Does anyone REALLY like My Bloody Valentine?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I bought Loveless a year ago and it's tuneless rubbish really. It's so fucking bad it makes you want to cry. As far as the songs go, let's face it, it's noisy garbage with no catch.

So why is it rated so highly? Cos Kevin Shields spent £250,000 to produce something that sounds like a cat being slowly strangled?

Am I the only one to pronounce, loudly and proudly, "My Bloody Valentine"... what a load of shite"???

Answers?

― Calum Robert, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

URGENT - Ned Raggett to thread - URGENT

― Billy Dods, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

is this Josh? (heehee.)

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, I *could* go on. But I won't, I've said it all before.

Basically -- yup, I sure as hell do. Fave song of all time, fave album, fave concert...

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"It's so fucking bad it makes you want to cry."

Well, he's half right.

― DavidM, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ah, but which half? ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

-ba +goo
I love MBV, best album ever, etc etc. To say there's no "catch" to it is either an admission that you haven't really listened to it enough or just recognition that it's not your cup of tea (why spend time trying to find the hooks in something you really don't like?). But there's a lot to grab onto in there, especially melody (so the "tuneless" epithet must go). You must listen to this album loud at least once, I think, or the full effect doesn't set in--the bass has got to hit you at least once so you can feel it on repeat listenings even with the volume down.

― Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I love 'loveless' but avoided buying 'isn't anything' for ages. I bought it and it was attrocious,tuneless shite; now I know why shields burried 'loveless' under so many layers

― Anas FK, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

There is perhaps more hope for me: it sounds nice, but it doesn't hit me hard. I've tried headphones, car, putting it on the system, and it still doesn't work! Fix me!

― Lee, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It doesn't hit me all that hard either, but I like it ok. As far as the bass needing to hit you; what bass?? The mix is all treble. It's not my hifi's fault, trust me sweeties.

― Sean, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Does anyone REALLY like My Bloody Valentine?

Yes, really love them. I fell heavily for the creation eps and used to rave endlessly on about them to friends, acquaintances, anyone (doing tapes etc) with a missionary zeal. I once dreamt my flat was on fire and 'Isn't Anything' was the first thing I grabbed. Obviously not your cup of tea Calum, definitely mine.

― stevo, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Loveless" is great. I am wondering lately if "Isn't Anything" is actually better, though. Yes really.

― John Darnielle, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And "Only Shallow" has like the most massive hook ever. It's Sabbath through a mile-thick layer of warm marshmallow fuzz. Mmm...

― adam, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Okay, okay, so it's not exactly bass-o-rama. But the point is you need to hear some of it for it to feel as if the mix is surrounding you, pulling you in.

― Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I had an essay to do at university for one of my second year exams which was entitled "Can music stimulate emotional responses?". Not 'does music' but 'can music'. The fact that people discuss emotion with regards to music in any context suggests that it indeed 'can', and the matter of whether or not one specific piece of music 'does' for one specific individual is rather irrelevent. The difference between 'can' and 'does' is possibly comparable to the difference between 'balance of probability' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' - one is a damn site easier to achieve than the other.

Anyway... In answer to Callum's question - the simple fact that people talk about My Bloody Valentine so much and express such affection / admiration / etcetera towards them proves that, yes, indeed, some people really do love them. What it doesn't do, however, is give you reason to love them as well.

And just for the record, I think 'Loveless' is the 21st greatest album ever made.

― Nick Southall, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

As far as the songs go, let's face it, it's noisy garbage with no catch.

now you are taking the piss. there's lots of good (some great - "Loomer") melodies on there.
if anything's at fault it's the production, which has been argued about at length
pays dividends in places - "Loomer" & "Soon" (which is hardly representative of the album, belongs with its own EP or alone)
washout elsewhere because - lack of dynamics in the arrangements
the monster drum - bass interplay that elevated the '88 EP's is mostly gone
in favour of frequently plodding continuum
some songs also too long - riffs drawnout/overplayed

enjoyable though it still is, for me Loveless runs a distant 3rd
to the "You Made Me Realise" & "Feed Me With Your Kiss" EPs (#1) and Isn't Anything (#2),
though "Moon Song" off Tremolo EP
and of course "Soon" both among their best...

― Paul, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

strangely, i will actually agree with most here, loveless is a timeless beauty, were it released today it would still sound current and innovative. light years ahead of its time. i would rank it first but i would rank the 'ecstasy and wine' songs over 'isn't anything' which goes a bit goth and silly sometimes. the preceding eps were much better, the backing vocals on cigarette in my bed represent one of the greatest moments in pop history.

― keith, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I adore them. Obviously just to be different, my faves are the Sunny Sundae Smile and New Record By EPs, but that's more because I haven't played them quite as much to death. I prefer IA to Loveless but I pretty much adore every single note they recorded from New Record By.. onwards. I want "Paint A Rainbow" to be playing in my headphones when I pass on..

― electric sound of jim, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You are all lying.

― Sterling Clover, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Including you?

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No.

― Sterling Clover, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Special thanks to you Calum, for posting this thread. You made me get out my copy of Loveless and listen to it for the first time in 3 years.

Listening to 'Only Shallow' right now, and the bit where the chorus ends and the trumpet-fanfare-esque noise slowly falls out of synch with the drums, just as it drops down into the verse, made my hair stand on end.

Bare in mind that I didn't think much of MBV until just then. I think it could have something to do with the fact that when I first got the album I was at home sick with the flu, so I associated being incredibly disoriented and brainfucked with the music itself.

To whoever suggested that one should turn up the volume to feel the bass: there is no fucking bass. That's probably my only great grievance with it.

― Andrew, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Unfortunately, some of it sucks whilst some of it rocks. There seems to be very little in between.

― Andrew, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Calum- As s.Jaworzyn would say- ''Turn it loud or fuck off!''

― Julio Desouza, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

way to troll ILM! And what about Kraftwerk, eh? They WERE shit. couldn't sing, silly lyrics, etc.

― Alan Trewartha, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

^ Am I the only one to pronounce, loudly and proudly, "My Bloody Valentine"... what a load of shite"??? ^

― , Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I find "Loveless" to be much more enjoyable when i am somewhat intoxicated. This will sound trite, but you can 'feel' it a lot more this way, the way the different frequencies and layers resonate.

― long time lurker, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

yeah the wooziness may be the single best thing about it
that and any Belinda vocals/lyrics plus some o them hooks
ok there's still lots to like, sorry love

― Paul, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

To whoever suggested that one should turn up the volume to feel the bass: there is no fucking bass.
Listen up, for fuck's sake: THERE IS BASS ON THAT ALBUM. The fucking point is that you will not hear it properly without some fucking volume. Do you get it now?

― Sean Carruthers, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And yes, I'm being a bit testier than I have to be because I'm listening to the album over headphones again right now just to prove to myself that there is bass. And that bass is pretty evident on my stereo, even if it is mixed a bit further back than the treble elements.

― Sean Carruthers, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

MBV make the muscial equivalent of Grant Morrisons Flex Mentallo; ie. its so filled with so much (conflicting?) information on so many levels that you can't apprehend it all at once, it take several total immersions before even the faintest inkling of its depths.
If, to you, it sounds like tuneless rubbish with no bass, i suspect you are listening to it in the wrong way. Its not meant for playing in your tinny car speakers while in the drive thru at Mickey D's...Loveless is meant to be played at medium to low volume (with both the Bass and Treble turned all the way up) through a HEADPHONES in a dark room in the middle of the night. Then you'll get it.

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I find that the Breeder's Last Splash and The Cure's Disintegration or Pornography benefit from this technique.

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Medium to low volume, dark room, middle of the night....blimey so it is *actually* wanky!

― Tom, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think how much you enjoy something is directly related to how you consume it. No-one serves cognac out of a paper Dixie cup, Tom. Why should music be 'served' in a way that doesn't fit it?

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Because sometimes you want to hear it in the middle of the day at work and you can't turn up the volume on your computer speakers too loud, as it might disturb.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I just posted a seperate thread so folks can discuss their "preferred technique" for getting the most out their listening. Music Geek Trainspotters Unite! You have nothing to lose but those but those little plastic things that you put into the middle of 45s!

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Because sometimes you want to hear it in the middle of the day at work and you can't turn up the volume on your computer speakers too loud, as it might disturb.

Sure, you could do that...but trust me, some records sound more interesting when you do it this way.

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Alternate answer:
Because sometimes you want to hear it in the middle of the day at work and you can't turn up the volume on your computer speakers too loud, as it might disturb.

And in the next cubicle is Calum Roberts yelling "Turn that bloody racket down, Raggett!" as he cranks up his new Kylie CD.

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

LC I was making a joke about other low-volume middle-of-night activities. Yes definitely some music sounds better in certain circumstances - but I'd also argue that by listening to music in those circumstances you are diminishing the chance of it surprising you.

― Tom, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hoi! Now listen to me fucknuts, I don't own any Kylie CDs, and it is down to my never ending exploration of the indie bargain bins at Fopp that made my buy Loveless in the first place. Well, that and all the acclaim... I wanted to see what I had missed out on.

Now, personally speaking I don't give two hoots about the 'you have to listen to it upside down drinking Tizer while masturbating with the volume turned straight up' bollocks... that sounds like you're apologising for the sheer shiteness of the album and trying to defend it.

