especially at big festivals etc) for New Order playing their songs, than Peter Hook doing album tours of JD (and now New Order albums?).

The New Order 'brand' is a brand Hooky was also responsible for though, surely?

And I'm guessing the average punter would probably recognise Hooky ahead of Stephen or Gillian, or Phil?

El Jarvo wrote:

leather-girl wrote: As for why New Order have perhaps made more money for gigs, is that the name brand of 'New Order' is more known around the world than 'Peter Hook and The Light'. Also, like it or not, there seems to be more 'demand' around the world (especially at big festivals etc) for New Order playing their songs, than Peter Hook doing album tours of JD (and now New Order albums?).

The New Order 'brand' is a brand Hooky was also responsible for though, surely?

And I'm guessing the average punter would probably recognise Hooky ahead of Stephen or Gillian, or Phil?

Surely, Hooky was also responsible for the 'New Order' brand, but then, he is no longer with the band right now. I'm just trying to say there still is demand for New Order, (as evidenced in festivals etc) even though Hooky isn't currently part of it any more. The Light, and New Order have different kinds of audiences, and there's nothing wrong with that.

NotAMod wrote:

El Jarvo wrote: The New Order 'brand' is a brand Hooky was also responsible for though, surely?

Yes but evidently a brand (or band) which he felt he had unilateral control to end in 2006.

Which leads us back to the "I split the band" and "He left the band" arguments.

I personally think Hooky left, but maybe that's just me.

aysie wrote: If he hadn't been at school with Bernard, I don't think he would have got the gig, to be honest...

It's occurred to me Hooky reminds me of alcoholics i've had the rather displeasure of knowing in my time. They all have this arrogant,obnoxious "i'm always right and you're a piece of shit" attitude.

NotAMod wrote:

Aside from that it's surprising to hear him say Regret was the last (proper) New Order song. At the time of Get Ready I remember reading many positive comments with Hooky about that LP; Crystal, 60 MPH, Turn My Way & Primitive Notion - not New Order songs?

I was gonna make the same point. The Regret-is-the-only-classic-NO-on-Republic line has been done to death for 20 years, but Get Ready was far more Hook-heavy and I myself as well as reviewers (I wasn't really into interviews) praised it for this very reason. Sirens is hardly Electronic either is it? Sounds like another case of Hooky shooting his mouth off. The Gillian comment is harsh but he's been like that for a while now. I hope he just means she got the gig cos she knew Steve, not cos she was, ahem, 'shagging him'. (Note to self: Apply to be Melanie C's backing singer.)

leather-girl wrote: I still disagree with Hooky that Bernard allegedly was 'happiest' when she left.

Yeah I thought that was a bit hard to swallow. Isn't this just Hooky stirring the pooh again?

Turn is one of their best post-Technique tracks in my opinion. Strong and very Hookified. It was touted as a single but we got Jetstream istead! (Actually I don't hate Jetstream the way a lot of fans do and Ana Matronic is cool.)

NotAMod wrote: I was listening to "Turn" on my iPod earlier and marvelled at just how much Hooky bass dominates that track.

In a good way of course, it sounds superb.

Is that not a "New Order" song either?

I just don't get Turn. It's hardly a classic. Can't understand why people are always harping on about it here.

Sirens - the track - is infinitely better, IMO.

El Jarvo wrote:

NotAMod wrote: I was listening to "Turn" on my iPod earlier and marvelled at just how much Hooky bass dominates that track.

In a good way of course, it sounds superb.

Is that not a "New Order" song either?

I just don't get Turn. It's hardly a classic. Can't understand why people are always harping on about it here.

Sirens - the track - is infinitely better, IMO.

This song also puzzled me. First, you get a perception that it is one of the "classic", Technique-like tracks... But then there's something wrong with it. Production? Lyrics? Chords? I cannot fathom it.

Michael Monkhouse wrote:

The Gillian comment is harsh but he's been like that for a while now. I hope he just means she got the gig cos she knew Steve, not cos she was, ahem, 'shagging him'. (Note to self: Apply to be Melanie C's backing singer.)

There was a radio documentary recorded back around 87-88 in which I recall it being mentioned that it was Robs idea to get Gillian in the band, they wanted someone who wasn't a muso and who was from within the groups circle so really it was a case of being in the right place at the right time etc which is how they all got together in the first place anyway...

tarbox23 wrote: I really didn't like all the Ian Curtis imagery at the New Order Now show I saw in NYC last autumn. Felt really cultish. All the cheers and lighters in some silly reverence of the holy icon of Ian when Atmosphere was played was just juvenile.

