Talk:Closer (Joy Division album)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Track list

About this:(The Track Listing is from the CD Release. This album was originally released on LP and cassette.)

Was the tracklisting any different on LP and cassette? I didn't think so, but I may be wrong of course. If it was, can we say how it differed. If it wasn't, what's the point in this note? --Camembert

My point is that it is important to remember that LP's and cassettes tend to break albums into two parts (sides). The "gutter" between the two sides of an album/cassette can be very important to the listening experience that the artist wanted you to have. This is often forgotten and neglected in this day and age. --Two halves 02:17 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

So if I check where the side-break comes (or maybe you know yourself?) and then divide the tracklist up into "side one" and "side two", it'll be OK for me to remove the note, yes? --Camembert

Then wouldn't we have to do that for every album listed on this site released in cassette or LP format? -- Ô¿Ô
No. --Camembert
Why not? If you're doing it for this one... -- Ô¿Ô
I just think that it is important to acknowledge the primary release of album. The boilerplate does this adequately, but it is not the last word on the matter. The means to this acknowledgement doesn't matter to me.
If you must break sides, side A ends with "A Means To An End". Side B starts with "Heart and Soul" --Two halves 02:36 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
I think the information on Side A/Side B should be given for each album, and I'll try to include it when I can find it. Tuf-Kat

I should probably say that when I said "No" above, I didn't mean "no, we must not give side breaks on any other album, only this one", I just meant "just because we give side breaks on this album now doesn't mean we have to do it for every other album, right now, this minute". It's a good idea to give side-breaks, I agree. We can also say "originally released in year X as an LP and cassette..." somewhere in the article to acknowledge its original format. --Camembert

Stars

I've another question: The album was supposed to come out on 8 May of 1980, but ended up arriving in stars in July, only just after Curtis' suicide by hanging

"arriving in stars"? Wot? Is that a technical term for something I don't know, or is it just a stoned version of "stores"? ;) --Camembert

Duh, I meant it was available in stars only on May 8, only later earning a British and American release. The StarPeople love Joy Division... Tuf-Kat

Closer

Is it pronounced as in "ever closer union" or as in "that salesman is a good closer"?

"Ever closer union"
Really? I always thought it was "that salesman is a good closer," like it "closes" Joy Division's career --Surachit 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale Behind POV Categorization

Just read the article sometime. There are plenty of adjectives (which by itself isn't a problem, LOL) that seem to be POV that elevate it. Granted, I love this album very much, but it's a little too biased for Wikipedia. It's not supposed to be a review, but that's what it sounds like. 66.193.6.2 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (Thorns Among Our Leaves)

My 2 Cents

People, this is a masterpiece of modern music. From an objective point of view, it influenced hundreds, probably thousands of artists (if not more), and it will continue to do so in the future as well. Please come to terms with the fact that the article is not biased. Check out a different source, e.g. the proffesional AMG review, for further proof of what I'm trying to say here. 5 stars. Classic status. Case dismissed.

Happy Holidays! :)

Okay. And? The language is POV. Sorry, but just because you and I and oodles of other people enjoy it doesn't change the fact this article is written like a review, not an encyclopedia article. I'm sure others would agree. Thank you for removing the NPOV tag, anonymous user. I'm putting it back up. Thorns Among Our Leaves 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It really does need a severe pruning and for the assertions to be sourced. James James 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Catalog Numbers

Why does this album and everyone other one i look at not have catalog number information. It's useful information for music collectors.

This section is almost entirely POV. It badly needs sourcing. I think the article is better off without it. It should be possible to write something good about the album from the sources, but this isn't it. I've noted a few particular problems.

Style and Influence

"Closer" is a very fractured album

What does that even mean? Can we quote someone saying that?

and it differs from Unknown Pleasures in that each song has a wholly unique style of production.

This doesn't even strike me as true. In what sense is each song wholly uniquely produced?

Furthermore, the two sides of the album are quite different thematically and tonally (a fact that is obviously less apparent on CD).

This also is not true. How is Twenty-four hours different "tonally" from Means to an end, say?

Where the songs on Side One tend to deal with great pain and emotional turmoil, Side Two has an eerily detached, spiritual quality.

Sez you!

The instrumentals on Side One, with the exception of "Isolation," have the murky feel of many grunge rock albums.

There aren't any instrumentals on either side. But I know what you mean. I don't agree though. Martin Hannett was renowned for his crisp production and definitely Closer's a good example of that.


Martin Hannett uses many of the same echo and distortion effects that Butch Vig would later utilize brilliantly on Nirvana's "Nevermind," particularly on "Passover" and "Atrocity Exhibition."

Did he? Can you source that? It seems rather unlikely to me. "brilliantly" is obviously not an NPOV word.

