Joy Division
Les Baines Douches

Dynamic
1979/2004
B+



ear is a funny thing: it amputates attempt, it destroys a decision undecided; it cows one’s life course. Fear’s as personal as a phobia, as all-inclusive as hysteria, as ephemeral as anxiety. It’s Fear proper that Montaigne feared freely; Dostoyevsky offered that people fear breaks from routine most; Anais Nin drew fear into her art as an eraser of life’s growth—the stymie of personal progress; Oscar Wilde suggested that that which induces anxiety, or delves out dread, most often happens, regardless of preparedness, awareness, or courage. Listening to Joy Division’s music acquaints us with a fear and hopelessness so massive and unrelenting, we feel as if we could walk through it as one does a cathedral. Whether adolescent or adult, we know that Fear doesn’t always require an object as cognitive scientists tell us. Fear isn’t always structured as a skyscraper; it’s often—to our collective dismay—abstract, which desires the putative process of abstraction, a method junked with clunky concepts and fitful features. Hearing Ian Curtis ask: “Where will it end” on “Day of The Lords”, we know instantly that this isn’t dialogue or dialectic; this is anti-reason, sentences shaken free of their sense. For Curtis, the mind that makes words is the enemy to action, even if his dread has fitted his feet with concrete, paralysis is the only avenue taken to distance us from animals. Even amidst all of Curtis’ externalized condition, he never explicitly states the case; Curtis’ intent is limited, but direct: Compulsion can be carved free of its threat only when all impulses are deadened with dread’s false nightmare.

The vernacular of the 24-hour cable news channel is raised on repetition: the more one sees it, the more real it becomes. It follows, then, that a preponderance of televised images can overpower even facts and statistics. The notion of preemptive war, known by its onanistic moniker, the “Bush Doctrine”, is this country’s most malevolent means to an unending end. Its effect is oxymoronic: it breeds more violence than it eradicates. The feeling that a great many of us ‘get’ from thinking about the Bush Doctrine’s repercussions is anything but fleeting. Yet, without an organ to articulate this anger, this voiceless dissent, we either internalize it, or submit it as informed indignation in one of our numerous preaching-to-the-choir sessions. But when injustice wounds Curtis, he retaliates. In the throes of “A Means to an End”’s spite, he spits “I put my trust in you”. On paper, it doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a statement that holds enough fury in its well as to be spoken of as Homeric. It’s so angry, that I’m left ambivalent: yes, it’s frightening, yet it satisfies a near physiological need: when Curtis vents his spleen it’s done so convincingly that we believe it to really be object specific; he’s pried free of his paralysis and identified his fear by its own name. Yet, Curtis’ feat doesn’t linger; like the reiteration of 24-hour cable news there’s another song and another, each one hewed from his hopelessness, each one at first face appearing as all incidents do: simultaneously grave and concomitant. Each piece is a separate suicide, a ritual murder of self and song. So when Curtis exclaims: “I’m not afraid anymore”, we no longer believe him; he’s cried wolf too often, and we’ve turned our back on his ecstatic ego, no matter how well it articulates his rage, fear, and failure. These are states no longer separate, which is just cause for wonder and alarm.

When George W. Bush uses Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as co-designative terms, their fences dissolve, meanings mingle, and facts fail. If it’s done with enough conviction, we’ll believe most anything: when Curtis greets us with “Welcome to the atrocity exhibition”, we might as well be flipping through photos from Abu Ghraib, circumambulating Auschwitz, denouncing Mai Lai. Curtis continues to point: “This is the way; step inside!” Step inside, Curtis screams incessantly, wanting us to fill his void. We can’t remove his pain as one would a tooth; all we can do is listen to it. And the more we listen, the more real it becomes, the more it happens, the more the abstract is allowed to free itself of the conceptual inchoate, and find a form.



Reviewed by: Stewart Voegtlin

Reviewed on: 2004-09-15

Recent Reviews By This Author

Ginnungagap - Return to Nothing
Tom Carter - Glyph
Cornelius Cardew - Material
Gang Wizard / Algebrassiere - Untitled Split 12”
Sunburned Hand of the Man - The Secret in Disguise


Comments
Log In to Post Comments
Posted 09/15/2004 - 07:26:29 AM by Sotoalf:
 I loved the first paragraph and admired the finely tuned conclusions in the last; however, the political analogies seemed off-base, regardless of how one regards the Bush administration. Curtis himself would have balked at them. Making comparisons between Abu Ghraib and one man's personal torment is, I think, a bit much and almost immoral. It's what Sylvia Plath did with Nazi imagery in "Daddy" - the effect is more melodramatic than moving. Joy Division used plenty of Nazi iconography, of course ("Atrocity Exhibition"; their moniker) but at their best transcended the clumsiniess of the analogies. For us to highlight them and even deepen them with parallels to modern-day horrors should make one pause.
 
Posted 09/15/2004 - 09:16:39 AM by Liarbythefire:
 I'm getting so sick of popular entertainment (I'm including those poor music reviewers too) using whatever they say to basically say the same thing over and over again: "Bush is bad, the world sucks, etc." It got old the first time around and it is old again. This doesn't mean they aren't entitled to that opinion, it's just that no one is asking them for it. Nevertheless, I'm of the reverse opinion: the more you see something on the news, the more fake it becomes. And I really don't think this "Bush Doctrine" is limited to Bush: it extends to everyone, Republican or Democrat.
 