Nor, personally, do I care if there is any bass in there either.

No, no, no... my entire point was asking if I'm alone (well, my girlfriend hates it too) in thinking it's utter, utter tunelss bollocks. Judging by the respones to this thread, the band still has its defenders - and that's cool. I was simply passing an opinion and wondering if any like minded people thought that Loveless was shite.

Thanks to those that understood and responded with due intelligence.

― Calum Robert, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I am not an avant gardist. I tend to not like 'difficult' music much. But Loveless has always sounded quite lovely to me. I don't understand why people make such a fuss of its 'noisiness'. It's woozy, stately, delicious and fucking easy to listen to. I hope no one's been put off trying it by this thread.

― N., Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

**tunelss**

(I assume you mean tuneless). WTF? It is gloriously tuneful! Try 'Come in Alone' for starters - how can you not hear the tune(s)? Ok, they're presented in an unusual way, but SURELY you can't be serious? TUNELESS? Pah!

― Dr. C, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It won't hit everyone, Calum. There have been detractors since the start. Just think of it this way -- I don't 'defend' MBV. I instead refer to the time when I first heard "Soon," my world stopped, I froze with revelation, and how music never quite sounded the same since then.

I presume you've had those moments...and I presume when you're describing them to others, you're not defending but explaining rapture. Just a little something to keep in mind.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Huh, why don't we just call this site 'I Love Loveless' and be done with it? ('I Loveless Music'? Whichever).

Still, it's a great record though, isn't it? Now listening to 'Off Your Face' from the 'Glider' 12". Giddying, effervescent.

'you have to listen to it upside down drinking Tizer while masturbating with the volume turned straight up'

Must try this.

― DavidM, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

loveless is pretty: i like it

― mark s, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It is unspeakably good, and my favorite album too. But I do sometimes listen to the drums'n'bass and think: If only, if only...

― Chewshabadoo, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'you have to listen to it upside down drinking Tizer while masturbating with the volume turned straight up'

I tried that and it didn't work. Was it 'cuz I replaced the Tizer with malt liquor, or because I was drinking it though a Crazee-Twisty-Straw. Plus is made the blood rush to wrong head.

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hoi! Now listen to me fucknuts, I don't own any Kylie CDs
"Siddown, Francis."
Theres nothing to be so touchy about. I was goofing around with Ned Raggett, not mocking *you*. It could've been *anybody* in the other hypothetical cubicle (Yeah, it would've probably been funnier if Tom Ewing was the other one, but I only thought of that in hindsight.)
Nobody cares if you do/don't own any Kylie CDs. Your taste in music is nothing to be ashamed of (unless you are into Michael Bolton, then I'm afraid you must be culled.) and theres no point in wigging out over something like this.
As for the "You're just apologizing for a shitty record"; no, I'm not. I suggested this technique to a nay-sayer and she did say that she found the record much more intriguing. (Side note: I realize -- again in hindsight -- I should've just said "If the Cocteau Twins are the light pop end of Shoegazer, then MBV is the Speed Metal end." and dropped the subject.)

― Lord Custos II, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Your taste in music is nothing to be ashamed of (unless you are into Michael Bolton, then I'm afraid you must be culled.)

This is probably the truest thing I've ever read on ILM.

― Dan Perry, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Who gives a toss about the bass? Jeez, they ain't Primus for cryin out loud. Turn up the reverb!!

― electric sound of jim, Monday, 22 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm not especially a beach person, but when I do make it down to the shore, I bring along Loveless and plug it into the Walkman. I'm melting, the music is melting, all is bliss. I like it just fine in other situations too. And what is this all of a sudden, Stereo Review?

― Lee G, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

two months pass...

Of COURSE I love them. Catchy tunes, difficult-to-penetrate production (makes for more listening without getting bored), loudest show I've ever seen (Someone else here mentioned the SWANS, yup, a close second)(it must be said: not the BEST show I've ever seen, but intense as all get-out). I'm partial to "Isn't Anything" because of the relatively short song lengths and seemingly-misplaced Buzzcock drum work. But it is all very good.

― Matt Riedl, Sunday, 23 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

MBV have made one good song and it is "you made me realise". The rest is pretty shitty.

― Marc, Sunday, 23 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two weeks pass...

as far as having to listen to the album whilst doing this or that i must add that "loveless" is one of my most favorite albums to have sex to (you should try it... probably won't be with me) though i will agree that this album is not for everyone. it seems to me that your hatred of my bloody valentine is similar to my hatred of bands like bad religion. both bands make very intense music only they do it in different ways and the way MBV does it speaks to me in my language, but bad religion just sounds like whiney boring shit to me. well my advice is to try the sex thing anyway... you never know...

― abby, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

now this is what i call looking at things from an 'interesting' angle.

― Julio Desouza, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

five months pass...

"loudest show I've ever seen"

Me, too. I don't much bother listening to MBV at home, but my most intense gig moment EVER was MBV at the Ritz in Manchester in '92 or '93. The tweeters blew, our ribcages vibrated disturbingly, and a good deal of plaster was shaken from the ceiling. I was utterly transported, better than drugs.

― Zora (Zora), Monday, 9 December 2002 22:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd probably give it a 7 out of 10, though like Def Leppard's Pyromania, the cultural effect it had makes me want to give it an 8. Like Pyromania, you could shrink it to an EP and not miss a note. Unlike Pyromania, MBV backloaded their album. I usually don't start "Loveless" before "When You Sleep," (earlier tracks are far too tuneless) and I usually stop Pyromania after "Rock Of Ages." "Loveless" does have the intriguing serene-yet-corrosive quality, but I'm surprised no one calls the sameyness of it. Beautiful if yer in the mood, only-so-much-noise if yer not. Only album I know of that you can vacuum to though.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 9 December 2002 23:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Who the hell listens to Def Leppard much less compares it to MBV?!?!?

― mal2478, Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Yo. Love 'em both! This is why Anthony is a hero. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:12 (twenty-three years ago)

it's a shame MBV never released their Hysteria (read: their true classic).

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Who gives a toss about the bass? Jeez, they ain't Primus for cryin out loud. Turn up the reverb!!

*I* give a toss about the bass. Drums'n'bass are the most important parts of modern music IMHO, and they are the weekest bits BY FAR of this record, which makes it odd that Loveless is my favorite album. Plodding, static drums and dull bass playing sit lamely next to the fantastic melodies, harmonies and textures. A bit of funk to reinforce the wash would be bliss.

I was musing the other day that I love the album so much because my mind is filling in what the rhythm section (well, actually Kevin Shields - I believe he programmed the drums and played the bass) should have done . Isn't Anything is so much more fascinating from a rhythmic perspective, and You Made Me Realise is a step above even that - (ROCKIST ALERT) maybe it's because they recorded as an actual band for these records.

Primus suxxors BTW.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Can someone please be my proof reader please?

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:49 (twenty-three years ago)

I wondered when someone was going to notice that post... (which I don't entirely agree with, Deb Googe Should Be Heard.

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:54 (twenty-three years ago)

And that's partly my point, according to interviews she didn't even play on Loveless. This is one of the reasons the live version sound much more vicious.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Aaargh *versions*

Could we please have an edit text function for all us pedants?.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two months pass...

i didn't like the movie very much at all, though it did scare my sister, but my memory is unclear about back then. the band is sort of like that.

― Bosse-De-Nage (Bosse-De-Nage), Saturday, 8 March 2003 08:58 (twenty-three years ago)

I wasn't around for this thread the first time round. It seems like a practical joke to me - the phrasing of that opening post, so volatile, so...baiting. He can't be serious.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Saturday, 8 March 2003 09:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Does anyone *really* love Toploader?

― kate (suzy), Saturday, 8 March 2003 09:04 (twenty-three years ago)

ha ha ha! Does anyone *really* love Kajagoogoo?

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Saturday, 8 March 2003 09:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Just my two cents:

Loveless is hands-down one of the best records I have ever heard in my whole sad life. I don't mind your not liking it, Robert, but I must admit that it wounds me in some deep and irrational way when you call it "bollocks" and "shite" (not least of all because such slang is irritating to my American ears).

And besides, since you hate this record and I love it so very much, I wonder about perhaps a fundamental difference in the way we hear music. You know the old saw about "does everyone see the color orange the same way?" Based on this evidence, I would have to say no.

Unless of course your copy of the album was a misprint, and you ended up with The Future Sound of London's The Isness by mistake. In that case, I completely agree with you.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 8 March 2003 09:27 (twenty-three years ago)

i'm down w/ the mbv
always rattled me in a good way
and it's one of the few albums i go back to
all regular like
it joins mezzanine and s&e and london calling and five or six others in my personal list
which also includes doolittle and low-end theory
i don't know why i keep doing that

― Bruce Urquhart (Bruce Urquhart), Saturday, 8 March 2003 09:31 (twenty-three years ago)

It's an ok album, but I always figured hardcore fans, if they can't see well, shouldn't wear glasses so that the whole WORLD will look like a My Bloody Valentine song.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 8 March 2003 17:43 (twenty-three years ago)

If the original question-asker is still around, and wondering - I think the key to getting the album is to look for the melodies first. They're in the voices and the bass. But the voices are probably the easiest to find. Pretend you're listening to the Cranberries/Sundays/Sixpence None the RIcher (gawd), except with a really noisy/fuzzy[/droney?] backing band (Ned's Atomic Dustbin? ha!). The melodies are there. I don't think every tune on there is special, but some *are* gorgeous, and I don't think any are really bad.

