289 replies · 339,308 views
Following Bernard's book, Peters turn of events is published in October.
I'm presuming he'll be doing a signing tour like he did with the last couple of books, but Recordstore are currently taking pre-orders for signed copies (just ordered one, I think the last signing he did in London sold out without me even hearing about it )
I know he's doing a tour of the US later this year, so I'm pretty sure he'll probably be doing promo events for the book as well. I'm actually looking forward to reading it, despite the joyless division between him and the group... buh dum tss.
I am writing a book about how New Order developed '80 - '83. It explains that they started out sounding similar to Joy Division as that was actually their previous form - did you know that the first single was indeed a Joy Division song? - but they livened up in 1982 with 'Temptation' and and were heavily influenced by New York disco in 1983. The book is called 'How many more fucking times? It's been 35 fucking years, has the fucking novelty still not fucking worn off you fucking fucker' and you can buy an unsigned copy on the Internet.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: I am writing a book about how New Order developed '80 - '83.
You should write one on why there are only 3 in Spice Girls 2016 ![[:d]](/emoticons/biggrin.gif){kind=small}
I shall not be giving Hook my coin for his latest "first class ticket, third rate view" outpouring.
On a positive note, I did quite enjoy Michael Butterworth's "Blue Monday Diaries" recently. It's clearly been padded out quite a bit but that's easily forgivable, considering the author & his appreciably different approach to the main body of the book.
I'm looking forward to the book. I freely admit the arguing has entertained me a bit. Of course a good resolution, such as reformation, is what most of us would ultimately like to see. However, what I'm really interested in is Peter talking about how the albums were made and his views on the music...
Michael Monkhouse wrote: The book is called 'How many more fucking times? It's been 35 fucking years, has the fucking novelty still not fucking worn off you fucking fucker' and you can buy an unsigned copy on the Internet.
Childish I know, but for some reason the above makes me think of this Southpark clip:
poisoned snickers 2015 wrote:
Michael Monkhouse wrote: I am writing a book about how New Order developed '80 - '83.
You should write one on why there are only 3 in Spice Girls 2016
Some of the Spice Girls are getting back together 'to say thank you to the fans.... It's a gift, a present, a party and you're all invited!' Aren't they generous?... How much are the fucking tickets again?
Now before we start yet another chain of Hooky bashing here, I remember him saying that his new book is actually going to reveal a lot of the recording details for each album. I do music production with synthesizers as a hobby, so I'm really excited to read all the little nerdy creative details which helped inspire certain songs from a music tech point of view. Barney touched a little upon this in his book (talking about the process of creating Blue Monday with him and Morris spending hours programming everything), so if the book is filled with stuff like that, it could be a very inspiring read. For all we know, many of the New Order songs simply started out with a bass line first, much like the Joy Division material. Hooky probably knows a little synth programming too (for example: The Happy One).
Moderne Decay wrote: I do music production with synthesizers as a hobby, so I'm really excited to read all the little nerdy creative details which helped inspire certain songs from a music tech point of view. .
Same here. I bet New Order have inspired a lot of people to record themselves...
I'm looking forward to the book because I like reading books of people moaning like fuck about things. This is why I enjoyed Johnny Rottens book.
Coops wrote: I'm looking forward to the book because I like reading books of people moaning like fuck about things. This is why I enjoyed Johnny Rottens book.
I know he has a few books out now. The only one I have is "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" which I thought was really great. Yeah, quite an angry and opinionated fella, but that's the definition of punk in a nutshell.
Rorschach wrote: I shall not be giving Hook my coin for his latest "first class ticket, third rate view" outpouring.
On a positive note, I did quite enjoy Michael Butterworth's "Blue Monday Diaries" recently. It's clearly been padded out quite a bit but that's easily forgivable, considering the author & his appreciably different approach to the main body of the book.
Just finished reading it. Not bad at all. with all rock journalism, it's 1/3 "me,me,me" , 1/3 gossip "rob sent me out for bacon butties and a big bag of weed..." and 1/3 anorak details on dmx's and emu2s
Cranelane wrote: Substance
Has the cover been posted yet? If not then here it is.
Hooky talking out of his arse then
Fotzepolitic wrote:
Cranelane wrote: Substance
Has the cover been posted yet? If not then here it is.
Hooky talking out of his arse then
he's just blocked me on twitter for saying its a very apt cover as no doubt he'll be talking out of his arse!
i have to give you credit for the pun though as i nicked it
You guy's nearly made me spit coffee out on my computer screen right now. This is seriously the funniest thing I've read all day. Now assuming he's doing a book tour, it's going to be very difficult to keep a straight face if I meet him in person to get an autograph. I should carry a silver ink pen and ask him politely to sign it directly above the bass, haha!
Rorschach wrote: On a positive note, I did quite enjoy Michael Butterworth's "Blue Monday Diaries" recently. It's clearly been padded out quite a bit but that's easily forgivable, considering the author & his appreciably different approach to the main body of the book.
pure_shaw wrote: Just finished reading it. Not bad at all. with all rock journalism, it's 1/3 "me,me,me" , 1/3 gossip "rob sent me out for bacon butties and a big bag of weed..." and 1/3 anorak details on dmx's and emu2s
Fantastic book. Really felt like I was at Brit Row hanging with them, just fascinating account of how they work together in the studio, and what drugs they consumed. Though I feel like Hooky told Michael he couldn't divulge on him, cause he is the only one in the book who seems to be a saint with all that...
Seriously tho, what a voyeuristic read. Felt like 1983 for the entire week I was reading that. +++
And if you look closely at the cover, you'll notice that the words "Inside New Order" are in the shadow of Hooky's arse. They say you should never judge a book by its cover, but it's all very symbolic. [eek2]
Moderne Decay wrote:
Coops wrote: I'm looking forward to the book because I like reading books of people moaning like fuck about things. This is why I enjoyed Johnny Rottens book.
I know he has a few books out now. The only one I have is "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" which I thought was really great. Yeah, quite an angry and opinionated fella, but that's the definition of punk in a nutshell.
There's mention of NO in his latest book. He talks about the tour with pil, sugarcubes, NO and how Barney was so drunk he had to be wheeled onto the stage. He seems complimentary towards them now but I remember him being very ugly at the time - 1989. In an interview w/ mtv during that tour he said sugarcubes were ok but NO were no good and only doing it for the money. Typical Lydon
Emh wrote:
Moderne Decay wrote:
Coops wrote: I'm looking forward to the book because I like reading books of people moaning like fuck about things. This is why I enjoyed Johnny Rottens book.
I know he has a few books out now. The only one I have is "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" which I thought was really great. Yeah, quite an angry and opinionated fella, but that's the definition of punk in a nutshell.
There's mention of NO in his latest book. He talks about the tour with pil, sugarcubes, NO and how Barney was so drunk he had to be wheeled onto the stage. He seems complimentary towards them now but I remember him being very ugly at the time - 1989. In an interview w/ mtv during that tour he said sugarcubes were ok but NO were no good and only doing it for the money. Typical Lydon
I'll have to check that book out then. What's funny is that the some of the best New Order gigs are when Sumner is totally sloshed. When I saw them in Oakland a decade ago, I remember him being a bit drunk, falling over and then tossing his guitar into the air. It was a riot!
Emh wrote:
Moderne Decay wrote:
Coops wrote: I'm looking forward to the book because I like reading books of people moaning like fuck about things. This is why I enjoyed Johnny Rottens book.
I know he has a few books out now. The only one I have is "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" which I thought was really great. Yeah, quite an angry and opinionated fella, but that's the definition of punk in a nutshell.
There's mention of NO in his latest book. He talks about the tour with pil, sugarcubes, NO and how Barney was so drunk he had to be wheeled onto the stage. He seems complimentary towards them now but I remember him being very ugly at the time - 1989. In an interview w/ mtv during that tour he said sugarcubes were ok but NO were no good and only doing it for the money. Typical Lydon
I recall an MTV interview with Lydon from that tour where he said "New Order take more drugs than the Grateful Dead."
Over the course of a whopping 768 pages, Hook offers up a “no-holds-barred, comprehensive account of the band’s entire history,” according to an Amazon description. It comes “packed with outrageous anecdotes and including every set list and tour itinerary and interspersed with ‘geek facts’ of every piece of electronic equipment used to forge the sound that changed the direction of popular music.”
Wow, I'm really beginning to get excited about this now I must say.
tarbox23 wrote:
Fantastic book. Really felt like I was at Brit Row hanging with them, just fascinating account of how they work together in the studio, and what drugs they consumed. Though I feel like Hooky told Michael he couldn't divulge on him, cause he is the only one in the book who seems to be a saint with all that...
More saintly than Gillian? She never struck me as a drug taker, but I haven't read the book...
Andy wrote: I recall an MTV interview with Lydon from that tour where he said "New Order take more drugs than the Grateful Dead."
When I saw PIL live a few years ago, I remember seeing Lydon taking sips from a bottle of booze between songs, swishing it in his mouth, then spitting it out in a bucket. If that was supposed to count as sobriety for him, it was really gross to watch. It was still a great show, but I can't get that visual piece out of my head. At the very least, he could have sipped on a non-alcoholic beer or something. You'd be amazed how many bars and venues actually have them if you ask.
Andy wrote:
Emh wrote:
Moderne Decay wrote:
Coops wrote: I'm looking forward to the book because I like reading books of people moaning like fuck about things. This is why I enjoyed Johnny Rottens book.
I know he has a few books out now. The only one I have is "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" which I thought was really great. Yeah, quite an angry and opinionated fella, but that's the definition of punk in a nutshell.
There's mention of NO in his latest book. He talks about the tour with pil, sugarcubes, NO and how Barney was so drunk he had to be wheeled onto the stage. He seems complimentary towards them now but I remember him being very ugly at the time - 1989. In an interview w/ mtv during that tour he said sugarcubes were ok but NO were no good and only doing it for the money. Typical Lydon
I recall an MTV interview with Lydon from that tour where he said "New Order take more drugs than the Grateful Dead."
My recollection is that Lydon was complementary to NO on one point - when they were the headliners (they would switch on different dates) NO would give him a reasonable time to do his sound check. Most ridiculous press name for that tour - "monsters of art rock."
Debaser wrote:
tarbox23 wrote:
Fantastic book. Really felt like I was at Brit Row hanging with them, just fascinating account of how they work together in the studio, and what drugs they consumed. Though I feel like Hooky told Michael he couldn't divulge on him, cause he is the only one in the book who seems to be a saint with all that...
More saintly than Gillian? She never struck me as a drug taker, but I haven't read the book...
might want to read the book... they were in their 20s.
having a bit of fun in the studio shouldn't be a surprise --- i appreciated the sincerity in his documentation of the daily runs out to procure certain substances. not a surprise to anyone who has followed the band.
and yet knowing more about the individual proclivities and fuel for the album is enlightening and adds a new dimension because for so many years there was essentially no description obtainable about life in this era.
their interviews in the early 80s were pretty scarce and taciturn.
lee wrote:
Fotzepolitic wrote:
Cranelane wrote: Substance
Has the cover been posted yet? If not then here it is.
Hooky talking out of his arse then
he's just blocked me on twitter for saying its a very apt cover as no doubt he'll be talking out of his arse!
i have to give you credit for the pun though as i nicked it
I never repeat old material. Anyway, happy new year. Porn forum. Some threads may be sticky... I won't bother with this book. Not cos Hooky talks crap, just cos there are only so many times you can hear the same story... I diidn't bother with Bernard's either cos (a) like I said, it's too much of the same, and (b) it was by all accounts vague and uninspired... I'm not into rock bios anyway, except John Lydon's cos he has a story to tell and stimulating ideas. It's different with, say, Ingmar Bergman where the work is layered and the bio gives you an insight. I don't give 2 shits how many drugs Barney needed to write Every Little Cunts. I'm writing a book about how Hooky plays bass but not in the usual way (as a supporting instrument) but almost as a lead, even with a plectrum. The book is called, 'Not Fucking Again, 40 Years and The Novelty Still Ain't Fucking Worn Off, Write Some New Songs'. I'm also writing my autobiography. It's not so much sex 'n' drugs 'n' rock-n-roll as Razzle reader's wives, Heineken and Spice Girls.
I saw PiL a few weeks ago and Lydon looked like he had eaten all the pies, so he's got no right to talk about other people over-doing things.
79order wrote: Course the cover could be Hooky saying kiss my arse.Iconic image Jesus I love you
What's ironic is that back when I was getting into Hooky's side projects, I considered myself to be a very staunch atheist at the time. 😈 I remember cringing at the title "Jesus, I Love You," but it actually turned out to be my favorite song off that first Revenge EP. It's like a perfect blend of New Order meshed with industrial rock. Now I'll be listening to it on my next trip to mass. ![[happy]](/emoticons/happy.gif){kind=small}
Ken Doherty wrote: I saw PiL a few weeks ago and Lydon looked like he had eaten all the pies, so he's got no right to talk about other people over-doing things.
Pies? I'm pretty sure it's due to Country Life giving him a lifetime supply of butter ![[:p]](/emoticons/tongue.gif){kind=small}
That's hilarious... Viking rock fuckpig's failed S 'n' M discorock project converts one to Christianity. Lydon's integrity is intact as every butter penny went to fund the next bout of activity. It's massively unfair that Naomi Campbell says 'I won't get outa bed for less than a billion' and instead of saying 'Fuck off then you arrogant bitch' we go 'She's AWESOME! That's the kinda att you gotta love!' Sarah Jessica Parker is writing her autobiography too. It's called, Straight from the horse's mouth.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: That's hilarious... Viking rock fuckpig's failed S 'n' M discorock project converts one to Christianity.
I was actually born and raised Catholic, so technically I was already converted since day one. I've been slowly reclaiming my faith over the years and I guess I can say that New Order's music has helped with that. After all, "I'm gonna live to get high..." ![[rolling]](/emoticons/rolling.gif){kind=small}
Catholic priests: Anti-gay, won't get married, masturbation is a sin. Will fuck kids though.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: Catholic priests: Anti-gay, won't get married, masturbation is a sin. Will fuck kids though.
Well, all I can say is that they weren't truly Catholic and God will have judgement on their souls. The amount of kind-hearted priests outweigh the dishonest ones by a landslide, so I'm not losing faith. Same deal with the police situation here in America. The media is out to demonize our police force as a bunch of racists pigs, yet there's only a small fraction of crooked cops within the collective whole.
I bet all the people that bash Hook on these forums and say he's talking out of his ass and doesn't belong in the band or whatever will still turn up at the book signings for an autograph and a handshake "just because". If you don't like him, then don't read his book or bother to meet him because you'll just be taking the chance away from people who still support him.
YourSilentFace wrote: I bet all the people that bash Hook on these forums and say he's talking out of his ass and doesn't belong in the band or whatever will still turn up at the book signings for an autograph and a handshake "just because". If you don't like him, then don't read his book or bother to meet him because you'll just be taking the chance away from people who still support him.
Welcome to the forum Peter
If this is indeed Peter Hook, realize we are only mad because we want the fighting to stop and you back with the rest of the group. Since I don't ever see that happening any time soon, here's some fan faith and loyalty for you...
Play the song "Jesus, I Love You" as an encore during your Portland Oregon performance (NOVEMBER 4), and I will be there to get your autograph after the show. I have a copy of the first Revenge EP on vinyl coming in the mail soon waiting for your signature. You have my support. 😎
The fighting won't stop because it's true that Hook broke the band up in 2007 because the group weren't getting along. Seems responsible as they were already the best band of the 80s, WFTSC had some great tracks but no-one really cares about it in retrospect and why keep doing it just for the money? Bernard agreed to this as he formed Bad Lieutenant but it was a financial flop and he played smaller gigs than what he wanted. So why not reunite New Order for the easy money, play the greatest hits and throw some planned Bad Lieutenant songs into a new New Order album and rake it in without the guy who didn't want to do that? Then call Hook the bad guy for splitting up the band almost a decade ago?
I remember on 7 July 1979 Ian had a cup of coffee. Coffee's brown like the surname of Mel B: how ironic and iconic and shit that Ian, so 'scared' of shit, might've wanted to bone the Spice Girl known as 'Scary'. He added milk like the earth mother goddess, the lack of whose love inspired lyrics like Isolation, Love Will Tear Us Apart and shit. Also he aded THREE lumps of sugar and 3's the Holy Trinity just like he probably wanted to bone a threesome of Natalie, that Belgian bird and this tart we was watchin on a porno on tour. Ian was awesome and shit, like.
YourSilentFace wrote: The fighting won't stop because it's true that Hook broke the band up in 2007 because the group weren't getting along. Seems responsible as they were already the best band of the 80s, WFTSC had some great tracks but no-one really cares about it in retrospect and why keep doing it just for the money? Bernard agreed to this as he formed Bad Lieutenant but it was a financial flop and he played smaller gigs than what he wanted. So why not reunite New Order for the easy money, play the greatest hits and throw some planned Bad Lieutenant songs into a new New Order album and rake it in without the guy who didn't want to do that? Then call Hook the bad guy for splitting up the band almost a decade ago?
Yeah but the New Order album is awesome. Also was BL a flop?
Moderne Decay wrote:
Play the song "Jesus, I Love You" as an encore 😎
Please don't. The Light's gigs are the only thing he's getting right so don't drag in a band that make The Other Two sound like The Who. OTP was shoddy, rushed and bollox and essentially just an excuse to tour - even superegotistical Hooky admitted that. The funny thing is how much criticism Hooky's getting - from the fans. Wtf must the average Joe make of him?
Cranelane wrote: interspersed with ‘geek facts’
Compare and contrast https://www.vamp.org/Siouxsie/Text/kdeyoe.94/0195.html
YourSilentFace wrote: The fighting won't stop because it's true that Hook broke the band up in 2007 because the group weren't getting along. Seems responsible as they were already the best band of the 80s, WFTSC had some great tracks but no-one really cares about it in retrospect and why keep doing it just for the money? Bernard agreed to this as he formed Bad Lieutenant but it was a financial flop and he played smaller gigs than what he wanted. So why not reunite New Order for the easy money, play the greatest hits and throw some planned Bad Lieutenant songs into a new New Order album and rake it in without the guy who didn't want to do that? Then call Hook the bad guy for splitting up the band almost a decade ago?
OK, a few things:
ctb
A couple of things for you though CTB, notwithstanding the implosion of Freebass, you can't really claim BL playing the SECC and the MEN Arena as a symbol of their own status - they were just the support act for the Pet Shop Boys.
I'd dearly love Hook to write some more new material - his band are great, write with them! - but if he is happy in what he is doing at the moment then I say just leave him be... Plenty of the Hook-bashers on here (and there are many) would simply judge any of his new material before they even listened to it anyway, if they even would listen to it in the first place.
