Talk:New Order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Order article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations.
To-do list for New Order: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

    Contents

    [edit] Suggest article title change

    I love the band and everything, but when typing in just "New Order" I really wouldn't expect to be brought here- given the multiple uses of the phrase, it should really go to the disambig page, and this should be renamed New Order (band) (as I'm sure it was at one point). Maybe the band has the greatest single claim now, but I still don't think New Order's worldwide popularity has quite superseded all other historical uses of such a basic phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.191.35 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Still tons of NPOV problems

    The "aesthetics" section is just awful and full of NPOV stuff. Either we need citations or a more objective sounding article. Examples of the problem:

    "This synthesis laid down the groundwork for dance/rock groups of today. The group's album art earned them the status of icons in the alternative community, and have shown considerable longevity."

    "They have heavily influenced techno,"

    "This has often been the defining characteristic of the New Order sound."

    The whole damn section just reads like a glowing review. Someone fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.139.204.126 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Indie?

    new order as indie rock? it's well placed in new wave band list, but when you see the info... "New Order are an English indie rock band "

    This is a bit more complex - they certainly started as an indie rock band with synths (arguably even "post-punk"?), and even though many of their recordings were club hits in remixed form, the albums as released retain a definite "rock" sound. Possibly "New Order are an English rock group who fuse indie rock with dance music"? Rayray 09:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I don't really think of them as indie. First, they already had a good following before the band had even formed. Second, I think their 80s albums have a definite rock sound in many places, but not indie rock. New Order is (or was in the 80s) a post-punk band that turned more and more new wave as time went on. Well, at least that's how I look at it. I would strongly endorse Rayray's statement if the word "indie" was replaced with "alternative". Folkor 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


    I agree but I wouldn't use the word, "alternative" because it sounds too general like "new wave" although "new wave" is more appropiate; use the term we use now, "synthpop". New Order is more in line with synthpop (at least their 80's hits are)than anything else. So I see them as a "punk-rock" band (joy division) who became a synthpop band and now has evolved to do some different styles. Check out Depeche Mode, Erasure, Pet Shop Boys, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and Alphaville to name a few and you'll see what I mean (Besides, to make my case, these bands are from same era and place: England and Germany). To put it in another way, The Cure did some synthpop sounding songs early on but they're not known as a synthpop band.

    Don't you guys know what "indie" means? It's short for indepentdent, meaning that the band is on an independent record label - not a corporate label. Since New Order was on Factory Records (and actually had no written contract), they are an "indie" band. It's not a genre of music per se, merely a name for who distributes a band's records. Nathan Greenhalgh


    Yes but most lay people understand "indie" as a genre and the connotations that goes along with it, hence the confusion. -Will

    Most people are idiots. 92.0.156.89 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) new order is famous , and play in stadiums in my country in 87, fuck americans with this bullshit indie talk

    [edit] Singles

    Do we really need a page for EVERY single? The three most notable ones - Blue Monday, True Faith and TPK already have non-stub articles that I started, although I didn't write most of the BM one. Adding stubs for them all is a bit OTT. Kiand 10:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    They're not so much stubs as they are short articles, as the point is to chronicle more the releases than the songs themselves. I think they're pieces of general interest (and consider that there is an article that lists songs by NO that don't have the title in the lyrics!), but then again, I'm the culprit in this case. ;) - hN

    New Order singles (throughout the 80s, at least) were very interesting releases. Since almost all of them sold a ton of copies, and most featured non-album singles or at least very different versions of album tracks (with the exception of "Subculture", which was just given a mild remix). New Order's a pretty big band, and their 80s output is very influencial. I would argue strongly for the existence of individual single pages - that's how most bands' Wikipedia articles work. Well, most bands that have a big enough following to have big pages. I agree here with hN. Also - I would argue that "Bizarre Love Triangle" and "Temptation" are just as notable as "The Perfect Kiss" and "True Faith". Folkor 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

    Does anybody know why they re-recorded Confusion and Temptation for Substance 1987? I did hear the original Confusion recording on the 1989 Substance video collection, and from listening to it, would assume they re-recorded it because of Sumner's shockingly-poor vocals on it. Also, does anyone know where one might find the original recordings of these songs?