I say all this as someone who isn't a huge fan or anything and I don't listen to the album much. While it isn't necessarily native territory for me, I don't find it difficult in the way I find, say, Sonic Youth (who are native territory, sort of) difficult.

Or am I being reductive and missing something?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 8 March 2003 18:05 (twenty-three years ago)

oh, and of course there are people who don't like MBV. I would bet that many of them don't get it. But I think it would be quite understandable for someone to get it and still dislike them. But I'd work on getting it first, if it's important to you.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 8 March 2003 18:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Record's like a fucking mile wide, how could you not like it?

― Cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 8 March 2003 18:20 (twenty-three years ago)

"Loveless" and the "You Made Me Realise" ep R both brilliant! don't forget "Thorn".

― rex jr., Saturday, 8 March 2003 18:25 (twenty-three years ago)

I was very surprised that I didn't like Loveless that much, especially since I heard "Only Shallow" and "Soon" before buying it and I love those two tracks. Nothing else is as catchy as "Only Shallow" and nothing else is as hypnotic as "Soon". It's not bad, but the letdown from the hype makes it feel worse.

― Vinnie (vprabhu), Sunday, 9 March 2003 02:28 (twenty-three years ago)

So, yes, in the end, Calum, it looks like you're just about the only one.

― matt riedl (veal), Sunday, 9 March 2003 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

three years pass...

You know what's probably the best song OF ALL TIME, yet never gets much of a mention, even among MBV fans?

"What you want".

Also, Soon is nice and everything, but it's bugging me how it (and "Only Shallow", I suppose) has become the default MBV song recommendation. It's one of my least favorites on Loveless.

― Z S, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:30 (nineteen years ago)

For me loving "Soon" is incredibly personal; my essay in Marooned will talk about it in more detail, though I've mentioned it briefly on other MBV threads. In essence hearing it for the first time is the biggest before/after dividing point in my life.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:34 (nineteen years ago)

You know what's probably the best song OF ALL TIME, yet never gets much of a mention, even among MBV fans?

"What you want".

Also, Soon is nice and everything, but it's bugging me how it (and "Only Shallow", I suppose) has become the default MBV song recommendation. It's one of my least favorites on Loveless.

I don't know about best song of all time, but it's definitely my favorite on the album. The way it turns into Terry Riley's time'-lag accumulator is pretty close to sublime. What makes it even more brilliant is that you get the impression from interviews (I'm thinking of that Invisible Jukebox interview in the Wire a few years back) that Kevin Shields has probably never even listened to that stuff.

― William Selman, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:43 (nineteen years ago)

I think it's interesting that Nick S likes the album so much (assuming he still does; in 2002, I probably would have ranked it amongst the greatest albums ever too.) I find it very overcompressed, which is amongst my problems with it.

This blows my mind completely:

And "Only Shallow" has like the most massive hook ever. It's Sabbath through a mile-thick layer of warm marshmallow fuzz.

The Cranberries or Garbage through marshmallow fuzz, maybe that I could see.

― Sundar, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:49 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I was exaggerating on the best song of all time thing, slightly. It does rank among my favorites.

Loveless is often cited as being the death-knell of the shoegaze genre, due to its insurmountable greatness. That's up for debate, of course. But is there any other album that is similarly regarded as a genre destroyer?

― Z S, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:52 (nineteen years ago)

Loomer
To Here Knows When
When You Sleep
Only Shallow
Soon
Come In Alone
I Only Said
Blown A Wish
Sometimes
What You Want
Touched

sorry, What You Want fans. It's GREAT, but it's not quite as great as the rest.

Sundar, I saw a CD by one 'L. Subramanian' in Fopp the other day. Is that you?

― unfished business, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:55 (nineteen years ago)

I never cared for Loveless all that much.

― Mr. Snrub, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:57 (nineteen years ago)

Loveless, far from ENDING the shoegaze genre, kinda STARTED most of it! You can fairly say that by the time 'Only Shallow' had finished they had WON shoegaze, but that's a different issue! :-D

― unfished business, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:57 (nineteen years ago)

nu-gaze btw has been won by air formation's 'the dark has fallen', everyone who likes MBV but wants to hear a sorta updated version owes it to themselves to buy the new AF record.

― unfished business, Monday, 26 February 2007 02:59 (nineteen years ago)

Sundar, I saw a CD by one 'L. Subramanian' in Fopp the other day. Is that you?

haha I wish. If the CD is the 1987 En Concert, you should rush to pick it up though. (Lots of others are good too.)

― Sundar, Monday, 26 February 2007 03:02 (nineteen years ago)

it must be really irritating, sharing your surname with a famous musician!

― unfished business, Monday, 26 February 2007 03:06 (nineteen years ago)

"Subramanian/Subramaniam/Subramanyam/Subrah.../" is extremely common in the south of India, actually. There were two others just in my residence complex (in Buffalo NY) last year. The question does come up often enough though.

("You Made Me Realise" is a pretty good tune FWIW.)

― Sundar, Monday, 26 February 2007 03:22 (nineteen years ago)

i like air formation ok but i don't really consider them one of the leading lights of newer shoegaze. much the same could be said for the greater proportion of good but unsatisfying stuff that club ac30 releases.

― electricsound, Monday, 26 February 2007 03:26 (nineteen years ago)

have you heard the new record yet?

New shoegaze bands I like include Serena-Maneesh, Engineers, Jesu, Jaga, M83, Mew and WFANFC, and their highlights should probably have given me pause to retract my statement, but the song 'the dark has fallen' would sit at the top of any of these bands' career rosters.

― unfished business, Monday, 26 February 2007 11:44 (nineteen years ago)

I think it's interesting that Nick S likes the album so much (assuming he still does; in 2002, I probably would have ranked it amongst the greatest albums ever too.) I find it very overcompressed, which is amongst my problems with it.

Haha, yeah, my opinion of it is less now than it was five years ago (and good grief, this thread really is nearly five years old!), but that's more because of all the stuff I've been exposed to in the meantime than anything else.

I don't mind the way it uses compression; it's definitely a stylistic choice here. Loveless just wouldn't work if it sounded live, and it's not as if the flattening and fuzzing distorts in unpleasant ways or produces side-effects - it's done as an ingredient of the psychedelic experience.

These days I'd take issue with the rather linear songwriting, the boring-as-hell rhythms ("Soon" excused, possibly) and the lack of real bottom-end. But those guitar sounds, dude - particularly (I think) tracks five and six (I'm useless with titles at the best of time) where they get riffs going over and over towards the end - are just delicious.

Considerably lower than 21st these days. But still very, very good.

― Scik Mouthy, Monday, 26 February 2007 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

Air Formation are a bloody tribute band. Seriously. Not that there's anything wrong with doing a tribute to a form of music that lots of people love. But there are so much more interesting things going on in Nu-gazing.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 26 February 2007 13:43 (nineteen years ago)

The beat of 'Soon' is actually what has progressively turned me off the song, which used to be my fave. Now that shuffling beat and that little keyboard riff really screams early-90's.

What's the Terry Riley effect mentionned upthread?

― baaderonixx, Monday, 26 February 2007 13:58 (nineteen years ago)

While I feel "Loveless" is overrated in terms of songwriting, I don't really understand actively hating it. It's just so pretty and bright. And "Sometimes" is still a nice, yearning little song.

― Turangalila, Monday, 26 February 2007 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

The songwriting isn't about ornateness (well, except 'Loomer' which wins on EVERY COUNT GOING), but about massaging both the conscious and the unconscious with some of the most perfect sound-patterns ever committed to disk.

― unfished business, Monday, 26 February 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

In summary: No. No one REALLY likes My Bloody Valentine.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 February 2007 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

Except me.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 February 2007 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

NOBODY likes the rap music.

― PappaWheelie V, Monday, 26 February 2007 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

my ranking (track number):

- when you sleep (5) uplifting, has punch, otherworldly, psychedelic, killer tune
- only shallow (1) a little on the heavy side but belinda's voice provides the dreamgaze
- what you want (10) noisy power pop. another gem of a tune.
- sometimes (8) slow, melancholic, feeble, il s'écrase, the power lies in the calmness, the song is a living thing, the features which are blurry in the beginning are revealed later on. not for short term attentionists. not for premature ejaculators.
- i only said (6) starts on a slightly annoying loop kind of thing but evolves. the sluggish-plaintive guitar is carrying it. heavy-sad. the soon synth line is kind of anticipated and repeated ad infinum.
- soon (11) the dance track which finishes it all. never liked the repeated keyborad/synth bit. too obvious. but belinda kind of saves it from turning into total disco stupidity. and the mighty guitar which is not too distorted.
- loomer (2) i don't like belinda's voice in the beginning. but when the groove sets in, a silly riff i imagine, everything's ok.
- blown a wish (9) too mellow, too soft, too much belinda. not bad per se. has its charms but is too twee for mbv.
- touched (3) a weird instrumental interlude. is there an elephant calling? to here knows when is buried in this bit. and i like that i only imagine it. it is better in my imagination than in reality.
- come in alone (7) doesn't work. too heavy. pointless.
- to here knows when (4) is this phil glass or what? minimal pop rubbish. i hate it. belinda's voice can't save it. pretentious kitsch.