Plenty of people love his album shows & he gets around the world just like N.O - every time I see a Light announcement their tours get bigger and bigger. Good luck to him! ![[:)]](/emoticons/smile.gif){kind=small}
Mr_D1sco wrote: A couple of things for you though CTB, notwithstanding the implosion of Freebass, you can't really claim BL playing the SECC and the MEN Arena as a symbol of their own status - they were just the support act for the Pet Shop Boys.
I'd dearly love Hook to write some more new material - his band are great, write with them! - but if he is happy in what he is doing at the moment then I say just leave him be... Plenty of the Hook-bashers on here (and there are many) would simply judge any of his new material before they even listened to it anyway, if they even would listen to it in the first place.
Plenty of people love his album shows & he gets around the world just like N.O - every time I see a Light announcement their tours get bigger and bigger. Good luck to him!
Fair point, I accept that. They also didn't play at King Tut's Wah Wah Hut either, but Freebass did. But...
I wouldn't call myself a Hook-basher, I did - and still do - admire his unique musical contribution and freely acknowledge it as an important ingredient of the NO sound. I just called out bullshit when I saw it, and backed it up with evidence that (mostly) refutes unsubstantiated claims from him or his acolyte/s (or him pretending to be an acolyte, possibly). In a way Hooky himself is the world's worst Hook-basher - every time he mouths off about his former bandmates in the press, he's doing himself and his fans (past and present) far more a disservice than any anonymous keyboard warrior could achieve.
I'd be happy to 'leave him be' were not for his endless bitterness and demonstrably inaccurate comments about his former bandmates. As a NO fan, I find it unedifying and disappointing to see this from someone I had once held in high regard, and rather than sycophantically accept and defend his position purely on the basis that he once contributed to the iconic 'classic' sound of New Order, I thought it worth pointing out a few things that seem to otherwise go unchallenged. After all, if he is about to launch a book of memoirs about his time in New Order, so you'd reasonably expect that he would value the power of unambiguous truth. If his new book is as flexible with the truth as some of his past comments in the press might suggest, his reputation is likely to take a further bashing in coming months - again, this would be at his own hand.
Plenty of people do love his shows with The Light, agreed... but that's not the point. The point is, they aren't shows with new - or even old - original Peter Hook music that is independent of NO or JD. NO and JD are popular - that's why he tours those shows. The rest of New Order tour to promote new material, mixing it live with reworked versions of older, well known stuff. Hook has no new material, for whatever reason he's chosen to not take the risk of recording and touring his own stuff. That anyone could argue that it's New Order and not Hooky that are 'doing for the money' is a bit delusional, frankly.
Let me know how big the crowds are when he does a show performing One True Passion in it's entirety.
Personally, I'm a fan of all the side projects. The only exceptions being the following:
The Freebass album I really enjoyed the first EP, but the album had Gary Briggs singing on EVERY SONG. Come on Hooky, let those vocals shine! I only listen to instrumental version now. If Hooky did vocals for the whole album, I would have loved it.
The Bad Lieutenant album Jake Evans on vocals were not really my thing. Not that he's a bad singer, it just doesn't gel with me. I pretty much just skip the tracks that he takes lead vocals on.
So with that said... All the Revenge, Electronic, The Other Two and even the Monaco albums are all equally brilliant. I feel no need to defend my tastes any further.
Let's consider why there is some Hook bashing, as opposed to just kneejerk go "Waaaah don't criticise him."
He lambasts the bands continued existence, expecting them to just roll over and play dead without him.
He says that he left, the band 'split'... because the band was always going to be the same four people. Apart from Gillian left due to health issues. It was OK to carry on then. Because the person who left wasn't called Peter Hook.
He criticises the current bass player for being a soundalike, yet also criticises him for adding 'his own stamp' to it. And criticises Tom for the band having a sequenced bass as well as live bass. Despite the fact the band had live sequenced bass for at least 23 years before left.
He criticises the band as a nostalgia act, yet 99% of his shows contan no song less than 29 years old.
His interviews are factually incorrect at certain points. So many I can't be bothered to list them.
His lists of complaints of greivances are about money, security, and well... money. New Order were chronically and incompetently managed financially, pissed money against the wall, and every year the band turned over probably far, far more than I ever will. I can't comment on any current financial arrangements, but having been in N.O. for 25 years and the band earning for Reading 1998 over 10 times the *current* national salary (18 years later) I can only conclude some financial recklessness. Suing your former bandmates for money isn't the answer. Getting a goddamn Tardis and a decent accountant is probably the answer.
Also, selling a reproduction school photo for a grand on your website? Or limited edition books with bits of masonry and a 10" record for around £450?
Freebass. It's a rubbish record. He's not released an album of new material in six years.
All the current actions are mercenary and brazenly desperate, monetising the legacy. I'm fairly sure 'Twatto' isn't perfect, but he's not slagging off everyone constantly.
Sure, The Light play great shows, and the band sound lovely, but lets not put anyone on a false pedestal here. I hope the book is a great read, but I suspect all it will do is extend the legal action and cost everyone a lot of money. Life is too short to spend your old age slagging off everyone who was part of your career when you were younger.
Superb post
He needs to take a step back and look at what he's got/achieved and stop this court case and bickering now Or he's going to die a bitter sad man
I also go to the odd hook gig and enjoy them,and he certainly seems to so why can't he just be happy with his lot
It's occurred to me the similarities between Peter Hook and Donald Trump.Both always running their mouth, talking out their arse, saying nasty hateful things about people, contradicting and denying things they've said, desperate for attention and to be the big man numero uno..... oh yeah and being a total wanker.
Moderne Decay wrote: Come on Hooky, let those vocals shine! If Hooky did vocals for the whole album, I would have loved it.
Is this a joke?
Do we think there'll be another book to follow detailing Revenge, Monaco, Freebass and The Light (and maybe the outcome of his court case(s))?
Not particularly bothered either way if one comes out, I didn't buy any of those groups records or go to their gigs (although I saw Freebass at the 100 Club (not overly impreesed tbh), I didn't bother with the album, and I'm still surprised that copies haven't turned up in Poundland yet): maybe he'll need to earn a few extra quid if his court case goes against him, and I can't think there's anything left of the Hacienda he can sell off as a 'limited edition'.
Extract from 'I Am Monkey', Steve's forthcoming autobiography: So Steve, what was it like working with Jonathan Demme? Oh yeah. Jonathan. Johnny Demme. John 'Silence of the Lambs' Demmie. Johnny 'Silencie and stuff' Demmie... Doing quite well for himself now! Something of a director I believe! Or not! Ah yes actually. Thanks to us. Or maybe not. Actually that's a good line innit. Do a New Order video, become a director! Yes, like Jonathan Demme! Oh hang on, he 's already done one inne? Yeah! That's me point! Come on and - yeah.... Thank you for that insight. Gillian? Ha ha ha!
Fotzepolitic wrote: It's occurred to me the similarities between Peter Hook and Donald Trump.Both always running their mouth, talking out their arse, saying nasty hateful things about people, contradicting and denying things they've said, desperate for attention and to be the big man numero uno..... oh yeah and being a total wanker.
Has Hooky accused Bernard of being the founder of ISIS yet? 😈
Fotzepolitic wrote: It's occurred to me the similarities between Peter Hook and Donald Trump.Both always running their mouth, talking out their arse, saying nasty hateful things about people, contradicting and denying things they've said, desperate for attention and to be the big man numero uno..... oh yeah and being a total wanker.
Yet everyone whom seems to dislike him can't stop saying his name, which ironically keeps getting him free publicity from the new sources which supposedly are against him. If a lesson is to be learned here, it is this: America loves its villains. Coincidentally, there's a movie out now called "Suicide Squad" which I'm pretty sure is a heaping pile of cinematic crap, yet it's totally ranking in the cash preaching the same message of America loving its own villains.
Moderne Decay wrote:
Fotzepolitic wrote: It's occurred to me the similarities between Peter Hook and Donald Trump.Both always running their mouth, talking out their arse, saying nasty hateful things about people, contradicting and denying things they've said, desperate for attention and to be the big man numero uno..... oh yeah and being a total wanker.
Yet everyone whom seems to dislike him can't stop saying his name, which ironically keeps getting him free publicity from the new sources which supposedly are against him. If a lesson is to be learned here, it is this: America loves its villains. Coincidentally, there's a movie out now called "Suicide Squad" which I'm pretty sure is a heaping pile of cinematic crap, yet it's totally ranking in the cash preaching the same message of America loving its own villains.
Series One:American Horror Story- Murder House (2011-12)
Series Two:American Horror Story-Asylum (2012–13)
Series Three :American Horror Story-Coven (2013–14)
Series Four: American Horror Story-Freak Show (2014–15)
Series Five : American Horror Story- Hotel(2015-16)
Series Six: American Horror Story-Donald Trump(2016-17)
Michael Monkhouse wrote:
Moderne Decay wrote: Come on Hooky, let those vocals shine! If Hooky did vocals for the whole album, I would have loved it.
Is this a joke?
You beat me to it, Michael! Hooky's singing has the knack of making the listenable unlistenable...
Movement - I would be a bigger fan of this album if weren't for Hook's two attempts to batter my ear drums with his fog horn. Dreams Never End would likely have been my favourite track on the album, but desperate Hannett had awful Hooky whaling at two different pitches.
One True Passion - To be fair, this is Hook's best vocals. He sounds like he's trying to emulate Bernard on this record. Probably a lot of effects on his voice in order to achieve this.
Gun World Porn - Much more natural Hook here, so it's shit.
Monaco - Why didn't he just let Potts' sing lead? This track is quite good, turn it up - oh, fuck, Hooky is singing the chorus - turn it down, pronto!
The Light: You know what I think of his voice by now. My comment here is on his repeated bullshit statement about being unable to find a singer because everybody was too scared. There must be hundreds of singers out there who would have jumped at the opportunity to perform JD/NO tracks alongside Hook. I believe the truth is Hooky has always wanted to be singer and the centre of attention. This is why in his previous bands, where he was in charge, he managed to be sing lead the majority of the time, in spite of claiming his reluctance. By singing in the Light, he also deprives fans of the one thing they love him for: playing bass in Joy Division and New Order...
Well, I'll tell you all what... if anyone plans on going to see Hooky's Portland show, I'm game to meet up and cheer him on. As for the rest of the noise and nonsense in this thread, let me know when I'm supposed to care.
Cheers.
I know I posted this before but I'm convinced this is Hooky's singing teacher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BovQyphS8kA. I'll sing for you Sir - in the wonds of wankworthy Patsy, I'm not scared. I'm in the minority here but I liked FB the album and hated FB the EP. YDKTAM starts of well à la Ceremony but then just dithers about. Dark Starr is as easy on the ear as slaughtering a pig, Milky Way is more Spinal tap than Sex Pistols, and Live... is down there with Revenge.
Deceiver wrote:
Michael Monkhouse wrote:
Moderne Decay wrote: Come on Hooky, let those vocals shine! If Hooky did vocals for the whole album, I would have loved it.
Is this a joke?
You beat me to it, Michael! Hooky's singing has the knack of making the listenable unlistenable...
Movement - I would be a bigger fan of this album if weren't for Hook's two attempts to batter my ear drums with his fog horn. Dreams Never End would likely have been my favourite track on the album, but desperate Hannett had awful Hooky whaling at two different pitches.
One True Passion - To be fair, this is Hook's best vocals. He sounds like he's trying to emulate Bernard on this record. Probably a lot of effects on his voice in order to achieve this.
Gun World Porn - Much more natural Hook here, so it's shit.
Monaco - Why didn't he just let Potts' sing lead? This track is quite good, turn it up - oh, fuck, Hooky is singing the chorus - turn it down, pronto!
The Light: You know what I think of his voice by now. My comment here is on his repeated bullshit statement about being unable to find a singer because everybody was too scared. There must be hundreds of singers out there who would have jumped at the opportunity to perform JD/NO tracks alongside Hook. I believe the truth is Hooky has always wanted to be singer and the centre of attention. This is why in his previous bands, where he was in charge, he managed to be sing lead the majority of the time, in spite of claiming his reluctance. By singing in the Light, he also deprives fans of the one thing they love him for: playing bass in Joy Division and New Order...
I've never seen The Light play live - does he not even play bass in the show? I was thinking of going to the Forum show next month, not going to bother if its just going to be him doing two hours of NO karaoke.
The Light on Youtube: No. The Light live: Yes. 2 hours of awesome songs and note-perfect music.
Ken Doherty wrote: I've never seen The Light play live - does he not even play bass in the show? I was thinking of going to the Forum show next month, not going to bother if its just going to be him doing two hours of NO karaoke.
Most bass is played by his son. He does a bit when isn't swallowing the mic and raising arms like some Scooby-Doo spectre...
No one gives a fuck what I think but I'm a fan of the Light. Hooky's no Pavarotti but the atmosphere is so awesome you genuiney don't care after a while. I was a fan in the mid-90s and the fun was always dampened by the thought I'd never get to hear most / all of the songs live. Having stuff like Ecstasy or Tiny Tim played perfectly with a key, arguably most recognisable member for 14 fucking Euro is fine by me.
Deceiver wrote: This is why in his previous bands, where he was in charge, he managed to be sing lead the majority of the time...
Yup. It's funny he slammed Sumner for 'wanting a bass player who does what he's told' when it's clear Hooky takes over every project - Dave Hicks 'left' Revenge, Freebass imploded etc. Even superfan Claud Flowers had to commet on how ''''''''''equally important'''''''''' Revenge members didn't even get a cameo in the Pineapple Face vid.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: The Light on Youtube: No. The Light live: Yes. 2 hours of awesome songs and note-perfect music.
this is true
when you watch on youtube all you can focus on is his voice but live it seems a lot further down in the mix
i swear his bass isn't always plugged in though,he was doing loads of his 'iconic' poses at one gig and playing his bass upside down in the air and there honestly wasn't anything coming out
i've only been to 2 gigs,both low life/brotherhood sets but i really did enjoy them...and i went trying my best not to the first time if i'm honest
i've got tickets for substance in manc but not sure if i can be bothered as i don't like joy division
Ooooooh so Hookys doing his booky in Bath on 7th October need to think why I should go. 1 chance in a lifetime to get ultra rare Hooky autograph. 2, book will appreciate in value once signed. 3. The book will tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth. 4. He won't be singing. 5. I like Bath. 6.hese a renowed author. 7. He might say something about legal gig. 7 reasons.
lee wrote:
Michael Monkhouse wrote: The Light on Youtube: No. The Light live: Yes. 2 hours of awesome songs and note-perfect music.
this is true
when you watch on youtube all you can focus on is his voice but live it seems a lot further down in the mix
i swear his bass isn't always plugged in though,he was doing loads of his 'iconic' poses at one gig and playing his bass upside down in the air and there honestly wasn't anything coming out
i've only been to 2 gigs,both low life/brotherhood sets but i really did enjoy them...and i went trying my best not to the first time if i'm honest
i've got tickets for substance in manc but not sure if i can be bothered as i don't like joy division
He's playing the NO Substance too though. And their social networks are hyping up for a 3 hour show, so looks to me like he'll be doing all the extra tracks too. I think you should definitely go. I'm seeing it here in Portland in a few months.
As for the bass, there is absolutely no way on earth that in the YouTube age he would be able to get away with his bass not being plugged in at a show. Granted he is on a wireless pack, so you can't SEE it plugged in, but at the shows I've been too there was no question - he started most of the songs and played on all the New Order songs they did. And his bass was fucking loud! Seems like there are more of the Joy Division ones where he doesn't play at all which is a shame as personally I love JD.
Deceiver wrote:
Ken Doherty wrote: I've never seen The Light play live - does he not even play bass in the show? I was thinking of going to the Forum show next month, not going to bother if its just going to be him doing two hours of NO karaoke.
Most bass is played by his son. He does a bit when isn't swallowing the mic and raising arms like some Scooby-Doo spectre...
When I saw the Low-Life & Brotherhood tour he started pretty much every track & played on all of the NO ones. There were a few JD ones where he didn't play though, which I was a bit bummed about.
If you never seen them you should go. They put on a great show and play for like 3 hours.
79order wrote: 2, book will appreciate in value once signed.
You shouldn't put price on memories though. I remember meeting Lou Reed years ago at UCLA and got to chat with him about his album The Raven. I had him sign a book of his lyrics, plus a copy of Metal Machine Music which he thought was funny. It totally broke my heart when he passed away since I'm such a big fan of his, so there's no way anyone could talk me out of selling these things. I'd rather donate them to some museum when I'm dead as part of my will.
I think it's hilarious people continue to read Hooky interviews and get upset by them. What the fook do you expect?
So how is this for an idea...
The Light of New Order: World Tour
50/50 touring income & expenses split between The Light performing alongside New Order without overlapping songs.
Of course this idea would be shot down by all the dueling lawyers working behind the scenes, but fuck it. It would funnel all the money back into both parties and even the score.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: PS When you're dead you can't donate things. You have to do it before.
You can donate organs. And eyes. Or are they classed as organs?
Moderne Decay wrote: So how is this for an idea...
The Light of New Order: World Tour
50/50 touring income & expenses split between The Light performing alongside New Order without overlapping songs.
Of course this idea would be shot down by all the dueling lawyers working behind the scenes, but fuck it. It would funnel all the money back into both parties and even the score.
This will happen. Speaking of problem-shooting, I just heard a track by popular Italian singer Gianna Nannini. It's about wars and bombs and killing, and she argues wars and bombs and killing are bad because bombs kill people in wars. The chorus urges, 'Stop it!' World leaders were listening to Top of The Popsters and agreed to stop all wars and bombs and killing by supper. Well done! Ms Nannini now plans to free every political prisoner, feed all African children (even the naughty ones) and cure each known disease just before she sends the kids back to school. Keep it up Gianna, you're AWESOME. I agree that all the Hooky-bashing is good publicity for the guy. It's like, Weren't you flabbergasted to hear Melanie Trump ain't writing her own speeches? The joke was on us cos (a) being surprised means we must've respected her in the first place, and (b) we are now her unpaid, untiring publicity agents. For fuck's sake, she even sounds like a Spice Girl - Melanie A.
New Order bassist Peter Hook is coming to Manchester to launch his long awaited memoir about life with his chart topping band.
Substance: Inside New Order is Hook's third autobiographical release and in it the Salford musician promises to give a “no-holds-barred” account of life inside the band he is currently locked in a legal wrangle with.
The book is full of private photos and candid memories and compliments his two previous releases - The Hacienda: How Not To Run A Club about his time as co-owner of the ill-fated Manchester night spot, and Unknown Pleasures: Inside Joy Division charting the life of his first band with Ian Curtis, Bernard Sumner, and Stephen Morris.
He'll be in Manchester on October 10 for a special in conversation event at Albert Square Chop House with DJ, radio broadcaster, and Inspiral Carpets organ player Clint Boon.
Tickets go on sale via eventim tomorrow, August 23, at 11am.
He promises to be as open about the trials and tribulations of band life at this one off evening as he has been in print. Hook will also be signing copies of the book after the talk.
