Why does Simon Reynolds avoid New Order?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Should anyone here one day stich a patchwork rug linking all Simon's analyses and continuums across British dance history, they'll be alarmed to discover a glaring hole right where New Order fits in.

If Joy Division, the Happy Mondays, 808 State, Primal Scream, et al should earn a mention in Generation Ecstacy/Energy Flash, why is he so reluctant to talk about other people of equal significance?

― Stephen Stockwell (Stephen Stockwell), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 06:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i remember a singles column by him in melody maker around the time of that first new order comeback album (either it was called regret or had a song on it called regret) where he was reviewing one of the single from that album. I think he said that he couldn't understand why everyone got excited about New Order and that he thought only 1 in 5 or 1 in 7 seven of their singles was any good. I think he said he liked Bizarre Love Triangle and True Faith, but strangely not Blue Monday. Of course, this is all a very vague recollection so could be very wrong...

― Robin Goad (rgoad), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 07:05 (twenty-one years ago)

He didn't like the Pet Shop Boys or the KLF, either.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 07:09 (twenty-one years ago)

You're right Robin. I remember that singles column also around 1993. He had planned to expand the Overrated scetion on his website where he gave the Ramones a pasting. It never materialised but I think he had the Beach Boys and probably New Order scheduled in for a good kicking.

― David Gunnip (David Gunnip), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

earlier this year Simon wrote an enthusiastic review of Miss Kitten's DJing at the New York Kompakt vs Rephlex night, singling out her playing of New Order's "Blue Monday" as one of the highpoints

he's also mentioned his love of "Thieves Like Us"

― Paul (scifisoul), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i was just about to say what paul said!!

hi paul!

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 11:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha - there is a great Monitor-era essay by Simon about New Pop etc where he says they "alchemize the base matter of HiNRG" and which has the priceless line "they have a beauty that is natural, like stars or flowers". (NB: I may have misremembered this.)

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Robin is correct. He reviewed one of their singles in '93 (i think it was World) where he confessed he couldn't quite understand the adulation they received, but went on to admit that he was partly saying this to piss off Paul Lester (a fellow MM writer to adored New Order.) And he did say that every 5 singles or so they split the heavens apart, and singled out Thieves Like Us and True Faith. I think he has mentioned them (in more positive ways than negative) in various articles on his pre-blog website (which is still up i think). MM did a bunch of articles about singers, and he wrote a great article in defence of vocalists who aren't considered to be "good singers". He blasted Aretha Franklin for being bombastic, and singled out Barney for praise, saying something like his limited vocals were more effective than if he had a great singing voice (or something like that)

― Neil FC (Neil FC), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

SR OTM on AF (she sux)

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 25 August 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

"base matter"?? oh how we've grown...

― g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

hi geeta!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

hi tracer!!! come back to new york already!!

i have a feeling that new order will be in simon reynolds' post-punk book

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

An update on this at:

http://blissout.blogspot.com/

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

haha "just when i thought ilx had gone shite they started talking bout me! wheee!"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)

in response to blissblog...

yeah, movement is pretty dour, but it's not without it's gems. Dreams Never End, feat. Peter Hook's lead vocals, is a vastly underrated new wave/post-punk whatever song in the Joy Division->Ceremony mold.

Also, I think the Paradise Garage is also briefly shown in the Confusion video. Great video, watched it last week.

And in a more abstract sense, I'd think New Order contributed more to rave culture in the sense of their immense influence on techno, both of the detroit and manchester varieties.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure I'm plagiarizing someone but Dreams Never End is like an itch that never gets scratched.

― righteousmaelstrom, Wednesday, 25 August 2004 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

off-topic but that phrase, an itch that never gets scratched perfectly describes this song On the Air by the Lines. Its just filled with forward momentum and you keep waiting for this change, some sort of resolution, that never comes. The structure's really weird but amazing.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, SR can afford the expensive cable. He's right about Confusion though.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:01 (twenty-one years ago)

but I.O.U. is great!

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly! (also, they're both basically contemporary Arthur Baker tracks, so their similarity should come as no surprise).

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

rumor has it more credit should be due John Robie.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

John Robie is due more credit in general!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:41 (twenty-one years ago)

his mixes of Yashar by the Cabs = best of all worlds

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

was Robie the first person to add female backing vox to a New Order song? His re-work of Sub-Culture was quite a departure, although if it was an attempt at a more mainstream sound it didn't quite work as the record stalled at #63 iirc. I actually prefer the version on Low-Life. Robie did a better job on Shellshock - tho admittedly of all New order songs that one took the longes to grow on me.

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I LOVE the (controversial) remix of "Sub-culture". (Peter Saville hated it so much that he wouldn't design a cover for the single!).

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

presumably the band liked it. I wonder whether perhaps it opened the door for further N.O. releases in a similar vein....if there was no Sub-Culture remix then possibly there would have been no Shame of the Nation (no great loss!) and songs on Republic may have sounded different - I'm thinking of World and Liar in particular.

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe, but there's a huge time gap between those releases.

Also, I'm glad of the vocal reworkings on the "Sub-culture" remix as I think the original is one of Barney's vocal low-points - as in he doesn't carry the tune (a rare thing to be sure, but pretty bad on this one).

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

It's weird, I don't think I was disappointed with any version of an eighties New Order single -- short album cut, single edit, or 12" remix. I saw everything as entertaining variants on a core theme.

I gather it was confirmed elsewhere, but yes, that is the Paradise Garage in "Confusion."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I've ever been sadder about the WTC than seeing the towers in that video again about a year after they went down. Since I was about 16, that video has always been NYC for me.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

hearing somebody who doesn't contribute to ILX talk about its merit...ILX is funny how? Funny like a clown? ILX amuses you? ILX make you laugh? ILX is here to fuckin' amuse you?

