Peter Hook: Substance: Inside New Order

http://journal.lewissilkin.com/journal/2016/march/new-order-sparks-intrigue-for-music-industry-gossip-columns-and-company-lawyers.aspx#.WAUigvp4WhA]

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

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:

1. Hooky is to writing what Stephen Hawking is to back flips. 'Fuck me, what a life... Our first tour, I think.'
2. 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.
3. New Order's 'leisurely' (i.e. fucking meagre) output does not deserve yet another retread. Write something new.
4. 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'.
5. Hooky is beastly.
6. Hooky is beastly.
7. Hooky is beastly.

Michael Monkhouse wrote: 7 Reasons... I won't read this fucking book:

1. Hooky is to writing what Stephen Hawking is to back flips. 'Fuck me, what a life... Our first tour, I think.'
2. 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.
3. New Order's 'leisurely' (i.e. fucking meagre) output does not deserve yet another retread. Write something new.
4. 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'.
5. Hooky is beastly.
6. Hooky is beastly.
7. Hooky is beastly.

Thanks for sharing...

Michael Monkhouse wrote:

4. 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.

Michael Monkhouse wrote: 7 Reasons...

I see what you did there.

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.

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...