Well "Only Shallow"'s vocal melody is there but played by a cello.
― Trayce, Thursday, 23 August 2007 08:53 (sixteen years ago) link
classic. not dud.
― Shin Oliva Suzuki, Thursday, 23 August 2007 21:59 (sixteen years ago) link
can't we just combine all the MBV threads into one thread and then make it its own board?
― Jordan Sargent, Thursday, 23 August 2007 22:04 (sixteen years ago) link
oh hay look japancakes are going to do a thing.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 26 October 2007 13:52 (sixteen years ago) link
i bought a big muff and now im going to make my guitar glow
― trashthumb, Friday, 26 October 2007 13:56 (sixteen years ago) link
I heard Loveless after hearing m83 and fennesz, who are often referenced as influenced by and aesthetically similar, but it's not even about the thick noisy sound to me. It has a character I can't place, that's probably what I love about it.
― trashthumb, Friday, 26 October 2007 14:15 (sixteen years ago) link
is there much diff about the second disc of the remastered edition?
― titchyschneiderMk2, Sunday, 8 June 2008 21:53 (fifteen years ago) link
Just how important is this album, in terms of wider cultural effect? Does the average man in the street know about this in the way that he might know about Dark Side Of The Moon or OK Computer? How many copies did it sell?
Basically, what I mean is, does anyone other than indie geeks give a shit about the remaster / reformation?
― Scik Mouthy, Friday, 27 June 2008 08:46 (fifteen years ago) link
Does the average man in the street know about this in the way that he might know about Dark Side Of The Moon or OK Computer?
No.
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 08:54 (fifteen years ago) link
I don't think MBV as a name has that much 'presence' outside indie geeks. Pretty sure that at the 9 gigs there'll be more fans going to more than one gig (and a lot of them will only be travelling because they thought they couldn't get tickets to their nearest gig, as discussed on the 'return of mbv' thread) rather than people who are just curious as to what it'll be like. Maybe after the festival gigs it'll open up to people who hadn't heard of them before, but then again they're playing Bestival.
― Bocken Social Scene, Friday, 27 June 2008 09:01 (fifteen years ago) link
it'd be interesting to know how many copies they sold as against, say, the strokes' debut. the idea of someone buying that today wwould be kinda o_O but MBV have never not been cred.
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 09:05 (fifteen years ago) link
When I told people at work I was going to see MBV this week they thought I meant Bullet For My Valentine, these are mostly people who listen to corporate indie/nu-metal/emo stuff so you'd think they'd at least be aware of them, but only one guy even knew who they were.
― Colonel Poo, Friday, 27 June 2008 09:11 (fifteen years ago) link
Interestingly enough, I listened to The Stokes' debut at the weekend and it was fucking great.
― Scik Mouthy, Friday, 27 June 2008 10:24 (fifteen years ago) link
never liked it
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 10:28 (fifteen years ago) link
There's a right time/right place element to Loveless; it crowned a genre critics treated cruelly, and which had performed terribly as full-lengths go. If "Soon" weren't rushed out on Glider, and saved for a lead single, Loveless would have crossed-over more. But even then I think you're talking about Pills n' Thrills / The Stone Roses levels of (market) success.
Loveless is one of pop music's Fabergé eggs. Fawned over, fondled, breathtakingly beautiful - even to casual observers - but essentially useless, and therefore easily forgotten by most. It is adored and worshiped by an exclusive, blindly devoted class who would miss a meal to behold it one more time.
― cee-oh-tee-tee, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:02 (fifteen years ago) link
Absolutely not.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 27 June 2008 14:08 (fifteen years ago) link
i think 'pills and thrills' did ok, sales-wise. the singles were hits.
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:09 (fifteen years ago) link
I think The Stone Roses might have sold a few copies as well.
― Colonel Poo, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:10 (fifteen years ago) link
Just saying those are better reference points for what it could have done in a best-case scenario than Dark Side of the Moon (Jesus) or OK Computer.
― cee-oh-tee-tee, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:12 (fifteen years ago) link
it's more like husker du, pixies, all that stuff that got as big as it could get, but could not have got any bigger. there wasn't anything to stop the stone roses or happy mondays (except themselves, their labels, etc) whereas i don't think mbv could ever have been a success.
― banriquit, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:15 (fifteen years ago) link
That's it, banri.
― cee-oh-tee-tee, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:19 (fifteen years ago) link
UK Top Ten Best Selling Albums Of 1991: 1 Simply Red Stars 2 Eurythmics Greatest Hits 3 Queen Greatest Hits II 4 Michael Jackson Dangerous 5 Tina Turner Simply The Best 6 R.E.M. Out Of Time 7 Michael Bolton Time Love And Tenderness 8 Madonna The Immaculate Collection 9 Paul Young From Time To Time - The Singles Collection 10 Cher Love Hurts
― Dingbod Kesterson, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:26 (fifteen years ago) link
If "Soon" weren't rushed out on Glider
"Rushed out" - ha ha. It was already 18 months since they'd released anything at that point, so Glider seemed terribly late. Of course they redefined "hiatus" after Loveless but, at the time, in the week-by-week scrutiny of the inkies, not to release anything during 1989 seemed a hell of a long break.
― Michael Jones, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:39 (fifteen years ago) link
The general thing here is "quality not quantity" and exponential sales curves and associated gradual influence of records with cult followings rather than the passing fancies of the day. It'll go platinum circa 2021, I reckon.
― Dingbod Kesterson, Friday, 27 June 2008 14:43 (fifteen years ago) link
MBV are really just the Irish Daniel Johnston
― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 27 June 2008 15:05 (fifteen years ago) link
Except they're not, are they?
― Dingbod Kesterson, Friday, 27 June 2008 15:06 (fifteen years ago) link
wait, what's ok computer?