I really wish the MEN would get a sub-editor. Their standards of journalism are worse than my local free weekly rag:
compliment noun plural noun: compliments ˈkɒmplɪm(ə)nt/
1. a polite expression of praise or admiration.
As for 'memoir about life with his chart topping band.' His band? Where's me popcorn.... ;o)
Moderne Decay wrote: All the Revenge, Electronic, The Other Two and even the Monaco albums are all equally brilliant. I feel no need to defend my tastes any further.
Revenge are like sex. Unfortunately, anal sex. Fucking shit. Even Hooky admitted the LP was just an excuse to tour... The EP was cool but it was practically Monaco by then. Other 2? 2 albums in 25 years and they're both shit. That's a record in itself. Electronic - yes, no, yes and no. Monaco - yes, yes and no. Number of times I will have this conversation: 753234064. number of people who care what I think and might reconsider how they think: -942.
Joy Division and New Order bassist Peter Hook has caused quite a reaction with the revelation that he was an 'abused husband'.
The Manchester music legend reveals details of his marriage to comedian Caroline Aherne in his new autobiography - and it's an unflinching, and at times uncomfortable, read.
He says that when his ex-wife Caroline died in July, after a third battle with cancer, he 'couldn't in all good conscience' join in with the tributes to the Mrs Merton and Royle Family star.
Hook says he spiralled into clinical depression after he became an 'abused husband', claiming he suffered physical and mental abuse from Aherne.
Describing the start of the violent incidents, Hook writes: “She attacked me, using her nails to scratch at my neck, tearing off my necklace and ripping my top. It was proper shocking stuff."
"And although she was really contrite the next morning it marked the beginning of some serious screaming-banshee behaviour - putting cigarettes out on my arm, attacking me with bottles, knives, chairs and other assorted furniture.
He writes: “I was an abused husband and it’s embarrassing, and you feel ashamed, and you can’t tell anyone. I needed help.”
The revelation sparked a massive reaction when we published it last night, with social media debates about the rights and wrongs of revealing details about the personal life of a recently-departed celebrity - and the attitude of society to male victims of domestic violence and abuse.
Hayley Marie Newton wrote on Facebook: "A little inappropriate to publish this when she is dead and gone and not here to defend herself. I for one would boycott this purely for his lack of tact and sensitivity.
"I totally get that he may feel he has a right to tell his side of the story but there's a time, place and method and he has considered neither. Surely this would have been better discussed with a counsellor rather than the public."
And Mike McDonagh added: "It was no secret that she suffered from depression, she told the world she had done things she was not proud of. Let those who have died, die in peace with themselves and stop stirring up things that can not be answered or defended.
Ann Carson said: "Why now? If you have no respect for Caroline's memory, at least show some for her family. I remember some of the upset being in the press at the time. I think that was partly the reason she went Australia. Caroline was a genius but above all she was human."
And Nicola Barnes said: "And he chooses now to tell us? Why not when she was alive then she could defend herself?"
But many others said this reaction is part of the problem facing male victims of abusive relationships.
June Reece wrote: "Is it any wonder male victims don't speak out when this is the reaction....I don't/didnt know either of them and only they know the truth but it's sad to see people's reactions to this story....unless you have lived with abuse, you will never understand."
Lea Pearce said: "Would you all still be defending her if she was a man and he was a woman. Or would you assume she was just too scared to say while he was alive and feel sympathy for her? Amazing how much attitudes change and sympathy isn't given when it's a man that gets abused."
Joe Butler wrote: "So many hypocrites on here. Calling this man every name under the sun because he's spoken out about a woman.
"If this was a woman speaking out about her dead husband a lot of you would be singing a different song. No wonder violence and abuse against men is swept under the carpet and not taken seriously. You all might as well come out and say it, men can suffer in silence because only women will be taken seriously."
And Clare Devine defended the way Hook had made the revelation. She said: "If Peter Hook were just a regular member of a public then you could say he was cashing in by revealing this information. He's not - he was famous in his own right before her and was already writing his book before she sadly passed away.
"It happened and he has every right to share it. If it were the other way round, no-one would be complaining. She was much-loved and a comic genius but we have to accept that people have flaws and aren't the people we like to think they are."
Adrianh Leighton-Lawlor wrote: "Abuse is abuse! On a man or a women. Doesn't matter if the offender is dead or alive. I am a survivor of an abusive relationship, and reading the small bits in the article, I believe him."
And Amanda Murphy said: "He was writing the book when she died. It's not like he heard she died and then saw pound signs.
"Also if you know anything of Manchesters music scence and the Hacienda days, you will know he didn't need to mention her name to sell the book, he was making money from it irrespective of her involvement.
"To suggest he is speaking about the abuse he suffered to make money is as disgusting and the comments suggesting he should keep his abuse private. If he was a female there would be uproar...
"Don't think for one minute her family didn't know she had a darker side of her personality. They know she was human and that level of humour she was gifted with often comes from some form of pain or grief.
"She had cancer from a very early age and knew even though she was married she would never feel complete in that role as she would never have children. Don't tell me that didn't torture her because I won't believe it."
'Soviet' wrote on the Manchester Evening News website: "There's always two sides and sadly we'll probably only get to hear Peter's but Caroline had admitted to (and was widely reported as) having addiction and health problems.
"It would be a shame if Peter's book fails to cover how he may also have failed in their relationship - people can be troubled but often their partners can be the catalyst for a meltdown...but lets not let the celebrity status of the late great CA also prevent Peter from saying what he needs to...he has that right."
To be honest he'd most probably already written this before her death. Should he have pulled a whole chapter out of respect? Did he include it because she's not here to contest his picture of events? Is it all bollocks? Who knows?
Just to add, I just read this:
"In his book Hook says he didn’t pay tribute to ex-wife Caroline Aherne when she died because she physically abused him."
So the chapter was either written, or parts were added, after her death.
I personally think he could have handled it with more tact. Some things are personal and she isn't here to tell her side of the story. Others think it's important for him to share this publicly to raise awareness of men suffering domestic violence at the hands of their female counterparts. It just raises the question of why didn't he speak so much about it earlier?
BazG wrote: Others think it's important for him to share this publicly to raise awareness of men suffering domestic violence at the hands of their female counterparts. Read more
Does anyone buy this? Hooky gives a shit about his fellow man and is doing his utmost to Do His Bit. The fact it's coming out at the same time as his autobiography (Wanking title, Not Again) and he hasn't written anything new since the First World War is just a coincidence... 'Spiralled into depression'.. This is how '''depressed''' he got. How did he cope? http://static.nme.com/images/article/PeterHookPA120411.jpg Hooky The Nice Bunny... www.vamp.org/Siouxsie/Text/kdeyoe.94/0195.html ... One of my favourite Hooky quotes is when he said he mixed Reading 93 'in floods of tears' cos he thought it was over... Vicking rockpig fuckhead in 'floods of tears'? He probably just listened to Revenge.
BazG wrote: Is it all bollocks? Who knows?
This is it. It's dificult to have an opinion. Instead of being able to discuss if it was brave of him to reveal this stuff, all I can think is: Is this true? If it's true, then fair enough. If not, then it makes his "unique" version of the truth re: NO seem like small potatoes.
I just find it odd that after all the bile he has unleashed at New Order, and Bernard in particular saying how he was the victim, that up until now he has remained silent about being an abused husband. You would think that if he was the victim of abuse that once the marriage came to end he would be free and shot of her, but didn’t he get into a very public brawl with Caroline’s new boyfriend/partner that made the papers, hardly the behavior of somebody who was an abused victim in a marriage?
I'm pretty astonished with some of the outcry at Hooky's revelation. I don't recall seeing people suggesting the Savile abuse victims should keep silent since he was unable to defend himself (to draw a parallel with the situation, rather than severity of the crimes)
There were numerous victims of Jimmy Saville. He was a prolific sex pest. Complaints and allegations had been made against him when he was alive and dismissed by the authorities. They didn't all just come out of the woodwork when he died. He was lucky (if that's the word) to evade arrest and be trialled for his crimes for so long. He had friends and confidantes in high places. He also had the wealth to use to cover his tracks. I hardly think this is comparable in all honesty.
"Putting cigarettes out on my arm, attacking me with bottles, knives, chairs and other assorted furniture"
Leaving aside the suspicious timing - am I missing something, but he looks perfectly capable of defending himself against a woman especially one not in the greatest of health. And no one seems to have noticed anything amiss at the time, or kept very quiet if they did. It sounds like the kind of violence that would leave its mark - cigarette burns would leave a mark. A bottle attack, if directed at the face, would leave horrendous highly visible bruising and cuts. Did she attack his leg with a bottle perhaps? Did she (again, while not in the greatest of health) batter him with a chair, yet with no apparent bruising? Attack with a knife could be fatal, there would be no hiding it. At the very least, photographic evidence is called for. 20 years ago, it was before everyone had a camera on their phone, but he was in the public eye. Mental abuse is more plausible (to an outsider, anyway) but once again, we’re getting only one side of the story.
I don’t think Caroline Aherne had quite the same teflon coating that Savile had either.
Sounds like the book will be a work of fiction - not that I'll be reading it.
Yeah... She certainly looks like one dangerous, violent bundle of rage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/41a84e0f663aaac2c316f1d7af6d902047c38fac.jpg - and Hooky has a reputation for shying away from confrontation. When I was at school my teacher said the WORST THING you can EVER do is split an infinitive. Interesting cos he was later outed as a pedo.
The poblems started when Ian was born. And Bernard. And me. Bastards. Things were all right before that. I hate Tony for doing that. It's like Gillian won the snatch off my prize before the Pet Shop Boys won it. I honestly think if I hadn't hung my chicken on a kitchen in February next year she wouldn't been in Joy Division either too.
If folk think Hooky shoulda woulda coulda revealed all about Mrs Merton being violent towards him before now then, er, when exactly? In the middle of promoting Get Ready? Or before the encore of a Light gig? On Twitter?
He referred to her in the Joy Division book briefly in less than flattering terms so I, for one, was expecting some salacious revelation like this anyway.
People are getting on with the job of taking the piss out of Hooky already for this, bravo, low hanging fruit and all that, so I guess we'd best hope he has made it all up because if he hasn't then the abused is getting abused again.
As anyone paying the remotest attention to my posts in recent years would know, I cannot stand Peter Hook these days.
I rarely trust a word from his bitter mouth or pen.
But I for one, for what little it is worth, do not think he's lying about this. I too remember him alluding to unspecified issues with CA in the past. So this is what he meant.
I think he is well within his rights to put this in his autobiography.
But I won't be reading it - he's had all the coin he'll ever get from me.
Rorschach wrote: But I for one, for what little it is worth, do not think he's lying about this. I too remember him alluding to unspecified issues with CA in the past. So this is what he meant.
Somebody said something similar in the "below the line" comments in this Mirror article: "he did...i remember him doing a piece in the 90s about it...no one cared then". So maybe there is some truth to it, though I can't help wondering if each gave as good as they got. I guess we'll never know.
I have a genuine question about the "timing" of this though: Did Hook/ Simon & Schuster specifically release this bit about Aherne, or did the media choose to pick up on this bit once they received their advance copies?
It's a BIG book. Arrived in post today . Early flick through , some interesting pics and a lot of the book looks interesting but I'm not sure if I'm dreading reading it or if am excited to start reading it. Bit of both I guess.
Cranelane wrote: Substance: Inside New Order by Peter Hook review – as debauched as Led Zep
'The band began in 1980, hastily formed from the remnants of Joy Division, a more tormented, more shortlived group whose singer Ian Curtis killed himself.' I'm sure anyone who's this interested in N O will be unaware of this fascinating detail. I couldn't even finish the review - I'm not gonna even start the book. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Fotzepolitic wrote: It's a BIG book. Arrived in post today .
So you took the plunge. 700 pages I hear. I might have a look once it ends up in paperback (and the price gets slashed to £4.99).
Oh look, a little advert type thingy here. The soundtrack seems to have drums but alas, no bass.
[TWITTER]784044011849977856[/TWITTER]
Incidentally Hook did an interview with BBC Radio Scotland recently (1hr10 to 1hr25). At the start he is asked what year Quincey Jones remixed BM to which he answers, 1985. I hope he's a bit more accurate than that in the book. He also says that NO started in 1980 and "literally finished in 1990 with the world cup song". I hope he's a bit more accurate than that in the book too (or am I misunderstanding him?). He talks about Caroline Aherne as well at 1hr20 (after Crystal by some band that presumably can't be NO).
2nd EDIT: I'm not sure why but they seem to have shortened the show now from 2 hours to 1.54. The timings above are now 6 minutes out. Hook bit now starts around 1.04 instead of 1.10.
Maybe he meant 85 was when they signed to Qwest - and 1990 was the beginning of the end for Oh No Don't Fucking Go Through This Again. Or maybe he just totally talking utter complete wank as usual. Either way it's a fairly awesome way to inspire confidence in your ''''''''''autobiography''''''''''.
Maybe she just got tired of his ponytale and tried to snip it . Can't say I blame her. I comment not knowing who the commedienne is, but she must have been a strong ,agile woman with pugilistic finesse. Poor hooky , if only he hadn't suffered the humiliation of riding on bernard's scooter holding bernard tightly for several years in his early manhood formative years
Fotzepolitic wrote: It's a BIG book.
A friend picked me up a signed copy (I couldn't make the evening, I was at a funeral). I was very surprised how big it is!
Anyone else order a signed copy from Recordstore? The pre-order page (now sold out) says the book is being released on the 20th of October yet my order history says the 6th. Has anyone received a copy from them yet?
I'm looking for an unsigned copy. 'Music that changed history...' Like One True Passion. Every time I read this kind of thing I'm bemused. Don't wanna play Devil's advocate - I'm obviously a fan - but honestly, can anyone objectively justify this kind of comment? Some grrrrreat singles (one of which they decided to release 4084975976549654 times) and two awesome LPs (83 and 89). Otherwise, I just don't get the mystique around the band. Love the new album, but...
Recordstore just got back to me. Signed copies are being shipped around the 20-21st as they are waiting for Hooky to sign them.
Hooky begins the book by, surprise surprise, slagging somebody off.That somebody though isn't Barney it's John Robie.Robie in Hooky's opinion was the beginning of the end for New Order.Robie brought in verse/chorus/verse/chorus (for Shellshock), he brought in backing singers and in general a more traditional and bland way of songwriting that New Order until then had never entertained and changed Barney's musical mindset (in Hooky's opinion).I can kind of see his point but then a few years after Shellshock NO went on to create Technique with fantastic songs like All The Way and Vanishing Point.
Fotzepolitic wrote: it's John Robie.
Amazon's "look Inside" feature allowed me to read that bit. I didn't realise they went to the Pretty In Pink premiere in the U.S. It's a hard life eh? The vol-au-vent in the face and ensuing fight gave me a chuckle actually, as did "Suzanne Vega burst out crying again" (might be a bit of poetic licence there though).
Went to the event in Bath last night and it was an absolute delight. He seriously knows his stuff. Which seems obvious, but Bernard certainly doesn't, be that memory or whatever. He answered questions on really difficult subjects such as his criticism of Caroline Aherne and whether he still felt a bond with Bernard. He was funny, he was interesting, I really could not recommend it more. Put your opinions on who's right/wrong to one side and come and listen to him talk at length, not media soundbites. You won't regret it.
PS added bonus is he said Monaco will be returning in 2017!
Read half of it so far, have to say finding it a difficult read. Getting quite tiresome and a little boring with tales of shagging exploits and drug taking. Fair enough we know it went on, but he certainly is milking it. His disdain for 'the others' (as he often refers to them) is also quite evident and , once again, after the 100th reference a little boring. I'll try and get through to the end, but not a book I'll be revisiting I think. Most interesting parts are when he actually talks about the albums and recordings and gives some insight into his opinion of the songs.
"Robie brought in verse/chorus/verse/chorus (for Shellshock), he brought in backing singers and in general a more traditional and bland way of songwriting that New Order until then had never entertained and changed Barney's musical mindset (in Hooky's opinion)."
Interesting... but I love some of the Monaco "traditionally" structured songs, especially the ones chock full of backing singers... so... hey... what... I dunno.
YourSilentFace wrote: Recordstore just got back to me. Signed copies are being shipped around the 20-21st as they are waiting for Hooky to sign them.
Thanks for that - it would have been too easy for him to just sign the books ahead of the release date, wouldn't it?
A poor read tbh. Lays into everyone - Bernard gets dogs abuse all the way through, Gillian is dismissed out of hand entirely and Steve barely gets a mention.
The whole thing revolves around how his bass was sabotaged out of records, Bernard's alleged dictatorial tendencies and ridiculous amounts of drugs and groupies.
Milkshock wrote: A poor read tbh. Lays into everyone - Bernard gets dogs abuse all the way through, Gillian is dismissed out of hand entirely and Steve barely gets a mention.
The whole thing revolves around how his bass was sabotaged out of records, Bernard's alleged dictatorial tendencies and ridiculous amounts of drugs and groupies.
I'm only up to Power Corruption and Lies and am finding the constant sniping at Bernard to be very off putting. You would have thought someone would have said, remember a lot of readers won't have sides so go easy on the slagging off.
surface wrote:
Milkshock wrote: A poor read tbh. Lays into everyone - Bernard gets dogs abuse all the way through, Gillian is dismissed out of hand entirely and Steve barely gets a mention.
The whole thing revolves around how his bass was sabotaged out of records, Bernard's alleged dictatorial tendencies and ridiculous amounts of drugs and groupies.
I'm only up to Power Corruption and Lies and am finding the constant sniping at Bernard to be very off putting. You would have thought someone would have said, remember a lot of readers won't have sides so go easy on the slagging off.
Agreed - I'm actually shocked that the book was released in the state it is. It's practically libellous in some cases. Bernard's crimes include being late consistently for recording sessions??? You get the feeling apart from the drugs and groupies he hated being in the band at all. Maybe that was the case but then why write a book about it then?
Milkshock wrote: A poor read tbh. Lays into everyone - Bernard gets dogs abuse all the way through, Gillian is dismissed out of hand entirely and Steve barely gets a mention.
The whole thing revolves around how his bass was sabotaged out of records, Bernard's alleged dictatorial tendencies and ridiculous amounts of drugs and groupies.
I believe that were I to find myself in a band with Peter Hook, then I too would quickly adopt a dictatorial approach. And I do not possess a fraction of Barney's genuine talent.
Hook talking about his book on BBC Radio 5 live in a mo.
[TWITTER]785446051503284225[/TWITTER]
(Nihal is now a serious talk-y presenter? Where's Bobby Friction?)
EDIT: Where was Hook when the others "did the dirty" on him?
If you listen back later on, it's about 1hr40 into the radio show, and it's quite long.
New Order star Peter Hook has defended his decision to write about his tumultuous marriage to Caroline Aherne in his explosive new autobiography - and says he hopes it helps victims of abuse.
Bassist Hooky reveals in his book, Substance, that he became an “abused husband” during his rocky three year relationship with Mrs Merton star Caroline in the 1990s, claiming she attacked him during jealous rages.
