Pink Floyd vs. Joy Division

that whole school of whimsical Brit psych-pop

This is like some of my favorite shit ever though I wish I knew more of it- been totally immersed in the Move lately- anyway, I don't know why I'm posting this here...

This does seem like a good place to post about The Move. Echo & The Bunnymen vs. Electric Light Orchestra?

Phil you are not my homey no more until you take back any bad shit you have ever thought about Barrett who is not "whimsical"

I mean I dig what you think it's about but it is not about that OK

I don't know, man - if there's darkness of the spirit there, that's swell, but it's darkness of the spirit in ruffly shirts, and I just can't hang. I will freely admit that some of the melodies to those songs are good ones, because I enjoyed the avant-metallers-cover-Barrett compilation Like Black Holes In The Sky quite a bit, but the originals just do nothing for me.

I like them both. I'll pick Floyd because they made more. I still put on meddle, animals, dark side, and wish...

Pink Floyd The Grateful Dead were probably the biggest wtf moment when I was a stereotypical teenager discovering classic rock. Their image: striking album covers, trippy drug music, millions of fans...doesn't match with reality: elevator music. It made me not want to do drugs.

FTFY

Joy Divison, c'mon. I like Pink Floyd and all, but Joy Division was a singular force. There aren't dozens of joy division cover bands criss-crossing the country playing 2 night sets at drug festivals, because they could never be imitated. There was nothing like Joy Division, before or since.

<blockquote>If the Televison Personalities had done a song "I Know Where Ian Curtis Is Dead"</blockquote>
This is funny to me.

Seems like a fair comparison to me, not in that the bands are similar, but in that they're not. I mean, they're both hugely influential UK bands, and they each still represent an era and a musical/aesthetic point of view. But more to the point, they represent points of view that are often seen as being diametrically opposed to one another. So the poll asks us to take sides in yesterday's culture wars.

On that score, Floyd, easy, no question. I love Joy Division and all, but I've spent more time with Pink Floyd, and they've offered more in return. I jump ship at (or maybe after?) The Wall, but everything up to Dark Side is brilliant.
''

Seems like a fair comparison to me, not in that the bands are similar, but in that they're not. I mean, they're both hugely influential UK bands, and they each still represent an era and a musical/aesthetic point of view. But more to the point, they represent points of view that are often seen as being diametrically opposed to one another. So the poll asks us to take sides in yesterday's culture wars. Seems like a fair comparison to me, not in that the bands are similar, but in that they're not. I mean, they're both hugely influential UK bands, and they each still represent an era and a musical/aesthetic point of view. But more to the point, they represent points of view that are often seen as being diametrically opposed to one another. So the poll asks us to take sides in yesterday's culture wars. Seems like a fair comparison to me, not in that the bands are similar, but in that they're not. I mean, they're both hugely influential UK bands, and they each still represent an era and a musical/aesthetic point of view. But more to the point, they represent points of view that are often seen as being diametrically opposed to one another. So the poll asks us to take sides in yesterday's culture wars. Seems like a fair comparison to me, not in that the bands are similar, but in that they're not. I mean, they're both hugely influential UK bands, and they each still represent an era and a musical/aesthetic point of view. But more to the point, they represent points of view that are often seen as being diametrically opposed to one another. So the poll asks us to take sides in yesterday's culture wars. Seems like a fair comparison to me, not in that the bands are similar, but in that they're not. I mean, they're both hugely influential UK bands, and they each still represent an era and a musical/aesthetic point of view. But more to the point, they represent points of view that are often seen as being diametrically opposed to one another. So the poll asks us to take sides in yesterday's culture wars.

Hahaha, I had this feeling someone was gonna say something like that. I was gonna mention how Johnny Rotten wore an "I Hate Pink Floyd" shirt back in the days of the Pistols, but ya know, later on he retracted it and said he liked them, so...the wind went out of my sails on that anecdote.

I always kinda liked Gilmour's response to Lydon's shirt... It was something like "well, at least we were an interesting target. It's not like he would have gotten as much mileage out of a 'I hate Yes' shirt"

Anyway... Floyd in a knockout.

