I agree, especially with the truculent part. However, in terms of just money both Joyce, Rourke and Hook all felt/feel that what they were getting is not enough and they wanted more. Mozzer/New Order think they're getting what they're entitled to.

Edited by user 01 December 2015 04:37:03(UTC)  | Reason: Whether you like cabbages or brocolli it's nice to have both

Hadn't thought in terms of Deborah Curtis. It would imply she's also being wronged and is siding with Hook.

I really wouldn't read too much into the slightly bizarre "Fabs" comparison the QC threw out there. I sense that was more for press release purposes in order to make those unfamiliar with New Order understand what was going by referencing the most well known band on the planet. Deborah Curtis's involvement would probably depend on whether Vitalturn also handles Joy Division's income. A quick glance at Discogs shows that the company only really features on New Order releases. There may be another limited company which exclusively handles JD (would certainly make sense as it's a legacy in itself).

So basically after spending the past four years trying to convince the world that the current act known as "New Order" is NOT New Order because he is no longer a part of them, now he totally flip-flopped his position and is trying to convince the court that they are indeed New Order and owe him money now for those past for years.

Edited by user 01 December 2015 14:32:04(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Well he says they're TRADING as New Order, having done a bit of a 'sneaky'. And as the post below yours says...



Indeed fifty quid a ticket after fees for Brixton was quite the fee. I paid it but I felt I was being fleeced.

For anyone curious about how music royalties work in various circumstances, David Byrne's book "How Music Works" is very good, very clear.

this is ridiculous.

A bit odd what the NME are saying, Bernard started a new band with his old (BL) band mates, but they forget to mention Steve and Phil were already in NO before BL. We don't need these pricks confusing the story even more

I find it ridiculous that Peter would claim that Bernard "broke up" New Order by forming Electronic (although this is far from the only ridiculous statement that he has made since he left in 2007). I like Peter a lot, his bass playing in New Order is great (I even saw The Light and liked it quite a bit), but I really wish he would act in a manner that matches the musical legacy that he has left.

Edited by user 02 December 2015 23:22:21(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

They're not as such, they're paying themselves. The new company is paying the old company.

Right. Also - although it no doubt suits Hooky to elide the distinction - Steve was not a member of BL.
He got a co-write credit on 2 out of 16 tracks and played on 3. When they put a touring band together, Steve accepted the invitation. I don't see what's unusual about that.
The creative work was almost entirely conceived and put together by Cunningham/Sumner/Evans. The latter was, to anyone with ears, an important ingredient in a mix that rarely sounds like NO.

Edited by user 03 December 2015 05:25:41(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Hook's argument about co-creating the Neworder brand has legal merit, it is clear.

However, it must not go unrecognised that when he left the band (for this is what he did) he unilaterally sought to end Neworder as an entity in 2007, denying his former bandmates their living and their fans their favourite band of many a long year.

As if that was not bad enough, he the proceeded to spend many of the long years since referring to them as "so called Neworder", "New Odour" and many much worse personal insults. (Whilst all the time declaring his admiration for B&S as musicians, as if he was respecting some kind of ethical fucking code.) As for the stuff he said about Gillian, well - nuff said. And he was still carrying on this stupid charade with as recently as the risible "Music Incomplete" t-shirt stunt.

The clear conclusion is, Hook did everything he could over the last decade to destroy the brand he now seeks compensation for. And he sees fit to whinge about the others going behind his back? Really?

The new album is phenomenally good because he had fuck all to do with it, not poorer for missing his 'input'. He will have been desperate to slag off the new music, bass playing and everything to do with Neworder's current popularity and success because his ego is so ridiculously inflated but mercifully appears to have savvy enough lawyers to put a big dummy back in his gob, at least for time being.

I used to adore Peter Hook but for fucksake just throw him his pieces of silver and put some form of gagging order in the deal so I don't have to listen to the pathetic shitbag he has become any more.

I would have to agree with those who say Hooky is entitled to a small percentage of the post-2011 earnings New Order has generated given that he was an important contributor to the success of the band (and brand) from 1980 to 2006. However, if fairness was to be applied, his claim should be rendered null and void by his atrocious behaviour since 2007.

Although I would probably like to see the current line-up shoot this out in the courts, it might be best to draw up some sort of settlement and pay Hooky a lump sum(which he will have to return if he ever starts gobbing off about the current members again!). The only winners if this case goes to trial will be those leeching c*nts they call lawyers. Given the relatively modest income the band has enjoyed since returning to touring, they are better off protecting this as best they can rather than handing over truck-loads of cash to lawyers.

Gillian should counter-sue Hooky for earnings he has enjoyed from touring and new album sales between 2001 and 2011 too. By applying his logic, he should hand some cash back to her without complaint!