first of all, saying the beatles arent good is like saying bmws arent good because everyone thinks so.
second, the velvet underground were in no way 'angsty'. as far as things borne in warhols factory, the velvet underground was relatively tame, especially if youre any familiar with the other kooky bands of the time. lou reed was smart enough to know what made 'pop' music 'pop', and he could do it with his tunes.
joy division is a band based upon the life of ian curtis these days, and its a bummer because musically, the band was extremely talented...just listen to new order. its just too bad that ian curtis, a talented vocalist, though ill be the first to admit i never understood the bands appeal and always felt that he tried too hard to be different, managed to give an otherwise great band a forever scarred reputation after his on stage antics, and obviously his suicide, at age 23 nonetheless.
i just dont like when people pigeonhole the 'hipster' moniker as being strictly music-based. in reality, its just the opposite. chumps taking what theyre told is hip by sirius ch. 26 and mtv u and embracing it to a fault is what has taken 'hipster' to a whole new level. now we have nerds painting their faces and wearing lamé hotpants because cut copy and santogold said its cool and cutting edge to do so.
i guess its just the recent influx of self-proclaimed progressive bands and their influence on 18 year olds that have really bothered me.
that said, joy division as a band does not suck, nor should they be compared to the velvet underground. two different bands who, regardless of your opinion of their audience, have in their own way seriously influenced a myriad of bands in the past few decades.