Caroline died in July aged 52 after a third battle with cancer - and many have questioned his decision to speak out about their relationship now, in his third book which covers the 30 year period of his life in the band New Order.
But Hooky says: “I’ve always been very honest in every book, and it is the same thing here.
“If you’re going to tell the truth, you have to tell the truth about everything. You can’t just pick and choose, you talk about every important part of your life. It’s the story of my life.
“I’ve been a successful musician for 40 years, and that [relationship] was a small part of my life, it is 15 pages in a 700-odd page book.
“I didn’t play it up, I thought I handled it very fairly considering what it did to me. I’ve told the truth, and if you’re going to be damned for telling the truth then so be it.”
Hooky said he hoped that talking openly about the abuse would help others.
He said: “What I was trying to show is that there is life after abuse, you hope you can be an inspiration to people that you don’t have to suffer in silence, and that you can move on from it.
“I moved on with the help of many great friends and meeting Becky [his wife of 20 years].
“What we should be celebrating is my 20 year successful marriage which shows what can be achieved when two people love each other and respect each other.”
Hooky admits it was “disappointing” to see the angry reaction of Caroline’s family and friends to his claims, including her Royle Family co-star Ricky Tomlinson who said Hooky was wrong to write about the marriage in his book.
He says wryly: “I never thought I’d be fighting with Ricky Tomlinson about this. For people to turn around and say that I’m “less of a man” for talking about it, they are perpetuating that stigma against male victims of abuse.
“Would I ring Ricky Tomlinson up and tell him how to write the book of his life? Of course not.”
Hooky headed to talk about his book and music career at a public event with Inspiral Carpets star Clint Boon on Monday night, and will be back at Salford Lads Club on Saturday night with another in conversation event with the M.E.N’s Dianne Bourne.
The book is an encyclopedic account of Hook’s music career and associations with Factory Records and the Hacienda, and the band New Order.
He charts the band’s transition from Joy Division after the tragic death of lead singer Ian Curtis in 1980 into New Order; the band’s rise to global success and the rock ‘n’ roll excesses along the way in eye-popping detail.
And Hooky hasn’t ruled out another book in the future - this one ends in 2007 when he split from his former bandmates Bernard Sumner and Stephen Morris.
Hooky says: “What struck me is that none of my books has a happy ending, I’d love to do one with a happy ending. One where New Order aren’t at each other’s throats and me and Bernard go off holding hands together.”
I've yet to receive my copy,
He should be giving the BBC Kickbacks. On 6 Music this afternoon.
[TWITTER]785494353431105537[/TWITTER]
He did the Manchester leg of his book tour last night - which I guess he manged to arrange his BBC (Manchester) appearances around. Clint Boon was asking the questions last night at the Chop House, and he has apparently recorded it for his podcast.
[TWITTER]785619536636702720[/TWITTER]
There's a review of his Sage, Gateshead talk HERE (my web adviser said the site might be risky but...it's not).
ROCKET MICK wrote:
surface wrote: He is on BBC news in the next half hour
😎 Approx 08.50/55
Missed this.When you say BBC news do you mean BBC Breakfast? Can't imagine Hooky is that important that he gets a spot on BBC news whereas BBC breakfast usually has a guest around the 8.50/9am mark.Not that i watch it religiously, obvs but i sometimes see some of it because they have it on the tv in the canteen at work.Anyway, looked for BBC Breakfast on catch up but apparently it's not available on catch up/ iPlayer.No great loss and i did catch the long interview on BBC Radio 5Live yesterday and BBC 6Music today.
I'm quite enjoying the book so far though obviously the Barney and the others bashing can get tiresome.
On the 6music programme with Mark Radcliffe, Hooky seems to be suggesting that details of his court spat with New Order can all be found online. it has been very quiet on this subject, so was interested to hear that it had progressed.
Fotzepolitic wrote:
do you mean BBC Breakfast? Can't imagine Hooky is that important that he gets a spot on BBC news whereas BBC breakfast usually has a guest around the 8.50/9am mark.
Yes, it was that. (Bernard's done it before hasn't he?) If you went to "BBC1 Live" on the bbc website within a couple of hours you could "rewind" back to BBC breakfast. Anyway you missed little. Both radio interviews were better. The only thing I remember now is how well Lousie Minchin can turn on the charm.
😴 Quite relieved to have missed all the interviews today actually. He’s like one of those politicians I try to avoid cos they put my blood pressure up. We’re all pawns in his game, enough already.
I'n about a third of the way through and I must admit its boring me a little now
At the moment the snipe's at Barney seem to have turned into snipe's at Gillian but blaming it all on Barney!!??
Its makes me laugh how when chapter and verse came out he claimed Barney was obsessed with him as it was constantly on about him...when I don't really think it was?
Yet substance is just relentless from the very start slagging Barney!
Its about time he got on with writing some new music and lets see if he's as good as he seems to think he is
The blokes a shithouse
lee wrote:
The blokes a shithouse
This sums the cunt up for me, in Bernard's book he touched on the fact that he could not understand why Hook turned everything into Hook v himself, I think that short sentance has done more to wind Hook up than a thousand page novel slagging him off. So what does stupid bollocks Hook do, prove Bernard to be 100% correct in what he thought by publishing this steaming turd of a book. And you know full well that when Steve releases his book, and if there is a slight dig at Hook, the hairy bastard will then pen book number 100000000000 to have a pop at Steve but no doubt get back to slagging Bernard off.
Michael Monkhouse wrote:
BazG wrote: I’d love to do one with a happy ending. One where New Order aren’t at each other’s throats and me and Bernard go off holding hands together.”
What a fucking stupid fucking thing for him of all fucking people to fucking say. Sorry for my language. I split an infinitive.
I clocked that and wondered if it signalled the case wasn't going well for him and that he was waving a white flag.
I'm loving the book and I will tell him so at the Ace Hotel tomorrow. Regards to the posse from JDC.
Alex_Loyal wrote:
lee wrote:
The blokes a shithouse
This sums the cunt up for me, in Bernard's book he touched on the fact that he could not understand why Hook turned everything into Hook v himself, I think that short sentance has done more to wind Hook up than a thousand page novel slagging him off. So what does stupid bollocks Hook do, prove Bernard to be 100% correct in what he thought by publishing this steaming turd of a book. And you know full well that when Steve releases his book, and if there is a slight dig at Hook, the hairy bastard will then pen book number 100000000000 to have a pop at Steve but no doubt get back to slagging Bernard off.
Very true. Is there a pyschologist in the house who can sum up his condition? Haven't been able to stop laughing since he started 'disc jockeying'. Or as someone else aptly put it, "trying to be the post-punk Peter Stringfellow."
Whatever your opinion of who's wrong /right surely the guy deserves more respect than being referred to as a "cunt" "shithouse" etc...particularly on a NO forum of all places?
Whether you agree with his version of events (and is be surprised if anyone on here genuinely has any knowledge of the inner workings of NO), he is a large part of the reason we are here.
To quote Hooky in a recent interview; "You can't just take 31 years of someone's life and suddenly decide how much they're going to profit from it going forward". If you don't like the man, then that's fine and your opinion but calling him a 'cunt' and a 'shithouse'? He's still one of the integral members of the best band of the 80s and if it wasn't for him, then every album after Low-Life would be regarded in the same light as the maligned Republic. If anyone's a money-grabbing, disrespectful cunt, it's Tom Chapman. He wasn't there during the Joy Division years, the golden-era of New Order, The Hacienda, he didn't know Rob Gretton, Martin Hannett, Tony Wilson etc. and he thinks he can just take the job of one of the most influential bass players of all time? Fuck that guy. It's like if some random 30 year old took Keith Richards role in The Rolling Stones.
YourSilentFace wrote: To quote Hooky in a recent interview; "You can't just take 31 years of someone's life and suddenly decide how much they're going to profit from it going forward". If you don't like the man, then that's fine and your opinion but calling him a 'cunt' and a 'shithouse'? He's still one of the integral members of the best band of the 80s and if it wasn't for him, then every album after Low-Life would be regarded in the same light as the maligned Republic. If anyone's a money-grabbing, disrespectful cunt, it's Tom Chapman. He wasn't there during the Joy Division years, the golden-era of New Order, The Hacienda, he didn't know Rob Gretton, Martin Hannett, Tony Wilson etc. and he thinks he can just take the job of one of the most influential bass players of all time? Fuck that guy. It's like if some random 30 year old took Keith Richards role in The Rolling Stones.
What a stupid fucking comment. So what were they meant to do, continue without a bass player. Tom has done nothing wrong, he was already playing with Bernard/Steve and Phil as part of Bad Lieutenant, who played a few NO songs in their set, so it made sense for him to join NO.
Your post is one of the most stupid cuntish posts I have read on this forum you fucking dick head!
YourSilentFace wrote: To quote Hooky in a recent interview; "... if it wasn't for him, then every album after Low-Life would be regarded in the same light as the maligned Republic.
Republic is not maligned. Republic is a great album with some of New Order's best songwriting...
surface wrote:
YourSilentFace wrote: To quote Hooky in a recent interview; "You can't just take 31 years of someone's life and suddenly decide how much they're going to profit from it going forward". If you don't like the man, then that's fine and your opinion but calling him a 'cunt' and a 'shithouse'? He's still one of the integral members of the best band of the 80s and if it wasn't for him, then every album after Low-Life would be regarded in the same light as the maligned Republic. If anyone's a money-grabbing, disrespectful cunt, it's Tom Chapman. He wasn't there during the Joy Division years, the golden-era of New Order, The Hacienda, he didn't know Rob Gretton, Martin Hannett, Tony Wilson etc. and he thinks he can just take the job of one of the most influential bass players of all time? Fuck that guy. It's like if some random 30 year old took Keith Richards role in The Rolling Stones.
What a stupid fucking comment. So what were they meant to do, continue without a bass player. Tom has done nothing wrong, he was already playing with Bernard/Steve and Phil as part of Bad Lieutenant, who played a few NO songs in their set, so it made sense for him to join NO.
Your post is one of the most stupid cuntish posts I have read on this forum you fucking dick head!
Agree other Tom Chapman point, don't see he has done much, if anything wrong.
The last comment though, really?
YourSilentFace wrote: To quote Hooky in a recent interview; "You can't just take 31 years of someone's life and suddenly decide how much they're going to profit from it going forward". If you don't like the man, then that's fine and your opinion but calling him a 'cunt' and a 'shithouse'? He's still one of the integral members of the best band of the 80s and if it wasn't for him, then every album after Low-Life would be regarded in the same light as the maligned Republic. If anyone's a money-grabbing, disrespectful cunt, it's Tom Chapman. He wasn't there during the Joy Division years, the golden-era of New Order, The Hacienda, he didn't know Rob Gretton, Martin Hannett, Tony Wilson etc. and he thinks he can just take the job of one of the most influential bass players of all time? Fuck that guy. It's like if some random 30 year old took Keith Richards role in The Rolling Stones.
Well, someone had to do the job after Hook leaving - If I work 30 years with my friends in a company and decide to leave, I also can't force them to close the business, can I? Unfortunately Hook hasn't got much too offer creative-wise since him leaving, except calling a certain someone continously "Twatto", and playing 30 year old songs which have been written mostly by said twatto. If I come to think about it, he is exactly this, a cunt and a shithouse. Some people realise their mistakes and stubbornness with time, Hook seems to go all the way until there will be no one else left with him.
I think Tom's doing a good job as it really can't have been easy facing new order fans as it could have gone either way....I remember at his first Apollo gig somebody launched a pint at him and he stood in the background the entire gig after that
But I think everybody accepts him now?
Back to the subject of the book it has totally put me off seeing hook and his covers band again
I used to see the split as best of both worlds gig wise but he can stick them now
The man IS a cunt and a shithouse and many other names
And not just the Barney and Gillian name calling but the Mrs Merton stuff is a just low..even if its true he should have been a man and spoke out while she was alive to defend herself
No publicity is bad publicity. Forums 2016: 1. Hooky's a wanker. 2. Hooky's a tosser. 3. Hooky's a dick. 4. I hate Hooky. 5. Hooky can fuck off. 6. Hooky's an asshole. 7. Hooky's an asshole. 8. Hooky. 9. Hooky the cock. 10. Mike, SHUT UP about Mel C: it's sooooooooooo repetitive.
I too was at the Bath event the Friday just gone and there's no denying that Peter Hook makes for a decent raconteur. No denying either that, as he sat there patiently signing copies of his book and posing for pictures, he makes the effort with the fans.
I don't one bit like the public hostility and gutter sniping toward his former band mates, but think it's also worthwhile noting that it's not an attitude he shows toward the fans, few if any of whom are really privy to the ins and outs of the big fallout.
gabrielgee wrote: I'm loving the book and I will tell him so at the Ace Hotel tomorrow. Regards to the posse from JDC.
Will see you there, young man! ![[hi]](/emoticons/hi.gif){kind=small}
Papabendi wrote: On the 6music programme with Mark Radcliffe, Hooky seems to be suggesting that details of his court spat with New Order can all be found online. it has been very quiet on this subject, so was interested to hear that it had progressed.
Yup, it's all out there as far as I know.
Just done a google and can't find the detail - everyone (NME, BBC, daily press) seems to mention the case so it's hard to track down - but there are some legal sites out there which lay out the fine points of what the case involves.
Went along to the Covent Garden Fopp event yesterday and Peter was as patient with fans requests as ever m8 in front got a promise of a photo with the man in Brighton 2017 signed loads of stuff for everyone chatty. As for all the self righteous crap above what's between Hooky and the rest of New order is their rather sad business the crowds they both draw are testement to the most wonderful music you will hear 37 years on from first hearing Joy division I was still moved by the songs played before the man arrived Walked in line
El Jarvo wrote:
Papabendi wrote: On the 6music programme with Mark Radcliffe, Hooky seems to be suggesting that details of his court spat with New Order can all be found online. it has been very quiet on this subject, so was interested to hear that it had progressed.
Yup, it's all out there as far as I know. Just done a google and can't find the detail - everyone (NME, BBC, daily press) seems to mention the case so it's hard to track down - but there are some legal sites out there which lay out the fine points of what the case involves.
Yes I tried that too. If anyone succeeds in finding the legal sites, please post a link.
Debaser wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
Papabendi wrote: On the 6music programme with Mark Radcliffe, Hooky seems to be suggesting that details of his court spat with New Order can all be found online. it has been very quiet on this subject, so was interested to hear that it had progressed.
Yup, it's all out there as far as I know. Just done a google and can't find the detail - everyone (NME, BBC, daily press) seems to mention the case so it's hard to track down - but there are some legal sites out there which lay out the fine points of what the case involves.
Yes I tried that too. If anyone succeeds in finding the legal sites, please post a link.
I think he's referring to all the stuff we already know (royalties, use of the band name, merchandise, etc). He's probably saying look online because he doesn't want to say things on the radio that would make negotiations more difficult. Maybe he's finally listening to his wife (and legal advisers) and is keeping his foot out of his mouth.
Isi wrote:
Debaser wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
Papabendi wrote: On the 6music programme with Mark Radcliffe, Hooky seems to be suggesting that details of his court spat with New Order can all be found online. it has been very quiet on this subject, so was interested to hear that it had progressed.
Yup, it's all out there as far as I know. Just done a google and can't find the detail - everyone (NME, BBC, daily press) seems to mention the case so it's hard to track down - but there are some legal sites out there which lay out the fine points of what the case involves.
Yes I tried that too. If anyone succeeds in finding the legal sites, please post a link.
I think he's referring to all the stuff we already know (royalties, use of the band name, merchandise, etc). He's probably saying look online because he doesn't want to say things on the radio that would make negotiations more difficult. Maybe he's finally listening to his wife (and legal advisers) and is keeping his foot out of his mouth.
Nope, there's definitely some law society page which lays out the trial and the grievances. All boils down to company law, I think.
Judge is recommending they settle out of court anyway, that was the gist of it.
I have no interest in reading the book to be honest. I am begrudgingly going to The Light Substance show as my mate bought tickets but it is the only chance to see one of my favorite bass players based on his musical output. It is a shame these days that he earns his wage slagging those that were his mates more than from playing bass. I guess whatever pleases the paying punters. I have not read Barney's book but I will check out Stephen's. I would think it would be a more interesting read. Too bad Substance is not just a historical recounting of their recording, that would be a book I would buy.
homielang wrote: I have no interest in reading the book to be honest. I am begrudgingly going to The Light Substance show as my mate bought tickets but it is the only chance to see one of my favorite bass players based on his musical output. It is a shame these days that he earns his wage slagging those that were his mates more than from playing bass. I guess whatever pleases the paying punters. I have not read Barney's book but I will check out Stephen's. I would think it would be a more interesting read. Too bad Substance is not just a historical recounting of their recording, that would be a book I would buy.
Surely you have a bit of an interest? I'm looking forward to reading it, especially the geeky equipment parts.
I hope you enjoy the concert, seeing your favourite bass player mostly singing, while his son plays his basslines...
Yeah the geeky equipment parts interest me, but to dig through pages of mudslinging is sad. The rest of New Order has moved on Music Complete speaks for itself.
Seriously he barely plays bass? Glad I am not paying.
Dear Peter Can I point out a serious error in your book that will have fans blood boiling world wide the Wedgwood rooms where you state Monaco played in September 1997 is in PORTMOuTH not as stated Plymouth , I expect nothing less than a total recall of this otherwise excellent and factually correct book though seriously how could you. Your m8 79
Movement
My one obsession in life has been music. And like 99% of people on this forum Joy Division / new order are my favourite of all and I have dedicated many hours of listening, buying, gig going etc, very important to me. For that reason alone how can the bass player from this band be a cunt or a shithouse, to me he is my bass legend. 30 years cannot mean nothing.
What is he like as a person, I don't know or care, the fact he was the bass player in my favourite band means he's alright by me, music wise. Still waiting for my book to come through from record store but look forward to reading it.
It's not just hook who is the legend they all are and what they think of each other is no concern of mine. Hooky deserves some respect from the fans, sorry I meant to say has earnt his respect.
Don't agree with slating Tom chapman either like someone has already said New Order had to get another bass player and he was the obvious choice and is doing a good job.
Those comments above may seem to contradict but I don't care I will be at the next New order and The Light gigs... See you all there.
The Shadow wrote: My one obsession in life has been music. And like 99% of people on this forum Joy Division / new order are my favourite of all and I have dedicated many hours of listening, buying, gig going etc, very important to me. For that reason alone how can the bass player from this band be a cunt or a shithouse, to me he is my bass legend. 30 years cannot mean nothing.
What is he like as a person, I don't know or care, the fact he was the bass player in my favourite band means he's alright by me, music wise. Still waiting for my book to come through from record store but look forward to reading it.
It's not just hook who is the legend they all are and what they think of each other is no concern of mine. Hooky deserves some respect from the fans, sorry I meant to say has earnt his respect.
