It's a powerful yes from me, it's been said elsewhere here recently that Joy Division were exactly what was needed in Britain after the punk scene and i agree. Here were a band that took the elements of punk that made it exciting and blended it with their own unique imagery and style.
Musically they were brilliant, Stephen Morris' solid percussion, Bernard Sumner's in my opinion underrated and individual guitar playing and those basslines from Hooky. On top of that you had Ian Curtis, a frontman who should be celebrated simply because he did it his way and did it damn well.
I think the thing i love most about Joy Divison was that they created these huge sweeping epic soundscapes, making the music sound absolutely huge despite there only being a couple of people playing it.
Just as uplifting as they were brutally moody, they deserve to be in there.

^^^^I agree with everything Luke said :thumb:

no to led zep.... YES TO JOY DIVISION.

Yeah I can't say much more then what Piss Me Off's already said. That aside Love Will Tear Us Apart is the greatest pop song of the 80s that doesn't have Morrissey attached to it's songwriting credits.

Perfect band to follow Zeppelin, I really think they are pretty average and a lot of their music is pretty boring, but I realize there is a great appreciation for them on this site. I am leaning strongly towards yes but am going to give "Substance" another listen before I decide.

By the way great Posts, Lucifer and Piss Me off. That's what I envisioned this thread being about.

POT.KETTLE.BLACK. (Don't take offence!).

None taken, I agree actually, this is why it's a perfect band to follow, my hope is that even though I am not a fan I can look at their work objectionably and decide rather or not i want them to represent our combined tastes.

And for the record, mines bigger then yours...

It's 'Than' lol. In all seriousness. Kudos to you. JD are not for everyone and if they get left off the list for a good reason then I will hold my hat up. Basing their faults upon Zeppelin merits doesn't provide a good comparison to me. Both are British bands. Both influenced many bands. Unfortunately Zep influenced probably one of the worst genres ever in modern music-'**** Rock': Music that is based upon lyrical content, image and ideology.

Joy Division promoted introspection, lyrical revalance and art as communication and not a meal ticket. However, Zeppelin understood the nature of music perfectly and honed their craft to become an almost elemental force. Music is one of mans more baser needs and they tuned into that succinctly. Zeppelin were absolutely awesome at what they did....unfortunately some people prefer introspection to outrospection and that is where the problem lies.

I does not like the Joy Division.

^ If I quoted posts for my signature, i'd use this one.


Music is absolutely a primal need, Joy Division deserves consideration based on their influence, but just as Zeppelin can not be excluded solely because they influenced bad popular music, Joy division can not be included solely because they influenced thoughtful (although good is sometimes debatable) music.

My biggest question is: ARE TWO ALBUMS ENOUGH TO GET YOU IN?

which one?

I cleared it all up. Sorry Les has a quick trigger.

I think this constant bitching about the longevity of Joy Division is ridiculous. The fact they achieved all they did with only two albums says quite a bit. Besides most classic rock bands released like a few classic albums then release 30 years of **** following it and no one ever questions their legendary status. Oh and New Order kicked ass so its fairly obvious that if Ian had lived and they'd released a third album they wouldn't have been burnt up or washed out or anything.

It's a legitimate question Ethey Jack. And I think the fact that even though they only released two albums they are in consideration and with all probability will be nominated says a lot about the respect people have for those two albums.

Plus anyone that votes against Zeppelin for any hall of fame has no ground to stand on when questioning peoples personal preferences as determining factors\influences when voting.

Regardless of one's feelings on a band, I don't think the quantity of their output should be a factor. Some of the best bands hvae only released a handful of albums. If the VU had broken up after their first album, they'd still be considered one of the best bands of the 60's, and rightfully so.

As an example, in the end, the only Stones albums that I care about are Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed. My thoughts on the band wouldn't really be changed if those were the only albums they made.

I disagree.

Would you have the same feelings if it were Led Zeppelin and not Joy Division that released just two albums and was being questioned here?

