unknown pleasures zip.rar [Full version]

Direct download

The Many Faces Of Joy Division320 7 torrent download locations thepiratebay.se JOY DIVISION -VA -The Many Faces Of Joy Division.BOX S.

Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures.zip

From mega.co.nz 91.27 MB

Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures.zip

From mediafire.com 71.55 MB

Unknown Pleasures.zip

From mediafire.com 38.63 MB

unknown pleasures.zip

From mediafire.com 71.52 MB

joy division and the making of unknown pleasures - ebook - free download [pdf,epub,mobi,zip].rar

From 4shared.com 54.67 KB

Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures [1979].zip

From mediafire.com 44.14 MB

Unknown Pleasures 1979.zip

From mediafire.com 60.19 MB

Joy division 1979 unknown pleasures 320 zip

From sendspace.com (85 MB)

Joy division unknown pleasures 1979 zip

From uploaded.to (4 MB)

To sum things up, iFileX is a simple yet effective program for Mac that provides you with an easy way to find files on your computer or any device connected to your PC. The application brings a user-friendly interface, lets you select as many search filters as you need, and offers you the results you need within moments. Some users may not be satisfied with the features of the native file-searching utility on their Mac. IFileX for Mac does add some additional features, but ultimately will add little to most Mac. IFileX's functionality and design is based on Mac OS early-era file search tools such as Find File and Sherlock, now replaced by Spotlight.

Our goal is to provide high-quality video, TV streams, music, software, documents or any other shared files for free!

Registered users can also use our File Leecher to download files directly from all file hosts where it was found on. Just paste the urls you'll find below and we'll download file for you!

If you have any other trouble downloading unknown pleasures zip post it in comments and our support team or a community member will help you!

Search CMV What is?A place to post an opinion you accept may be flawed, in an effort to understand other perspectives on the issue.Enter with a mindset for conversation, not debate. Submission RulesExplain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required). ▾Note: if your view is about a 'double standard', please see the.

You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing.▾A post cannot be made on behalf of others, for playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or to 'soapbox'. Posts by throwaway accounts must be approved through. Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include 'CMV:' at the beginning. ▾Posts with misleading/overly-simplistic titles may be removed. Posts cannot express a neutral stance, suggest harm against a specific person, be self-promotional, or discuss this subreddit (visit instead). ▾No view is banned from CMV based on popularity or perceived offensiveness, but the above types of post are disallowed for practical reasons. Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting.

▾If you haven't replied during this time, your post will be removed. Comment RulesDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. ▾Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments.

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. ▾Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid. 'They started it' is not an excuse. You should report, not retaliate. Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. ▾If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: ). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please.

Award a if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. ▾You must include an explanation of the change along with the delta so we know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

▾Comments that are only links, jokes, or 'written upvotes' will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. The Delta SystemWhether you're the OP or not, please reply to the user(s) that change your view to any degree with a delta in your comment (instructions below), and also include an explanation of the change. Recently I went on to download a few albums by bands I've heard about many times but I've never really listened to. One of those bands was Joy Division. I like listening to debut albums of various bands to get a feel of 'how they started' - especially critically acclaimed albums. I knew this album wasn't Joy Division's first recorded material, but because I'd heard about the album before and because it has than I thought it would be a good idea to start there.

Basically I just wanted to widen my musical horizons and this album was legendary and critically acclaimed. So far so good.Let me just say that I don't want to be rude or unnecessarily critical about this album.

I just want to make it very plain what causes me to dislike it. I respect the band, I respect the fans, I respect the legacy. I'm not hating.

The band played some music, some people listened to it. If I don't like it I can simply not listen to it, right?

But the reason I'm not dismissing this album as 'this is shit, I'm moving on' is because it seems to be received so well by others. And not just hipster/emo teenagers - actual musical critics too. So there's a good chance it's me, not the album.

I'd really like to know what I'm missing here. Even if I'm never going to like it, I'd like to at least understand why it's so loved by many others. There are bands and albums I respect and 'get' but never listen to, I could perhaps add this album to the list.When I played the first track 'Disorder' I was almost sure I'd downloaded a fake torrent.

No way this could be so positively received by critics. It's out of tune, there are many many many embarrassing mistakes by all players - mistakes I would be ashamed of during band practice, let alone in a recording session - the singer can't sing and there's nothing special or memorable about the music (at least for me).