Don't agree with slating Tom chapman either like someone has already said New Order had to get another bass player and he was the obvious choice and is doing a good job.
Those comments above may seem to contradict but I don't care I will be at the next New order and The Light gigs... See you all there.
How dare you come on here spouting common sense! Couldn't have put it better.
Some funny stories.About halfway through the book now.Liked and laughed at the story about the 2 German groupies thinking "Barney Sumner"s name was Barry Summer😄 .I like the timeline stuff like for example when and where Thieves Like Us was recorded ( January 14-15 1984 ).I was always obsessed with trivial things like that back in the day.Not so much now but still nice to get info on those things.Not so bothered on the "Geek Alert" sections - i tend to zone out when Hooky's explaining how a certain drum machine works, yawn.I'm more into the tales of touring in the 80s and and little stories like Hooky bumping into Bruce Springsteen being a tight bastard trying to get the price down on a pair of boots he was buying in a shop in Los Angeles sometime in the 80s.
Still a bit skeptical on some of Hooky's version of some events but what do i know.And still think he has some mental issues with Bernard, the others and events but as i said i enjoy the old touring stories..
There is more info that I have bookmarked on another computer - but this is what a brief effort of my memory conjured up in my searches including quotes from Hooky's lawyer.
There was a few more interesting articles I had bookmarked out of interest that criminal charges could be sought out - but unless, I can find it, it IS heresay. Additionally, I seem to recall that Phil is not mentioned anywhere on the suit.
Having a lawyer friend look over the article out of curiosity in opinion of reading the articles, he sees the other three knowingly conducted criminal activity and could be charged.
Anyhoo...
Thanks. I can't speak for El Jarvo but speaking for myself I wasn't looking for media links; those are easy to google. Was looking for the actual legal stuff on an official legal (i.e uk court records) website.
Okay, I've got the book now and read the first few chapters. For me Hook puts himself in a bad light from the intro. He recalls assaulting their producer, John Robie, at the Pretty in Pink premiere, when he was high on coke. This was r(R)evenge for Robie shoving a meal in his face, who did so in retribution for a prank where Robie fell off his chair - but the crucial point for Hook is this prank was committed by Sumner. I think Hooky wants the reader to think that Sumner has been getting away it all his life (sorry), and this poor Hooky always cops it. However, I expect most readers will agree with Bernard telling Hook what he did was disgusting and should apologise. A prank is a prank, but headbutting someone in response is an assault. Hook was lucky - lucky he wasn't charged...
About halfway through, and in regards to the court case :
Overall, it's a miracle this book got published, and even more a miracle that the New Order accountants didn't get fired. I'd've sued them to the end of the Earth for negligence and fired them on the spot.
YourSilentFace wrote: To quote Hooky in a recent interview; "You can't just take 31 years of someone's life and suddenly decide how much they're going to profit from it going forward". If you don't like the man, then that's fine and your opinion but calling him a 'cunt' and a 'shithouse'? He's still one of the integral members of the best band of the 80s and if it wasn't for him, then every album after Low-Life would be regarded in the same light as the maligned Republic. If anyone's a money-grabbing, disrespectful cunt, it's Tom Chapman. He wasn't there during the Joy Division years, the golden-era of New Order, The Hacienda, he didn't know Rob Gretton, Martin Hannett, Tony Wilson etc. and he thinks he can just take the job of one of the most influential bass players of all time? Fuck that guy. It's like if some random 30 year old took Keith Richards role in The Rolling Stones.
Oh, jog the FUCK on.
Are New Order meant to get some grizzled 60 year old who was on the scene at the time and can play bass just to please YOU? Have a cup of Fuck Off.
Tom's never been disrespectful to Hook that I can recall, in the face of some fairly vicious slagging.
Are you going to have a pop at Guy Pratt when he joined Pink Floyd because he wasn't there in 1967? Or Falk Grieffenagen as he wasn't a studio engineer for Kraftwerk in 1978?
Didn't some random 33 year old join the Stones and replace Bill Wyman in 1994? The same random 33 year old was 1 - ONE - when The Stones started?
I also find Hook's slanging of Morris & Gilbert quite odd, considering that The Other Two have made a couple of albums and done loads of soundtrack stuff (unless of course Hook did those as well, so he'll be touring "The Other Two & You 25" in 2018 ...) as well as you know, take their eye off the ball during recording because of, you know, trivial stuff, like Cancer?
markreed wrote:
The Other Two have made a couple of albums
Yeah, but they're both monkey shit. Two shit LPs in 25 years means they are officially 12.5 times worse than the Spice Girls. Hooky will tour SH(ite album) with Geri Halliwell on vocals in 2061. Even if the abuse stories are true, I refuse to believe this is notoriously FUCKYOUYOUFUCKINGWANKER Hooky developing a social conscience. Hooky's autobiography:
Deceiver wrote:
Republic is not maligned. Republic is a great album with some of New Order's best songwriting...
Republic is less popular with the fans because etc etc but the media were very positive in the run up. NME and MM ran massive masturbatory interviews ('Republic' is great'... 'The finest music of their lives') and Radio 1 (so it must be true) said it was gonna be a Technique for the 90s. The actual reviews were good and at rhe very least average - even the worst one ('Select', I think) argued, 'It isn't a bad album, just an inert one.' I fucking hate it.
markreed wrote: About halfway through, and in regards to the court case :
- Hook selfproclaims himself "shit with money"
- He also declares some fairly hefty paydays, and clearly not been wise with it : I remember a 1995 interview where he said he owed the bank £1.5k
- Near enough everyone involved with New Order / Revenge finances appears to be completely fucking incompetent and should have been fired long long ago
- Hook (understandably, but not accurately), appears to be seeing the current court case as a way of fixing the awful Factory accounting practice that left him and everyone else historically out of pocket, presumably by suing his former band as they are currently lucrative and probably competently run financially
- Presumably he feels entitled to an hefty share of NO's current income which he doesn't currently work for whilst he actively sues them and slags them off
- Hook probably should get higher than 1.25% due to the existing historical strength of their commercial brand name giving them but 12.5% seems steep to me
- Vitalturn seem to generate approx £1m in historical royalties, so therefore seems reasonable he gets a sizable amount of that
- Rob clearly about as much use as a glass hammer when it comes to being a businessman
- As were NO's accountants
Overall, it's a miracle this book got published, and even more a miracle that the New Order accountants didn't get fired. I'd've sued them to the end of the Earth for negligence and fired them on the spot.
I'm about half way through and wondering if at some point he talks about when they got on their feet financially as both him and Bernard live in houses that are worth well over a million and Hooky has a couple of cars that are each in the 75 to 100k range - both with personalised plates of course.
surface wrote:
markreed wrote: About halfway through, and in regards to the court case :
- Hook selfproclaims himself "shit with money"
- He also declares some fairly hefty paydays, and clearly not been wise with it : I remember a 1995 interview where he said he owed the bank £1.5k
- Near enough everyone involved with New Order / Revenge finances appears to be completely fucking incompetent and should have been fired long long ago
- Hook (understandably, but not accurately), appears to be seeing the current court case as a way of fixing the awful Factory accounting practice that left him and everyone else historically out of pocket, presumably by suing his former band as they are currently lucrative and probably competently run financially
- Presumably he feels entitled to an hefty share of NO's current income which he doesn't currently work for whilst he actively sues them and slags them off
- Hook probably should get higher than 1.25% due to the existing historical strength of their commercial brand name giving them but 12.5% seems steep to me
- Vitalturn seem to generate approx £1m in historical royalties, so therefore seems reasonable he gets a sizable amount of that
- Rob clearly about as much use as a glass hammer when it comes to being a businessman
- As were NO's accountants
Overall, it's a miracle this book got published, and even more a miracle that the New Order accountants didn't get fired. I'd've sued them to the end of the Earth for negligence and fired them on the spot.
I'm about half way through and wondering if at some point he talks about when they got on their feet financially as both him and Bernard live in houses that are worth well over a million and Hooky has a couple of cars that are each in the 75 to 100k range - both with personalised plates of course.
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through and so far he hasn't. Keeps saying he's skint and the band needed to play a gig on The Moon for 50p because they needed the money which they then spent the whole fee on a post gig party. Says the band sold $350k of t-shirts a night on a 30 show tour, yet 13 years later, does Dj gigs for £500 because he needed the money. What does he does to the cash, set it on fire?
His definition of skint, and mine, might be very different.
markreed wrote:
surface wrote:
markreed wrote: About halfway through, and in regards to the court case :
- Hook selfproclaims himself "shit with money"
- He also declares some fairly hefty paydays, and clearly not been wise with it : I remember a 1995 interview where he said he owed the bank £1.5k
- Near enough everyone involved with New Order / Revenge finances appears to be completely fucking incompetent and should have been fired long long ago
- Hook (understandably, but not accurately), appears to be seeing the current court case as a way of fixing the awful Factory accounting practice that left him and everyone else historically out of pocket, presumably by suing his former band as they are currently lucrative and probably competently run financially
- Presumably he feels entitled to an hefty share of NO's current income which he doesn't currently work for whilst he actively sues them and slags them off
- Hook probably should get higher than 1.25% due to the existing historical strength of their commercial brand name giving them but 12.5% seems steep to me
- Vitalturn seem to generate approx £1m in historical royalties, so therefore seems reasonable he gets a sizable amount of that
- Rob clearly about as much use as a glass hammer when it comes to being a businessman
- As were NO's accountants
Overall, it's a miracle this book got published, and even more a miracle that the New Order accountants didn't get fired. I'd've sued them to the end of the Earth for negligence and fired them on the spot.
I'm about half way through and wondering if at some point he talks about when they got on their feet financially as both him and Bernard live in houses that are worth well over a million and Hooky has a couple of cars that are each in the 75 to 100k range - both with personalised plates of course.
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through and so far he hasn't. Keeps saying he's skint and the band needed to play a gig on The Moon for 50p because they needed the money which they then spent the whole fee on a post gig party. Says the band sold $350k of t-shirts a night on a 30 show tour, yet 13 years later, does Dj gigs for £500 because he needed the money. What does he does to the cash, set it on fire?
His definition of skint, and mine, might be very different.
Yes and mine too. Certainly doesn't appear skint looking at what he has from a material perspective, his house looks amazing.
markreed wrote:
surface wrote:
markreed wrote: About halfway through, and in regards to the court case :
- Hook selfproclaims himself "shit with money"
- He also declares some fairly hefty paydays, and clearly not been wise with it : I remember a 1995 interview where he said he owed the bank £1.5k
- Near enough everyone involved with New Order / Revenge finances appears to be completely fucking incompetent and should have been fired long long ago
- Hook (understandably, but not accurately), appears to be seeing the current court case as a way of fixing the awful Factory accounting practice that left him and everyone else historically out of pocket, presumably by suing his former band as they are currently lucrative and probably competently run financially
- Presumably he feels entitled to an hefty share of NO's current income which he doesn't currently work for whilst he actively sues them and slags them off
- Hook probably should get higher than 1.25% due to the existing historical strength of their commercial brand name giving them but 12.5% seems steep to me
- Vitalturn seem to generate approx £1m in historical royalties, so therefore seems reasonable he gets a sizable amount of that
- Rob clearly about as much use as a glass hammer when it comes to being a businessman
- As were NO's accountants
Overall, it's a miracle this book got published, and even more a miracle that the New Order accountants didn't get fired. I'd've sued them to the end of the Earth for negligence and fired them on the spot.
I'm about half way through and wondering if at some point he talks about when they got on their feet financially as both him and Bernard live in houses that are worth well over a million and Hooky has a couple of cars that are each in the 75 to 100k range - both with personalised plates of course.
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through and so far he hasn't. Keeps saying he's skint and the band needed to play a gig on The Moon for 50p because they needed the money which they then spent the whole fee on a post gig party. Says the band sold $350k of t-shirts a night on a 30 show tour, yet 13 years later, does Dj gigs for £500 because he needed the money. What does he does to the cash, set it on fire?
His definition of skint, and mine, might be very different.
$350k of t-shirts sold per gig? Say they sold for $35 a time, that would mean 10,000 sold each night!!!
Doesn't add up somehow 🤔
is it bro wrote:
markreed wrote:
surface wrote:
markreed wrote: About halfway through, and in regards to the court case :
- Hook selfproclaims himself "shit with money"
- He also declares some fairly hefty paydays, and clearly not been wise with it : I remember a 1995 interview where he said he owed the bank £1.5k
- Near enough everyone involved with New Order / Revenge finances appears to be completely fucking incompetent and should have been fired long long ago
- Hook (understandably, but not accurately), appears to be seeing the current court case as a way of fixing the awful Factory accounting practice that left him and everyone else historically out of pocket, presumably by suing his former band as they are currently lucrative and probably competently run financially
- Presumably he feels entitled to an hefty share of NO's current income which he doesn't currently work for whilst he actively sues them and slags them off
- Hook probably should get higher than 1.25% due to the existing historical strength of their commercial brand name giving them but 12.5% seems steep to me
- Vitalturn seem to generate approx £1m in historical royalties, so therefore seems reasonable he gets a sizable amount of that
- Rob clearly about as much use as a glass hammer when it comes to being a businessman
- As were NO's accountants
Overall, it's a miracle this book got published, and even more a miracle that the New Order accountants didn't get fired. I'd've sued them to the end of the Earth for negligence and fired them on the spot.
I'm about half way through and wondering if at some point he talks about when they got on their feet financially as both him and Bernard live in houses that are worth well over a million and Hooky has a couple of cars that are each in the 75 to 100k range - both with personalised plates of course.
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through and so far he hasn't. Keeps saying he's skint and the band needed to play a gig on The Moon for 50p because they needed the money which they then spent the whole fee on a post gig party. Says the band sold $350k of t-shirts a night on a 30 show tour, yet 13 years later, does Dj gigs for £500 because he needed the money. What does he does to the cash, set it on fire?
His definition of skint, and mine, might be very different.
$350k of t-shirts sold per gig? Say they sold for $35 a time, that would mean 10,000 sold each night!!!
Doesn't add up somehow 🤔
Around the 1989 tour when they were doing 23-35,000 seaters, apparently.
I'd be suprised, but I could undestand if a judge were to award Hooky with a dedicated 12.5% of the band's period and performance royalties and other income from merchandising and performances related to the Vitalturn licensing.
Any finances that were related to the band as an original 4-piece should be fairly collected 4 ways including performance royalties, concert performances of Gilbert/Hook/Morris/Sumner compositions performed live, mechanical rights, merchandising, et cetera per agreement from 1981 until setting up Vitalturn. Royalties (etc) should be distributed/collected as per agreement at the time of 2001-2005, per inclusion of Phil Cunningham. Anything post 2006 royalties (etc) should be distributed/collected as per agreement at the time previous arrangement.
I fucking LOVE New Order - in all configurations - but what you don't do, is fucking chintz someone out of money rightfully owned to them either by not paying them or unilaterally reducing period royalties - regardless of you like them or not, or of they are still in the band or not.
All things being equal from what little we know, the other three knew exactly what they were doing and sought to force Peter's hand financially in effort that they'd "win" by getting the whole lawsuit tied up in red tape to force the other to give up due to depletion of funds. That's basic strategy.
Give him his money.
The courts needs to make New Order pay out and move on completely separate of legal ties and Hooky gets his rightful money and he makes a clean break from them.
The courts could then slap Hooky with a "cease and desist" upon settlement regarding potentially slanderous commentary towards any of the five current band members moving forward from settlement.
synthpopfan wrote: I'd be suprised, but I could undestand if a judge were to award Hooky with a dedicated 12.5% of the band's period and performance royalties and other income from merchandising and performances related to the Vitalturn licensing.
Any finances that were related to the band as an original 4-piece should be fairly collected 4 ways including performance royalties, concert performances of Gilbert/Hook/Morris/Sumner compositions performed live, mechanical rights, merchandising, et cetera per agreement from 1981 until setting up Vitalturn. Royalties (etc) should be distributed/collected as per agreement at the time of 2001-2005, per inclusion of Phil Cunningham. Anything post 2006 royalties (etc) should be distributed/collected as per agreement at the time previous arrangement.
I fucking LOVE New Order - in all configurations - but what you don't do, is fucking chintz someone out of money rightfully owned to them either by not paying them or unilaterally reducing period royalties - regardless of you like them or not, or of they are still in the band or not.
All things being equal from what little we know, the other three knew exactly what they were doing and sought to force Peter's hand financially in effort that they'd "win" by getting the whole lawsuit tied up in red tape to force the other to give up due to depletion of funds. That's basic strategy.
Give him his money.
The courts needs to make New Order pay out and move on completely separate of legal ties and Hooky gets his rightful money and he makes a clean break from them.
The courts could then slap Hooky with a "cease and desist" upon settlement regarding potentially slanderous commentary towards any of the five current band members moving forward from settlement.
I Don't know a lot about the court case but If Your right saying he wants an equal cut of performance rights of the songs he wrote then surely it works the other way too so they should get 75% of his covers band gigs?
Plus the live albums etc?
And some one from bm at the hac classical gigs?
lee wrote: I Don't know a lot about the court case but If Your right saying he wants an equal cut of performance rights of the songs he wrote then surely it works the other way too so they should get 75% of his covers band gigs?
Plus the live albums etc?
And some one from bm at the hac classical gigs?
Perhaps they do already?
It's not quite the same in reverse, because The Light is performing a cover and not representing themselves as New Order. New Order, obviously, are.
Might have posted this already but a really good book explaining the legalities of this stuff is David Byrne's "How Music Works"
synthpopfan wrote:
Give him his money.
The courts needs to make New Order pay out and move on completely separate of legal ties and Hooky gets his rightful money and he makes a clean break from them.
The courts could then slap Hooky with a "cease and desist" upon settlement regarding potentially slanderous commentary towards any of the five current band members moving forward from settlement.
You seem close to the source? How is it his rightful money?
Is the current deal, 25% on back royalties for stuff he played on regardless, past and future sales? But he also wants 12.5% of 2007/Music Complete revenue? Seems a bit greedy for doing nothing. Not saying Hooky's only motivated by money - he owes St.Bernard his career for inventing post-modern discopop rock and should be forever in his debt......instead of writing 700+pages of nonsense of how he was wronged.
tapebias wrote: You seem close to the source?
I can promise you I'm not close or affliated to anyone in the group past or present.
As far as MC goes I can't imagine why he would be entitled to anything.
As far as you saying " he owes St. Bernard his career for inventing post-modern discopop rock and should be forever in his debt" that comment in itself is insulting to the importance and contributions of both Gillian and Stephen.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way - unless you're close to Bernard ;)
Maybe he should read the Lol Tolhurst book.
Whoever wins, I have a feeling that Hook is slightly blinded by the sense that he has been wronged in his eyes. Of course, the people you are paying several hundred pounds an hour aren't going to disagree with you.
