Peter Hook: Substance: Inside New Order

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.

Link

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.

Link

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.

Link

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.

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:

• He thinks the early days of NO were better because they didn't know what they were doing, but laughs at Barney's "out of tune" guitar on Jetstream when played on TV.
• He dismisses Gillian's guitar playing on Sunrise, even though it was actually Barney.
• 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.
• He claims Barney left him to do an interview with Phil Jupitus by himself. But the actual broadcast had him and Steve being interviewed.
• No mention of his MySpace post claiming "This band have split up...I've got a third!"

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.

Fantastic book .... won't have to buy any toilet roll for ages

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.