Strip away the production on Loveless and you are left with...

Not sure I really have one. I read the comment on the Curve thread and thought, "That could be said of Loveless, no." Now had the song (whose title I have forgotten) from the soundtrack been fully produced, it would probably have been *a lot* more interesting, based on past results. As it is, the song sucks, imo. Monotonous, underdeveloped, dull, one dimensional. Giving it the Loveless treatment would have made a world of difference.

As for Spector, no, I don't think the same could be said, cuz there were songs and ideas and the production was just an aspect.

Mike Daddino put it best when he said something along the lines of how MBV live was like watching a beautiful skyscape...filled everywhere and anywhere with rampaging jet planes, all of which then collectively block out the sky forever.

definitely agreed... and from my pov, "isn't anything" was just as amazing in it's own way. of course, i know i'm somewhat in the minority for believing that.
m.

Nah, plenty folks love that album just as much or almost as much as Loveless! I myself prefer Loveless, but I just love flanger effects.

MBV unplugged would be great!

Doesn't seem that way to me. Isn't Anything has a heavier reliance on bass, a sometimes strong debt to american hardcore with muscle and melody ala Husker Du, and the songs are generally tighter and shorter. And its dark. Loveless is not. A couple of songs lean more towards the haze of Loveless, but they're by no means a majority.

Back to the original question: A friend of mine thinks that some of the songs were likely to have been built off of simple guitar loops. I think that's highly possible.

The sound of music is a part of music. 'Loveless' is a grand acheivement in sound, no? The logic of unplugged or live-to-four-track or whatever litmus test doesn't apply here...

Is the songwriting weak, is that what we're getting at? I suppose, a bit, it is. Cos it's not *about* the songwriting, really, on 'Loveless'... or is it?

"Ah but take away your lochs, and mountains and scenery and what do you have?" says the Englishman.

"England" replys the Scot.

Ha.

Can you explain this one to me? You can record something, and not necesaarily, produce it- unless you mean that the act of pressing the record button => production.

The melodies sound very much pastels/vaseline type indie (I couldn't explin in terms of chord structure), but the guitar sound add this dimension to it.

I am looking forward to david keenan's book on this, his tastes (mid- 80s indie to free jazz and so on) intrigue me and I'd like to see how its gonna play out when discussing this record.

That's what I've always assumed.

Production is often talked about in terms of some outside force coming in and glossing over all the music (and this sometimes is the case), but in many cases it is just as integral a part of the record making process as is the songwriting, especially when the artist is directly involved or is producing the record themselves. If you were writing a pop song where the main hook was in the beat, would you downplay the drums and bass? of course not. Good production can help good songs and can't do anything to bad songs. Bad production canmake good songs sound worse, or better, depending on the context.

http://myhome.naver.com/bestguitar/Pictures/mbv_kevin-layout.gif

going by the starting thing i think arguing the tracks on loveless lack "structure" or "dynamics" would be a little difficult, but i dunno.

I like Isn't Anything at least twice as much as Loveless.

If MBV had come along three years later, then both albums would have fallen a) within the internet age, and b) within the 1990's, and thus IA would have shown up on everyone's End of Decade lists and been more thoroughly re-evaluated. (Or to put it another way, 1991 gets re-evaluated a lot more than 1988).

'Isn't Anything' is a great album that tails away a bit towards the end. The first side (ie up to 'All I Need') is much more varied than the second. The last three tracks are nothing special.

Both albums could have been better if they'd used some of the tracks stuck on the EPs instead.

And yes, I can only add my voice to sensible others, by saying to the thread's title: Why strip away from the production? Records are produced; production is a damn important element of a lot of music.

Bump.

I think the last Loop album does what everyone says Loveless does.

I bumped this cos I listened to the Lost In Translation OST the other day, and was left wondering wtf people were excited about a new MBV record for; the new Shields tracks on it were quite pleasant, but totally... passe, and unexciting. Melodically he's sub-Coldplay and rhythmically, well. Boredoms took him (/ his aesthetic) to task and added verve and power. Take away the delicious shimmer from Loveless and they've not got the songs or rhythms of Ride, even. But that's cos Loz could drum. In a manner.

I'm left wondering why the "sky filled with roaring jet engines" thing is seen as at all good in 2008. It's been done. All those super-mental metal bands and noize dudes have done it. Got a nice sugary melody underneath? Is that enough?

for the original question, maybe a cranes record?

The Ramones!

judging from the interviews i've read, mr shields seems to feel like pushing new boundaries is important, so i'm hoping that part of the reason why he feels like doing a new MBV album is that he's got some new ideas to explore. would imagine that it will still have some of the whooshing guitar noisery that MBV is known for but it will be set in a different context than loveless. i wouldn't mind hearing something more around the 'isn't anything' style, with the bass and drums carrying more weight, but perhaps they'll just sound like a more sugary version of the deftones ;)

Umm there are good songs in there.

I could prove this by recording myself playing the basic chords/melodies in lame open-mic acoustic-guitar style, but that would be slightly more dorky and time-consuming than it's worth to make this point.

But you'd be a hit on YouTube.

Dream big, Nabisco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjh7X7QCgTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NGnN7Yx69o

I should have brought headphones -- want to hear those.

Seriously, though, there are really strong, conventional pop melodies running through all of these songs! "What You Want" and "When You Sleep" in particular ... the melodies might roll out a little slower and more languidly than they might in a power-pop song or whatever, but they're very plainly right there.

can we have this kind of argument about afx SAW2 instead

Sure!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4hQG-XTVa4

Whoops wrong album. Anyway.