― cryfok, Friday, 27 June 2008 19:44 (fifteen years ago) link
it's more like husker du, pixies, all that stuff that got as big as it could get, but could not have got any bigger.
you mean before the 2004-05 Pixies reunion tour?
― stephen, Saturday, 28 June 2008 03:09 (fifteen years ago) link
Not even every indie geek likes them. Ned aside I don't think I've ever met anyone who really cares about them.
― Niles Caulder, Saturday, 28 June 2008 05:41 (fifteen years ago) link
...we obviously haven't met.
― stephen, Saturday, 28 June 2008 06:28 (fifteen years ago) link
Here in the U.S., I'm not sure I've met a single casual music fan (has 200 CDs or fewer, buys 10 or so a year) who has even heard of them. Comparing them to Pink Floyd, come on.
― Mark Rich@rdson, Sunday, 29 June 2008 04:15 (fifteen years ago) link
Er, I consider myself a "serious" music fan and I don't think I EVEN own 200 CDs. The total number of albums I have owned, including CDs mp3 downloads, vinyl, and cassettes, is possibly even less than 200. Then again, I'm young, in college, and penniless, etc.
― telepathy_rock!, Sunday, 29 June 2008 17:41 (fifteen years ago) link
Loveless is pretty good, BTW
― telepathy_rock!, Sunday, 29 June 2008 17:42 (fifteen years ago) link
Boringly obvious. It's a fucking classic. And so was' Isn't anything'
I'm a tea drinking Britisher who loves mainly septic music but this crazy gang have never been surpassed by any US offerings. Swirlies, Lilys tried. Decent efforts but no cigar.
Sorry I'm still stuck in '88.
Come on Spain.
― Fer Ark, Sunday, 29 June 2008 20:08 (fifteen years ago) link
a i didt even care about this record when it came out, it was all about ride back then for me
― X-101, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 15:11 (fifteen years ago) link
Hi Alan!
― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 15:19 (fifteen years ago) link
-- Mark Rich@rdson, Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:15 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link
^^^so true
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 15:22 (fifteen years ago) link
It's like, "Is "Treasure" regarded as a classic up there with "Appetite for Destruction"?" or something
― Niles Caulder, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 07:23 (fifteen years ago) link
Classic, but not THAT classic. I like a lot of Shoegaze better TBH. I remember listening to it for the first time and saying wow! When I finally bought it I thought "it's alright". Unfortunately I can't listen to it now without thinking of Smashing Pumpkins.
― daavid, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 07:56 (fifteen years ago) link
the best part is the sample of James MacMillan's Brittania between "What You Want" and "Soon"
― a good ole fashion ass whoopin, wow (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 28 January 2009 23:27 (fifteen years ago) link
Happy twentieth birthday!
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 November 2011 16:36 (twelve years ago) link
Remember Remember the 5th of November.
― EZ Snappin, Friday, 4 November 2011 16:45 (twelve years ago) link
Gunpowder treason and drone
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 November 2011 16:49 (twelve years ago) link
if you put a comma between those first two you get a Manic's album title.
― EZ Snappin, Friday, 4 November 2011 16:54 (twelve years ago) link
Anyway, the Japanese tribute album Yellow Loveless is out. And yeah I already had things to say about Boris's 'Sometimes.'
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 26 January 2013 21:31 (eleven years ago) link
after reading this and the Joy Division: Classic or Dud thread, I think this board is not for me.
Japancakes cover album is brilliant. It really illuminates the structure of the music
― dojo, Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:17 (eleven years ago) link
whenever someone says "I prefer other Shoegaze" I just have to shake my head. Loveless is no more shoegaze than Pet Sounds is doo wop. it transcends the genre and attains a completely unique status. it's a work of art, you know. I just feel the need to draw a distinction between a "band" who plays "shoegaze rock" and My Bloody Valentine, which is a carefully considered and labored "work of art"
― dojo, Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:22 (eleven years ago) link
do jo swells
― buzza, Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:24 (eleven years ago) link
I write that fully aware of those lurking bastards who will come out of the dark for a quick jab at the newcomer: "look at this clown calling something a 'work of art.' how pretentious!" I don't care, I stand by it, the signification and all that bullshit that comes creeping out of the word "art" - thought, weighed, considered, constructed. work. solidified. elevated. I don't even know what I'm saying.
I can always profess my love for Loveless. it's a mystifying piece of music. sure, there are other "spiritual" albums that can take you to a different plane of consciousness or dream reality. I know that, it's just that Loveless, beyond that aspect, also performs on many other levels. it's a great pop record, it's a marvelous production, it's a drone album, it's experimental (Rhys Chatham style drone), it's inspired by Indian mantras and Buddhist cosmic realms (in my opinion). It's noisier than Brainbombs or Swans. It's louder and more abstract and furious than some free jazz. All while being delicate, loving, and soft. Open, composed. I mean, Slowdive and all those bands totally miss that aspect. And it's not surprising.
As much as we want music to all just be "rock" and "bands," I don't think it should instantly be considered "pretentious" to say some things are a little more meaningful (to us as individuals, at least). For me, Ride wrote some pretty beautiful music. But musically, the drone aspects and chord changes of MBV, and the production, turn it into a unique artifact that will never, ever be replicated. It's the sound of the stars, or something. Maybe I am an idiot, well, actually I am, we all are. I just feel this way.
― dojo, Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:34 (eleven years ago) link
I write that fully aware of those lurking bastards who will come out of the dark for a quick jab at the newcomer: "look at this clown calling something a 'work of art.' how pretentious!" I don't care, I stand by it
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/300px-Tianasquare.jpg
― pull up to the shrink with my feelings missing (m bison), Sunday, 27 January 2013 01:07 (eleven years ago) link