If a band makes eight, ten or one hundred very good albums it's more impressive then one that releases two or three. I agree you should not exclude a band based on quantity or lack there of and that releasing 15 albums doesn't mean any of them are any good. But longevity has to be a factor, it's a fact of life so I don't see how it can't be a factor.

Are you saying that it is an invalid post? If so I am very dissapointed. In the UK we heard many prototypes of zep before our American friends had heard of them. Cream, John Mayall, Blind Faith, Fleetwood Mac, Rory Gallacher, Jeff Beck were all making music that shared many attributes with Zeppelin at that time and I prefer each and everyone to Zep. Zeppelin are a blues rock band that managed to capture the zeitgeist and achieve massive success. They were great at what they did. Unfortunately what they did was in many ways old hat in the UK.

"Yeah but they achieved massive success and sold so many albums"...so did MJ, Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis. Does'nt mean you are better than everyone else.

Joy Division have created a similar reverence to Zeppelin and it only took two albums to achieve this.

Not at all, I would quote it as an homage, I have seen what your talking about though, should have clarified. I agree 100% with everything in said post.

But in response to what you said now, all personal preferences and technicalities aside, Led Zeppelin is the total package. The acts you mentioned are similar but not on Zeppelin's level. Critically acclaimed in their time, and even more so now. Commercially one the ten best selling artists ever worldwide, tops in the HArd rock genre ever. The second most influential (regardless of quality) band (behind the Beatles) on future generations ever.

Look I rarely get into this discussion because it frustrates me but, Led Zeppelin live is unlike anything else I have ever experienced in music, and there are not many who saw those shows from 1970-1975 that would argue or have a differing opinion. It wasn't because they were the first to as another poster put it "F*** the S*** out of the Blues" or wrote the best songs or played the best type of music, it was because they did what they did in a way that spoke to millions and millions of people, no one else has to like it, enough people already do to make the point.

Unfortunately I never seen them live and I utterly appreciate their contribution. However it was still a culmination of said bands and using that criteria we could say that they were the boyzone of the day-giving people what they wanted! Analysing what was popular and turning it to their advantage. I hate them more and more lol.

Back onto comparisons who sounded like Joy Division at that time? What was the motive to make music? This criteria alone should ensure a safe passage to the hall of fame. quite unlike a bunch of Blues musicians who decided to mix Sex and music and create the monster that is 'Black Dog'

I'll ignore the most recent offenses against Zeppelin and shift the attention to Joy Division as it should be here.

Just because something is different or unique does not mean it's good. I am not trying to say Joy Division should be excluded, I am just offering counter point here.

I listen to a song like "Twenty Four Hours" and hear sort of average version of the Cure with an edge that may or may not be premeditated. Now there is no doubt they were innovators and are probably as responsible as anyone for the Grunge and Alternative rock movements of the 1990's showing their range of influence long after Curtis expired. But they don't get credit from me for the work of other bands whose music I can relate to and like.

Here are my main gripes with the Music

It can be boring as I mentioned slow and methodical without any defining instrumental performance to cling to. I'll listen to substance and find myself almost ignoring the music.

I find the vocals annoying at times and far from astounding technically. Chalk it up to I just don't get it, its creative and it fits the music but I don't relate and thus I don't get the appeal.

Even in songs I tend to like "Glass" for example, there are moments (such as when Curtis' vocals begin in this song) where I cringe because the music just misses in my opinion. Too inconsistent and experimental, not enough nuts and bolts of music for me.

All that said I am probably going to vote yes because I think they represent a really smart and thoughtful fan base here on MB.

Joy Division isn't about having a Buckley-esque frontman or Dream Theater-like instrumentation. They're a punk band.

That's a good point, I was speaking in terms of why I don't love them. Have to say, (as I continue to listen to all their music I own) "They Walk in Line" is a really catchy song and I like it a lot more then I remembered.

I'm tempted to vote against them out of spite. But ah, Zeppelin won, I should be happy for that, so sure, why not? They only had 2 albums but they're both great and insanely influencial.