― alex in mainhattan, Monday, 26 February 2007 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

swervedrive is SO much better...

― Mike McGooney-gal, Monday, 26 February 2007 22:05 (nineteen years ago)

The truth comes out!

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 February 2007 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 00:09 (nineteen years ago)

yes, i REALLY like them

i've played the records a hell of a lot however, so i confine listening to them these days to when a certain mood kicks in

― Charlie Howard, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 05:14 (nineteen years ago)

Meltzer posited Sgt. Pepper as signaling the death of art forever.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 05:18 (nineteen years ago)

worst thread evah

― latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 06:19 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, dumb thread but Glider was something of a disappointment.

― Saxby D. Elder, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 06:22 (nineteen years ago)

― i, grey, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 08:03 (nineteen years ago)

I've tried numerous times, I mean, really, really tried, but no go: it still sounds like okay pop songs swathed in occasionally interesting noise sheeting. Maybe if the drumming wan't so spastic...I dunno, the appeal truly escapes me.

― i, grey, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 08:05 (nineteen years ago)

"- to here knows when (4) is this phil glass or what? minimal pop rubbish. i hate it. belinda's voice can't save it. pretentious kitsch"

mmmh...

― Marco Damiani, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 09:19 (nineteen years ago)

I still think this album is very very good.
Unfocused in the most controlled way possible. Original in the truest sense of the word: back to the source of classic pop to find something personal. Personal, warped and classic: you can't ask for more from a record.

― Marco Damiani, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 09:30 (nineteen years ago)

The genius of this album can never be overstated.

FACT

― SeekAltRoute, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 10:13 (nineteen years ago)

Loveless is often cited as being the death-knell of the shoegaze genre, due to its insurmountable greatness. That's up for debate, of course. But is there any other album that is similarly regarded as a genre destroyer?

interesting and kinda wrong, considering that the very excellent -- and very shoegazy -- souvlaki space station (to name just one example) cam after loveless. which, upon rereading the above, kinda proves that the notion that loveless was the death of shoegaze is very debatable.

― Eisbaer, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

As I've already said, it was really the BIRTH of shoegaze!

My own favourite 'shoegaze' album (although it's a tenuous description of a record that combines shoegaze with more conventional art-pop) is Ride's GBA, which came a year or two later.

― unfished business, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 12:28 (nineteen years ago)

how come that there are no song reviews of loveless on amg? i was looking for a review of soon and to my great astonishment i found nothing at all. ned to thread!

actually i wanted to know about that rhythmic high-pitch synth sample which is all over the song, especially at the end where it is repeated ad infinum. i remember having heard it in luxembourg in 1990 but i am almost certain that it was used in two different songs, one being soon of course. has anbody an idea which could be the other song and if mbv were the first to use it?

― alex in mainhattan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:43 (nineteen years ago)

"- to here knows when (4) is this phil glass or what?

MBV wishes.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

MBV may have been the godfathers of shoegaze but Loveless wasn't the birth of it.

Ride's "Nowhere" came out in 1990, before "Loveless". If you must, you could say "Isn't Anything" was the beginning of this things, but then you might as well keep going backward and saying the JAMC started it.

― Trayce, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 23:46 (nineteen years ago)

but then you might as well keep going backward and saying the JAMC started it.

yeah -- i was gonna say that psychocandy kinda got the whole shoegaze thing started. some may argue that the cocteau twins -- or even the porcupine-era bunnymen -- had a hand in this thing.

― Eisbaer, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:29 (nineteen years ago)

Indeed so, only in a proto-sense though (ditto VU to be honest).

The Actual Shoegazer Scene however, if memory serves, was an NME concoction anyway and invlolved bands like Ride, MBV, Lush, Slowdive etc etc.

― Trayce, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:31 (nineteen years ago)

As I've already said, it was really the BIRTH of shoegaze!

er... wrong, considering all their contemporaries in 1991 (oops sorry, Trayce already said it..)

was an NME concoction anyway

the NME? I recall them being frequently scathing in print. It didn't offer them the easiest of rock'n'roll angles (okay Ride were pretty cuet but...), which is why "the new wave of new wave" and Suede (new glam??) had to be invented...

load of indistinguishable tuneless sexless how the hell do we write about this? where the BIG RIFFS at? where the outrageous frontmen? it wasn't all covered that way, but there was an impression of "hmm, we can't quite control this scene... therefore we shall undermine & slag it" to me. My memory is crap tho'

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:47 (nineteen years ago)

I knew that statement would raise a few hackles!

It was definitely the birth of a certain form of shoegazing, which prevails to this day in various forms. I'll admit that there were shoegaze bands before Loveless, and many to boot, but they weren't mining the same seam.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:49 (nineteen years ago)

I do think Loveless is really a bit overrated though... even if it's *sound* is not. The linearity of the songs gets (sadly) quite wearing. And even though it's sonically in some other universe by anyone else's standards it's never been the closest to my bosom for that one reason alone. It's a tiring album to digest whole.

Would Sonic Youth be this heavily fetishized if they had only ever released three-ish albums?

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:53 (nineteen years ago)

melody maker rather than nme? i can't really remember. slowdive and chapterhouse were definitely among the first to be referred to as such.

― electricsound, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:54 (nineteen years ago)

i haven't consciously listened to loveless this decade. i hope that one day i can listen to it relatively free of the burden of everything that surrounds it. right now (and for most of the last ten years) i'd much rather listen to the stuff dave conway sings.

― electricsound, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:55 (nineteen years ago)

Does anyone REALLY REALLY REALLY like My Bloody Valentine?

― DavidM, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:56 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck, if ONLY Sonic Youth had released 3 albums, then I'd go out and buy them all and love them. As things stand I'm utterly daunted by their output...

(btw I just got Isn't Anything TODAY and I'm about to listen to it for the first time...so fingers crossed!)

The linearity of Loveless is a) in its case actually quite helpful (in that it forces one to look for extra details within each sound pattern, and cherish what one has found) and b) not extended for too long a period (not even 'I Only Said', whose coda I once hated but now I utterly, utterly adore).

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:00 (nineteen years ago)

Louis, I think pinning that certain sound to 'Loveless' alone... I mean argue on if you wish but I think you're just toeing the canonical line here (and you should know better considering how much you still listen to this stuff, the music of MY youth) in avoidance of how things probably panned out in reality, at least credit MBV's own earlier ep's for the rather more bent angle of shoegaze...

By the time Loveless came out there seemed to be glut of all this stuff frankly, like 60% of every indie chart (on The Chart Show, on tv) every week. Catherine Wheel, Curve, Slowdive... tons & tons of it.

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:01 (nineteen years ago)

xpost - no it's not, it's an ANNOYING contrast that stops me getting 100% drowned in the sonics. The melodies are just too predictable, too much of the time for me. Sorry.

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:04 (nineteen years ago)

True. Shoegaze = JAMC + Cocteau Twins + Spacemen 3 + Loop. All early to mid-80's.

― everything, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:07 (nineteen years ago)

xpost by the way.

― everything, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:07 (nineteen years ago)

actually, I think it's only really When You Sleep/I Only Said/Come In Alone... I feel this way about, and maybe Blown a Wish just because "Sometimes" doesn't up the tempo much before it... "What You Want" FUCKING KILLS though. Cosign that.

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:08 (nineteen years ago)

Well, as I just said I'm about to discover MBV's previous offering, and I'll be able to judge it in comparison to others. I may be toeing a certain line, in that I regard the sound of Loveless as unique, and more astonishingly layered than any other guitar-rock I've heard, but I don't regard it as the be-all and end-all of shoegaze, far from it.

Slowdive and Ride (and to some extent Catherine Wheel) had their own distinct things going on. If MBV were the pinnacle, the paragon of pure shoegaze, Ride were the absolute masters of composition and Slowdive (with Pygmalion) the most varied electronic and arguably innovative of the lot. Catherine Wheel did a fantastic job combining a metal aesthetic with shoegaze (although this has obviously been done MUCH better more recently by others).

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:08 (nineteen years ago)

I get annoyed with using the skip button on this record :(

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:09 (nineteen years ago)

i.e. I prefer Ride (and Pygmalion >>> Loveless, rly), but the sound of Loveless is the birth of a modern 'shoegaze' ideal that none have matched or surpassed, owing to Shields' unmatched ambition/drive/genius/whatever.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:12 (nineteen years ago)

okay, that I can get on board with... I guess I just have troubles with ideals sometimes. Compared to "the ideal", I find myself wishing 'Loveless' would just go the extra 10% and it never -quite- does... very very very good though!

Does anyone remember a shoegazey band called "Flood" btw? Just an old e.p. 'Honeymoon Striptease' I have I've never been able to find out a thing about in all the years I've kept it around...

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:34 (nineteen years ago)

never heard of flood the band, no

ride have dated among the most to my ears, with the possible exception of the occasional pre-'nowhere' track. slowdive sound positively fresh these days

― electricsound, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:37 (nineteen years ago)

The sound of Loveless mixed with the composition of, say, Yes, or at least Ride, would have produced a quite sensational record.

I'm now going to imagine Cardiacs' Sing To God as produced by Kevin Shields. Hooooooly......

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:38 (nineteen years ago)

(or maybe orbital with shoegazey guitars as well as synths...)

