Are Joy Division over-rated?

To be honest this question has been brewing inside me for a long time. Strip away all the mythology and center purely on the music, how do you feel about it? Does it stand above it all or not? Would be interesting to here how you all feel on this particular one.

I personally feel they were quite hit and miss, some of their best songs were amazing whilst some were completely shit. For most of the time as a Joy Division fan I let the myth of Curtis interfere with the enjoyment of the music, made me view it in a different light.

Underrated, in the sense that you rarely hear them mentioned in any "Histories of Rock" except as maybe a footnote. They did more with their measly three years than the Rolling Stones did with the past thirty (the Sixties stuff is perfect, but anything after is so-so)

Underrated.

I've only really started getting into their stuff in the last year or 2 (mostly the last year, since I discovered NOOL!). To be honest, it's a gradual process, whereas NO was more or less instant, but most of the the material is class, and sounds fantastic today. Definitely think "Heart & Soul" set was some of the best money I've spent.

Overrated. Not to be insensitive to tragedy, but if you strip away the mythos of suicide, and the subsequent work of New Order, I think the band is overrated.

I do think some of their songs are quite good, and, depending on my mood, I do enjoy listening to them. They've gotten me through some fairly dark nights. The artwork for Unknown Pleasures is hanging in my entrance hall.

Still, there were other bands from this period that were much, much better. A suicide shouldn't alter that perception. I just can't care about Joy Division, or any other band, with that kind of fanaticism.

Joy Division overated kiss my rectum.

Nicos

Joy Division would be where New Order had never been.

sometimes i think ian curtis is over-rated. he's got a mythical presence with some people, i dunno if it's because of his dark lyrics, his image as a tortured doomed artist or his suicide. probably because of all three. i read deborah curtis's book on him and i found him to be quite ordinary and unlikable as a person. as an artist, there is no doubt that he was talented, but influencial? not sure. to me, i feel that when people think of joy division, they think of ian curtis. whenever i read a history of rock book that has joy division in it, it's either about ian curtis or it lumps up joy division with the buzzcocks and other early brit punk bands of the 1970s. so it's difficult to judge whether or not the band itself is over-rated or how influencial they were, but they've certainly gotten the respect they deserved from fans and the music community.

Rated fairly, some great stuff, some s**t, all overshadowed by Curtis. If anything, it's NO who are the underrated band in terms of their influence over the past 20 years or so.

I don't view Joy Division with any sense of mysticism. Surely the pervading sense of the people remaining from the band is that they are/were pretty much, ordinary people. That's how they've always spoken of Ian. It all seems to be in the heads of our resident Cure fans. The music is mostly great, there were some very talented people in the band. I think this is generally accepted by music officianados, certainly by most peeopl I come across who care about music.

"If you believe in the charts then you might as well believe in fairies" (Steve Morris)

Personally I don't care whether anyone else rates them, or whether anyone else disagrees with me. To me, Joy Division wrote some very good songs. Powerful musical arrangement with emotive lyrics. Inevitably far too much has been made of the suicide thing which has causd some absolute bollocks to be written about the band. Let us not forget how innovative they became in terms of use of sound - I guess we will never know how much of this was initially down to Martin Hannett. I am certain that Barney learned an enormous amount about how to use sound from Hannett, and this has gone some way towards Barney being the greatest songwriter of his generation.

Ultimately, we had a band who were determined, who embaced change and were quite prepared to try new ideas when they realised it improved their sound. The difference between the childish complaints about the synths on the RCA recordings and the realisation they could use synths to create sound only a few months later, the way they re-recorded tracks such as Digital and Glass to see what else they could learn with different interpretations (Fac Sample to Genetic demo). Joy Division never stood still. Forget the romantic sycophantic shite that is written about Curtis, underneath all that was a band who achieved far more in 18 months (in terms of progression to maturity) than some band will ever achieve.

How on earth can anyone say they are overated?