Hook doesn't do any of that crap, he just plays the music.

And the fans don't do that at a Hooky gig?

😎

Nick King wrote:

tarbox23 wrote: I really didn't like all the Ian Curtis imagery at the New Order Now show I saw in NYC last autumn. Felt really cultish. All the cheers and lighters in some silly reverence of the holy icon of Ian when Atmosphere was played was just juvenile.

Hook doesn't do any of that crap, he just plays the music.

And the fans don't do that at a Hooky gig?

😎

Seriously.

When I saw New Order in NYC last year, they played 3 (4 if you count Ceremony) Joy Division songs out of 16 or 17 songs in total.

They did 4 songs they came out after 2000.

They did 3 songs that were never singles but are classic album cuts (Elegia, AOC, 586, YSF). They also did a fan favorite (1963). They even dragged out Thieves Like Us back in Berlin. So not just a greatest hits set.

They played newly reworked versions of Temptation, True Faith, 586, Round and Round, Elegia.

So, about 90 percent of the entire night was about New Order. Yes, they did two JD songs in the encore and had the video footage of IC, paying respect.

So that is somehow more cultish than...

Hooky and his band playing entire JD albums, no newer material whatsoever, to a room full of punters. some of whom believe all of that "Ian Curtis died for you" bullshit. Really?

I remember when I saw Hooky and Co. do Closer...the show was great. Band sounded superb. I've always liked Hooky's singing voice (I love the first Revenge album). During the whole show, there were these people screaming "Fuck Bernard Sumner" and "JD are amazing, NO suck in every way". Felt pretty cultish to me.

El Jarvo wrote:

NotAMod wrote: I was listening to "Turn" on my iPod earlier and marvelled at just how much Hooky bass dominates that track.

In a good way of course, it sounds superb.

Is that not a "New Order" song either?

I just don't get Turn. It's hardly a classic. Can't understand why people are always harping on about it here.

Sirens - the track - is infinitely better, IMO.

It's hardly a classic, but it's one of the better songs off the album, and I like the lyrics and melody. Much much better than 'Jetstream' or 'Working Overtime', IMO.

Everyone's welcome to their opinion, which means I'm right. Anyway I think Turn is easily the best track on Sirens - heartfelt and melancholic in the best NO tradition. Re Gillian, the general idea from interviews is they weren't gonna audition a new singer or it would've been JD2, they wanted someone who could play OK but didn't have a distinctive, recognisable sound - so yeah, right place / time. In John Peel's '93 Radio 1 doc Tony Wilson said it was Rob's idea to bring her in. I don't think Hook's comments on her abilities / contribution are fair either, but I went on about that in another post.

aysie wrote: If he hadn't been at school with Bernard, I don't think he would have got the gig, to be honest...

Very nicely put.

JG wrote:

aysie wrote: If he hadn't been at school with Bernard, I don't think he would have got the gig, to be honest...

Well, I suspect many have been thinking that for years, someone had to say it eventually.

I wonder if deep down, that's a key factor behind the immense insecurity Hook displays in his interviews.

This is all very silly. You can play that game with all of them, with most guys who end up in the music business. Where would Bernard be without Ian? Would anybody ever heard of Joy Division without Tony Wilson and Factory? Would anybody have ever heard of Gillian if Ian had not killed humself? If New Order had not been a success, would Hooky and Bernard have lived out their lives on the dole addicted to H? What if Ian had quit Joy Division and never killed himself, would anybody ever had heard of Bernard or Hooky except as footnotes to Ian's early band? If Gillian was not Steve's girlfriend, would she be like Susan Boyle? Without JD... would Steve had been a banker? Would Hooky have been a cat burglar and lived out his life in prison? Would Bernard have joined Depeche Mode or just been unemployed all his life?

0_o wrote:

JG wrote:

aysie wrote: If he hadn't been at school with Bernard, I don't think he would have got the gig, to be honest...

Well, I suspect many have been thinking that for years, someone had to say it eventually.

I wonder if deep down, that's a key factor behind the immense insecurity Hook displays in his interviews.

Would Bernard have joined Depeche Mode or just been unemployed all his life?

I cant imagine Barney wearing leather pants or a lether skirt if he was part of DM. That would be such a horrible sight. I see Barney becoming more of a fortune teller or a hypnotist. Hooky would've probably plot to kill Sid V, so he can replace him as the Sex Pistols bass player. Wait a minute didn't Sid apperently die from OD, hmmm...wonder where Hooky was on that day? Steve would've been a college professor on the art of war, and Gillian would've start a band with Andrew Fletcher(depeche mode) and would been the 1st band to become a band and never record a single album or a song!!! LOL! J/K

If I remember rightly, "Turn" was remixed, a video done, a chock load of new-remixes-of-old-songs prepared and then it was decided to do the 12 x 12" release instead.

markreed wrote: If I remember rightly, "Turn" was remixed, a video done, a chock load of new-remixes-of-old-songs prepared and then it was decided to do the 12 x 12" release instead.

