Shoegazing : Great or Evil?

That said, in terms of the proper "shoegazing" scene (ala guitar-wash heavy "dream pop"), I'd suggest the obvious ones: Lush and Ride and Slowdive.

I'd cite the Cocteau Twins, but they were far more than simply a "shoegazer" act.

See also Moose, Revolver, Chapterhouse, Curve

My Bloody Valentine - Loveless
Slowdive - Souvlaki
Boo Radleys - Everything's Alright Forever
Swirlies - They Spent Their Wild Youthful Days etc.
Ride - Nowhere
Medicine - Shot Forth Self Living
Kitchens of Distinction - The Death of Cool

I agree with most of the band picks here. I also recommend "Complete Recordings" by the Black Tambourine (which I suppose you could classify as twee-shoegazing).

It's mostly evil. "Beautiful pop songs" = "adequate rock songs". "Waves of distortion etc etc" = "New Age for post-punkers". Occasionally the formula worked, sometimes the sounds were pretty, but mostly it gets an 'eh' from me.

Anyone think 14 Iced Bears could classify as shoegaze, or do we need recourse to the broader genre of 'dreampop'?

This kind of thing makes me feel like people who complain about Simon Reynolds' dance genres...

1 out of 5 ain't bad.

??? Rhythm is certainly important to MBV, Lush and The Catherine Wheel.

The difficult thing is that there's a very thin line where shoegazing simply falls apart. The best bands in the genre were all sort of "constructive" shoegazers, which is to say that they structured and performed their songs in the style as opposed to just arranging them that way; despite much talk about all the "layers" and "studio trickery" of Loveless, a lot of it really was down to the band actually playing it that way. Bands that made this form and function connection did wonderfully. But it didn't take very long for that to get lost, leaving us with a lot of bands playing what Tom describes: passable rock songs with a roomful of effects pedals ostensibly making them "spacy." That trick worked exactly once, with some of the early Lush tracks.

Anyway, to elucidate a bit further, great great great, I could talk about all the spinoffs and new bands and why the Peter Parkers are completely fucking godlike 'gaze for a new millennium and why the Pale Saints are the secretly inventive gods of the whole time (at least while Ian Masters was in the band and they were doing all those wonderfully weird rhythms) and etc. There is room for people to love Andrew WK in this world = there is room to love the gaze stuff, surely. ;-)

Many rock, hip hop, and electronic acts, as well as other music, did in the end of the 90s make a point out of stripping their music of beauty. The same can be said of other forms of art besides music. S. on the other hand goes in the opposite direction, thus the scorn in the music press.

One can analyse and dissect S., the recording techniques, styles of playing, harmonic scales used or lyrical themes. S. does however keep the keys to its secret. It remains an unwreckable entity and a dwelling for those sensitive to its inner being - regardless of class, sex, colour... and other reasons strange people might find to put you down because of. S.

And it's damned good (again from Clairecords).

i) Why is it a good idea to make pop songs and then perform/record them so that the vocals are buried and it's hard to hear the words? Regardless of what else is going on in the mix, sound- or texture-wise.

ii) Many musicians in various genres have also explored and are exploring the concepts of drone, texture, dense washes of sound, etc, often in greater depth than shoegaze bands I've heard. Do you see it as something special or as an improvement when these effects are affixed to pop songs with standard structure? If so, why?

A guess: The vocals were not deliberately buried but ended up that way as an inevitable by-product of getting the layers of guitar noise so intense and in the foreground. Normally it works in reverse - people want the vocals to come through so they may be forced to take the edge off the tone of the guitar (or other mid range instruments), or simply to reduce their volume. Basically guitars and voices are competing for the mid-range.

So is it not a fundamental characteristic of shoegaze to bury vocals then? It was always presented that way to me. In that case why do the vocals usually end up sounding more buried than on the noisiest tracks by Hendrix or Sonic Youth or the Velvets or the Mary Chain?

It's a standard technique in rock to slacken off the guitar (either in the mix and/or by subtly changing what is played) when someone's singing. You can definitely hear that with Hendrix. Perhaps some of the artists being discussed just kept it cranked up all the way through and it became a style in itself - so semi-deliberate as well as inevitable. Oh and another thing is the shoegazer bands had a lot of reverb on the voice which would further reduce its intelligibilty.

Also, if the important thing is that the guitars and noise are in the foreground, is it important to have vocals at all? To have lyrics?

Regarding your other questions, why don't you just ask Monet: Hey, Claude, why can't you, like, paint clear and well-defined images? Either that or why don't you just go all the way abstract and do blobs and colorscapes? There are artists out there, after all, who explore visual distortion in much more depth and to much greater extent than you do.

BTW David, thanks for your patient replies on this and the other thread.

Also, in the depth of obscurity one can find bands, who I think must be considered of this genre (as there would be no other to hold them due to their distinct shoegazer sound, even if they were/are experimenting with different tecniques from the major exponents of the scene), who explore structures different than those commonly used in pop. Others have pushed the vocals a bit front so the lyrics are quite audible.

I've recently gained a new appreciation for the Cocteau Twins because the singer ACTUALLY sings gibberish, so you're not really missing anything by not telling what the words are.

Mick Jagger said in an interview that the Stones would mix up lyrics he was proud of, mix down lyrics he wasn't. I still think that's to credit for most issues re: vocals.

Ah, that was the NME. I used to have a poster of that on my wall, all four members covered in body paint. I remember this as I was sorting through some old photos a few days ago and there were a few snaps of me in my old bedroom and there it was on the wall above my old desk (next to a New Order 'Low-Life' poster).
Posters. I remember them.

Of the genre, all I know is Loveless, which I like a good bit, but don't listen to very often.

What matters more, artist intent or listener desire? (I admit I'm all for the latter through and through.)

If it makes you feel better to be able to rationalize it like that, though, Anthony, well that's just peachy. ;-)

I dunno, Clarke. Robert Christgau makes a good point about the idea of listening to indie as world music. It's not gibberish, it's just a language you don't know. You may be right, though, I may well be a true Rationalissimo.

That's new to me. Can you point me somewhere or synopsize?

Sorry, Anthony, you lost me after that one...

This needs to be a song lyric.

Sorry, Anthony, you lost me after that one...

It would have been lost even quicker if the reference had been 'Robert Hilburn,' so give thanks instead.