Also: Atmosphere/Dead Souls 7" > New Order >>>>> Joy Division

It's not like I'm a Floyd superfan, but they win this for me 12 times out of 10.

This is like Sex Pistols vs. The Fall or something. The sheer quantity of material consider is so disproportionate.

There aren't dozens of joy division cover bands criss-crossing the country playing 2 night sets at drug festivals, because they could never be imitated

no, but there sure are a bunch of forty-somethings pining for the days when REAL music that MEANT something, like Joy Division, was the order of the day

just like there's a bunch of tired fifty-somethings spouting the same crap about post-Barrett Floyd

I retract my criticism of the thread premise, it's OTM

Joy Divison, c'mon. I like Pink Floyd and all, but Joy Division was a singular force. There aren't dozens of joy division cover bands criss-crossing the country playing 2 night sets at drug festivals, because they could never be imitated. There was nothing like Joy Division, before or since.

No but still we have Interpol, The Editors and a lot of sound alike indie obscure bands from a few years ago. Still... I'll go with Joy Division, can't stand Pink Floyd and/or their fans.

Joy Division folks on this poll are my heroes.

I never understood the constant Interpol/JD comparisons. They both have singers with baritone voices. A Chameleons comparison seems a bit more apt. Are Magnetic Fields Joy Division rip-offs?

Great to see so many Pink Floyd band and fan haters in this thread. I used to think I was utterly alone.

(I voted pf btw)

can't stand Pink Floyd and/or their fans.

― elgolfo, Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:13 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

What constitutes a typical Floyd fan? They have a lot of fans, I've met people of all sorts who like them.

Elvis Telecom OTM

PF fans in general seem a bit blinkered. I really like a lot of Floyd now, but I can still see what's shit about them, such as Waters's voice and Gilmour's horrible bloody wet-sounding guitar.

e.g. DSOTM is an all right album but no way is it even close to best evar.

Agree on Waters's voice, but quite like Gilmour's guitar and his voice, especially when he sings with Wright.

His playing's fine, it's the sound of the thing.

I wonder which band would do the better version of "Louie Louie"?

barrett/curtis duet obv

I hate Waters' voice. I really really really really hate Waters voice. Just saying. I have to get these things out of my system sometimes.

I hate Waters' voice. I really really really really hate Waters voice.

Fixed.

Joy Division folks on this poll are my heroes.

Count me in!

just like there's a bunch of tired fifty-somethings spouting the same crap about post-Barrett Floyd

i won't be 50 for another quarter century but that doesn't keep me from seeing that post-barrett floyd are godawful played-into-the-dirt dirgerock that don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with, like, steely dan or led zeppelin or robert wyatt or any number of bands/artists of their era that were just as ambitious but didn't blow. or, yeah, joy division.

that said, i have a soft spot for "have a cigar," which is so flamboyantly oily and self-righteous and whiny (look how mean and nasty those records exects are!) that it's funny, like a randy newman parody of pink floyd or something.

TBH, I'm not sure I even know who's singing which Pink Floyd songs. Of all the things to dislike, their vocal parts seem pretty inoffensive, even a bit unremarkable.

That's sort of my point. It just sounds like some blokes.

Ha, I can sort of understand that. It's Bimble's "I really really hate Waters' voice" that throws me.

The thread has made me listen to Wish You Were Here, I hope you're happy now etc etc

this is about as good as stadium rock gets...dig the travesty of the lord's prayer sat down right in the middle...

PF fans in general seem a bit blinkered. I really like a lot of Floyd now, but I can still see what's shit about them...

― Autumn Almanac

This is one of the things that makes the question interesting to me. By modernist standards, Pink Floyd's "failures of taste" are many and glaring. Barret so overplayed his cutie-pie teatime psyche tropes that they frequently became a grating, mincing sort of kitsch. Waters, on the other hand, emotes hideously, painfully, and his lyric reach for significance in a manner that's more embarassing than enlightening. Over the length of their career, the band seems to have indulged (and overindulged) every wayward idea that entered their heads, no matter how trivial or buffoonish. While they're all "tasteful" musicians, they rarely understate that which could be overstated, rarely choose concision or elegance over inflation and grandiosity. None of this makes them bad by any means, but it does make their taste extremely suspect, especially when evaluated relative to a coolly modern band like Joy Division.