    They re-recorded "Confusion" because, according to an interview of Peter Hook to a Brazilian magazine when they first toured Brazil in 1988, they didn't like Arthur Baker's production at that time. Also, Peter Hook mentioned that "Confusion" is one of the worst-selling singles of New Order's career and made clear that he prefers the band's version. On "Temptation", it is also said that the band had finished the studio sessions in doubt about which version would be official so they ended up using most of them. Funny enough, "Temptation" is said to be Bernard's song of choice. EFurtado 13:58, 2 January 2007

    The original recordings of Temptation and Confusion are available on their respective vinyl singles. If, however, you mean on CD, they are on disc 1 ("Pop") of the Retro box set. ("Temptation" is also on the 1981-1982 EP, but that can be hard to find.)

    [edit] Gillian

    Has Gillian really left the band? I know she has to take care of her ailing son, but she does get to work with the band, if not tour with them right?

    She's officially out, Phil's officially in; she's not on the new album.
    Now the core members of Joy Division decided to change the name of the band if one of them were to leave the group. Did they choose to ignore this promise when Gillian left New Order?
    That was an agreement between them as Joy Division they obviously didnt make the same pact or whatever as New Order live at the witch trials 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that she's officially out. She appeared with them in 2005 at an awards ceremony - some hall of fame awards, if I remember correctly. Can anyone remember the exact awards? She was also at the 2005 Q Awards. Her increasing public appearances (increasing by New Order standards, that is!) may suggest that she may make a return to the fold at some point in the future, no? Pure speculation though. By the way, I think her sick child is a girl, not a boy.

    [edit] New Order tracks which include the title in the lyrics

    What a banal piece of trivia. Is this really necessary? Edwardian 07:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)Edwardian

    It was a seperate page, to offest the fact that a full New Order section on the list of songs without the title in the lyrics could have been close to a hundred entries long; someone merged it without discussing it first... Kiand 17:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    It might have been an intersting bit of trivia when it was RARE for New Order to directly label a song after something in the lyrics, but not any longer. Would anyone mind if I remove it? Edwardian 21:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)Edwardian

    Considering I spent an hour or two checking it, I'd kinda like it to stay in some form, but as most of Get Ready and WFTSC have the titles in the lyrics, it could get a bit unweildy... If you can see some way of mentioning it but removing the list, go ahead Kiand 21:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Maybe the tracks from the two latest albums should be left out of the list, and just a note saying that most of them are named after lyrics be put under it? --Zilog Jones 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I don't want anyone to feel as though he or she has wasted his or her time, but I'm still trying to understand why this list is deserving of inclusion in the article. Just because a list of something can be made, that doesn't mean it should be included. Why not a list of all New Order songs with BPM = 120? Edwardian 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Because this is one of the more distinctive features of New Order. I suggest moving it back to its own page. --Hn 02:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    2nd that thought. The list distrupts the flow of the article. --Madchester 21:18, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    I think this deserves neither a full section in the article nor its own page. The trivia section is looking pretty skimpy - why not consolidate it into a short blurb there? --jiy 02:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Rob Gretton

    Who gives a crap about trivia? How can this article go 3.5 years before its first mention of Rob Gretton? Edwardian 07:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Speaking of trivia... the "New Order" name

    The article states:The late Rob Gretton, the band's manager for over 20 years, is credited for having found the name "New Order" in an article in The Guardian entitled "The People's New Order of Kampuchea". FYI: Johnsons' 1984 book says "the article spoke of the 'New Order of Kampuchean Liberation'", Flowers' 1995 book says Gretton got it from a passage in an essay about a "new order of architecture", and Middles' 1996 book says Gretton got it from "a television documentary about Pol Pot". Edwardian 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Blue Monday sleeve

    "Blue Monday" is the best selling 12" single of all time, though because the packaging of the first pressing was so elaborate, resembling a large 5¼" floppy disk I think it was actually based on an even older format - eight inch or possibly eight and a half. Used to use them on a Honeywell Level 6 in the early eighties. BTLizard 12:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

    The 1983 Blue Monday 12" is definately modelled on a 5.25" floppy disk.