That is just fucking nonsense. Most people haven't even heard of them so how does that figure?? :bag:

They're just a cult band maybe this is the reason I like them so much

Shug,

Your favourite song must be Everyday is Like Sunday cause it's the only day we see you here mate

When I said cult I meant we can't see them live anymore,something that finished,so we just can listen to their records or see a few videos

Originally posted by ShugZV© ...but it's not very often anyone has anything of interest to say

I agree with you

Say hello to Don,very nice guy that one

As usual, Tim has put it most eloquently, and I couldn't agree more with him. Only, he's left out one thing: JD were a fucking amazing, powerful live band who put in some of the most exciting performances in the history of rock music. And before some people start complaining that I've never even seen the band play live: there's plenty of contemporary reviews that leave no doubt about this, and quite a few live tapes corroborate it. Nobody in his right mind can listen to the recording of JD at the Ajanta Theatre in Derby (19 April 1980) and deny that this was a riveting performing unity that knew how to bring a gig to a storming climax. Hearing Hook start the intro to 'Transmission' only a split second after a member of the audience has called out for it is one of the most exciting JD live moments captured on tape - imho.

Some here to agree with, some to disagree with...

First: "They didn't have time to develop fully...."

Other bands from the same period did.

The Clash: Formed 1976, inspired by the Sex Pistols. Warsaw: Formed 1976, inspired by the Sex Pistols.

The Clash: Released 1977 Give'em Enough Rope: Released 1978 Unknown Pleasures: Released 1979 London Calling: Released 1979 Closer: Released 1980

Different bands, different sounds, pointless to say one sound is better than another. But "they didn't have time to develop?" Other bands did.

Second: "Who knows what they would have become if only Ian hadn't..."

They became New Order.

On the other hand, another band formed in 1976, The Cure, didn't really start to come into their own until about 1980-1981, so....

I'm open to reconsidering Joy Division. If you JD loyalists out there think I'm wrong (i.e., you think they're under-rated), tell me which tracks I should be listening to in order to make a proper assessment of Joy Division's legacy. I'll give a fresh listen, and let you know if it changes my impressions of the band.

I think that referencing JD with the Clash in terms of musical development is a bit of a non-starter - consider how long both Mick Jones and Joe Strummer had been in other bands and songwriting prior to forming the Clash and compare this with the members of Joy Division. The Clash had far longer to develop their sound when you bear in mind that many early Clash songs had been written by Mick Jones in his previous bands and in many ways the sound of the Clash post Give 'em Enough Rope was quite similar to what Joe and Mick were doing in their pre-punk days...

definately underrated, JD were only around to release 2 official albums but they were the best debut and follow-up ever... there was so much potential and we can only dream about what more they would have achieved with Ian

What "are" Joy Division?

Or my english is that poor?

JOY DIVISION were a great band at a time when there was many good bands and new ideas in music.So for me i never bought into the CULT/MYTH of them.I have seen this before with the DOORS and to me what was IMPORTANT was how good they sounded BEFORE all this crap about IF ONLY IAN HAD LIVED.He didn't and that's all there is to say.Tragic for his own family and friends but as a music lover i just enjoy the group for the music alone.You realise in life as you get older that all sorts of bad,sad and awful things happen to you.Just try and enjoy yourself whilst you can. Cheers ROCKET MICK

Originally posted by Philip Collins I think that referencing JD with the Clash in terms of musical development is a bit of a non-starter - consider how long both Mick Jones and Joe Strummer had been in other bands and songwriting prior to forming the Clash and compare this with the members of Joy Division. The Clash had far longer to develop their sound when you bear in mind that many early Clash songs had been written by Mick Jones in his previous bands and in many ways the sound of the Clash post Give 'em Enough Rope was quite similar to what Joe and Mick were doing in their pre-punk days...

I think that's a pretty good analysis.Both Joy Division and Cure started with no previous experience, and took about the same length of time to come into their own, whereas The Clash were already experienced musicians, and were able to hit their stride more quickly.

Also, agree with Rocket Mick's take.

JD are rated fairly in my opinion, they have a place in musical history which can never be denied. They were overrated when that "journalist" said Ian Curtis died for us - i don't think so.

Originally posted by Al Jarvis > Originally posted by Buffer Low> They were overrated when that "journalist" said Ian Curtis died for us - i don't think so.

Agreed, history has shown us he actually died for Julio, not us!

Who told you that ? It was a secret