Legal summary of Hook v Sumner and Others
Dunno of that was addressed to me or not(?), but I would be interested in reading the Lol Tolhurst book at some point. I was also thinking about XTC/Andy Partridge's legal battles as well - but that's compairing Oranges and Lemons (HA!) to Hooky/New Order.
I love reading about all the legal stuff artists face. The pertinent legal sections in the book about Alan Klein's is fascinating as well - especially the Verve/Rolling Stones drama.
But I digress... Both feel very wronged and justified in stance, I'm sure. As long as New Order continue to roll the income in from touring, they can continue to draw this saga out for quite a while still.
synthpopfan wrote:
tapebias wrote: You seem close to the source?
I can promise you I'm not close or affliated to anyone in the group past or present.
As far as MC goes I can't imagine why he would be entitled to anything.
As far as you saying " he owes St. Bernard his career for inventing post-modern discopop rock and should be forever in his debt" that comment in itself is insulting to the importance and contributions of both Gillian and Stephen.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way - unless you're close to Bernard ;)
OK no problem. No I'm not close to Bernard or ever have been. Just curious what money you think Hooky's owed?
It does appear he wants 12.5% of all revenue from 2011 onwards
From New Order website:
"Obviously the band are disappointed that Peter is pursuing this claim in this particular way. The reports so far take a number of things out of context. Peter still, for instance, receives his full share of all back catalogue royalties. This dispute relates only to the share of income he takes from our work without him since 2011."
The three links provided thru this forum (so far) - especially the link provided by NOOL user Foppish - gives a resonably clear picture of why Hooky is owed due money.
As for 2011 onwards, I haven't seen or read anything beyond what was on the official website. They wouldn't exactly admit some wrong doing would they?
But this is VERY interesting of true: "...shareholders (the defendants) met to amend the company’s articles to enable written resolutions of directors to be passed by a majority of them (and not all of them as previously).
Then by a written resolution the three other directors resolved to ask the shareholders to approve (which they did by written shareholders’ resolution) a trademark licence by which the rights to use the New Order name and trademarks would be licensed to a separate company, to be renamed New Order Ltd, which was owned and controlled by just the three of them. The trademark licence was dated that day.
Neither of the shareholders’ written resolution was circulated to Mr Hook. The judge remarked that that was a criminal offence under the Companies Act 2006, although he accepted that each resolution was validly passed." (Source )
Politely said, G**gle is your friend and the rest of the legwork can be done at your own interest and perusal.
synthpopfan wrote: Dunno of that was addressed to me or not(?), but I would be interested in reading the Lol Tolhurst book at some point. I was also thinking about XTC/Andy Partridge's legal battles as well - but that's compairing Oranges and Lemons (HA!) to Hooky/New Order.
I love reading about all the legal stuff artists face. The pertinent legal sections in the book about Alan Klein's is fascinating as well - especially the Verve/Rolling Stones drama.
But I digress... Both feel very wronged and justified in stance, I'm sure. As long as New Order continue to roll the income in from touring, they can continue to draw this saga out for quite a while still.
Was directed to PH.
Finished reading the book.Some good stories, some funny stories,some interesting and moving stories but ultimately i found myself disliking Peter Hook and Bernard![[:(]](/emoticons/frown.gif){kind=small}
synthpopfan wrote: The three links provided thru this forum (so far) - especially the link provided by NOOL user Foppish - gives a resonably clear picture of why Hooky is owed due money.
As for 2011 onwards, I haven't seen or read anything beyond what was on the official website. They wouldn't exactly admit some wrong doing would they?
But this is VERY interesting of true: "...shareholders (the defendants) met to amend the company’s articles to enable written resolutions of directors to be passed by a majority of them (and not all of them as previously).
Then by a written resolution the three other directors resolved to ask the shareholders to approve (which they did by written shareholders’ resolution) a trademark licence by which the rights to use the New Order name and trademarks would be licensed to a separate company, to be renamed New Order Ltd, which was owned and controlled by just the three of them. The trademark licence was dated that day.
Neither of the shareholders’ written resolution was circulated to Mr Hook. The judge remarked that that was a criminal offence under the Companies Act 2006, although he accepted that each resolution was validly passed." (Source )
Politely said, G**gle is your friend and the rest of the legwork can be done at your own interest and perusal.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Hooky tried to register NewOrderNow around the same time as well. It would be interesting to read his version of events if that's true.
I suspect that Nu Ordagh will probably use his attempt to break up the band and his subsequent behaviour as the reasoning for going ahead without him. I can't blame them.
Fotzepolitic wrote: Finished reading the book.Some good stories, some funny stories,some interesting and moving stories but ultimately i found myself disliking Peter Hook and Bernard
I've finished, too, and entirely agree with Fotzepolitic. It's actually put me off New Order and recording artists in general; most appear to be narcissists. Still, it's a good book; and better than Bernard's. However, I'm not sure I enjoyed reading it...
Deceiver wrote:
recording artists in general; most appear to be narcissists.
Another Net first.
Whatever you think of Hook, the book is certainly much more interesting than Chapter & Verse. Much of what went on was severely at odds of the image of New Order when I was growing up with them in the 1980's.
Hook and Sumner are very different characters and in a sense, bands need that. There is nothing worse when bands have songwriters that are all the same, as you in effect end up with one songwriter. However, it seems there was a constant battle of what Hook and Sumner thought New Orders sound should be.
I've read both books and you have to read somewhere in between the lines. Hook does seem a little obsessed with Barney and seems insecure - not unreasonably - that his role was slowing getting written out or at the very least down by the de facto leader, 'Barry Summer'.
You can't help agree with some of Hooky's points. i.e New Orders excruciating lack of diversity and back catalogue of their live set, turning into the band they spent years to avoid, change in Barney's vocals and my favourite, criticism of the worst track by New Order or in fact any band, 'Rock The Shack'.
He is unnecessarily harsh on Gillian. She was never meant to be 'an equal' player from the start. She was brought in to play Barney keyboard parts and play guitar when he was signing. It was an inspired 'signing' by Rob. Where the problem lies is money - I have never, ever understood why some bands split writing royalties with all remembers - this is madness and it will come back to haunt you when invariably one or more members are pulling their weight more than others and this clearly is a problem with Gillian's part in the band and also Barney's large part in the writing and production process. It was unsustainable and I'm not surprised that we have the mess we have.
Rightly or wrongly, Hook was a man that couldn't cope in the end with whatever Neworder had become and had had enough. Whatever the court case holds, we won't see them together again.
7 Reasons... I won't read this fucking book:
Michael Monkhouse wrote: 7 Reasons... I won't read this fucking book:
- Hooky is to writing what Stephen Hawking is to back flips. 'Fuck me, what a life... Our first tour, I think.'
- I refuse to support Hooky's pension fund. Popsters make too much money anyway and if I had a spare 25 quid it'd go to Amnesty, Oxfam or the barman.
- New Order's 'leisurely' (i.e. fucking meagre) output does not deserve yet another retread. Write something new.
- Celebrity bios don't appeal to me cos the actual work is rarely that deep. If you research Ingmar Bergman's life it gives you valuable insight into the films. I don't care how many Es Bernard dropped to write lyrics as bad as 'Every Second Counts'.
- Hooky is beastly.
- Hooky is beastly.
- Hooky is beastly.
Thanks for sharing...
Michael Monkhouse wrote:
- Celebrity bios don't appeal to me cos the actual work is rarely that deep. If you research Ingmar Bergman's life it gives you valuable insight into the films. I don't care how many Es Bernard dropped to write lyrics as bad as 'Every Second Counts'.
To give Hooky his due, he can string a sentence together, his writing isn't bad at all. But what he writes seems to be full of hate and regret for himself and everyone he's involved with. Bernard's book was pedestrian and read like an extended magazine interview.
I don't think there's much beneath the surface of New Order that we don't already know, just a gradual progression into becoming professional musicians. I think books about Rob Gretton, Tony Wilson or even Alan Wise would be a lot more interesting.
The two 80's musician biographies i'd recommend are Marc Almond's Tainted Life and Julian Cope's Head-On and Repossessed. They write with a self-awareness and mindfulness. You get the sense that they're also sorting themselves out by writing the books. They're both really funny too.
Andy wrote:
Michael Monkhouse wrote: 7 Reasons...
I see what you did there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRK6d5CWgdM As I said before, the only rock bio I enjoyed was Lydon and I preferred his opinions and personal insights to the done-to-death story of the Pistols. What IS his problem with Gillian? He makes Adolf Hitler sound like Eamon Hughes.
Debaser wrote:
komakino wrote: Hook and Sumner are very different characters and in a sense, bands need that.
Miranda Sawyer addresses this in her podcast/interview thing with Hook HERE around 26 minutes in, and she comes back to it on 30 mins.
Yeah! It's like Mel C and Geri. I prefer Mel C because of her superior singing / dancing / athletic abilities, respect for hersef and the fans, note perfect performances, contributions to Comic Relief and eschewing of supergroup excess / plastic surgery / misogynistic clichés. My Dad prefers Geri cos tits. Competition time: Find the one nice thing Hooky says about another human being who is not himself, his bass-playing son or a singer who hung himself in 1980.
Dave Fanning did an interview with Hooky. Nothing massively new or revealing in the main. There is some mention of New Order (Gillian, Steve and Bernard) loosing big money somewhere or somehow with an investment/pension during the financial collapse in 2008 and this was the catalyst for their return from 2011 onwards, not their concern for Michael Shamberg. 13:00 or so.
11:30 in, Hooky states that Johhny Marr asked him to work together.
There is also some discussion of the Caroline Aherne controversy, which is interesting.
https://player.fm/series/rt-dave-fanning-show-podcast/peter-hook
TF1.0.
truefaith1.0 wrote: 11:30 in, Hooky states that Johhny Marr asked him to work together.
TF1.0.
I read about that in the first Electronic period. Johnny said Hook asked to collaborate but Bernard got there first - and that was when he started criticising The Smiths and him in particular. In 1992 Hooky said the new album 'won't have guest appearances by Johnny Marr or anything like that.'
Just finished the eBook. I wish I hadn't read it frankly. Its causing delays in my next reviews.
Note to self: must focus on the music... must focus on the music...
My lasting impression: Bitching and whinging. Caligulan debauchery & gold standard drug and alcohol abuse held up as laddish kudos. Gross mistreatment of partners (in all directions). And waste. So much waste.
If Hook's intention was to rip open his fanbase's last vestige of blissful ignorance by laying bare his/their inner sanctum's addled, powdered, pus-filled carry-on, then he's nailed it. What's weird is in-between his stories of blow jobs in the alley, you get these verbose descriptions of studio terminology, and song recollections that in most cases repeat a mantra of: (paraphrasing) "Sumner's a c^&t but geez he's good, Stephen didn't do much unless he did, Gillian did almost nothing unless she did, and my bits were increasingly mixed out unless they weren't - in the 15 minutes that I wasn't paralytic (again - ha ha)."
Inside New Order indeed. Through its arse with a fucking endoscope. 💀
Bring on Stephen's book. Quick.
komakino wrote:
He is unnecessarily harsh on Gillian. She was never meant to be 'an equal' player from the start. She was brought in to play Barney keyboard parts and play guitar when he was signing. It was an inspired 'signing' by Rob. Where the problem lies is money - I have never, ever understood why some bands split writing royalties with all remembers - this is madness and it will come back to haunt you when invariably one or more members are pulling their weight more than others and this clearly is a problem with Gillian's part in the band and also Barney's large part in the writing and production process. It was unsustainable and I'm not surprised that we have the mess we have.
Rightly or wrongly, Hook was a man that couldn't cope in the end with whatever Neworder had become and had had enough. Whatever the court case holds, we won't see them together again.
But Gillian is not just a helping hand now. Maybe first she was brought in to help out on the guitars/synths, but it's clear her input and her contributions increased compared to when she first joined in 1981. I imagine her musical contribution is greater on the album 'Technique' or on 'World In Motion' than on 'Movement' or perhaps even 'Power, Corruption, and Lies'. Also, in the article of Stephen Hague talking about the making of 'True Faith' (the article was maybe from 10 years ago), he says that Gillian had thought of some keyboard parts or something like that. I don't remember the exact quote, but basically, she wasn't just doing what she was told even in the making of True Faith. I don't understand why Peter Hook refuses to understand that and why he acts like she was just a touring/supporting musician. He is definitely too harsh on her. He seems to think that she was never a true member.
PS- the lawsuit situation is about Hooky getting paid for New Order's activities without him- not about the back catalogue royalties, I think.
komakino wrote: Whatever you think of Hook, the book is certainly much more interesting than Chapter & Verse. Much of what went on was severely at odds of the image of New Order when I was growing up with them in the 1980's.
Hook and Sumner are very different characters and in a sense, bands need that. There is nothing worse when bands have songwriters that are all the same, as you in effect end up with one songwriter. However, it seems there was a constant battle of what Hook and Sumner thought New Orders sound should be.
I've read both books and you have to read somewhere in between the lines. Hook does seem a little obsessed with Barney and seems insecure - not unreasonably - that his role was slowing getting written out or at the very least down by the de facto leader, 'Barry Summer'.
You can't help agree with some of Hooky's points. i.e New Orders excruciating lack of diversity and back catalogue of their live set, turning into the band they spent years to avoid, change in Barney's vocals and my favourite, criticism of the worst track by New Order or in fact any band, 'Rock The Shack'.
He is unnecessarily harsh on Gillian. She was never meant to be 'an equal' player from the start. She was brought in to play Barney keyboard parts and play guitar when he was signing. It was an inspired 'signing' by Rob. Where the problem lies is money - I have never, ever understood why some bands split writing royalties with all remembers - this is madness and it will come back to haunt you when invariably one or more members are pulling their weight more than others and this clearly is a problem with Gillian's part in the band and also Barney's large part in the writing and production process. It was unsustainable and I'm not surprised that we have the mess we have.
Rightly or wrongly, Hook was a man that couldn't cope in the end with whatever Neworder had become and had had enough. Whatever the court case holds, we won't see them together again.
Can't disagree with any of that. Rather naive, I know, but my overall perception of the New Order and Joy Division aesthetic I loved in the 80's is in sharp contrast to the tensions, off-stage behaviour and general nonsense that went on all along - evidently from the very early days. I suppose, in that sense, the Factory image was hugely effective and achieved it's aim. I always remember one of them - either Hooky or Bernard - more or less saying back in the 80's that it would all come out eventually, and it would be one of the greatest stories ever told......
Eimi wrote: But Gillian is not just a helping hand now. Maybe first she was brought in to help out on the guitars/synths, but it's clear her input and her contributions increased compared to when she first joined in 1981. I imagine her musical contribution is greater on the album 'Technique' or on 'World In Motion' than on 'Movement' or perhaps even 'Power, Corruption, and Lies'. Also, in the article of Stephen Hague talking about the making of 'True Faith' (the article was maybe from 10 years ago), he says that Gillian had thought of some keyboard parts or something like that. I don't remember the exact quote, but basically, she wasn't just doing what she was told even in the making of True Faith. I don't understand why Peter Hook refuses to understand that and why he acts like she was just a touring/supporting musician. He is definitely too harsh on her. He seems to think that she was never a true member.
Its clear from Michael Butterworth's book that Gillian's contribution in the P,C&L era was substantial. From the "Girl In A Band" documentary we know she also wrote the majority of "World In Motion" too. Perhaps she didn't contribute as much during the Republic phase of the group, but I'm not sure that reflects her entire career (and I don't think we can assume a linear extrapolation either). I've yet to read exactly what Hooky wrote, though.
I think the reason the legal case is such a mess is the definition of whether the band had split or not.
I wouldn't say that Substance makes that actually 100% clear in the sense there was one meeting where it ended. Peter Hook clearly thinks the band had split, in which case he is entitled to x amount. However, the band clearly think that they had not. Reading in between the lines, they, Neworder made a dog's dinner of it. You cannot mess around with company law - it is black and white. Do any of them really know?
Neworder never officially split in 1993 either, they just stopped working together, so if I had to guess the band had not 'technically split' but I think the outcome will be that Hook will certainly get a lot more out of it than he is currently getting, without getting his potential full entitlement because of the ambiguity of the so called split.
One thing is certain, the lawyers are having a field day a they thrive on situations like this. Whatever you think of Neworder business wise, they are little better than Factory.
Dennis Remmer wrote: Just finished the eBook. I wish I hadn't read it frankly. Its causing delays in my next reviews.
Note to self: must focus on the music... must focus on the music...
My lasting impression: Bitching and whinging. Caligulan debauchery & gold standard drug and alcohol abuse held up as laddish kudos. Gross mistreatment of partners (in all directions). And waste. So much waste.
If Hook's intention was to rip open his fanbase's last vestige of blissful ignorance by laying bare his/their inner sanctum's addled, powdered, pus-filled carry-on, then he's nailed it. What's weird is in-between his stories of blow jobs in the alley, you get these verbose descriptions of studio terminology, and song recollections that in most cases repeat a mantra of: (paraphrasing) "Sumner's a c^&t but geez he's good, Stephen didn't do much unless he did, Gillian did almost nothing unless she did, and my bits were increasingly mixed out unless they weren't - in the 15 minutes that I wasn't paralytic (again - ha ha)."
Inside New Order indeed. Through its arse with a fucking endoscope. 💀
Bring on Stephen's book. Quick.
I am only 70 pages into the book but what you have written here sums up those pages pretty well. Not sure I can face into the rest of the book if it is as negative and depressing as this. The constant reference to Barney as "a twat but then he was a brilliant musician/lyricist but he is still a twat" is tiresome. I am going to have to re-read Barney's book because I don't seem to recall the constant snipping at Hooky.
Steve's book could be one to look forward to alright. If he deploys his quirky sense of humour, it will be a cracking read.
TF1.0
Jonathan wrote:
Eimi wrote: But Gillian is not just a helping hand now. Maybe first she was brought in to help out on the guitars/synths, but it's clear her input and her contributions increased compared to when she first joined in 1981. I imagine her musical contribution is greater on the album 'Technique' or on 'World In Motion' than on 'Movement' or perhaps even 'Power, Corruption, and Lies'. Also, in the article of Stephen Hague talking about the making of 'True Faith' (the article was maybe from 10 years ago), he says that Gillian had thought of some keyboard parts or something like that. I don't remember the exact quote, but basically, she wasn't just doing what she was told even in the making of True Faith. I don't understand why Peter Hook refuses to understand that and why he acts like she was just a touring/supporting musician. He is definitely too harsh on her. He seems to think that she was never a true member.
Its clear from Michael Butterworth's book that Gillian's contribution in the P,C&L era was substantial. From the "Girl In A Band" documentary we know she also wrote the majority of "World In Motion" too. Perhaps she didn't contribute as much during the Republic phase of the group, but I'm not sure that reflects her entire career (and I don't think we can assume a linear extrapolation either). I've yet to read exactly what Hooky wrote, though.
I haven't read the book either but I've read this thread and some of the reviews on Amazon. Thanks for the info too. I still think Hooky doesn't really think she's important. I get that impression.