Posted 09/15/2004 - 12:19:16 PM by tttTJ3ttt:
 Does this CD actually play music? Gee, I wonder what it sounds like? What's the set/track list? Are any of the songs better than the studio versions, Peel sessions, BBC sessions, and other live material out there? Spot on review there, way to waste my time...Your brand of liberal pontificating is refreshingly pointless and patronizing compared to the usual, lowest-common-denominator, chest-thumping, bumper sticker rhetoric found on the left side of the Internet. Hello, can you say preaching to the choir? What are the chances that even 10% of Stylus' readers are conservative, Gap-clad, CNN robots?
 
Posted 09/15/2004 - 01:43:46 PM by callheraction:
 boy do i agree with tttTJ3ttt. and man am i glad that rhymed.
 
Posted 09/15/2004 - 04:14:04 PM by Sotoalf:
 On another note, this is a fine, fine album: a record which forces me to revise my anti-live album prejudices. These days I put this on instead of "Closer" or "Unknown Pleasures" when I need my JD fix.
 
Posted 09/15/2004 - 06:19:22 PM by Liarbythefire:
 I'm part of that 10%, thank you very much. And I'm far from a 'robot.'
 
Posted 09/15/2004 - 09:19:41 PM by IanMathers:
 You want tracklistings? Go to allmusic. We've never provided those.
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 12:15:15 AM by boilingboy:
 Nice piece. Having listened to Joy Division for 20 odd years, it's evident to me that the author understands Ian Curtis....fear and dread. However, where was the review? if you want to write a treatise on Ian, then that's just dandy. But this was supposed to be a review of the most important live document of a legendary band. Where is it? Furthermore, what does GW Bush have to do with anything??
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 10:37:15 AM by tttTJ3ttt:
 Liarbythefire: Don't be so smug and holier than thou, perhaps I should have been more explicit in my request. The intended meaning of 'set/track list' given that this IS a live album, was simply meant to FURTHER emphasize the fact that more so than most studio music reviews, live album reviews really need to shed light on what songs are being presented and their relative merits or failings when compared to the rest of the artist/group's body of work. So yes, you are correct, I could simply go to the almighty allmusic or amazon or even to a good record store that would stock this album, and read the tracklist- does that tell me how they sound? Does that tell me how good or bad the versions are?IanMathers: Don't be so smug and holier than thou, perhaps I should have been more explicit in my request. The intended meaning of 'set/track list' given that this IS a live album, was simply meant to FURTHER emphasize the fact that more so than most studio music reviews, live album reviews really need to shed light on what songs are being presented and their relative merits or failings when compared to the rest of the artist/group's body of work. So yes, you are correct, I could simply go to the almighty allmusic or Amazon or even to a good record store that would stock this album, and read the track list- does that tell me how they sound? Does that tell me how good or bad the versions are? Does that tell me if there are any "Doesn't anybody remember laughter?" moments? Liarbythefire: If you are not a robot, then you are not part of the 10% I was talking about...though on a separate note, your name seems to conjure up thought of the current man in charge. Bush/Kerry - two sides of the same crooked coin. Support the troops and your local music scene that's all we can do.
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 10:38:21 AM by tttTJ3ttt:
 IanMathers: Don't be so smug and holier than thou, perhaps I should have been more explicit in my request. The intended meaning of 'set/track list' given that this IS a live album, was simply meant to FURTHER emphasize the fact that more so than most studio music reviews, live album reviews really need to shed light on what songs are being presented and their relative merits or failings when compared to the rest of the artist/group's body of work. So yes, you are correct, I could simply go to the almighty allmusic or Amazon or even to a good record store that would stock this album, and read the track list- does that tell me how they sound? Does that tell me how good or bad the versions are? Does that tell me if there are any "Doesn't anybody remember laughter?" moments?
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 10:38:35 AM by tttTJ3ttt:
  Liarbythefire: If you are not a robot, then you are not part of the 10% I was talking about...though on a separate note, your name seems to conjure up thought of the current man in charge. Bush/Kerry - two sides of the same crooked coin. Support the troops and your local music scene that's all we can do.
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 02:36:52 PM by chuckzak:
 Nice review Professor Chomsky
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 03:27:24 PM by IanMathers:
 Oh, I've been told thrice! Burn! tttTJ3ttt, I figured since you were being petty and small-minded I'd focus on one small area of your bilious rant that had a definite answer. Sorry that doesn't do it for you. Ta!
 
Posted 09/16/2004 - 04:06:48 PM by tttTJ3ttt:
 Doesn't anybody remember laughter? I mean really Ian, lighten up Dude...calling me petty is the pot being painted by a the wicked witch of the north (canada) on cool spring day in hell; fer real fool. Don't step ta me ans bark lika dawg if yous ain't got the fight in ya ta bite! yours trolly, tj3
 
Posted 09/18/2004 - 07:01:59 PM by IanMathers:
 I give you points for "trolly", but other than that, A for effort, F for artistic merit. Canada rulz, tttTJ3ttt droolz.
 
Posted 09/22/2004 - 09:41:19 AM by Liarbythefire:
 I only picked this user name because a) anonymity, b) I'm a fan of the band Liars and c) some Oasis song popped into my head. On another day, I probably would have said "Shakermaker" or something else. If you want to attach 'political meanings,' then you are just trying too hard.
 
all content copyright 2004 stylusmagazine.com