Joy Division eschew decoration. Their music is stripped down, clean, reduced to mechanical functionality, never more than it needs to be. They emphasize the materiality and physicality of their instruments, rarely pushing them outside a narrow range of effects. As a result, their music is raw yet restrained, coldly monochromatic, even sterile. More than anything else, it is coherent. It is of a piece. In this, it is, perhaps, the purest pop embodiment of modernist ideals, and it rigidly obeys the dictates of its own, spartan aesthetic. The fact that they existed for such a short time only makes their artistic thumbprint that much sharper.

One thing you can say for modernism is that it simplifies the business of having good taste. When you make "less is more" your guiding principle, you make it much easier to keep all the elements of your art harmoniously aligned -- especially in comparison with an approach as messy and aesthetically risky as Pink Floyd's romantic maximalism.

ian curtis' voice is so horrible

I love Joy Division but because

No results found for "joy division laser show".

I voted for Floyd.

xxp I knew this thread was going to turn into TS: Victor Hugo vs. Charles Baudelaire

am wondering at this point if I'll go to my grave without having read Hugo

Hugo v. Baudelaire (re Valery's essay on Baudelaire)

Hugo = romanticism, values scope, breadth, vision, immensity, seeks to contain universes, no one work is perfect, often find clumsy patches, but the sheer immensity of the oeuvre is astouding

Baudelaire (in deliberate contrast) = classicism, values unity, formal perfection, free from glaring errors of taste, smaller in scale but more realistic/cynical, whole life's work can fit easily in a book (or two compact discs, as it were)

ian curtis' voice is so horrible

― Lingbert, Monday, January 19, 2009 4:40 PM (1 hour ago)

A bit embarassed to admit that not only have I never read Hugo, I'm unfamiliar with the essay in question. But yeah, I guess I'm paraphrasing Valery.

oh no embarrassment necessary...just found this collection of essays on Baudelaire at some college library fire-sale & picked it up for like 25 cents...I don't think I've read much more of Hugo than a few excerpts myself (I take it you all have read Baudelaire, though, hmmm?)

okay i'll admit it...not only have I not read any real amount of Hugo, not only have I not finished Les Fleurs du Mal, I haven't even heard Closer yet...which is why I haven't voted yet...I was just happy abt posting "Sheep", alright!

Went through a Baudelaire & Rimbaud phase during the unlamented poetry years.

Anyway, I overstated the Joy Div = pop modernism thing. That crown rightly belongs to Kraftwerk and Gary Numan, both of whom had the good sense not be Ian Curtis.

i think JD fits as far a sPopl Modernism goes, though this prolley has more to do with Messrs. Hannett than anything (I'm guessing, since yknow I've never heard Closer and have heard UP only a few times...)

sPopl = pop (Wow!)

reactionary tools!

anyway, if I was calling you racist anagram it was very stupid of me and I'm very sorry. hard for me to decipher my own drunk posts, honestly. stand by my general assertion re. reactionariness of being anti-disco tho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6PHI-UiOPM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3RvAIJQh7g

no worries NV, peace

Probably the two bands I've spent the most time with in my life, maybe my two favorite bands, which isn't to say that I don't think Pink Floyd put out a lot of terrible stuff. I've always thought parts of Unknown Pleasures had eerie similarities to some of the darker/heavier tracks on The Wall, which for what it's worth, is exactly the kind of Pink Floyd stuff I don't rate too highly. Not sonically similar so much as some of those heavy foreboding minor chords.

In any case, Run Like Hell is definitely disco, and Pink Floyd have never been known for having taste. One of the most interesting things about them to me is just how insular they kept themselves. They say it in interviews, that they really didn't listen to any other bands and I think that helped them create a singular style and some innovate music, but also some dated/cheesy/silly stuff.

dude if Syd still had his marbles in '79, he totes wouldve been digging disco...

He was bigging up Slade in his last interview proper.