A ton of avant/classical / New Music ensembles have done Aphex arrangements: he seems like one of the top 3 go-to "pop" guys for showing off your modernity. (See also Radiohead, Sigur Ros)

thank you nabisco for providing a new yardstick for determining unlistenable ambient preciousness without having to listen to it first

Those YouTubes make me want to hear Iron & Wine covering MBV.

Kevin Shields is an incredible pop song writer, OTM to Nabisco about the longer developing melodies and apples to oranges to Nick about the Boredoms comparison. Also, Ride songs, pleasant as they are, just aren't as catchy or beautiful in terms of melody (they're pretty predictable actually).

I'm really not sure about how the Boredoms adding "verve and power" is necessarily a good thing. It's certainly more masculine, but the whole point of MBV is how the noise (shimmering and/or brutal) emphasizes and destabilizes the beautiful melodies. Boredoms I think are more on the psychedelic freak out side of things.

Anyway back to the noise (MBV live in Boston 1989).

I really don't get comparing Boredoms to MBV. Later Boredoms = early Orbital (as a live band)

thank you nabisco for providing a new yardstick for determining unlistenable ambient preciousness without having to listen to it first

Yes, but Tim Reynolds' version of "Come To Daddy" KICKS ASS.

Strip away the heaviness and speed on Reign In Blood and you are left with...

Bright Eyes.

this is a huge exercise in missing the point and claiming that 'aaaaaah but kevin shields is a "songwriting genius"' plays into the idiots' hands.

though nick is obviously otm re who gives a fuck about a new mbv record

Agree w/nabisco and Spencer. I've always thought that many of the songs around the time of Loveless would sound great stripped-down. Very very pretty chord changes, melodies.

This record is sounding great today played very loud in such amazing spring-on weather, also...

I'm left wondering why the "sky filled with roaring jet engines" thing is seen as at all good in 2008. It's been done. All those super-mental metal bands and noize dudes have done it.

^ RFI

Kids today, no respect for their elders...*coughs, leans on cane, dies*

It's a contextual and temporal thing, and it's not to say that you wouldn't understand, merely that your own examples and comparison points are going to be subject to similar sentiments from future listeners. That's kinda the whole point. (And it's a good thing, if you ask me.)

I wouldn't say Shields is a genius songwriter; I would say he's a pretty good one, with pretty good melodies. The main songwriting strength with this stuff is that it's really well integrated with the sound. Some of the shoegazer bands that were considered "lesser" than MBV seemed to write and record conventional pop songs, then layer them up with lots of swoony noises; one reason MBV were considered more of a flagship (apart from timing) was the way they avoided that. The melodies and song structures around Loveless have the same languid, woozy feeling that the sound and production are working on -- you could "strip away the production" and that would still be there in the content, which is a large part of what works about it.

As a side-note, this stuff is also integrated into the playing: it's not as if they're playing layers and layers of conventional guitar parts and then running them through racks and racks of effects. Most of the gnarly / woozy noises are a result of Shields bending the bridge of the guitar in and out of tune. The fact that it's that way from the source probably explains a lot of why everything from there up is so well integrated into the overall sound and feel.

I'd say the lyrics are abstract and formal (although there are clear do's and don'ts to his vocabulary which belie that a bit), but the melodies *are* really wonderful, and the way they work with the sound is what makes MBV transcendent.

I'd say the main support for my theory comes from the fact that there hasn't really been another or a replacement MBV - there is no genius melody writer doing the same thing with noise. And Ned, I'd say it's less temporal or contextual because there are plenty of bands attempting it and I'm still waiting patiently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcJrPQwaH8

I'm a big Wolf Eyes fan, especially live. One of the finest loudest live bands I've ever seen.

But "You Made Me Realise" live would wipe the floor with Wolf Eyes, period. Volume, sick feeling thereof, etc. Nothing has come even close to "YMMR" live on an experimental/difficult/noise/whatever context. I know both exist in different contexts obviously, but if we're going to bring it up here, well you know...

And Ned, I'd say it's less temporal or contextual because there are plenty of bands attempting it and I'm still waiting patiently.

But at this point I'm not waiting patiently -- or rather, I'm not waiting at all. I think it's more important to be open for something on a different level -- it's hard for me to find the words for this right now, for whatever reason, but the idea of the specific requirement you're asking after ('genius melody writer doing the same thing with noise') is far too limiting to my mind. I wouldn't mind that in the specific but I don't necessarily want or need that in the specific as well -- it's *too* specific, it reduces rather opens up.

Hmm, to be more specific, I'm waiting for something that affects me as much. The things that have come close since are actually The Avalanches and Daft Punk - i.e. it's not like something has to follow the template (even though I think that beautiful melodies and abstract textures is not really sooooo specific).

strip away the production on loveless and you are left with a bunch of nerdy thirty-somethings arguing.

Well DUH, Ian.

x-post -- Okay, right, that's exactly what I'm talking about as well -- affect rather than particular sonic qualities or, as you say, a template. (The 'beautiful melodies/abstract textures' might not seem so specific but I think it carries too much potential baggage to rely on, and sets up an implied level of expectation. In simplistic terms perhaps but: it spoils a potential surprise by not allowing you to *hear* that surprise, if you're looking for something else.)

True, I guess for me it's more than even a genre ("rock" itself is song + noise to a degree). I also feel that there's not only unfinished business along a Mary Chain to MBV line, but also 15 years of technology to play with!

.......some good tunes, maybe? Dunno, as it has been impossible to hear them under that wall of guitars.

MBV without Loveless production largely sounds like Isn't Anything, as others have mentioned, although a few songs ("Lose My Breath") veer into Loveless territory. And if they would have continued on in the Isn't Anything vein without going into the swirly phwooooshscapes, they still would have been one of the best bands ever. "Lose My Breath" is a good example of a MBV song that would still sound great with or without the blissed-out production.

aren't we glad Nick bumped this now?