Yeah there was even artwork of a terne (tee hee) but it was never finalised. There was also talk of a Sirens megamix as the B-side but DJ Hooky said he didn't know anything about it. The 12-12 thing wasn't officially the replacement but it certainly looked that way.

markreed wrote: If I remember rightly, "Turn" was remixed, a video done, a chock load of new-remixes-of-old-songs prepared and then it was decided to do the 12 x 12" release instead.

There were 4 videos.

Another set of interviews:

My Interview with Peter Hook, Part 1: Joy Division and the "Rubbish" with New Order

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?

Interview: with Peter Hook of Joy Division and New Order

There are times when you realize that in the same way that I’m playing Joy Division songs without them, they’re playing New Order without me, but I do feel a hell of a lot better now that I’ve played New Order as well. Their bass player actually got involved in the slanging match and Phil Cunningham and really they’ve got no place to talk about anything to do with me. My argument is with Bernard, Stephen and Gillian. It’s not with two guys that don’t know what happened anyways because they weren’t there. I did have to phone Phil Cunningham up say “Be careful what you say, I‘ve got no argument with you but don‘t fucking join in cuz you weren’t there.”

I know Johnny Rotten quite well. P.I.L. toured with us in America and I got to know him quite well.

To have PIL support New Order, that must’ve been like a dream?

I wouldn’t say it was a dream (laughs!) He is a very difficult character, he never has a moment off, he is always Johnny Rotten, in your face, spitting! I actually do like him a lot, for me it’s like in a funny way, its almost as important what he did for me in the way that my mother gave birth to me. Johnny Rotten gave birth to me as a musician and when I was doing the book, the thing that frightened me was what if I hadn’t gone that night to the gig?

For what it's worth, this is kind of in defence of Hooky...

When this Hooky v New Order 'war' started I was quite firmly in Bernard, Stephen and Gillian's camp. I was pretty horrified by Hooky's bitter outpourings in interviews and thought his comments about Gillian's ability as a musician were out of order. I saw the new New Order last year and thoroughly enjoyed it, the first time I'd seen them since 1988 (!). It was all fairly straightforward - they were the good guys and Hooky was the villain. Which was difficult to accept as Hooky was always my favourite member of New Order in the past.

Then the very next morning Hooky's Unknown Pleasures book arrived in the post. I'd ordered it despite being saddened by his recent pronouncements, thought I'd give it a go. Quite frankly it was a fantastic read, I couldn't put it down and blazed through it in a week (which is amazing for an old git like me). I have no idea how much of it was true or not, but Hooky's heart-on-sleeve telling of the story made me think better of him. The bloke obviously cares a hell of a lot about what's important to him. He can't be all bad.

Now I don't know what to think. I still maintain Hooky shouldn't be giving so many interviews because it just leads to more mud-slinging. But I now feel he's not 100% the bad guy in all of this, they're all to blame in one way or another. It saddens me that it's all gone so pear-shaped for my favourite group, but at least there are two New Order's (sort of) to enjoy.

1980 wrote: I still maintain Hooky shouldn't be giving so many interviews because it just leads to more mud-slinging.

He's had a book to promote - before Xmas over here, post Xmas Stateside. I should imagine he's had to do a lot of interviews in order to promote that?

Also, he's been interviewed about Lost Sirens too, so is doing promotion on behalf of that.

El Jarvo wrote:

1980 wrote: I still maintain Hooky shouldn't be giving so many interviews because it just leads to more mud-slinging.

He's had a book to promote - before Xmas over here, post Xmas Stateside. I should imagine he's had to do a lot of interviews in order to promote that?

Also, he's been interviewed about Lost Sirens too, so is doing promotion on behalf of that.

I agree - no doubt he's got a lot of people asking him for interviews right now, and inevitably the New Order thing is going to come up.

I think what I meant to say was I wish he wasn't giving so many interviews.

This ongoing feud comes up time and again because every stupid journalist will ask the same bloody questions about it over and over again, to any member of the band they come into contact with. If they get answers then it's good copy for them. Later on the NME will make up another conflict story about it as well, and it'll run and run.

The thing Hooky, Steve, Bernard, Gillian need to do is at least agree to shut up about it, then they can close down any discussions with idiot 'journalists'.