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:39 (nineteen years ago)

oh dear lord the end of 'Cupid Come' = PUT THE HOOVER DOWN, STEP AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE

awesome

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:43 (nineteen years ago)

It's funny how opinions have changed on the shoegaze canon since that period. Slowdive were pretty much ridiculed at the time, whereas theer seems to be a pretty strong consensus around them now. Anyway, for me 'Loveless' was always a bit outside the scope of shoegaze. The sound was too psychedelic, the melodies weren't that sweet and they weren't going for that 'puppy dog lost in a mayhem of sound' thingy that Ride or Slowdive had down.

It's also funny how Lush have been forgotten, although at the time they really dominated the scene.

― baaderonixx, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 09:07 (nineteen years ago)

the sound of Loveless is the birth of a modern 'shoegaze' ideal that none have matched or surpassed

I'm sorry but this doesn't sit right with me at all. You talk like there's some levels of shoegaze or something. It wasn't anything more than a passing NME (or Melody Maker - you might be right there Jim) nom de jour that happened to fall on the whole shebang and then get applied to bands it rly shouldnt have (Swervedriver are the obvious example). We talk about JAMC/Cocteaus/VU now in retrospect but I WAS THERE MAN, and it wasn't like that at all.

I'm sorry, Ive had a few.

― Trayce, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:14 (nineteen years ago)

I think maybe Louis is just saying they pushed the aesthetic further, to a kind of extreme aesthetic endpoint than any of the other bands that got the tag... but saying it filtered through what a lot of other people have already said, and a lot of flowery language... I don't exactly disagree with his way of making that point (which is a bit different from what he was originally saying!), but I agree with baaderonix and trayce a lot more.

Someone remind me, were Curve ever "shoegaze"? gothgaze?

― fandango, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:31 (nineteen years ago)

Curve was indeed lumped into that scene, which seemed ridiculous even at that time.

― baaderonixx, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

BTW, "'puppy dog lost in a mayhem of sound'" is the best description of Ride ever :D

― Trayce, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

And yeah Curve I can't place in that genre at all, even though they were there at the time. They were if anything a precursor to bands like Garbage.

― Trayce, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:49 (nineteen years ago)

What I think of as 'shoegaze' derives entirely from modern retrospect. I wasn't 'there', no, so I can only go on what the shoulder-glancing reviews of more contemporary works claim. Therefore, my 'shoegaze' incorporates any band with a psychedelic guitar swirl and a sense of guitar-driven soundscape that has existed since about 1990. The idea of an NME 'scene' isn't one that occurs to me. I've heard all the major bands, I've enjoyed them greatly, but to these ears, Loveless stands out for its astonishing use of 'sliding dissonance'; my just-now-coined term for the sound sculptures Shields created through not stable notes of feedback but sliding, pitch-bending lines which overlap to create the most disorientating and wonderful of sonic effects. No other band had nearly as much sonic ambition, although as I've already said, most of them bloody excelled in other areas. All we need now is a band to come along and combine all the aspects...

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

has louis j looked at blissed out by grimey simey reynolds? if he hasn't he should. possibly.

― acrobat, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

Wasn't the term "Shoegazing" invented by Andy Ross? He's claimed authorship of it, basically as a dismissive term slagging off said bands. (The context was trying to claim that Blur were a new exciting fresh band, not like "all those shoegazers!") Originally it was called "the Scene that Celebrates Itself" because they all went to each others shows.

Anyway, yeah. I think of bands like JAMC, Spacemen 3, Loop as dronerock but proto-shoegazing. I'd say Shoegazing as a genre started with Isn't Anything. Loveless was almost the death knell of first generation shoegaze. By that point, lots of the first generation bands were going off try other things. And the second generation shoegazer bands were dilluting the sound and the label to the point of meaningless.

Curve were definitely a shoegaze band, it's ridiculous to try and assign them to another movement. But then you got bands like Cranes being lumped in with it, who were not really shoegaze at all.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

Curve were definitely a shoegaze band, it's ridiculous to try and assign them to another movement.

Hmmm.... See, for me Curve seemed like the complete opposite of everything Shoegaze stood for. Curve was all about using sound and feedback as a quietly agressive and threatening weapon, whereas shoegazers stood passively in the bliss. Shoegazers talked of sitting next to their sweethearts on some weather-beaten shore, while Curve were all about treating lovers as dogs and dwelling in S&Mish activities. Shoegazers took cues from the Cocteaus, Curve took them from the Sisters of Mercy.

― baaderonixx, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 13:52 (nineteen years ago)

Have you ever actually *listened* to shoegazer lyrics? I mean, really? I know it's difficult as they were very obscured and not printed, but trust me, it's not all bliss and sweetheartsin there.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:01 (nineteen years ago)

But but but "Cigarette In Your Bed" is so calm and puppy love! Ow, my eye.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:04 (nineteen years ago)

Come on, Ride and Slowdive are all about romantic high school poetry!

― baaderonixx, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

Lying under sky,

She laughs at everything I say,

And pulls me under.

There's no time to resist.

Lying on the floor,

There's no time to resist,

Lying on the floor,

The tears are falling down and more.

Her eyes speak loud,

But actions speak the best

― baaderonixx, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

The sunshine girl is sleeping
She falls and dreams alone
And me I am her dagger
To numb to feel her pain
The world is full of noise yeah
I hear it all the time

She whispers while I'm sleeping
I love you when you smile
I didn't really lose you
I just lost it for a while
The world is full of noise yeah
I hear it all the time

― baaderonixx, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

Try My Bloody Valentine and Lush lyrics. All about drugs and shagging and then hating the people you shagged while on drugs.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:26 (nineteen years ago)

Every time we get a revived MBV thread, it prompts me to listen to Loveless again. Thanks, ILM :)

― tissp, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 57 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.
why is that in the middle of the thread? and why does it look like a part of a post? it should be bold and there should be more space and lines around it. it is totally invisible.

― alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

damn, why does The sunshine girl is sleeping
She falls and dreams alone have to be related to Slowdive?

― Z S, Thursday, 1 March 2007 04:22 (nineteen years ago)

Well, as I just said I'm about to discover MBV's previous offering

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000002M16.01._SS500_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

not to mention

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000002LMJ.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― energy flash gordon, Thursday, 1 March 2007 07:51 (nineteen years ago)

It's also funny how Lush have been forgotten, although at the time they really dominated the scene.

maybe it had something to do with their last -- and very NON-shoegazey and VERY brit-poppy -- album?!?

― Eisbaer, Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:05 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe, but on the other hand Ride are still remembered despite doing the same thing.

― baaderonixx, Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:10 (nineteen years ago)

also, lush never had an OMGWTF record like loveless -- or the whole brian wilson-esque mystique that surrounds kevin shields. or (at least over here in the USA) slowdive's so-indie-it-hurts backstory (i.e., band gets fucked over royally by their label's cheapness/incompetence/indifference, has to raise touring money while ON tour AND without an accompanying record to support said tour [b/c of said label's incompetence], and releases a last record that's a genuine left-field headscratcher [going from shoegaze-to-pop is one thing, going from shoegaze-to-ambient is another]). lush almost seems like a fuzzed-up prelude to elastica in retrospect (nothing against either lush or elastica, though!)

― Eisbaer, Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:18 (nineteen years ago)

Also - Lush were maybe simply just lifeless and boring? I listened to 'Spooky' a few months ago and had to turn it off pretty quickly. It's not that the record sounds dated sonically, but 15 years later I can't really understand what the fuss was about.

― baaderonixx, Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:28 (nineteen years ago)

spooky's production worked against it. the later records may have shown up miki's voice and lyrics to some extent, but the songs overall seemed to favour the cleaner, less floaty sound..

― electricsound, Thursday, 1 March 2007 11:16 (nineteen years ago)

I have to say that I prefer the fuzz guitar sound of Flying Saucer Attack, though they don't have an album that rivals Loveless.

― professor ganson, Saturday, 3 March 2007 03:06 (nineteen years ago)

I'm listening to This Is Your Bloody Valentine for the first time.

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 3 March 2007 03:11 (nineteen years ago)

I'm listening to This Is Your Bloody Valentine for the last time.

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 3 March 2007 03:14 (nineteen years ago)

tho "The Love Gang" is a pretty decent Joy Division ripoff

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 3 March 2007 03:25 (nineteen years ago)

Isn't Anything was pretty good. More dramatic than Loveless, if not quite as astonishing.

― unfished business, Saturday, 3 March 2007 03:26 (nineteen years ago)

Gala is still amazing, I think.

BTW the bit I quoted 5 years ago about Michael Bolton is still OTM.

― HI DERE, Saturday, 3 March 2007 03:27 (nineteen years ago)

Custos dared to speak where most of us remained silent

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 3 March 2007 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

I prefer Isn't Anything so much that I don't even klnow if I like Loveless. Okay, I guess I do like it but I hardly evfer play it compared to Isn't Anything...

― NYCNative, Saturday, 3 March 2007 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

It's good to play them back-to-back for the full effect.

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 3 March 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

I just downloaded some Air Formation.

I just deleted some Air Formation.