They sound like very sloppy beginners with songs they didn't rehearse very much. The bass player especially rustles my jimmies with oddly placed notes which do not fit the key or mood of what the guitar is playing. The way the album was mastered is ok, I don't have a problem with the 'sound'. I have a problem with the 'sounds' produced by the bandmembers.

Hopefully that makes sense.I've seen many beginners play live and record and there were times when I felt like I could hear the potential those bands held even though they sounded bad. They just had a lot of hard work ahead of them. Unknown Pleasures doesn't give me that impression. Even if the songs were played well, most of them would still be boring and mediocre at best.

The songs are bad, the performance of the band is shocking.For the record the lyrics are good, but that's not enough to make me enjoy the terrible music.Keep in mind I'm talking about the album, not the band itself. I understand that the band was very influential and special. Granted, I'm not really sure why, but that's just my ignorance on the subject. This album is rated so high and sounds so bad. That's my biggest problem with it. It's as if nobody heard what I'm hearing.

How can it be rated even remotely comparably to Dark Side of the Moon? Shouldn't we say 'yeah this album is quite bad, but it was special at the time so it has a place in rock history'? - I'd be okay with that. Perhaps it's historically significant. But musically it's shit - and yet so many people seem to enjoy it very much. Even young people today, so it's not just nostalgia. You are making a mistake if you start listening an album with such high expectations.

I dont think it is right to compare it to The Dark Side of the Moon, they are both classics, but very different.I started listening Joy Division a couple of years ago (Im 24). I've heard of the band before but never really listened their work. I found them very interesting in 24 Hour Party People, and then fell In love with the band when I saw Control.IMO they should be regarded as one of the best bands to have produced music. Unknown Pleasures is a idependent masterpiece.

I feel strongly attached to its brilliant simplicity.Its sad to see people not enjoying this magnificient feeling. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time trying to tackle each of your points, because much of it seems to boil down to aesthetic preferences and that's not really an easy thing to tackle in CMV. I will say that I realize the singing can sound at first like a trainwreck, and I realize it's off-key and 'sloppy' by musical standards and all that.I will, however, link you to this post that was submitted to that goes into some detail about why some people appreciate the very things about Joy Division that may come across to you as nails on chalkboard and encourage you to read through it.It is a bit of a long post, but I think if you're interested in the topic you won't find you've wasted your time by reading it.

It provides some context that I think many J.D. Fans will have that the person approaching them for a first time might not, and that is somewhat important to understanding why they're respected. Thank you for the link.

Very insightful, though I'm afraid it doesn't really answer my question. 'Transmission' sounds much better than the songs on Unknown Pleasures. The post mostly explains why Joy Division was important.This part also seems to contradict what I hear on the album (which is ok since Transmission is not on the album)There is a reason Stephen Morris is called “The Human Drum Machine”.

The hyper-steady rhythms he produced add to the icy solitude of the song.His playing is far from steady.As forI realize it's off-key and 'sloppy' by musical standards and all thatI appreciate you saying that, instead of remarking that there are no rules in music (let's just close all musical educational institutions, right?). To me it's like saying 'I know this dish contains sand and broken glass, but other than this detail it's very good!' Well, my guess is simply that people are retroactively applying an appreciation to the first J.D. Album because they've come to respect the band as a whole. I don't often hear people talk about one particular album of theirs being better than any other, but if we're to discuss a band that became significant in terms of recent music history, often times people will look back to whatever work of theirs was released first. 'Bleach' by Nirvana is a good album, but it wouldn't have half the respect it does had they never made it to where they did. It's part of the 'canonization' process I suppose.His playing is far from steady.I guess some would disagree since the drummer has that nickname?

I don't really have an answer for that.' Transmission' sounds much better than the songs on Unknown Pleasures.I never especially noted a major difference in quality between the U.P. Album and any of their other stuff. Most of their songs blend together in my mind as a whole. They aren't generally appreciated for their musical 'tightness,' but more for the overall sound and emotion they evoke, so it seems sensible to me that the first album that featured the elements discussed in the comment I linked above will be one that people latch onto as significant, regardless of its flaws that were corrected in later releases.