Eimi wrote:
I still think Hooky doesn't really think she's important. I get that impression.
You may be right! Here's something I wrote years ago and nothing's changed my mind since then so I'll just copy 'n' paste (like porn): I think his comments here and elsewhere undermining The Other Two's contributions to the New Order cannon are more a reflection of his own shit-stirring tactics than the reality. For a start, pinpointing exactly how much an individual gives to a song is harder than my vicar's tackle during Grange Hill, which is why most artists don't bother - the classic example is Lennon-McCartney which was used as a kind of fits-all moniker, though it's obvious that (for example) Yesterday is a Paul track, Give Peace a Chance a John track. Plus I've read Procession was mainly Steve's... World in Motion was mainly Gillian's on the basis of her and Steve's Reportage theme (Bernard, 'This may be the way of the future')... Avalanche is The Other Two, surely... And on all releases from 87 to 97 (I'm including the Rest Of and Video 586 'cause I'm a silly little arse) Hooky is the least present, but this is probably more to do with poptastic limpwristed producers than his initial contribution. (The obvious case is Hague on Republic... In '92 Hook said the new album would be rockier anbd in 93 he told a guitar mag he liked to feed a bassline into the equipment then play over it, but Hague hadn't used his overtracking on songs like World.)
truefaith1.0 wrote:
Steve's book could be one to look forward to alright. TF1.0
Can't wait. 'Yeah, did some things with Joy Division and the some more things with New Order. It was like, y'know - there's Joy Division innit but ere ang on, he's dead now so we better be New Order right, Rob? Oops e's dead too, better be New Order anyway. Don't know really, coulda stopped or been Joy Division or New Order and we, um, decided to be New Order cos we - well, seemed like a good idea at the time. Eh, Tony? Oops. So - yeah, there yer go, I guess. It was - Joy Divsion to New Order and I guess - well I don't really remember.'
truefaith1.0 wrote: I am going to have to re-read Barney's book because I don't seem to recall the constant snipping at Hooky.
Bernard barely refers to Hooky until the final sections, where he describes the fall out. I think that's his way of snubbing Hooky. Although, I think Steve and Gillian also only gets a few mentions. Its an odd choice, to write a book about being in joy division and new order, but not describing your relationships with the members, apart from a bit about Ian.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: And on all releases from 87 to 97 (I'm including the Rest Of and Video 586 'cause I'm a silly little arse) Hooky is the least present, but this is probably more to do with poptastic limpwristed producers than his initial contribution. (The obvious case is Hague on Republic... In '92 Hook said the new album would be rockier anbd in 93 he told a guitar mag he liked to feed a bassline into the equipment then play over it, but Hague hadn't used his overtracking on songs like World.)
Even if you've read Inside New Order, it's still difficult to gauge the contributions. Hook repeats in the book and elsewhere, lately, that the lyrics were written together up until Republic. I noticed he never goes into exactly what lines he contributed, which is surprising, as he isn't usually coy. If Sumner is writing lyrics, and the others were chipping in with comments like hours rhymes with flowers, it would be harsh on Sumner to say it was a joint effort. By his own admission all Hook did much of the time was put bass over a finished track. Maybe there is a certain amount denial with Hook unable to accept Sumner is the primary songwriter. Rather than suing him, he should be grateful Sumner split the shares equally for so long...
I honestly don't believe a lot of what he's said I think he's purposely trying to cause trouble with a lot of what Bernard apparently said and did against Gillian
He even tries to cause a bit of grief for him by mentioning him saying the Vikings annoyed him
The book should've come with a free wooden spoon
Deceiver wrote:
Even if you've read Inside New Order, it's still difficult to gauge the contributions. Hook repeats in the book and elsewhere, lately, that the lyrics were written together up until Republic. I noticed he never goes into exactly what lines he contributed, which is surprising, as he isn't usually coy. If Sumner is writing lyrics, and the others were chipping in with comments like hours rhymes with flowers, it would be harsh on Sumner to say it was a joint effort. By his own admission all Hook did much of the time was put bass over a finished track. Maybe there is a certain amount denial with Hook unable to accept Sumner is the primary songwriter. Rather than suing him, he should be grateful Sumner split the shares equally for so long...
There is a slight dip in quality in New Orders lyrics from Get Ready onwards, whether that is because the other band members were no longer contributing or not is anyone's guess, I never had an issue with Bernard's lyrics until then tbh but some of the lines on Get Ready in particular do jar, especially Slow Jam which for me is a career low point. Bernard had more than proved himself as a decent lyricist before then of course.
Cranelane wrote:
There is a slight dip in quality in New Orders lyrics from Get Ready onwards, whether that is because the other band members were no longer contributing or not is anyone's guess, I never had an issue with Bernard's lyrics until then tbh but some of the lines on Get Ready in particular do jar, especially Slow Jam which for me is a career low point. Bernard had more than proved himself as a decent lyricist before then of course.
I agree with you - Slow Jam along with Rock the Shit are career low points for me - however, I don't think it's due to lyrics not being shared. In interviews Sumner has always talked as if wrote all lyrics anyway. There's a famous quote about him saying he wrote the lyrics on PC&L, sub-consciously, and they turned out more meaningful than Movement.
Lyrically speaking, Technique and Republic are most adept. I don't know why that is, but note they weren't far apart in years. Electronic in between, which is also pretty solid. Some people have said that's also when Sumner's vocals were at his strongest...
Cranelane wrote: Bernard had more than proved himself as a decent lyricist before then of course.
HOW CAN YOU IMPROVE ON PERFECTION?
'You reached out in your sleep, and you felt my big fat cock.'
'To buy a drink that is so much more reasonable I think I'll go there when it gets seasonable.'
'Every second counts When I am with you I think you are a pig You should be in a zoo.'
'You've caught me at a bad time So why don't you piss off.'
'And the sound in my head goes round and round Like a drunk on the stairs who just fell down.'
You're right though - GR saw some shite lyrics. You forgot Player in the League from the period - it was gonna be on the LP as 'Field' but rightly relegated to B.side ''''''''''status''''''''''.
Michael Monkhouse wrote:
Cranelane wrote: Bernard had more than proved himself as a decent lyricist before then of course.
HOW CAN YOU IMPROVE ON PERFECTION?
'You reached out in your sleep, and you felt my big fat cock.'
'To buy a drink that is so much more reasonable I think I'll go there when it gets seasonable.'
'Every second counts When I am with you I think you are a pig You should be in a zoo.'
'You've caught me at a bad time So why don't you piss off.'
'And the sound in my head goes round and round Like a drunk on the stairs who just fell down.' You're right though - GR saw some shite lyrics. You forgot Player in the League from the period - it was gonna be on the LP as 'Field' but rightly relegated to B.side ''''''''''status''''''''''.
Don't forget the track where he references The Corrs, Behind Closed Doors was the one I think..
Cranelane wrote: Peter Hook says Caroline Aherne was physically abusive during marriage
Musician claims in autobiography that the comedian, who died in July, attacked him with knives, bottles and chairs before split.
Haven't bought the book but have found a new appreciation for the lyrics of Under the Stars.
komakino wrote: I think the reason the legal case is such a mess is the definition of whether the band had split or not.
I wouldn't say that Substance makes that actually 100% clear in the sense there was one meeting where it ended. Peter Hook clearly thinks the band had split, in which case he is entitled to x amount. However, the band clearly think that they had not. Reading in between the lines, they, Neworder made a dog's dinner of it. You cannot mess around with company law - it is black and white. Do any of them really know?
Neworder never officially split in 1993 either, they just stopped working together, so if I had to guess the band had not 'technically split' but I think the outcome will be that Hook will certainly get a lot more out of it than he is currently getting, without getting his potential full entitlement because of the ambiguity of the so called split.
One thing is certain, the lawyers are having a field day a they thrive on situations like this. Whatever you think of Neworder business wise, they are little better than Factory.
New Order always made it *ABSOLUTELY* clear that they had not formally split.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6909106.stm
They continued to say the band hadn't split. And, whilst they never said "Gillians got cancer, so we're calling ourselves Bad Lieutenant for a bit", that's what happened.
What happened was Hook left. He thought the original 1981 agreement that 'if one of us leaves, we split' still applied, even though in 2000 one of them left and they didn't split. Hook thought he split the group, where really he'd just split from the group.
if I reformed an old company, there's no way in hell I'd ask the guy who left my business, slagged me off in public, and was suing me if he'd like to work with me again.
Anyway, he should get fuck all from the band's activities in their current incarnation, except for maybe a pittance for participating in the band to 2007 and thus allowing them to a certain degree of viable recognition when they reformed - maybe 5% of the bands overall profit, even though he's not contributing one second of work to the band in nine years and actively trying to undermine their commercial viability.
I doubt Hook pays the rest of New Order 3.75% of his earnings for the brand recognition New Order and Joy Division have given his solo career - the one where he's played 400 gigs and not released one original song with The Light in their entire fucking lifetime despite selling T-shirts that are borderline legal in how much they resemble New Order's intellectual property.
And I say this as a fan of his music - and Hook's live shows are very very good - but really, he's letting his fury at a percieved injustice blind him to the stakes. He could end up having to pay all of New Order's legal fees if he loses. This really is a high stakes Death Or Glory case.
Of course, if New Order have not honoured any legal agreement made regarding the 1980-2007 money, they need to cough up.
I eagerly await his next missive about keyboard warriors in the 1,000 page book about the making of One True Passion where he seems to sleep with every female on the planet bar Gillian and sets fire to his money.
Andy wrote:
Cranelane wrote: Peter Hook says Caroline Aherne was physically abusive during marriage
Musician claims in autobiography that the comedian, who died in July, attacked him with knives, bottles and chairs before split.
Haven't bought the book but have found a new appreciation for the lyrics of Under the Stars.
Under The Stars was played by Revenge in January 1993 and written before he'd met Aherne.
markreed wrote:
Andy wrote:
Cranelane wrote: Peter Hook says Caroline Aherne was physically abusive during marriage
Musician claims in autobiography that the comedian, who died in July, attacked him with knives, bottles and chairs before split.
Haven't bought the book but have found a new appreciation for the lyrics of Under the Stars.
Under The Stars was played by Revenge in January 1993 and written before he'd met Aherne.
Which gig? Was it under a different title (with different lyrics) at the time? It ended up being a far better track than anything else Revenge produced.
I was under the impression it was written for The Mrs Merton Show
markreed wrote:
Under The Stars was played by Revenge in January 1993 and written before he'd met Aherne.
Under the stars was called "Born to kill" and performed live as Revenge in January 1992. Possibly earlier at the end of 1991. I had a boot of it and I "remembered" it only upon hearing it released as a Monaco track.
Live, the song was fully formed as wound up nearly indentical to what is on MFP.
'Tender' was also a Revenge track originally... played at some of their final gigs I believe. It's a highlight of Hook's solo output and perhaps one of his best (studio) vocal performances.
By the end as Revenge were morphing into Monaco, he'd clearly found a solid song-writing partner in David Potts.
Even 'State of Shock' on the GWP EP still stands up as a solid track decades later.
GWP was their best (arguably only decent) release, but they were pretty much Monaco by then. The official post-Repubelick line was Hooky was half-way into the next Revenge album but temporarily shelving it for Killing Joke. Neither project really took off, but Revenge included Pumpkin (later Monaco's Microbes), Under The Stars (Porn To Kill) and Tender, and Hooky and Coleman '''''worked''''' on Freispiel. Ain't I smart?
For some reason I prefer Revenge to Monaco, even though I accept Monaco produced better material. Maybe I just prefer the sleeves...
In 1990, I only had two interests: New Order and jerking off. Revenge was two birds / one stone.
Read his book and you will know who "Under the Stars" was written about.
I am loving the book, nearly finished with it, at about 1995 right now.
Been a fan since 1985, and am loving his angle on New Order; it is completely Hook. It is why I always loved this band, a result of all the differing angles and personalities that somehow coalesced into some of the most fantastic music.
This text is just like his basslines. Human, jarring, aggressive, and always as honest as one can be.
Sure, he might call Sumner a twat in one sentence, and then praise him the next. That is how people are. Nobody is one dimensional. They love each other, they hate each other.
It created some fantastic music.
I highly recommend the book. It is good to read about all the behind-the-scenes madness, and I am glad Hook revealed so much, compared to the relatively tame mission statement style book that Sumner put out...
tarbox23 wrote:
Sure, he might call Sumner a twat in one sentence, and then praise him the next. That is how people are. Nobody is one dimensional. They love each other, they hate each other.
Nobody is one-dimensional, but it's not normal or healthy to 'hate' someone you love. You might disagree with something or some part of their personality or maybe something makes you annoyed sometimes, but it's neither a normal nor healthy relationship to love someone yet hate someone at the same time. And calling him names like that, then praising him the next seems...odd. Am I the only one who thinks this way? 'That is how people are'????? Nobody I know calls someone names like that then praises them. Nobody I know behaves or has behaved like Hooky. The fact the New Order made a great album even without him means that kind of conflict and/or personality isn't a necessary ingredient in New Order. Personality clashes and conflict with Hooky didn't necessarily make the music better- if that was the case MC would have to be bad.
Eimi wrote:
Nobody I know calls someone names like that then praises them. Nobody I know behaves or has behaved like Hooky.
Witness a lads night out in the UK, and by the end of the evening there's a good chance you'll have heard them call each other every name under the sun. They're still friends though.
Eimi wrote: The fact the New Order made a great album even without him means that kind of conflict and/or personality isn't a necessary ingredient in New Order. Personality clashes and conflict with Hooky didn't necessarily make the music better- if that was the case MC would have to be bad.
The logic doesnt follow that MC would have to be bad, just that it's different - which it is. MC is a good album beacuse it's consistent. It's not as good as their 80s output though, and those of us who liked Hook's contribution will have noticed it missing.
Eimi wrote: it's neither a normal nor healthy relationship to love someone yet hate someone at the same time.
Witness a lads night out in the UK, and by the end of the evening there's a good chance you'll have heard them call each other every name under the sun. They're still friends though.
But this isn't a lad's night out- it's a published autobiography. Is it common for people to name-call like that in their autobiographies? I find Hooky's constant referral of Barney as a 'twat' 'twatto' and of New Order as 'New Odour' to be childish, immature , and stupid. Whatever his true feelings, at least Barney showed restraint in his book and didn't call Hooky a 'twat'. Unlike most of you here, I don't find it funny or amusing.
I wouldn't read too much into it. Hooky's so one-dimensional he makes Roger Hargreaves read like Sylvia Plath. Psychologist's report: 'Wanker'.
Signed copy turned up at the weekend, only read the first for or five chapters but enjoying it so far (although given the size of the book, don't know when I'll have got through the whole thing) - but going by the first chapter, can we blame John Robie for how things turned out?
Eimi wrote:
Witness a lads night out in the UK, and by the end of the evening there's a good chance you'll have heard them call each other every name under the sun. They're still friends though.
But this isn't a lad's night out- it's a published autobiography. Is it common for people to name-call like that in their autobiographies? I find Hooky's constant referral of Barney as a 'twat' 'twatto' and of New Order as 'New Odour' to be childish, immature , and stupid. Whatever his true feelings, at least Barney showed restraint in his book and didn't call Hooky a 'twat'. Unlike most of you here, I don't find it funny or amusing.
Quite right which make me believe the abuse is more to do with destabilising the inner workings of the present line up in an attempt to disrupt them going forward. The abuse apportioned to Bernard and in particular Hooky's assertion that Bernard had a problem with Gillian's alleged lack of input makes me feel that's the angle Hooky was working towards when writing the book.
Just finished the book (despite my reservations).
Overall, there are enough good stories in it to make it an enjoyable read. Particularly the early years. Once it gets past Brotherhood, then it all blurs into one after a while.
His antagonism towards Barney gets tiring quite quickly, as well as his various jabs at Gillian. And his depiction of Rob pre breakdown has (to my knowledge) never been talked about before. So to portray him as a selfish, bullying tyrant is quite a surprise.
Towards the end, when Hooky stops drinking, is when things get really, really tiring. Yes, I'm often been given the impression that Barney can be a childish brat. But, as he has demonstrated over the last number of years, so can Hooky. So I suspect he's left out his part in the various bust ups.
There were a few clunkers/omissions:
I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that immediately sprung to mind.
I came away from the book thinking of Hooky as someone who has realised that he has been playing second fiddle to someone else (be it Ian, Barney, Caroline etc) for most of his life, and is now using the Light to redress the balance. The childish digs and laddish tales of drink and debauchery simply reinforce this. By portraying himself as some swashbuckling Viking, he can disguise the self loathing 60 year old that lurks within him.
Always loved Hooky when he was in the band, but his constant digs at New Order since his departure have left a sour taste, and judging by all the reviews, I think it's best I give this one a swerve as it will only exacerbate the bad feelings. Think I prefer to remember the good times...
Not a bad book at all. Lots of info about gear/equipment and a look deep inside the "privacy" of the band (sometimes it's too much IMO). But let's face the facts: in interviews Hooky always accuse Barney to say bad things about him over 60% of "Chapter and Verse" but that's not the truth. Maybe 7 or 8 pages about "Waiting for the Sirens'Call"'s recording sessions an that's all. On the other hand he calls Barney as twat, dictator, lazy and many other awful things since the first chapter of "Substance".
More Hooky nonsense exposed - in his book he alleges that Barney forced Johnny Marr's guitar out of Electronic - but in his own book published yesterday Marr states that Bernard wanted him to play more guitar but that he was more interested in the electronic side of things.
Milkshock wrote: More Hooky nonsense exposed - in his book he alleges that Barney forced Johnny Marr's guitar out of Electronic - but in his own book published yesterday Marr states that Bernard wanted him to play more guitar but that he was more interested in the electronic side of things.
It's clear that Hooky doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's blinded by his anger that he's saying these things. In this case, I believe Johnny Marr's words, because he actually worked with Bernard in Electronic and knew what it was like. And it's clear from those words that Barney did not 'force' Johnny Marr's guitar out of the project. I don't know how Hooky's fans can continue to defend this nonsense that comes out of Hooky's mouth/book.
Yeah, I'm no muso but that's clearly bollocks. In an interview during the first spurt, Marred Johnny said one of the great things about being in Electronic was the chance to play new instruments - and the albums became progressively more guitar-heavy. I don't think Johnny and Hooky are drinking partners either.
Eimi wrote:
Milkshock wrote: More Hooky nonsense exposed - in his book he alleges that Barney forced Johnny Marr's guitar out of Electronic - but in his own book published yesterday Marr states that Bernard wanted him to play more guitar but that he was more interested in the electronic side of things.
It's clear that Hooky doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's blinded by his anger that he's saying these things. In this case, I believe Johnny Marr's words, because he actually worked with Bernard in Electronic and knew what it was like. And it's clear from those words that Barney did not 'force' Johnny Marr's guitar out of the project. I don't know how Hooky's fans can continue to defend this nonsense that comes out of Hooky's mouth/book.
