Does anyone REALLY like My Bloody Valentine?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (308 of them)

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 (seventeen years ago) link

swervedrive is SO much better...

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

The truth comes out!

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

worst thread evah

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

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

"- 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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

The genius of this album can never be overstated.

FACT

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

MBV wishes.

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Does anyone REALLY REALLY REALLY like My Bloody Valentine?

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

xpost by the way.

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 208 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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