"Isolation," on the other hand, is almost entirely electronic, although Curtis' heavily distorted vocals give it a quite different sound than standard New Wave.

Standard New Wave wasn't "electronic". That's not how I would define it anyway. It was still largely guitar-based. You mean it had a different sound from electropop. Actually, it's reminiscent of Suicide.


Side Two is very electronic in sound

Some of it is. But the first two tracks aren't at all.

although again, it sounds quite different from the synthesizer-based music of the period.

No, actually, it doesn't. You are thinking of later synth music. Whoever wrote this probably just isn't familiar with the music that Joy Division themselves would have been listening to. Even OMD, paragons of the electropop genre, were harder-edged in 1980 than they would be later.

"Heart and Soul" mixes the propulsive energy of punk rock with subdued vocals and a soft synth line, giving it a beautifully unnverving sound.

Very POV. It's nothing like punk rock by the way.


"Twenty Four Hours" is a dark, tempo changing piece with lyrics that provide a window into Curtis' thoughts at the time

Do they? Who says so?

the darkness of the lyrics taking a new meaning when the album was released, due to his suicide on the 18th of May, 1980. "The Eternal," one of the most startlingly ahead-of-its-time

Erm. Again, very POV.

tracks on the album, features Curtis singing morosely

Is he morose? Is that what you think or what others say?

about an imagined funeral, while Sumner plays a haunting little piano line in the background. "Decades," the stunning closer, is an oddly anthemic piece about the lost "young men" of the world, with four different synthesized sounds intertwining in the background.

This is also not quite accurate. You can plainly hear guitar.


"Closer" has been easily one of the most influential albums of the past 25 years

Has it? I don't think so at all. Has anyone said it influenced them?

and is perhaps one of the few records in rock history to extend this influence equally over three consecutive decades. In the 80's, it greatly inspired goth and dark-wave bands like The Cure, Depeche Mode, The Psychedelic Furs and many others.

First, describing the Furs as goth is astonishing. And how were they influenced by JD? Did they ever say so?

In the 90's its unique combination of hard rock and electronica became a seminal influence upon Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Moby (whose "Play" quite obviously used "The Eternal" as one of its chief inspirations)

Did it? Did Moby say so? I don't think JD can be described as hard rock, nor can Radiohead for that matter, and I don't suppose the latter have ever cited JD as an influence, given how different they are. And you can't be a "seminal influence on" someone, just a "seminal influence".

Agree with most of your other points, but when Radiohead started they played a lot of Joy Division covers. One of the members (can't remember who) described OK Computer as 'Joy Division meets Frank Sinatra'.

as well as Nirvana and The Smashing Pumpkins.

I don't recall Nirvana's electronica period.

In the present decade, there have been countless neo-post-punk acts that have emulated its sound.

There are a few bands who sound a bit JDesque, but I don't think they'd be happy to be described as "emulating its sound".

James James 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Does the title of track one of closer, atrocity exhibition, have anything to do with jg ballard's book?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was named after the Ballard book. James James 07:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's named after it. Although Ian said that he only got around to reading the book after he wrote the song. Galasian (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Depending on how it's meant to be pronounced, the word "closer" can mean different things. Renfield (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Taking this out until someone can back it up with clear evidence. I think it could mean both, as in closer to the soul, to meaning etc etc. The soft s sounds better both metaphorically and sound wise. If someone knows for sure that the band intended the album to be called 'Kloh-zer', then again please back it up. -

People continue to mispronounce the album's name. "Closer" is (kloh-zer), defined as "a person or thing who closes" as this was their final studio album, not (kloh-ser), defined as a "comparative of close." Galasian (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I slightly altered the intro bit on pronunciation. I haven't seen any concrete evidence for either so to state one is more likely than the other is more than presumptuous. Considering Ian Curtis' lyrics, it could easily be in the sense of connection. Also, didn't the band have the artwork and title ready before Ian Curtis died? Jonas.E.B. 06:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talkcontribs)

I just got Grant Gee's documentary on the band and they all call it Closer as in "I'm closer to you." I'm just gonna take the whole issue out of the article. Jonas.E.B. 06:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talkcontribs)

Expanding the Sound and Reception sections

This is a fairly significant album, and it often appears in best of lists etc, would it be possible to expand on the entire article? I'm fairly new on Wikipedia, and as such I don't know how to add sources. For example, alot of my sources and changes appear from biographies. How would I source one? I'd be happy to spew my knowledge of the recording process of this album, but I fear it may get deleted as I haven't sourced it.

Any help? Anything that wpuld be worthwhile adding? --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Link

The Pitchfork Media's link is wrong since this LP is "Closer" instead of "Unknown Pleasures"... --193.146.45.126 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)