Whatever they say to each other I will ALWAYS BE A FAN OF The real New Order (Hooky, Sumner, Gilbert & Morris). Sumner can be a twat, Hooky can have a big mouth, Gilbert a none talented musician(according to Hooky), & Morris a tank collector, at the end of the day, we can all agree that those 4 individuals had made incredible music that had touch our life. Hooky fans, Sumner fans, etc... its stupid. I'm a New Order fan....
So glad it's not compulsory to read this book, which sounds like a load of codswallop. Doesn’t make his other claims any more credible either. If Hooky wants to be believed on the big stuff, shouldn’t he at least make the rest of it consistent with reality.
Fortunately, the music sounds the same as ever - there is the Hooky of New Order and this other one, the actual one, I don’t recognise.
Eimi wrote:
Milkshock wrote: More Hooky nonsense exposed - in his book he alleges that Barney forced Johnny Marr's guitar out of Electronic - but in his own book published yesterday Marr states that Bernard wanted him to play more guitar but that he was more interested in the electronic side of things.
It's clear that Hooky doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's blinded by his anger that he's saying these things. In this case, I believe Johnny Marr's words, because he actually worked with Bernard in Electronic and knew what it was like. And it's clear from those words that Barney did not 'force' Johnny Marr's guitar out of the project. I don't know how Hooky's fans can continue to defend this nonsense that comes out of Hooky's mouth/book.
Yep, I've heard Johnny remark on that before, tracking back to the final Smiths album which had minimal-to-no guitars on some tracks
Apparently, Peter had hoped Die Moldau would be the intro music for the year's MC shows, but Bernard and Tom And Jonny thought that Das Reingold would be be best ,and also cause Peter to be exasperated. Peter , also , it has been heard, feels that Bernard should make another Prozac album, as he really likes and listens to' raise the pressure 'side 2, almost as often as republic , side 1. Peter further insists that if action figures of new order are created for the suave sophisticates on both sides of the pond , that his figure be 1mm taller than Gillian, and that the Tom figure be somewhat in awe of the Peter figure. And he insists that grand theft auto -manchester to burnley , by way of maccclesfield be extra bad and mod and focus upon Hooky
M1 wrote:
Eimi wrote:
Milkshock wrote: More Hooky nonsense exposed - in his book he alleges that Barney forced Johnny Marr's guitar out of Electronic - but in his own book published yesterday Marr states that Bernard wanted him to play more guitar but that he was more interested in the electronic side of things.
It's clear that Hooky doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's blinded by his anger that he's saying these things. In this case, I believe Johnny Marr's words, because he actually worked with Bernard in Electronic and knew what it was like. And it's clear from those words that Barney did not 'force' Johnny Marr's guitar out of the project. I don't know how Hooky's fans can continue to defend this nonsense that comes out of Hooky's mouth/book.
Yep, I've heard Johnny remark on that before, tracking back to the final Smiths album which had minimal-to-no guitars on some tracks
That was also partly because he walked out before they finished it.
Johnny and Bernard have both been on the record several times about Electronic. The original plan was for a series of anonymous, purely electronic, instrumental EPs to act as a detox for the shit they'd each just been through. Guitars were never supposed to be involved at all. Lucky Bag, Soviet, Free Will and Reality (before they added lyrics) were the result of that approach but it gradually morphed into the album we ended up with.
As has been stated Johnny really fell in love with the synths because he was well out of his comfort zone but they just did what they had fun with. It's often been stated by Sumner that Marr got so carried away with the synths that he had to remind him to get the guitar out every now and again. Marr never thought to even try singing until Sumner talked him into it for Haze on Twisted Tenderness and now he's a solo artist, writing and singing his own songs. Electronic was two mates having fun, covering a wide range of tones and genres and each of them learning off each other.
Hooky can fuck right off with that shite.
The Ruts wrote:
- When discussing Dream Attack, he doesn't mention who was mainly involved with it. Probably because it's rumoured to have been written by Gillian.
https://www.mdmarchive.co.uk/artefact.php?&aid=1864&bid=693
And WHAT a tune.
Reminds me, always disappointed when Gillian does the self deprecating thing and describes herself as the "keyboard player" in New Order. Sells herself short. But perhaps she's had to work with some male egos that make that approach essential. I mean BS as much as PH here by the way.
Last week in Manchester at a launch event for his memoir, Johnny Marr spoke very highly of Gillian.
Johnny described Gillian as the first cool English woman to visit America.
The sad thing is he'll say any old shite just for attention. The sadder thing is it's working.
Michael Monkhouse wrote: The sad thing is he'll say any old shite just for attention. The sadder thing is it's working.
Unclear if you mean Hooky or Marr, here, given the previous posts; but I guess you mean Hooky.
Spittingcat wrote:
I'm a sucker for alternate titles. That sentence also works without the last two syllables.
http://www.new-order.net/no/facs/workingtitles.html http://imgur.com/zWAQY0J
Today's recommended reading is Steve Jones' biography for its articulate, insightful and informative commentary on the composition process, the Pistols' continued relevance and of course the socio-political, economic strife of the period: 'Fuck, this fucking photo must be from one of those fucking gigs we fucking did, I don't fucking remember, you think I had a fucking diary for fuck's sake, I was too fucking pissed anyway. Fuck, what a fucking photo.'
If you’ve read his other two books, or any of his recent interviews you know exactly what you’re in for. Hooky is a typical bloke-in-a-band story-teller. You can sniff the BS in most of the stories, like they’ve been polished and embellished over the years for maximum value. Ignore the facts etc
But so what – it’s a fun read if you don’t let him annoy you too much
I also enjoyed the stuff that he doesn’t say – lots of bits along these lines: “I did some brilliant bass on this album, and Barney’s vocals and guitar playing were equally as good. Stephen’s drumming was phenomenal.” FULL STOP
Then the continual naming of members of the entourage doing seedy/questionable things – then suddenly he goes all cryptic “then a certain member of our lot did this…”
I wonder who that could have been then? hahaha :)
It took me 3 months to read this fabulous tome. Few things:
To understand Hook's perspective, one has to accept his premise that New Order/Joy Division were basically HIS and Bernard Sumner's band, as they both formed it in 1976, before Ian Curtis, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert; not only that, but he considers himself one of the principal music writers on par with Sumner. So, if one of them leaves the band (as Hook himself did in 2007), the band simply doesn't have the right to exist (whereas Gillian's departure in 2001 was completely fine, consequence-free, according to that logic). So, following that logic, again, New Order ceased to exist in 2007.
Hook makes a few points when New Order were supposed to be really real. Whether it's before Gillian came along (and they had a 'democracy'), or it's 1980-84 when Sumner was not yet the dictator he turned to be after Rob's decline, or it's 1981-85 when they didn't know how to write songs properly and sing in key, or 2001-2004 when New Order again were just him, Barney and Steve... I'm lost.
Oh that wrath unleashed on Barney... That Mr. Sumner could be a jerk, I suspected, but here Hook explains why he had to be one: who else would program all these computers to make bearable music? Who else would stop touring to recover from Pernod? Who else would turn his back on the Hacienda to buy Mercedeses and Elvis costumes? Exactly. But still I was shocked to learn how callous, greedy, rude, lazy, stubborn and annoying Mr. Sumner was. I mean, the guy is trashed basically on every page. By the way, I did read Sumner's autobiography, which was more introspective, at times poetic, but somewhat vague in general and cherry-picking.
I loved the book, although, the last thing I wanted is to know anything about the band beyond the LP sleeves and videos, but that ship has sunk... and this invitation into the real world of New Order was irresistible.
Still working my way through - just got past the release of Republic. I think he has mentioned Terry Thomas more times than he has mentioned Gillian!
The start of Republic is one of the very few times he speaks positive about Gillian.
The things I learned about Hooky is he just wants the band to stay Joy Division. And He thinks he is the Edge.
And both Hooky and Barney are assholes. Rob should have been fired around 1983 or 84. And everybody took advantage of them including their own roadies. About 20 years of hard drugs, I can't believe they are all still alive. and the book has a crapy ending. I'm guessing there will be a second book call New Order the legal years.
Well true or not it's an enjoyable read , we know our heroes chopped out more lines than the Stones, zep and Liam put together Not so kind on Gillian where would he be if she hadn't joined and there are several veiled references about her with a couple about Barney what the heck he signed me book me Joy division tape and loads of other stuff which is more than can be said for lol from the cure , when I finished I played Avalanche just seemed so right Faith
They seem to be making a fuss about the book being released again, with a new cover: is it just a new cover or a 2nd edition?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Substance-Inside-Order-Peter-Hook/dp/0062307975
Its the American version with a different cover - certainly not going to pay best part of £30 to find out if there's anything new in it.
Amazon says the same number of pages. I do prefer the American edition cover, although I find constant Saville design rehashing tiresome (like combining the Movement typography with the PCL chromogramm).
No Barcode wrote: Amazon says the same number of pages.
Does it? THIS appears to say 416 pages whilst THIS says 768 pages.
The paperback due out in June 2017 is listed as 928 pages. Could that be with the extra stuff Hook mentioned (which I thought was only going to be online or kindle or something). The image for the paperback appears to be the original arse cover rather than the orange one.
Debaser wrote:
No Barcode wrote: Amazon says the same number of pages.
Does it? THIS appears to say 416 pages whilst THIS says 768 pages.
The paperback due out in June 2017 is listed as 928 pages. Could that be with the extra stuff Hook mentioned (which I thought was only going to be online or kindle or something). The image for the paperback appears to be the original arse cover rather than the orange one.
I looked at Amazon.com, it says 768 pages, just like in my British copy. HERE
'The turmoil culminated in Hook – who is widely regarded as one of the greatest bass players of his generation – being ejected from New Order half a decade ago. ': I thought he walked out on the band?
More juicy tidbits from the book tour: "We really rose from the ashes of Joy Division. It was, in many ways, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes."
79order wrote: Dear Peter Can I point out a serious error in your book that will have fans blood boiling world wide the Wedgwood rooms where you state Monaco played in September 1997 is in PORTMOuTH not as stated Plymouth , I expect nothing less than a total recall of this otherwise excellent and factually correct book though seriously how could you. Your m8 79
Movement
This was an error in the http://www.new-order.net/ot/gigs listing, which I've just corrected. Old version with error as reference can be viewed here: http://web.archive.org/web/20150819070618/http://www.new-order.net/ot/gigs/
--Sam
That HuffPo interview contains another classic Gillian whitewash moment
I wanted people to realize how hard we worked and how difficult it was to create that sound. You’ve got to give all of us, Barney, Steve and myself, the credit for doing that
Yes New Order, Barney, Steve & Hooky - that famous THREE PIECE
Really looking forward to reading Steves version now. Whens his book out?
Chapter One - Beginnings
To be honest, with all the drums and cymbals in front of me I couldn't really see what was going on.
The End
Excerpt from I Am Monkey, Steve's autobiography:
Chapter 5. Working with John Robie Ah yeah, John Robie. Good old John, old Johnny yeah, Mr John Robie ladies and yeah. Doin' fairy well fer 'imself innit, bit of a producer and type thingie now, eh? All thanks to us of course! Only joking. Or am I? Ere that's a good line ain't it? Work with New Order, become a producer and type thing eh? Ere angggon, ain't John Robie already done that? That's me point! Gillian? Gillian Ha ha ha! Yes, ha!
Are any of these books going to come out in video documentary forum? Not really into books.
Late to the party on this one and there's no need to add to whats been said really but, I don't care what he says, all the sniping at other band members in the book wouldn't have been included if he'd written the book fifteen years ago.
That cover for the paperback version is a bit busy innit? And Hook has softened to an extent he includes photos with Bernard on it?
Fotzepolitic wrote: That cover for the paperback version is a bit busy innit? And Hook has softened to an extent he includes photos with Bernard on it?
Marketing innit. If it was a picture of his dick no one would buy it... Well maybe someone would. But let's not think about them.
Fotzepolitic wrote: That cover for the paperback version is a bit busy innit? And Hook has softened to an extent he includes photos with Bernard on it?
Never mind Bernard. Who is that woman and what does she have to do with New Order?
Yes, the photo with Bernard and Gillian is I am sure very much deliberate. Given Hooky's stance that 'she' can't be trusted to press the right buttons so Bernard has to go and do it....
Two things, among others, I found revealing in the book: 1) that Bernard denied anyone to do back vocals and did it himself, although everyone in the band was capable of singing and Hooky was the one who had to step up to the mic when Bernard was way off his head; interesting to note though that Phil and Tom (?) provide back vocals in Music Complete; and 2) that (kinda related to #1) the male voice in Fine Time belonged to Bernard (they slowed it down) and not some obscure sample, which I find pretty awesome. The production of Technique was so self-sufficient; thank God they kept Stephen Hague away, he would have totally fucked it up.
I also think that Hooky believes he might have been a better singer when NO just formed but "autocratic" Barney took over and cut off everyone from the singing duties. And let's be honest, Sumner's early singing (live particularly) was terrible. I mean, we've all got used to him and all, but to an outsider he sounded bad (basing on many people's comments I received).
And one more thing: Hooky is the integral part of NO sound. It's like Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin. You can't have Led Zeppelin without Page, even if Plant is singing. I mean, obviously I don't refuse to see post-Hook New Order but... Honestly, they should have it called it day in 1993 for good, with a few reunion concerts here and there if the moment feels right, but that's it. They never outdid their 80s output, and probably never will. Like I like Crystal, but the album didn't live up to it (exactly as Republic didn't live up to Regret). And I don't even want to go into WFTSC.
The one person who never gets a mention is Michael Johnson, its possible he contributed more to the NO sound than is given credit for. Can't be a coincidence that every album since Technique hasn't been as good. I suspect Republic could've been way better without Hague, obviously they needed referee but i think they chose the wrong guy!
No Barcode wrote: The production of Technique was so self-sufficient; thank God they kept Stephen Hague away, he would have totally fucked it up.
Why do you say that? Hague could have done a very good version of Fine Time - it's just his sort of track. Round & Round, the single, was okay.
I think Hague needs A Little Respect (hope you see what I did there), he's a brilliant producer. Critical New Order fans appear to focus on what they believe he didn't do rather than credit him for what's there. Let's not forget he's also got songwriting credits for True Faith, 1963, and Republic - okay, Bernard wasn't too happy about him having songwriting credits on Republic, we've learned from Hooky. The point is classics like True Faith, World in Motion, and Regret may not have been as good without him...
No Barcode wrote: Two things, among others, I found revealing in the book: 1) that Bernard denied anyone to do back vocals and did it himself, although everyone in the band was capable of singing and Hooky was the one who had to step up to the mic when Bernard was way off his head; interesting to note though that Phil and Tom (?) provide back vocals in Music Complete; and 2) that (kinda related to #1) the male voice in Fine Time belonged to Bernard (they slowed it down) and not some obscure sample, which I find pretty awesome.
I also think that Hooky believes he might have been a better singer when NO just formed but "autocratic" Barney took over and cut off everyone from the singing duties. And let's be honest, Sumner's early singing (live particularly) was terrible. I mean, we've all got used to him and all, but to an outsider he sounded bad (basing on many people's comments I received).
I thought Rob Gretton decided who the singer would be? Even Hook admits Bernard was the right choice, based on the way they play. I can't remember Bernard denying backing vocals in the book, but I take your word for it. Hook actually has a good vocal for backing because he, fittingly, has a bass singing voice. Unfortunately for him, this doesn't make for a very good lead vocal. He does the Joy Division ones okay, but struggles with New Order tracks, as Bernard is probably a tenor. His best vocals were on One True Passion, where his voice seemed higher, and sounded a bit like Bernard on tracks such as Slave...
Does anyone still believe the Hookster? 'Chapman will do a duet with ex-Spice. Tom 'n' Geri.' I finally got to read some of this book on pdf cos it's hard to track down in the Eternal Shitty. I was really bored and even I couldn't get through more than 5 pages. Zzzzzz.
blunt laser wrote: The one person who never gets a mention is Michael Johnson... ...the wrong guy!
I agree, Johnson worked on every album from Closer to Technique. I don't remember, maybe he was mentioned in "Blue Monday Diaries", a book by Butterworth (?) who sat through the PC&L sessions.
Del Boy wrote: Yes, the photo with Bernard and Gillian is I am sure very much deliberate. Given Hooky's stance that 'she' can't be trusted to press the right buttons so Bernard has to go and do it....
Actually, what Pete Hook says in the book is not his stance, it's Bernard's. Bernard did not trust her; Hooky is simply stating that. From what he says about Bernard in the rest of the book, he seemed very controlling, and got more so as the years progressed.
Boy, is it boring! I was bored shitless and even I couldn't get past the first page. The most unintentionally hilarious autobiography is (S)Ex Pistol Steve Jones: 'Lydon fell out with McLaren when the latter chose Russ Meyer to direct the film. He wrote a long letter saying Meyer's work was 'infantile, artistically inept and an affront to female dignity and male intelligence.' McLaren replied that he was actually 'a gentleman, a true professional and in his own way just as radical as the band.' All I knew was he made movies about girls with big tits, which sounded great to me.'
Finally downloaded the book. Although I doubt the accuracy, it is a riveting read. It would explain why when I watch old clips of gigs, Barney acts so pissed off the whole time.
I’m up to the Substance era and 4 things struck me:
Deceiver wrote: His best vocals were on One True Passion, where his voice seemed higher, and sounded a bit like Bernard on tracks such as Slave...
Worst thing ever to come out of this camp. Even worse than The Other Splooge. Really bad. Just - really bad. Bad. The official line was that Rob chose Gillian: they wanted someone who could fit in by being a competent musician but not having a recognisable style that would take them over. As for her technical abilities I really can't comment. The Other Two are crap though.
I see the paperback is £3 in Fopp at the moment for those that are interested (is there anybody on this board who is interested that hasn't already got a copy?)
Ken Doherty wrote:
I see the paperback is £3 in Fopp at the moment for those that are interested (is there anybody on this board who is interested that hasn't already got a copy?)
It seems they have stopped printing the paperback edition (maybe the hardback too?) but Fopp have been ordering in batches of old stock and continuing to sell the book for £3.
I mention this now because HMV are reported to be calling in administrators (again) as we speak. And HMV owns Fopp. So today may be your last chance to get in there.
I actually liked Fopp more than HMV in recent years and will miss it if it goes.
Well thanks to lockdown I finally managed to read this all the way through to the end tonight:I didn't think it was an amazing book by any means but I thought it was entertaining enough (and better than Bernards book that I still haven't managed to get more than a couple of chapters into despite bringing it with me on my last two or three holidays): I got the impression a lot of why he left NO was left out of this due to the legal action that has been ongoing but I also thought that the going into rehab was a big contributing factor into him leaving (it seems that once he wasn't drinking any more than he thought it was him against the world) Thanks for writing this Peter but I don't think we need a further chapter in what has happened ( I saw online the other day he was thinking of writing a book about the court case(s))
