Taking Sides: isn't anything vs loveless

personally, i prefer the pre-creation sunny sundae smile era. i'm serious.

ISN'T ANYTHING in a hearbeat. The sounds/production are much more vaired, the songs are stronger and more interestingly constructed. The only reason there was so much hype for LOVELESS was because ISN'T ANYTHING was so amazing. LOVELESS turned out great, so people said that's the one to get. Another case of music people patting themselves on the shoulder because they predicted something would be good and it was. I love both records but there is no question which one is better. I probablly listen to ISN'T ANYTHING 10 times for every 1 LOVELESS listen.

Sueisfine.

Both excellent, of course. But one has "Soon" and the other does not, and that means everything in the world to me. It's not so much 'patting self on back,' Tim, as it is acknowledging the one song that so completely and totally floored me on first listen that any other experience since has yet to touch it. Don't question me. ;-)

Loveless. To give the short answer.

It sure was short.

Ned, I was talking more about music journalists patting themselves on the back rather than just listeners. I've always thought it strange that LOVELESS is continually pointed to as an instance where the music press jumped full force on something early and it turned out that they were right. OUt of the billions of bands that various writers/magazines have touted early in their career hoping that "they were there when", LOVELESS is one of the few successes. So much so that they're trying to make you forget about that feature story they ran on alt-rock end alls Live. Its not like it was even that great of a call. Y'know, its like saying, "The next Pixies album is gonna be a classic." Well, duh, given their track record.

Anyway, I too was floored when I heard 'Soon'. When I saw them play it live, I thought I was gonna unload in my pants. But it doesn't carry the whole album for me.

Isn't Anything I love less than Loveless, which isn't anything like the other crap that was around at the time.

Isn't Anything was great, to be sure, but pound for pound it didn't have the impact that Loveless did on me. When I first got Loveless, it was such a devlopment in terms of the sonics that I thought that I had received a defective pressing of the album. Parts of it literally sounded to me like they had punched the whole in the wrong place, and it was spinning slightly off-center. (The fact that I was listening to a CD at the time didn't deter me from thinking there was a problem...maybe stretchy tape or something.) The album just sounded WRONG. But then I went back and listened again. And again. And again. The divebombing guitars were disorienting at first, but then they just became sublime. Not to mention the fact that MBV made it seem natural that guitars could be both blisteringingly loud, but gentle and soothing at the same time. It's ten years now, and Loveless is still my favourite album.

"Isn't Anything" wins. Partly because it comes first, but also because it's better. Amazinlgy innovative stuff done with a guitar- bass-drums line-up is far more impressive than something similar created with samplers. Aslo, by the time "Loveless" was released we already knew 'Soon' and 'To Hear Knows When' from the Glider & Tremelo e.p.s, so it was like they were thrown on as padding.

Hmm...as a general question, why *can't* samplers equal what's done with guitars/drums/bass? Are you saying just in MBV's case or just in general? Me, I don't care *what* produces it, I care what it sounds like.

Hmm...as a general question, why *can't* samplers equal what's done with guitars/drums/bass? Are you saying just in MBV's case or in general? Me, I don't care *what* produces it, I care what it sounds like.

*hiccup* Excuse me.

It would have to be Loveless since I find myself putting it on more often then Isn't Anything

I would have thought the advance hype around _Loveless_ was a result of the preceding singles, which developed the sound of _Isn't Anything_ significantly to the point that it was clear that the next album wouldn't simply be a re-run of the same idea. I tend to like both albums fairly equally (giving _Loveless_ a slight edge, maybe), though there's a couple of songs on _Isn't Anything_ I'd replace with some of the b-sides of the era.

Isn't Anything wins in the punk/rock category. Loveless wins in the pop category.

If it's ground breaking you want, Isn't Anything wins. I agree that Loveless just added synths and more studio tricks to the sound, but Kevin Shields couldn't have done the first track off Loveless, which is positively incredible, or Soon, without the massive amount of equipment.

I kept all the EPs instead, am I missing something?

Ah I've been waiting for this one. My take:

Loveless.

Why? Because it goes farther out. 'Isn't Anything' is of course very good but has some weak spots. Also listening to it recently I noticed that it still is pretty conventional guitar rock. There's still definintion of conventional song-stuctures, lyrics, riffs (how fuzzy they get sometimes). I liked the suggestion someone did here on ILM of 'Isn't Anything' as a 'Let's get it on' for indie kids (a good thing btw since I picture Ideal indie kids as pre-Raphaelite beauties - okay reality is a complete different thing I know ;)

Anyway, Loveless loses that definition and becomes something truely amazing. I still would call it an album about love, but a colder, inhuman love. The love of planets, the attraction of atoms, stars going supernova. That sorta thing. Quite unusual for a record to give off that feeling/intensity which is the reason Loveless wins.

when i first saw this thread, i thought it said 'taking sides: anything vs. loveless' and figured ned had finally gone off his rocker and pitted 'loveless' against not only all recorded music, but anything in existance.