    I second that -- it's a 5.25" floppy, based on the location of the write-protect notch and the index hole. However, the back cover of Power, Corruption and Lies resembles an 8" floppy due to the placement of the index hole (though some 8" disks had their index hole in a different location).

    [edit] Just one word

    Hi, changed just one word. The article had "current personnel ...". I just thought this was way to military discourse. So I substituted 'personnel' for 'members'. Still a neutral word. Just not so harsh. Any objections then change it straight back Cheers. --203.220.120.188 14:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

    Given their tendency toward Nazi imagery, I think military discourse might not be altogether inappropriate. ;o)

    [edit] New Order Tours

    The article is lacking detailed information about tours. I know they did a Low Life tour and have the dates from a promotional postcard. Maybe someone who knows more about their touring should start a new section. - Shiftchange 12:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

    They did a hell of a lot of touring. See NewOrderOnline concert list. Folkor 19:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm adding a qualifying statement - they did a hell of a lot of touring, prior to 1993. They haven't toured much since - few dates in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005 basically.--Kiand 20:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Discography

    Quite large, could warrent its own page - New Order discography. Any objections? --SaltyWater 13:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    What's wrong with leaving it? It's hardly in the way and a discography is a fairly central part of any band page, large or not Me677 14:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    Most other articles with large discographies are split onto other pages so the articles aren't too large. The Beatles, Madonna (entertainer), and the rest... --SaltyWater 14:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm in favor - lots of bigger bands have seperated the two. Folkor 19:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Disambiguation

    If you search on New Order, then you immediately come to this page... I think it should go to the disambiguation page first, and then people can select the appropriate link. New Order has other, equally important references, including a big chunk of modern Indonesian history, and a slice of German (Nazi) history, and it's easy to miss the link to the disambiguation page at the top of this page. Let me know what you think, and if there is general agreement I'd be grateful if I could have some help in doing it. Thanks.

    Well, Sepa, that doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. However, in my experience, I've never known anything else as big as the band that also held the same name. Obviously, my experience is limited, but for me, the band is what would come first. However, disambiguation is always helpful, and if enough other people would find it helpful, then I'd say go for it. Folkor 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    I have to say that with the general northern hemisphere and western hemisphere bias on here, as well as it going towards modernity, the band are probably receiving more inward links than the others combined. Additionally, both the Indonesian and German ones are translations into English and not the original names. I'd keep it as it is. --Kiand 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Yes We Do

    In response to the person complaining about ot wanting to know EVERY New Order, every single written and performed by New Order is compeling and beautiful and needs to be told with detail.

    So yes we do :D


    Pmftroy 10:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] neworderonline.com vs neworder.cc

    neworderonline is a fanrun website, but it is officially endorsed by the band and their record label. neworder.cc is just a little site made by the record company to promote the latest album. I'm very much in favour of neworderonline.com being classed as the "official" site in this article; both in the infobox and under external links. Afterall, which link is in the Waiting for the Sirens' Call artwork? Quite. Comments please. SaltyWater 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    I think I'll have to abstain from this, I have neworderonline.com tshirts in my wardrobe :p --Kiand 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Template

    There's a template doing the rounds: I've added it to the main article, the member pages and the studio album pages. Feel free to add to any other New Order related pages. Do so by typing {{New Order}} at the bottom of the article (after external links but before the category links). Also feel free to make any changes to the template, as long as they're not shit. SaltyWater 10:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] FAC number template

    This actually goes under Factory Records, but i thought i 'd put it here also: I made a simple template for listing FAC numbers. I don't know how useful it is, but if anyone wants to use it, write {{FACnumber | FAC=foo}}, where foo is the full FAC number, like "FAC 123". It's a full-width template, so i suggest putting it near the bottom of the page. Improvements are welcome. Or, if it feels silly, remove it... // S4ndp4pper 20060603 17.16 UTC+1

    Here's an example: Template:FACnumber

    Interesting idea. Might be better if it was smaller, and floats on the right. It would always be useful to have a "previous" and "next" link and room for the title of the release/object. SaltyWater 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Cool! I have some comments, they are on the template's talk page.