― Z S, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:06 (nineteen years ago)

curve's 'frozen' ep is pretty shoegazey and live they tended to have the washed out noise thing just as often as the other bands. they were also fond of the four song ep which was the official currency of the movement. there is an obvious goth influence on most of the bands so the cranes inclusion isn't so odd. it was all about what people listened to anyhow not just the style, the much missed prodigy shoegazing board was all over the place with even the godawful Drop Nineteens being regular topics of conversation.

gala is fantastic. it's funny to still see complaints about robin guthrie's production on spooky, i feel like i am in a time machine. i'm closer to the opinion that the songs just weren't so great though i still quite like that album.

i think slowdive has turned out to be more influential than mbv and maybe this is just because their style is more easily borrowed. I find that most times when a band is compared to mbv really they really should have been compared to slowdive. there haven't been many records that truly sound like 'loveless' have there?

― keythkeyth, Sunday, 4 March 2007 02:24 (nineteen years ago)

. i'm closer to the opinion that the songs just weren't so great

this is certainly true - it's easily their weakest batch of tracks. but i still think the production didn't suit. it was in this no-man's land between the gala-era stuff and the later, britpoppier stuff where i just don't think things worked.

tbh even though i adore the album, i don't think his production work for mahogany is beyond reproach either - there are ways that album could have been made even more perfect and they're all production.

― electricsound, Sunday, 4 March 2007 08:53 (nineteen years ago)

In response to the original question...

I do, I really do.

― Spencer Chow, Sunday, 4 March 2007 12:16 (nineteen years ago)

gala is fantastic. it's funny to still see complaints about robin guthrie's production on spooky, i feel like i am in a time machine. i'm closer to the opinion that the songs just weren't so great though i still quite like that album.

I agree completely. Not all of Gala is great...there are a few songs that are duds. However, what sets it apart from Spooky onwards are the fantastic hooks. Early on they were just super catchy, then I have no idea what happened and I just wasn't interested as much.

― William Selman, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:29 (nineteen years ago)

four months pass...

is this Josh? (heehee.)
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (5 years ago) Bookmark Link

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 6 July 2007 13:42 (eighteen years ago)

ilx has made me hate mbv

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 6 July 2007 13:43 (eighteen years ago)

not ilx, calum.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 6 July 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

(sarcasm)I find them much more interesting as an art project, or maybe an artistic theory, than I do a band. They're not a real band anyway, right. I think it all lies in the pretty album covers.(/sarcasm)

― nicky lo-fi, Friday, 6 July 2007 14:52 (eighteen years ago)

not calum, ilx.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 6 July 2007 14:56 (eighteen years ago)

It was only in retrospect that Curve were claimed by goths. They were definitely seen as part of the shoegazer bunch in 1991, even though they mimed to a lot of the stuff live, which groups like Lush or Ride would never have done. And they were always seen as less cool because of the Dave Stewart connection, obviously.

Early Cranes were very Isn't Anything era MBV (Inesescaple ep?), but quickly went very swoony and orchcestral (blame being too in thrall to Wish period Cure).

Lush were never taken as seriously as Ride, and then went super pop jangly, whereas we have 'Rioooode' to thank for the Coldplay blueprint that is Carnival or Life.

I listened to that first Slowdive album for the first time in ages the other day, why did they have to slow everything down so much?

― flowersdie, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

It was only in retrospect that Curve were claimed by goths.

Not out here!

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

Actually I like the idea of the album being called Carnival or Life.

Slowdive EPs played at 45 -- at 33 they were even more amazing!

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:08 (eighteen years ago)

It was only in retrospect that Curve were claimed by goths.

Nope. I fucked up an interview in 1992 by drunkenly opening with "Shhhhhooo, what's your favourite Goff record Toneeeee?"

― Hupi Bojangls, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

Wait, Hupi, who are you?

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:14 (eighteen years ago)

I'm just this guy, y'know?

― Hupi Bojangls, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

Now I've got Zaphod Beeblebrox lines in my head. Which is no bad thing.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

Did you find out what her favourite goth record was?

― flowersdie, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

That was the end of the interview.

― Hupi Bojangls, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

She was just trying to die like some dog.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

Coldplay blueprint that is Carnival or Life

I'm not a big fan of that album, but I don't see how it sounds anything like Coldplay.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

Toni Halliday had a pretty gothy look in those days. They also did Siouxsie covers...

― baaderonixx, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:33 (eighteen years ago)

the only people i know that still pull out curve records are pretty gothy sorts...i think they fit pretty easily into that flying buttressed niche at the time. recall the video for fait acompli

and im not quite getting the carnival of light --> coldplay bridge either

― bb, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:43 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think of shoegazers being goth.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:44 (eighteen years ago)

Shoegazers = not Goth
Curve = Goth

― Hupi Bojangls, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:46 (eighteen years ago)

oh okay.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

I often pix of Rachel from Slowdive with a Christian Death t-shirt!

― baaderonixx, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:58 (eighteen years ago)

I had a poster of Toni Halliday on my wall when I was 14. I wasn't really a goth, although I did like Sisters of Mercy and the Cure.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:58 (eighteen years ago)

I also had pictures of Miki Berenyi & Rachel Goswell on my wall!

I had pictures of indie dudes too, it wasn't just a hott indie girlz wall.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 6 July 2007 15:58 (eighteen years ago)

That wasDom Passantino. Ye-yeh-noh.
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 08 July 2007 00:01 (1,5 days ahead)
That wasDom Passantino. Ye-yeh-noh.
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 08 July 2007 00:01 (1,5 days ahead)
That wasDom Passantino. Ye-yeh-noh.
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 08 July 2007 00:01 (1,5 days ahead)
That wasDom Passantino. Ye-yeh-noh.
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 08 July 2007 00:01 (1,5 days ahead)
That wasDom Passantino. Ye-yeh-noh.
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 08 July 2007 00:01 (1,5 days ahead)
That wasDom Passantino. Ye-yeh-noh.
-- Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 08 July 2007 00:01 (1,5 days ahead)

― t**t, Friday, 6 July 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

Apparently Daft Punk do as in the FADER interview they cite "Soon" as the track responsible for getting them into dance and drum machines, etc

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

:-D

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

Thought you'd like that Ned :)

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

Hehehe. I am, in fact, that obvious. ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

Missed this thread. Ride's definitely tighter, but Lush wins out on the whole dated early 90s guitar/wooshiness. more feeling maybe.

MBV - Isn't Anything is definitely superior to Lovelesss,. [[/controvisersiona:!.]

― uhrrrrrrr10, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

Apparently Daft Punk do as in the FADER interview they cite "Soon" as the track responsible for getting them into dance and drum machines, etc

-- Spencer Chow, Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:20 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

kind of depressing...

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

unless they meant rock is so BORING we must abandon it and make awesome fun songs people can dance to. /lex

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

Why would that be depressing at all?? Discovering a direct link between two favorite things that is unsuspected and amazing. Also, they're pretty young - when "Soon" came out, I was certainly listening to dance and hip hop but it was much more difficult to make than playing with guitars and a real drummer. That's exactly the same time I started playing with drum machines and for the same exact reason.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

Makes perfect sense really.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

'soon' probably cost about 2000x more than 'da funk' innit? i'm not saying dance music is easier to make, but it's possibly less expensive.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

but really i meant, if you're going to get turned on to dance, why not get turned on to it by dance music rather than a rock song that has a drum machine on it?

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

First of all: Big ups to the OP for a great (if a bit obvious) troll topic. I just have a few comments to add after reading the thread:

1. There's a huge shoegaze/goth crossover - always has been, always will be - though MBV was possibly the least popular with goths I knew. Slowdive, Curve, Cocteau Twins, tons of 4AD stuff, tons of later shoegaze influenced Projekt stuff, etc. I had, and still have, a lot of friends who were into the goth thing, and my perspective is that shoegaze sort of never ended.

2. Loveless is obnoxiously over-hyped by critics, imo. It becomes hard to take an album at face value that is constantly hyped as being, like, my generation's Dark Side of the Moon or some shit. When I listened to this as a young adult, I heard a nice melancholic psychedelic record with great catchy melodies. Now I just hear it the same way I see Metropolis or Citizen Cane. Pay Attention: You Are Listening to an IMPORTANT Record.

I haven't listened to this in a few years. It's probably due a re-evaluation, but not for a long time. I still listen to Slowdive on a regular basis, and I think I might enjoy the new Alcest album more than I ever did Loveless - if they are even comparable. I'm not trying to skewer any sacred cows here, but I also kind of understand the desire to. It kinda sucks when a work of art gets to the point where it's hard to enjoy on its own merits.

Then again, maybe the anti-Loveless folks really just don't feel the melodies. If everyone liked it, it wouldn't just be a critical favorite. I'd guess about 2% of the people I hang out with have ever heard of MBV.

― rockapads, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

"'soon' probably cost about 2000x more than 'da funk' innit?"

Not necessarily. At the time "Soon" was made (in '89-90), "Da Funk" would have cost considerably more to record/sequence etc. "Soon" is really deceptively simple. Shield's cost overruns came more with "Loveless". In the late 80s, it was much cheaper and simpler to just grab guitars and amps.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

On point 2 I think it's more the case that some critics really do love it, and if you're a critic who doesn't you'd better just keep quiet about it.

― humansuit, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

<i>but really i meant, if you're going to get turned on to dance, why not get turned on to it by dance music rather than a rock song that has a drum machine on it?

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:15 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Link</i>

yeah but that's not how it works when your a kid and stuff. you hear what you hear and some things transition into other things. like, in some way, the fact that i'm listening to charles mingus right now has everything to do with jane's addiction.

who cares anyway? if you like their music now they obv. heard dance music at some point and got good at it...who cares if they like something you don't?

― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:46 (eighteen years ago)

I just got my first My Bloody Valentine album. They didn't have Loveless, so I got Isn't Anything. Haven't listened to it yet, though. I await with breathless anticipation.

― Jeff Treppel, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:57 (eighteen years ago)

You might like, you might hate...you'll see. But you'll definitely see where a lot of recent metal bands went 'oh right!'

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 19:58 (eighteen years ago)

I was only semi-whelmed by "Isn't Everything", but then, I got it after "Loveless"...

Back in the day, I got an adv promo of "To here knows when", and I couldn't believe how awful it sounded. In fact, i had to play it several times to make sure. And slowly, something strange happened....!

― Mark G, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 21:45 (eighteen years ago)

Heresey, possibly? but the best part of MBV for me has nothing to do with the sound of their albums...I've always been most struck by the vocal lines and the bass lines chasing each other around in unexpected ways. Most of their best songs take ostensibly basic chord progressions and then undermine your assumptions about key, resolution, etc. in a really neat way.

The guitar sonics and so on are a nice bonus. And Isn't Anything remains the masterpiece.

― dlp9001, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 01:05 (eighteen years ago)

I do like Curve lots. But that might have a lot to do with the fact that I'm a sucker for gothy sounding music with female vocals. Kevin Shields = not female.

― Jeff Treppel, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 02:29 (eighteen years ago)

It's all about the Belinda Butcher, innit?

― Mark G, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 08:23 (eighteen years ago)

Indeed. Why does she always get written out of the story?

Anyway...
1. There's a huge shoegaze/goth crossover - always has been, always will be - though MBV was possibly the least popular with goths I knew. Slowdive, Curve, Cocteau Twins, tons of 4AD stuff, tons of later shoegaze influenced Projekt stuff, etc. I had, and still have, a lot of friends who were into the goth thing, and my perspective is that shoegaze sort of never ended.

Absolutely OTM. But I think this is a more US thing, of shoegaze/goth crossover. I don't think UK goths would go further than Cocteau Twins. But in the US, there was that whole Black Tape For A Blue Girl thing, which was all about the thin line between the darker end of shoegaze and the more ethereal end of goth.

(You can take the girl out of goth, but you can't take the goth out of the girl.)

Plus, Love and Rockets are often namechecked as a HUGE influence on US shoegaze (Dandy Warhols, BRMC, etc.) and they were just viewed as laughable by idiot brits.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

I only think of shoegaze as being psychedelic and swooshy with those up-tempo late 80s early 90s dancy drums ... you know what I'm talking about. I mean, that's basically all it was.

Were goths into LSD and that whole scene in the late 80s early 90s? ? Otherwise why on earth would the two genres cross.

― uhrrrrrrr10, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 15:25 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, I can understand the connection to groups like Psychic TV and Coil and all that ... weird, psychedelic, a little dancey and with lots of distortion. But gothy gothy stuff, wuhhh? Of course I only ever saw this stuff as a kid on 120 Minutes

― uhrrrrrrr10, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 15:26 (eighteen years ago)

From my perverted (american and old) perspective, the whole MBV (Isn't Anything and after), J&MC and Spacemen 3 type of music seemed to be coming out of the same channel. Not sure if this was true or not in England, but goth music fans were in a completely different spectrum at the time (still stuck on bauhaus/siouxsie/maybe some love & rockets).

this music was not even registering with the Cure/Smith fans until much later (and even then only J&MC mostly).

― Steve Shasta, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe goths weren't listening to MBV back in the day, but I've had more luck playing 'em for nowadays goths than almost any other non-goth band (this side of J&MC, anyway). Some of the Sister-era Sonic Youth stuff also goes over pretty well.

― Bob Standard, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

Goth bands were having their (real and metaphorical) day in the sun with The Mission headline every festival, with Fields of the Nephilim on Top of the Pops and the Cocteau Twins et al still very active. Sorry, these scruffy Irish weirdos just didn't cut it.

― everything, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 17:41 (eighteen years ago)

nine months pass...

I first head of Loveless when SPIN named it #15 on their best 90's albums around summer 1999. Since then, I've tried getting into this record several times, and every time I've found it to be enjoyable, but not something that struck me as extraordinary.

However, from the 1st time I heard "You Made Me Realize," I've considered it one my favorite songs, and I've always enjoyed it more than anything on Loveless. Based on this, I copied "Isn't Anything" from a friend a few months ago, and since then it's been slowly entering my 10 favorite records of the 80's. After quickly skimming this thread, I'm happy to find that preferring Isn't Anything isn't as blasphemous as I had assumed..

This brings me to my question.. Is anyone REALLY into Loveless who has heard nothing else by this band? Because I feel as though recommending Loveless really only makes sense to those who have some concept of the shoegaze movement or who have heard anything else this band has done. I feel as though lots of people see this album recommended by magazines/blogs/etc who end up spending their time downloading or even purchasing the album simply because of such glowing recommendations.. The album's opener "Only Shallow" seems to be the only truly "accessible" song just because the rock sound is so explosive and dense.

― billstevejim, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:04 (eighteen years ago)

i've heard everything mbv have put out, and loveless is still my favorite album of all time.

― Creeztophair, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:11 (eighteen years ago)

― stephen, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:12 (eighteen years ago)

There probably aren't too many on ILM who have heard nothing by MBV except for Loveless, though I could be wrong.

I love Isn't Anything to tiny pieces. Ranking it above or below Loveless seems like a waste of time, they're both near-perfect.

I don't know what to tell you about getting into Loveless. It seems like most people would rate "Soon" as relatively accessible, or at least as accessible as "Only Shallow". "What you Want" ends up on pretty much every mix I make for myself. If Loveless never really opens up to you, and you already tried turning it up really loud, then I guess you should ... move on with your life.

― Z S, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:15 (eighteen years ago)

I really like it!! But like I said, I don't think it's extraordinary.

― billstevejim, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:24 (eighteen years ago)

- back-and-forth over lack of bass/drums
- lol HURRY UP AND MAKE ANOTHER ONE EH?
- argument about superior songwriting on 'isn't anything'

ok now we can lock

― banriquit, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:26 (eighteen years ago)

You forgot to mention the awesomosity of the EPs.

― Z S, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

I should add that because of getting into more of their earlier stuff, I might end up loving the shit out of Loveless a few months from now.

And I really would like to hear the rest of the You Made Me Realize EP sometime very soon.

― billstevejim, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

slow slow slow slowwwwww

― stephen, Saturday, 7 June 2008 23:59 (eighteen years ago)

I admire the effort they put in to make Loveless, and there's absolutely nothing out there that sounds anything like it, but I don't fund it catchy or sing-songy or poppy enough to make me listen to it all that often. Maybe if the vocals were a bit more intelligible I'd like it better. And I still think the drums sound like absolute shit.

― Mr. Snrub, Sunday, 8 June 2008 00:17 (eighteen years ago)

listening to Loveless for a great drum sound is like having sex to burn calories: if that's why you're engaging in either activity, you're missing the point. there are other, better drum sounds out there (as there are better ways to burn calories), but, you know...

― stephen, Sunday, 8 June 2008 00:27 (eighteen years ago)

Well you'd think a band that puts so much emphasis on perfectionism would hire a session drummer rather than sampling their own broken-handed drummer's beats over and over and over again.

― Mr. Snrub, Sunday, 8 June 2008 00:46 (eighteen years ago)

FUCK YOU

― banriquit, Sunday, 8 June 2008 09:38 (eighteen years ago)

FINALLY, a thread on ilm about my bloody valentine!

― latebloomer, Sunday, 8 June 2008 09:48 (eighteen years ago)

"Tiger in My Tank" is the best thing they ever did

― Curt1s Stephens, Sunday, 8 June 2008 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

The "drum sound" on Only Shallow is the the second-best part of the song! If I have to explain what #1 is, you're probably not reading this thread to begin with.

― Pillbox, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

FINALLY, a thread on ilm about my bloody valentine!

Ummm.. this is a 6 year old thread that was revived. I know better than to start up a new one weirdo.

So anyway, I finally found a copy of the YMMR EP on soulseek and it's quite outstanding.

I think it really says something about a particular record when it's so revered that it actually bothers fans when other people who are just really starting to get into the band still enjoy it and yet prefer their other work.

― billstevejim, Sunday, 8 June 2008 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

Ummm.. this is a 6 year old thread that was revived. I know better than to start up a new one weirdo.

There's this thing called sarcasm.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 8 June 2008 19:46 (eighteen years ago)

I understood the sarcasm..

― billstevejim, Sunday, 8 June 2008 19:47 (eighteen years ago)

http://360digest.com/uploads/EvilEye.jpg

― Z S, Sunday, 8 June 2008 19:49 (eighteen years ago)

The weirdest reproductive organ I've ever, er, seen 8-/

― t**t, Sunday, 8 June 2008 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

Calum's trolling still works well beyond the grave.

― Mackro Mackro, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:00 (eighteen years ago)

Did Calum's boss ever find out about his ILX perusal which would put his wife and kid under financial stress? Hope he's ok.

― Mackro Mackro, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:01 (eighteen years ago)

Cool.. I've learned my lesson. Never discuss MBV on ILM ever again or else people will treat you like shit.

