logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

12 Pages«<678910>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
lee  
#176 Posted : 16 October 2016 23:13:45(UTC)
lee

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 19/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 123
Location: the middle of nowhere

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 170 time(s) in 123 post(s)
Originally Posted by: synthpopfan Go to Quoted Post
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?
thanks 1 user thanked lee for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
Jonathan  
#177 Posted : 17 October 2016 04:20:43(UTC)
Jonathan

Rank: Member of the Village

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/07/2013(UTC)
Posts: 91
Location: Tynemouth

Thanks: 27 times
Was thanked: 109 time(s) in 91 post(s)
Originally Posted by: lee Go to Quoted Post
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"


thanks 1 user thanked Jonathan for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
tapebias  
#178 Posted : 17 October 2016 09:25:12(UTC)
tapebias

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 37
Location: UK

Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 37 post(s)
Originally Posted by: synthpopfan Go to Quoted Post


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.

thanks 2 users thanked tapebias for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC), Eimi on 23/10/2016(UTC)
*****  
#179 Posted : 17 October 2016 10:27:53(UTC)
*****

Rank: Candidate

Groups: Registered
Joined: 14/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 19
Man

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: tapebias Go to Quoted Post
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 ;)
thanks 1 user thanked ***** for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
markreed  
#180 Posted : 17 October 2016 11:16:02(UTC)
markreed

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 222
Location: Somewhere, GB

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 345 time(s) in 222 post(s)
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.
thanks 2 users thanked markreed for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC), Eimi on 23/10/2016(UTC)
Foppish  
#181 Posted : 17 October 2016 11:36:04(UTC)
Foppish

Rank: Candidate

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/10/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1
Location: The North

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
http://journal.lewissilk...awyers.aspx#.WAUigvp4WhA]

Legal summary of Hook v Sumner and Others
thanks 2 users thanked Foppish for this useful post.
***** on 17/10/2016(UTC), Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
*****  
#182 Posted : 17 October 2016 11:39:45(UTC)
*****

Rank: Candidate

Groups: Registered
Joined: 14/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 19
Man

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
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.
thanks 1 user thanked ***** for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
tapebias  
#183 Posted : 17 October 2016 11:49:37(UTC)
tapebias

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 37
Location: UK

Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 37 post(s)
Originally Posted by: synthpopfan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: tapebias Go to Quoted Post
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."

thanks 1 user thanked tapebias for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
*****  
#184 Posted : 17 October 2016 12:00:22(UTC)
*****

Rank: Candidate

Groups: Registered
Joined: 14/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 19
Man

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
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.

Edited by user 17 October 2016 12:10:09(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked ***** for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
markreed  
#185 Posted : 17 October 2016 12:53:49(UTC)
markreed

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 222
Location: Somewhere, GB

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 345 time(s) in 222 post(s)
Originally Posted by: synthpopfan Go to Quoted Post
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.

thanks 1 user thanked markreed for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
Fotzepolitic  
#186 Posted : 19 October 2016 10:26:35(UTC)
Fotzepolitic

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,352
Location: Down on the farm

Thanks: 309 times
Was thanked: 1749 time(s) in 1341 post(s)
Finished reading the book.Some good stories, some funny stories,some interesting and moving stories but ultimately i found myself disliking Peter Hook and BernardFrown

Edited by user 19 October 2016 10:53:37(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Fotzepolitic for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
The Ruts  
#187 Posted : 19 October 2016 13:49:54(UTC)
The Ruts

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/10/2014(UTC)
Posts: 26
Location: Belfast

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 43 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Originally Posted by: synthpopfan Go to Quoted Post
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.

thanks 2 users thanked The Ruts for this useful post.
Rorschach on 19/10/2016(UTC), Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
Deceiver  
#188 Posted : 20 October 2016 09:46:43(UTC)
Deceiver

Rank: Member of the Village

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 85

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 112 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Fotzepolitic Go to Quoted Post
Finished reading the book.Some good stories, some funny stories,some interesting and moving stories but ultimately i found myself disliking Peter Hook and BernardFrown


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...