I've never really even liked Isn't Anything much. The whole album sounds like it's about to throw up. Have to give it to Loveless. But K-Reg is right and the EPs are better - small doses of this stuff please. Also the *covers* of the EPs are loads better - Glider's gorgeous snog whiteout for instance.

I do love Isn't Anything but I'm frankly astounded that anyone would seriously argue that Loveless was more of the same with added synths and sampling technology. On Isn't Anything MBV still sound like a four piece rock band letting loose in the studio. The production's pretty thin and there's very little layering of sound. On Loveless they're this dense mass of layered noise which sounded like nothing else on earth when it came out. I'm still finding new things on it and it's been nearly a decade since I first heard it.

So, yeah, Loveless it is. I might not love it quite as much as Ned does but it's certainly one of the handful of records that I'd take to that old desert island with me.

I adore both records, and for me they're among the most significant of their era. I've often thought in the past that I wouldn't be able to choose between them: they're both so wonderful, yet so different. But I came to think that isn't anything had to get the prize.

I agree with everyone who has said, in different ways, that Loveless is an astonishing sonic bath: a galazy of colour: an immersion in the music of the spheres or the mysteries of the heart. It is a magnificent, staggering achievement, and has a more *transformative* effect on me than most other records I can think of.

Yet isn't anything has more energy - is more diverse - seems to trying out many ideas, rather than perfecting one. It's almost equally strange and moving, in different ways. If I flip through the CD of ia I am repeatedly amazed by how distinctive, how memorable, how striking the mere opening seconds of each track are. Maybe 'All I Need' is best of all. But then there's the instrumental section of 'Feed Me With Your Kiss' (I think - I tend to mix up these songs; perhaps it's another title). Just one astounding musical adventure after another. It's hard to choose, but I think isn't anything just wins out.

Ha! Congrats, Ethan, that gave me a good laugh to start off the morning. Give me forty years and I probably *will* start acting that way. And won't everyone in the retirement community love me for it.

Back to something Ned said earlier regarding samplers and guitars... it's an emotional reaction on my part, I think. Also, "Isn't Anything" sounds guitary whereas "Loveless" sounds sampley. So they sound different even if you are indifferent to the means of production.

I would disagree, actually. Both records sound to my ears 'organic,' however loaded that particular word is. That the one employees generally steadier beats than the other doesn't to my mind make it any less of an experience, and I don't hear it that way. _Loveless_ may be a Frankenstein's monster of a record, but I can't detect the stitches.

Glider is a great EP. Between the two albums, I would give it to Loveless. There are just a few too many duds on Isn't Anything. Loveless wins out on its pure bliss out angle.

I fully disagree that ISNT ANYTHING was a "guitar-bass-drums" thing. Its certainly not that simple. From a technical standpoint, there is A LOT of studio-ization of the sounds. Its not just plug in, mic up and roll tape. It certainly doesn't sound like a band who pracitced their songs in a garage for a few months and then came in the stuido to lay them down. There are strings, synths, backwards instruments, and other odd sounds that dominate songs. They employ just as much technical wizardry as the songs on LOVELESS.

That said, the reason why I'd chose ISNT ANTHING is because there were more *varied* studio tricks used. Its true that LOVELESS created a pretty awesome soundscape, but it beat you to death with it with every freakin' song. ISNT ANYTHING is just as crafty, but much more diverse. It sounds just as sheen and has the same analog/digital juxtaposition of sounds that LOVELESS has.

News just in. Ultimate undisputed sublime genre-defying album of the 90s discovered. 69 LOVELESS SONGS.

Frightening thought, that. Maybe.

'Isn't Anything' for me. 'Loveless'is great, but 'Isn't Anything' is truly sublime, a heavenly rush, genius.

The drumming on Isn't Anything is superb. I listen to Isn't Anything and Strawberry Wine more than I listen to Loveless (which I like as well). I dunno, there's something harsh about the production of Loveless- I think my ears are going.

now, the 4 ep's together might easily rival _loveless_. however, _isn't anything_ does not. ks's vocals are sometimes embarrassing (e.g. on "soft as snow" and "cupid come") and there's too much cute indie-pop that reminds me of eric's trip. for non-canadians who've never heard eric's trip, count yourselves lucky. then, i haven't listened in three or four years so my opinion might change.