― billstevejim, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

Bill, if anyone here seems too sharp on the point (and I'm hardly discounting myself), it's just that I'm willing to bet many here are feeling a bit talked out about them at this point. I definitely am! But I also thought your initial revive question was a really good one.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:53 (eighteen years ago)

ITS A GREAT RECORD BUT DOES IT HAVE ONE OF THOSE OLD-SCHOOL 60S DRUM BREAKS NO I DIDN'T THINK SO ONLY RADIOHEAD DO THAT ANYMORE

― Just got offed, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:55 (eighteen years ago)

Well whatever.. some people catch on to stuff later than others. Out of all my friends, only one owns any of their music.

― billstevejim, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:58 (eighteen years ago)

To answer BSJ's question on a personal level, I adored Loveless pretty much as soon as I first heard it, and I haven't been able to get into Isn't Anything at all yet. Maybe this will change on repeat hearings but Loveless seems to be doing far more of the things I really enjoy.

― Just got offed, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:58 (eighteen years ago)

Here's an idea. Why don't people feeling talked out on a subject just not talk about it?

― ailsa, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:58 (eighteen years ago)

I have never talked about this band when anyone ever until yesterday.

― billstevejim, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:59 (eighteen years ago)

three months pass...

So as the very last person on this board to hear Loveless, I must say that it's quite nice. Very pretty in spots, and the walls of lovely feedback hit just the right frequency down my spine. I'm not sure (after only one listen, admittedly) if I could really break it down into distinct songs, but it's a great listen as an album. Which I realize isn't anything that you guys haven't figured out on your own already, but I just thought I would share.

― Fred Krueger Mellencamp (J3ff T.), Saturday, 4 October 2008 01:08 (seventeen years ago)

three months pass...

My recent posts here feel far more recent.. but anyway, after listening on and off since last summer, my favorites on Loveless are currently sounding better than my favorites on Isn't Anything. So perhaps I was wrong? It may be way better than I thought it was a few months ago. Also I got that Continuum 33 1/3 Loveless book which is also sort of increasing my interest in this band.

― billstevejim, Saturday, 24 January 2009 05:43 (seventeen years ago)

i keep wanting to like Loveless. it's on my ipod, and whenever a proper mood hits me, i turn it on. i cant even make it through one song. i just don't dig it.

― pipecock, Sunday, 25 January 2009 03:46 (seventeen years ago)

― Turangalila, Sunday, 25 January 2009 03:49 (seventeen years ago)

nine months pass...

how come no one ever told me that Isn't Anything was like, a good record with actual songs and stuff? This is way better than Loveless.

― ian, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:16 (sixteen years ago)

I had meant to tell you that, actually. So much better than Loveless, really.

― Trip Maker, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:19 (sixteen years ago)

though i am a bit odd in that i like the SSS/ecstasy stuff best of all

― mighty angus sampson (electricsound), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:22 (sixteen years ago)

Never Say Goodbye may be my favorite MBV song.

― Trip Maker, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:23 (sixteen years ago)

It is lately, anyway.

― Trip Maker, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:23 (sixteen years ago)

glad we're in agreement on all this boys, now let the maniacs tell us we're RONG.

― ian, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:28 (sixteen years ago)

i think mbv are the kind of band where I think whatever I'm listening to at the time is their best. In fact, I was half-convincing myself earlier this year that the Patti Smith thing was Shields' finest hour.

― tylerw, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:30 (sixteen years ago)

glad we're in agreement on all this boys, now let the maniacs tell us we're RONG.

Hey I'm just sitting here.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:31 (sixteen years ago)

*belatedly rushes in waving a Loveless flag*

― my fave thing to do on the computer is what im doing right now (acoleuthic), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:33 (sixteen years ago)

I know that the principles were not geniuses (in any conventional sense), I know that the sound of Loveless is technically available to anyone with a laptop, two amps, two mics, and a stack of reverb pedals. I also know that (In The Presence Of Nothing and Despondent Transponder aside) few have bothered to emulate it.

The thing is, that fucking Loveless album ruined guitar music for me. For nearly two decades I've sought my musical transcendance in other genres, because Kevin Shields had taken all the potential envelope Albini hadn't claimed. I became a house fan, nodding my head to repetitive electronic beats, all because that Shields fellow dominating the guitar side of my head.

I say he's a witch.

― Biodegradable (Derelict), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:47 (sixteen years ago)

I remember one winter, when I was lonely and smoking too much pot, all I played was 'daydream nation,' 'white light/white heat,' and 'loveless'
A lot of walking around with headphones, just letting it wash over me.

― nicky lo-fi, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:49 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.forumspile.com/Misc-Burn_him.jpg

― jØrdån (omar little), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:49 (sixteen years ago)

congratulations you could pass for an american college student!

― ian, Monday, 23 November 2009 23:50 (sixteen years ago)

loveless is ok, I like it better than Isn't Anything, but I prefer the earlier EPs. tbh I think I'd rather listen to This Is Your Bloody Valentine than Loveless.

― omicron deserved 51 (Curt1s Stephens), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:51 (sixteen years ago)

basically I'm the worst my bloody valentine fan in the world

― omicron deserved 51 (Curt1s Stephens), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:52 (sixteen years ago)

Their best 18.42 minutes was the Tremolo EP, and I suggest trial by ordeal for those who disagree.

― Biodegradable (Derelict), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:55 (sixteen years ago)

i've never heard "this is your BV" which i should probably remedy. i like geek! a lot.

― mighty angus sampson (electricsound), Monday, 23 November 2009 23:56 (sixteen years ago)

I'd take it a bit further and suggest that "Glider" EP + "Tremolo" EP > "Loveless".

― Gerald McBoing-Boing, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 00:17 (sixteen years ago)

tremolo is perfect start to finish

― e honda v. (m bison), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 01:33 (sixteen years ago)

the Glider EP is v. good

― lukevalentine, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 02:11 (sixteen years ago)

you could pass for an american college student!

wait the average american college student listens to MBV, Velvet Underground & sonic youth ?

― lukevalentine, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 02:15 (sixteen years ago)

the glider ep was the first valentines i heard.. don't ask why and off your face completely bent my teenage brain

― "your shades, man, they're shite..." (electricsound), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 02:15 (sixteen years ago)

hi these guys suck

― farting irl (cankles), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 02:29 (sixteen years ago)

u put on loveless and when the first song comes on ure like 'YAAAAAAH this sounds like a dying elephant it is awesome' but then the whole thing sounds exctly like that and u just go :/

― farting irl (cankles), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 02:30 (sixteen years ago)

my fave MBV stuff will always be loveless, glider, tremelo, and the feed me with yer kiss 12 inch. isn't anything is a weak sister compared to that stuff. and i say again like i've said before: if you've never heard feed me with yer kiss 12 inch u.k. version and only heard the album version than you have never ever heard that song.

― scott seward, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 02:32 (sixteen years ago)

geez ian all you had to do was ask

check out the ep you made me realise, came out right before isn't anything, not as fuzzy, more poppy, but still good stuff

― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 03:04 (sixteen years ago)

a compilation of their four creation eps would be better than both albums imo

― "your shades, man, they're shite..." (electricsound), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 03:06 (sixteen years ago)

the creation 12" version is the one I'm thinking of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Made_Me_Realise

― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 03:08 (sixteen years ago)

The first album and early singles are really good. Not sure why people care about Loveless so much.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 03:14 (sixteen years ago)

errr, "first" = Isn't Anything.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 03:14 (sixteen years ago)

*belatedly rushes in waving a Loveless flag*
― my fave thing to do on the computer is what im doing right now (acoleuthic), Monday, November 23, 2009 11:33 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

this mental image is killing me

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 04:25 (sixteen years ago)

three years pass...

J gets bummed by #Lemmy: Deb of #mybloodyvalentine w/ @jmascis

http://instagram.com/p/d4yz0ezc1K/

― scott seward, Thursday, 5 September 2013 20:57 (twelve years ago)

No lie: I would see her lead a Motorhead tribute band.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 September 2013 21:07 (twelve years ago)

original thread question : more in '13 than '02 when this thread was started.

― mark e, Thursday, 5 September 2013 22:14 (twelve years ago)

two years pass...

My Bloody Valentine - Sometimes for strings and electronics

― Caput Johannis in Disco (Tom D.), Saturday, 28 November 2015 13:32 (ten years ago)

*intrigued*

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 28 November 2015 14:16 (ten years ago)

feed me with your kiss VS when you wake you're still in a dream

and also are there songs that are better played at earsplitting volume? if there are just point me that way

― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 01:33 (ten years ago)

Imma go to this, I might sneak my recorder

― MaresNest, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:10 (ten years ago)

Sometimes is their indiest number - proper mumblecore - but good way to get some punters in.

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:27 (ten years ago)

Not that I'm going as I think this is MORALLY wrong

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:29 (ten years ago)

"Imma go to this, I might sneak my recorder"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41-SNHbzSvL._SX522_.jpg

― You guys are caterpillar (Telephone thing), Tuesday, 1 December 2015 13:28 (ten years ago)

That's exactly what I thought... maybe correctly?

― Otago Imago (Tom D.), Tuesday, 1 December 2015 13:30 (ten years ago)

I had a feeling that might happen

― MaresNest, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 16:56 (ten years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.