― CeCe Pesci (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

contribute or shut the fuck up you muthafuckin' limey *BLAM! BLAM!*

― CeCe Pesci (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

he posts here dude

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

He's posted to ILX a number of times, Anthony.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

turns out he was ramosi

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

well I never noticed (haha Ramosi was WAY back when, I had to look at that search engine pull-up to find out what that was all about)

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Now that would have been cool...

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Very!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, dissing something you don't participate in really shouldn't be allowed, that's like being a fuckin' music critic or something...

― just saying, Wednesday, 25 August 2004 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)

goddamn anonmyous little monkeys BLAM! BLAM!

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously, much respect to SR if he had been Ramosi. As it is he just has the expensive cable.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

The Substance "Sub-Culture" destroys the Low-Life version.

― The Good Dr. Bill (Andrew Unterberger), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

The Substance version is the Robie remix.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

(Simon) said that he couldn't understand why everyone got excited about New Order.

It's not even about whether he likes their music or not - Reynolds doesn't particularly like the Happy Mondays, yet he still feels compelled to look at their complicity in his narratives on dance culture - what strikes me is the seemingly spiteful tone in which he brushes off such a rich link in British music. It's ironic that such a thorough writer should build one of his grand narratives around the concept of mutating pop structures, while pretending not to notice a local band that embodied this idea more than most.

Can I please be forgiven for thinking that Simon begrudgingly sniffs at New Order, as if they all stole his lunch money one morning in 1975? (Why else would he want to "piss off Paul Lester"?) Despite any differences he might have with the makers of 24 Hour Party People over their treatment of Ian curtis, he seems to share their indifference toward the pivotal role that this band played in his otherwise well-documented historiography of the Manchester scene.

― Stephen Stockwell (Stephen Stockwell), Thursday, 26 August 2004 04:16 (twenty-one years ago)

(Simon) said that he couldn't understand why everyone got excited about New Order.

― Stephen Stockwell (Stephen Stockwell), Thursday, 26 August 2004 04:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops

― Stephen Stockwell (Stephen Stockwell), Thursday, 26 August 2004 04:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Stephen, one thing to keep in mind is that the majority of British music "critics" don't really care to delve into the technique and practice of what it is that musicians do. That's why they are so concerned with fashion and stance and subculture and so forth. They couldn't really tell why they best, let's say, tenor saxophonists or blues guitarists or whatever, are so enoyable and accomplished at what they DO. That's never really been the province of the Brit knuckleheads. But they can certainly tell you WHO listens to those particular artists. They can certainly do that. Of course, there are exceptions - lots of British music critics (parenthesis very much removed) who know what the fuck they are talking about. But for some reason the reformed indie trainspotter gets the attention. Who knows?

― Monetizing Eyeballs (diamond), Thursday, 26 August 2004 04:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Now the question is whether M.E. baited Simon enough to where he'll actually post.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 August 2004 04:38 (twenty-one years ago)

*Thank God* "British critics" don't care about virtuosity (if indeed that's what you're saying). I can't imagine anything less important about music.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 26 August 2004 04:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Nah .. honestly, I ain't trying to bait him. Although quite frankly , the inordinate amount of attention he receives just escapes me. That's all. I'm sort of baffled. It's just the old archetypical British critic; so concerned with stance and terminal hipster pursuits, at the expense of any kind of broad appreciation for the whole act of human music-making, broadly speaking. Why the fuck should I saint this guy? He means nothing to me -- says nothing about an absolutely gaping swath of music I care deeply about. The entire introduction of his GE (yeah, I HAVE read the thing) reads like an embarassing apologia for ALL ROCK MUSIC EVER; denigrating all "rockist" qualities of non-dance's attendant culture while proceeding to meticulously catalog -- I mean we are talking serious anal record collector stuff here, people -- the traits of his proposed alternate worldview. Plus the basic fact that his undefined, fast and loose use of the word "culture" throughout the whole bk just sort of makes it laughable from any kind of academic perspective. Just incredibly annoying.

― Monetizing Eyeballs (diamond), Thursday, 26 August 2004 05:12 (twenty-one years ago)

The entire introduction of his GE (yeah, I HAVE read the thing)

Hm...try reading Blissed Out sometime.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 August 2004 05:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't really care for the mystic crafts of musicianship either; they invariably have more to do with the Artist's self-importance than everybody having a good time. I know what I'd prefer.

And the attention Reynolds gives to the ideas at work in music - call it "stance and subculture" - are what makes his writing so compelling. It's also the reason your supposed "knucklehead" is getting so much attention.

My real issue is with the conspicuous absence of New Order right at a crossroads for several of Simon's liturgies. I don't doubt his convictions, but why does he feel that way?

― Stephen Stockwell (Stephen Stockwell), Thursday, 26 August 2004 05:29 (twenty-one years ago)

...his undefined, fast and loose use of the word "culture" throughout the whole bk just sort of makes it laughable from any kind of academic perspective."

I think this is a non-issues. Culture has been without clear definition for quite some time in the West. Current academic mainstays like Bhabha, Gilroy, Hall and Clifford tend to avoid delimiting the term. Likewise, Mark Slobin's book Subcultural Sounds, which has been at the centre of popular music studies over the last decade, rejects the attempt at definition:

"To pretend to a clarity of analysis of any musical grouping, moment, style, or context is to bypass this complexity for the sake of oversimplification."

Sorry to be off topic, but I thought this should be addressed.

― Nes Chalmers, Friday, 27 August 2004 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

That should have been "non-issue." Sorry for the typo.

― Nes Chalmers, Friday, 27 August 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.