My Bloody Valentine have drums ???

patrick: they did. listen to _you made me realise_.

It suddenly occurs to me, what you really want by MBV are the e.p.s, particularly 'You Made Me Realise', a five track monster with the title track, 'Slow', 'Cigarette in my bed' and some other tracks, none of which appear on the albums. This was back when indie bands released >= 4 track e.p.s as a matter of course. The other e.p.s ('Glider', 'Tremelo', & 'Feed Me With Your Kiss' ) are also a big bag of fun.

loveless, an easy call for me. i rarely listen to isn't anything. it's sort of a similar scenario to another group with incredible production: public enemy. i heard fear of a black planet first, and so when i listened to nation of millions, it just seemed very quiet and sparse and tame, though in time i've come to appreciate nation much more than i have isn't anything.

so, a question: of the ep tracks that haven't appeared on an lp, which are the best? besides "you made me realise" which i know and consider their best track ever.

It's a hard one to call, to be honest. Both had a very big effect on me at the first time of hearing, and I've played them both equally over the years but I'd have to push in the direction of "Isn't anything".

"IA" is just one of the most perfect albums ever made. The size and shape of it is quite unlike anything else. Let me explain (and I'm going to sound silly very soon). It's got twelve songs on it, and they arrive in perfect batches of three as far as I'm concerned, and each threesome is related to each other. Oh that sounds stupid. But that's just how it seems to me. As for 'is it electronic or not?' I read an interview recently which was saying that Kevin wanted all the guitars taken off a lot of the tracks on "IA" but to have the reverse reverb of the guitars instead, hence partly the swooning sound (also to do with the tremelo arms on the guitars). So it was ALL processed anyway. Anyway, back to my theory... Like all great albums, it gets darker towards the end, from "Sueisfine" onwards. It's just an album which begs to have the volume pumped up, and if I go deaf early it'll be down to having "IA" played at ear splitting volume on my walkman going to and from work. The last three songs are utterly sublime.

I f***ing love "IA", right?

And I f***ing love "Loveless" too, it's more of the same, more processed, less drunken (in a human way), and the songs are just as good, if not better, but I always felt it got a bit samey towards the end, after "Sometimes" it was a bit 'more of the same', and yes as someone has said "Soon" just doesn't fit in really. But I still love 'em both and play them (both would be amongst my ten most played albums of all time).

Hey, whatever happened to the Swirlies? Their rather spiffing "Blondertongueautobaton" LP was the logical followup to "Isn't anything"....

thank goodness there was no praise for dave conway here. yeah the swirlies make a big point saying they don't even own a copy of 'loveless' when all of the mbv comparisons are made but of course they sound like 'isn't anything' duh. they made another record called 'they spent their youth in the glittering world of salons' and it was fabulous, but then nothing but a bunch of home-recorded crap since. i prefer loveless, its seamlessness is the big appeal for me, it often puts me in a dreamy state when i listen to it, also the thrill of the first time hearing 'only shallow' rush out of the speakers is still in my head. insn't anything has a few dreary moments that tenc to make the album drag and i agree with the assessment that kevin can't sing i also think bilinda can't either i prefer when their vocals are heavily treated as they were on loveless.

Listening to "Loveless" inspired by this thread it started to sound a little thin and dated to me for the first time. I always remember finding a lot of the second half of "Isn't Anything" quite indifferent and even sloppy (in a bad sense), though, so "Loveless" it is, unquestionably. I probably rate both albums lower than I did four years ago, though "Loveless" has fallen from a greater height.

Rob M: I like your reading of the LP - the amount of close attention you've paid it. I pretty much agree. The eps are good, yes, but I think the LPs are richer.

Hey, Ned, maybe by the time you're arguing about Loveless in the retirement home, Kevin might be ready to release the followup.

Hmm..I was wondering, is anything pre-creation/isn't anything worth investigation?

I probably like loveless _slightly_ more, but that's probably because I heard it first. Both albums are fantastic. Loveless has an overall more cohesive sound: more of a consistent album sonically. I'm a big fan of that in albums. I agree with the people here who said that a few of the songs on Isn't Anything sound like basic indie rock (although very good basic indie rock). Nevertheless, the seeds for loveless were all present in Isn't Anything.

BUT: I read somewhere that, according to Shields himself, the UK version of Isn't Anything sounds MUCH different and MUCH better than the US version (the one I have) because of mixing or engineering or something. Can anyone back this up? I can't find this information anywhere on the net!!

I like to fuck to Loveless. So does my dog.

Me, I don't care *what* produces it, I care what it sounds like.

still the most OTM single sentence on ILM