It's been interesting reading the cases for and against Joy Division's inclusion, which seems to be more down to age differences than anything else - hell I'd probably have had a hard time with JD if I hadn't been born after the punk ethic's assimilation into popular culture and our collective musical conscience.

I love JD for many reasons but it's all been said... you have to appreciate that they were free of the art school pretensions and self-conscious nihilsim of many of their post-punk-era peers.

The kind of morons that discount their music because it's 'gloomy' or 'depressing' fail to recognize the passion the emanates from these two landmark records, it's real grassroots stuff...
when I hear them I see drizzly Macclesfield, disenchanted youth and a hunger for creativity, as cliché as that may sound. The cold synthesizers, inept guitar stabbings and ofcourse the feeling-over-falsetto vocals - all amount to far more for me than what I see when I hear Led Zep (who WERE probably better than Blue Cheer) which is Robert Plant's hairy beer belly

And if these nominations are to be based on historical significance, as well as the overall tastes of MusicBanter, then I'd say Joy Division are just as deserving as Led Zeppelin - both were icons of their respective generations and are responsible for a hell of a lot of **** bands!

I'll tell you what, I'd rather listen to Wolfmother than Interpol or Bloc Party.

Could you please post the list of upcoming candidates so that people won't waste time submitting things that's already in.

Most people have been PM'ing me reserving bands to do cases on so it's not really a problem, haven't had any conflicting choices yet.

JD is deffinatley not in my tops, but in the short time i've been here i can tell that lot of people on MB do like them...and thats the point right?

Yes, I would have the same feelings regardless of the band in question (I personally don't like Joy Division, but to deny their importance/value simply because of the number of albums they released is ridiculous).

How many bands have made "eight, ten, or one hundred" very good albums? There are five or six Springsteen records that I really love, but I would place them second to the two Velvet Underground records that I really love. The records aren't "equal" in quality, even if they're all good.

Here's another example. It's cliched to say so, but I still honestly believe that Never Mind The Bollocks is the ultimate album and bests all of the albums by other punk bands. The Clash made two (or three) great records, Buzzcocks released some amazing singles, the Dead Kennedys made some great albums...but for me, they all pale compared to the lone Sex Pistols album. I think that's the mentatlity a lot of Joy Division fans adopt.

Longevity has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the overall quality of a given body of work. Would you rather have 25 good songs or 5 truly great songs? Yes, if the songs are of equal quality, than I suppose quantity does matter. But that's not the way music is.

Bloc Party is not another Joy Division rip-off. Interpol is, but not Bloc Party.

No, because then it wouldn't be personal at all.

yea but we are not comparing them to a band released 15 albums as long as a band had good albums ir shouldn't matter how many theyre was it should matter how good they are thoug hi will admit that i think if you were placing JD against a band that had released 15 good
albums that band should win over a band that only released two good albums

No you're comparing them to your ideals for a hall of fame band and for me one of those ideals is some sort of longevity. They lack that and to may that's the major factor causing me to reserve judgment on them for this thread. If I loved both albums it would be a no brainier, but really I am sort of impartial to them. My vote will be based on their complete resume not my personal taste.

Best example i can give, i like Blues Traveler better then Joy Division but would never nominate or vote in favor of Blues Traveler for the hall of fame.

Well thats a subjective thing and there will certainly come a band that people will be heavly divided on.

I look forward to this Band\Artist

I have an inkling the next one might be a case in point!

I think you have to be British to really appreciate what Joy Division did.

Without them no Factory Records , with no Factory Records you can discount most of the 80s British indie scene. Sure it would have happened eventually but not to the scale it did. How many other independent bands were getting appearances on prime time TV and radio in 1979. I'll give you a clue , the answer is zero.

If they don't deserve a place in a hall of fame for being trailblazers of what was then a virtually non existent independent scene in the UK and making it a vibrant creative culture with a worldwide audience then who does?

I'm sold.

plus, day of the lords is one of the greatest songs ever written.

Hmm...