    [edit] Media samples

    I know we're already a bit heavy on the auld media samples, but I think one of Regret wouldn't be out of place for this and its article. As their only song to top the US rock *and* dance charts, its a damn good example of the crossover that is in much of their work. Here To Stay is similarly suited (and indeed a personal favourite of mine), but Regret did better commercially. I'll cook one up if nobody else minds. --Kiand 19:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, I've been hoping someone would add "Regret". WesleyDodds 04:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] KUDOS...

    TO WHOEVER GOT THOSE ALBUM COVERS, ONE OF MY FAVORITE BANDS!

    [edit] "Turn" at Articles for deletion

    I'm nominating Turn (song) for deletion; see here. Absolutely nothing is happening, and there seems to be no possible commercial impetus left to release it now. –Unint 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


    No, it should stay. The song appeared on 'singles' (as a new edit), and a video was released. Its a valid article. The only thing that should be changed is that it was not released. -negative1

    You'll want to take that to the AfD page itself. Also have a look at the developing notability guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Non-single song articles are generally held in low regard. (And AFAIK the video was never used for actual promotion.) –Unint 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] They also won an award for lifetime achievment in 2005 in the "Dance Music awards"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOB8ujSSz0

    Does anyone know where I can find a better place to cite from, I just found this randomly while looking at you tube.

    [edit] Murder

    A not too distant cousin of 'Ecstasy' from Power Corruption & Lies? I can honestly say that it sounds nothing like it in my opinion. Murder is a largely guitar/drums effort whilst Ecstasy in an all-out electronic dance track.

    [edit] NPOV?

    Some of the descriptions of the music seem to be outside NPOV.

    [edit] Frente

    If you're going to mention Orgy, you have to mention Frente as well. Andrewhime 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Definitely, seing they covered Bizare Love Triange.

    [edit] Serious NPOV problems

    For example, "Brotherhood" also features the band at their most ably human and sensitive in 'All Day Long', a concise tale of child abuse of which Bernard Sumner can be rightly proud;

    The sections on the albums shouldn't read like album reviews. Caleb462 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


    Guilty as charged - apologies for a subjective rather than objective post. (Alex)

    [edit] Genre changes

    Why were the links to 'techno', 'house' and PARTICULARLY 'alternative dance' removed? Anyone who denies that New Order have produced a number of house records clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. They are one of the most important acts in the history of dance music, yet all links to it have been removed. If House and Alternative Dance are removed, then so should New Wave be... they've produced far more tracks in the house style than they have 'New Wave'... I associate that term with bands like Duran Duran, NOT New Order. User:DShamen 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) go fuck ourself, alternative dance don't exist. stop being shitty mind

    [edit] Power, Corruption & Lies back cover

    'Ello, I got bored this weekend and decided to create a high-resolution version of the "Power, Corruption & Lies" back-cover in Illustrator. I also added a legend so it makes more sense when decoding the coloured messages on the sides of the albums. I released it as public domain and it can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Order_Decoder.gif

    I can also upload a version without the legend, but I think a scan of the original would be better in this case.

    Blackbox 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] So New Order are not officially split?

    This'll be one to watch for new developments. Perhaps Peter Hook will quit, but this doesn't necessarily spell the end of the band.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think that this could be slightly confusuing for the reader though. I mean this in the sense that the page 2007 in music says they are offically disbanding. There is also a source to prove this. Therefore I think that we should edit one of the two pages or the reader may become confused. Thundermaster367 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderReading1998.jpg

    Image:NewOrderReading1998.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderLowlifeCover.jpg

    Image:NewOrderLowlifeCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderGetReadyCover.jpg

    Image:NewOrderGetReadyCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderBrotherhoodCover.jpg

    Image:NewOrderBrotherhoodCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lyric question:

    Is there any sourcing for the repeated use of the phrase 'You just can't believe'? I've noticed it's in at least three or four songs. Is it a phrase taht just caught their ear nicely, pure coincidence, or a literary reference of a sort? It's in Love Vigilantes, Confusion, and a few others. If there's some sort of allusion or literary thing going on there, it might make interesting reading regarding their lyrical composition, if not, then whatever. ThuranX 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Neworder-lowlifeimages.jpg

    Image:Neworder-lowlifeimages.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)