Edited by user 20 October 2016 09:47:45(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Deceiver for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 20/10/2016(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#189 Posted : 21 October 2016 05:57:54(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,294
Location: Rome

Thanks: 45 times
Was thanked: 1583 time(s) in 1299 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Deceiver Go to Quoted Post

recording artists in general; most appear to be narcissists.


Another Net first.

thanks 1 user thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 21/10/2016(UTC)
komakino  
#190 Posted : 21 October 2016 12:22:00(UTC)
komakino

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 14/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 25

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 30 time(s) in 25 post(s)
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'.Tongue

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.

Edited by user 21 October 2016 12:23:13(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users thanked komakino for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 21/10/2016(UTC), 79order on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#191 Posted : 22 October 2016 00:11:20(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,294
Location: Rome

Thanks: 45 times
Was thanked: 1583 time(s) in 1299 post(s)
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 1 user thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Deceiver  
#192 Posted : 22 October 2016 02:48:00(UTC)
Deceiver

Rank: Member of the Village

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 85

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 112 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Michael Monkhouse Go to Quoted Post
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...
thanks 1 user thanked Deceiver for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Isi  
#193 Posted : 22 October 2016 03:42:13(UTC)
Isi

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 25

Thanks: 29 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Michael Monkhouse Go to Quoted Post

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.
"I haven't time to sympathise, with all this nonsense and your lies"
thanks 1 user thanked Isi for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Andy  
#194 Posted : 22 October 2016 04:47:17(UTC)
Andy

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,271
Man
Location: Pacific Grove

Thanks: 727 times
Was thanked: 1717 time(s) in 1282 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Michael Monkhouse Go to Quoted Post
7 Reasons...


I see what you did there.
thanks 1 user thanked Andy for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Debaser  
#195 Posted : 22 October 2016 06:07:06(UTC)
Debaser

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,341
Location: here n there

Thanks: 199 times
Was thanked: 1777 time(s) in 1364 post(s)
Originally Posted by: komakino Go to Quoted Post
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.

thanks 1 user thanked Debaser for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#196 Posted : 22 October 2016 07:16:26(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,294
Location: Rome

Thanks: 45 times
Was thanked: 1583 time(s) in 1299 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Andy Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Michael Monkhouse Go to Quoted Post
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.
thanks 1 user thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#197 Posted : 22 October 2016 07:23:00(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,294
Location: Rome

Thanks: 45 times
Was thanked: 1583 time(s) in 1299 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Debaser Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: komakino Go to Quoted Post
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.

thanks 2 users thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC), Rorschach on 24/10/2016(UTC)
truefaith1.0  
#198 Posted : 22 October 2016 13:51:11(UTC)
truefaith1.0

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 07/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 31
Location: Ireland

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 31 post(s)
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...-show-podcast/peter-hook

TF1.0.
thanks 3 users thanked truefaith1.0 for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 22/10/2016(UTC), Cranelane on 23/10/2016(UTC), Ken Doherty on 29/10/2016(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#199 Posted : 22 October 2016 23:23:37(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Member with Substance

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,294
Location: Rome

Thanks: 45 times
Was thanked: 1583 time(s) in 1299 post(s)
Originally Posted by: truefaith1.0 Go to Quoted Post
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.'
thanks 2 users thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
Rocket Mick on 23/10/2016(UTC), Rorschach on 24/10/2016(UTC)
Dennis Remmer  
#200 Posted : 23 October 2016 16:48:30(UTC)
Dennis Remmer

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 130
Man
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Thanks: 107 times
Was thanked: 178 time(s) in 129 post(s)
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. Dead




Bring on Stephen's book. Quick.


thanks 5 users thanked Dennis Remmer for this useful post.
Rorschach on 24/10/2016(UTC), truefaith1.0 on 24/10/2016(UTC), Isi on 25/10/2016(UTC), edspess on 12/12/2016(UTC), Rocket Mick on 20/07/2018(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
12 Pages«<678910>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.1 | YAF © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 2.518 seconds.