I thought about the nickname of the drummer - I'm thinking it's because he plays simple rythms monotonously rather than him being precise with his drumming (because he's not).The difference between U.P. And Transmission is noticeable to me - Transmission is 'okay' as far as performance goes.In any case if the album is appreciated for emotions it evokes - why is it received so positively by music critics? Emotion is important in music, but it's not the only aspect which is important.

I guess my main 'problem' with the album is that pretty much nobody seems to say 'I know it sounds awful, but I still like it'. People act as if the album featured proper playing and singing. Making mistakes on bass is not 'emotional' - it's sloppy. It's not intended. I can't consider that to be great or groundbreaking. So when someone says they love the album without saying 'even though it's awful' I get the impression people like it because they don't know any better (though of course this is a stupid statement - music critics do know better).

In this regard I feel like I'm saying 'the emperor is naked'. I have no problem with the man's bare ass. I just don't understand why nobody else seems to notice. I'd expect at least some haters to show up on youtube in the comments or something:). I like them a lot, but I've always understood they were not technically proficient from a musical standpoint and in some respects pretty bad; Curtis's singing is downright terrible and is usually more of a turn-off for people than the instrument-playing. That was initially a major turn-off for me, but J.D.

Is very much an acquired taste I think for a lot of people, and that's how it turned out for me. It's just that he makes his off-key singing work in a way that people can relate to I guess. You could look at any number of other bands, like Smashing Pumpkins-Billy Corgan as a singer? But he 'owns it' and makes it work in the context of the band's sound.

Trent Reznor, Kurt Cobain, Johnny Rotten, heck, I think Bob Dylan is one of the worst singers I've heard in my life, but he's enormously respected.the list of bad singers in rock music is miles long, but the successful ones find a way to make it work for what they're doing. So, yeah, I guess I'm not really surprised that I haven't changed your view, because this isn't really a case where more 'facts' can be brought in to shore up your position or my position on the matter; I think it's just that there are some deal-breakers for you on the U.P. Album that just aren't deal-breakers for most J.D.

Fans and that critics are able to rationalize in some way or another that I wouldn't claim to speak for. I'd like to remark that I do understand the hype a bit more thanks to your insightful comments. My view is still not changed, but there are things I didn't consider before, especially:They aren't generally appreciated for their musical 'tightness,' but more for the overall sound and emotion they evoke, so it seems sensible to me that the first album that featured the elements discussed in the comment I linked above will be one that people latch onto as significant, regardless of its flaws that were corrected in later releases.So thanks for that:).

This is the first Joy Division album I listened to. At the time, I had no context of the band or any of their other works but I immediately loved it.If I had to pinpoint what I like about Unknown Pleasures, it would have to be its heavy atmosphere. Curtis' voice and delivery really make the album.

It's like listening to a funeral dirge. The monotonous, repetitive rhythm seems to drag along with inevitability, as if they cannot be stopped, yet Ian's outbursts indicate passion, defiance, rebellion, and anger, whether in spite of or because of this.

It has a gloomy emo/punk thing going on, but it's also both distinctly masculine and controlled, something those genres seem to respectively lack. Overall, I get a sense of the genuine expression of a man on the edge of breaking who is faced with deep disappointment and unbearable circumstances, and Ian really relays this in the way he delivers his vocals. The emotion just seeps out, as if Curtis were greatly trying to restrain himself and keep his composure but can't. There are many, many rules in music. Of course we don't have to follow those rules.

Have you heard of musical theory? Maybe it's just a matter of how we understand the word 'rule'.The thing is that the exact reasons why people would normally criticize other albums don't seem to work for this album. Like the drummer losing the beat after a break. Singer singing out of tune (this is a big one).

Stuff like that. It's all over the place.I understand that people can still enjoy this music, but why is this album considered so great when for example (this) is labeled as 'shitty'?And yes, I have considered that. Are you saying that people like the album precisely because it's ground breakingly sloppy? Because that's the reason why I don't enjoy it.

There are many, many rules in music.Just like you said, none of these must be followed in order to create something magnificent. Joy Division is a lot about feeling and emotion, and as far as I'm concerned, Unknown Pleasures convey them as well, if not more solidly, as any other Joy Division album.

If you asked me, I'd say it blends together better than the others, even if my favourite Joy Division songs are not on Pleasures.Also, I think it's worth remembering that Joy Division was at heart a working class punk band. They weren't necessarily trying to be technically amazing, and they didn't need to be. Sometimes you have to look at the whole picture instead of the details.