10th Anniversary special

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Well lads, it's very nearly 10 years ago today since Sgt. Kevin taught the world to play.. blah blah. Was it November 5? Remember getting it that afternoon and running into the collage library in Cork to use the turntable and earphones. I know it's been talked and written about to death but let's do it once more on this historic anniversary? What's is the Loveless legacy etc...? Off you go lads. Probably starting with Ned I bet!!

David Gunnip, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

loveless legacy = perpetually unfufilled raggett = he turns to billy corrigan for comfort, therefore lovelss = dud. ;)

jess, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Jess is unfortunately insane. I pity him.

I really don't think of the album in terms of any legacy. I just enjoy it. :-)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

While we're about it, let's mark the anniversary of THE GIRL WITH THE LONELIEST EYES too.

(I only know about this cos Steady Mike told me it years ago.)

the pinefox, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I've still never heard a note off it. Should I get it? Do they have a twee girl vocalist? (n.b., "twee girl vocalist" = dud in my book.) It's just overwhelming waves of guitar distortion over cute melodies, right? How are they different from early Jesus and Mary Chain? This is a serious question, btw.

Sean, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's err... much more complex guitar distortion than early J&MC. Incidentally, has anyone here listened to 'Psychocandy' lately. It sounds so weedy. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is weird.

Nick, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, the Reids were a bit weedy themselves. ;-) I think it's more a matter of how high you crank your stereo. To Sean -- it's your call in the end, but while MBV clearly had similar roots to the Mary Chain, they eventually went in a rather different direction. :-)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think it's more a matter of how high you crank your stereo.

Actually, I was going to say that it might just be that I have a better stereo than when I first heard it. I think Psychocandy might best be heard on a crappy set up. Cranked up loud, I admit.

Nick, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Couldn't agree more. Psychocandy sounds best on a victrola with a couple of used baked bean tins for speakers. Anything more "hi-fi" is a waste of time.

Billy Dods, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I got 'Psychocandy' two years ago without any sort of historical perspective on it; I was getting into MBV and Slowdive and the time, and I heard from lots of sources that J&MC were a primary source of shoegaze goodness. The first time I heard the album, I was surprised with how thin it sounds! Where are my waves of beautiful feedback? My gorgeous textures? I guess it's an album that I admire, and that I like to play occasionally, but I can't seem to shake my inital disappointment, and I think I'll always feel a little distanced from it.

'Loveless,' on the other hand, is a miracle. It's one of the most special records I can think of, and I don't mean that in a personal sense, or in a strictly subjective sense, either. There's a whiff of magic about it, and I don't know what else I can say right now.

Clarke B., Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

babe rainbow, what a wonderful record. and the girl with the loneliest eyes single with the fantastic version of 'pink frost', 10 years ago, i can't believe it. loveless seems a record without a time frame, if it were re-released today it would completely sound of the times. colm's dud band with hope sandoval is a loser. if hope sandoval was not attractive would anyone care? likely not. he should have given kendra smith a call instead.

keith, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Loveless now sounds dated: who agrees?

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I wouldn't say "dated," exactly, because I wasn't immersed enough in that early 90s sound to tie it to a particular era, but I will say the drums on the record & the way they were recorded bother me sometimes. It would be interesting to hear it mixed without any drums at all (not "Soon" though, that would be silly.) Still, a massivley great record that ranks among my all-time faves.

Mark, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Loveless now sounds dated: who agrees?

It is of its place and time. I suspect Mr. Shields would have had more up to date sounds to work with had he been recording it later, and the word was during 1994 that he had some mindfuck noise/jungle combinations going, for instance. Friend of mine actually *heard* it, the bastard! Oh well, we can but dream.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

could the "weedy" qualities of "psychocandy" and the dated-ness of "loveless" have something to do with the fact that producers/recording engineers have become increasingly more adept over the last 20 odd years at recording feedback/noise? (slowly purging it from their systems that it's the great satan which must be eradicated from the master tapes at all costs?) also, is it just me, or are drums in general ridiculously hard to record "right" (quality wise...i.e. "is that a snare, or is someone making popcorn?")

jess, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I bought Psychocandy when I was 16 and thought it was bollocks, I didn't see the point of having a 15-track album where almost every song is exactly the same. I then heard it again not so long ago and didn't think it was that bad, which is odd.

DG, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It’s the greatest album ever recorded; that kind of buildup is difficult for any album to live up to. But since the opinion of almost everyone who weighs in about it on FT is so overwhelmingly favorable, I decided to see for myself.

The first thing I thought when I put it on was that the production sounded dated. I know this point was argued earlier, and my main point would also be the recording and mixing of the drums. It’s not a major point, however, and I soon got over it. The second thing I thought was “Cocteau Twins”. The main similarity being breathy, floaty vocals coexisting with a heavily treated/distorted guitar track that seemed to be recorded on a different planet. But while the ‘Twins often go for ethereal and soothing, MBV are clearly trying to take the top of your head off with guitar noise. Part of me wanted this aspect of the band’s sound to go even further; when Big Black and Sonic Youth have corroded themselves into your memory, its hard to imagine a guitar sound that goes beyond that. I know that comparison is an unfair one is some ways, but all three bands are trying to sculpt new and abrasive sounds out of heavily distorted electric guitar. Perhaps MBV are more sophisticated, and not going for such an immediately brutal approach. I do know that I'm going to be listening to “Loveless” more than I am “Daydream Nation” or “Atomizer”, although those got their share of play ‘back in the day’…

I do think the vocals are kind of weak, but since they’re murmured and down in the mix, it really doesn’t matter so much. There’s one weird moment on one song, I forget what it’s called, where the girl and guy are singing along together, and it seemed like a corporate jingle from the 70’s (ok, so I was stoned at the time), but with the demented addition of all that noise…

My favorite tracks are “Loomer” and “Only Shallow”... I kind of wish there was more sampling/electronic elements, and less of a “rock band” approach, although from what I’ve read they were attempting that in some later recording sessions. I wonder if my impression of the record would be different if I had bought it when it came out; I do intend to keep listening to it; my review is after playing it five times over the weekend. The verdict is I like it, it does sound somewhat dated, it’s not the greatest thing ever recorded, but it was worth the ten bucks.

Sean, Monday, 5 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I recently repurchased it on CD. It's a "quiet" album in that you need to turn up the volume higher than normal to make it sound loud. The first De La Soul LP was similar in this respect. Somebody above used the word 'magic' which is not often used in rock discourse but is the best way to describe Loveless. It's makes more sense to listen to it in the context of what went on in rock between 1985-91. It's the culmination of everything (US and UK) that was good betwen those years, the full stop in a way, but also possessing this otherworldly quality that can't really be understood or replicated.

David Gunnip, Tuesday, 6 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Am I the only one who prefers this album on a low volume? The warm, buzzy sound is great to sleep to. But 'Soon', of course, must be played at the loudest possible volume.

Ryan A White, Tuesday, 6 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)


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