Loveless: Classic or Not That Classic

That is throwaway nonsense.

in a recent interview, the interviewer referred to it as something like 'their wannabe birthday party' record and kevin shields seemed to agree w/ that. it was the interview on buddyhead.com. i can hear the cramps in it, also. they had a different singer named dave conway back then...have to say that i'm not a big fan of his vocal style.

Well, it just seems a bit thin and a bit of a drag in the middle now. It's entirely possible I heard it too many times half a lifetime ago.

As I posted over on the Japancakes thread, this is forthcoming:

JAPANCAKES - Loveless CD (Darla: DRL188: 708527018828) $12.00

EXCLUSIVE. Athens, GA's experimental, instrumental, Americana group, Japancakes cover My Bloody Valentine's classic Loveless record from start to finish with pedal steel and cello in place of vocal and lead melodies -- and without any distortion. MBV’s Loveless (Creation: 1991) remains the defining record of the genre and completely unparalleled by any artist since. This is super fun! Japancakes don't record together like other bands. They do play together but when they record in studio they do so one at a time. Each player writes their own part and adds it to the part(s) recorded previously by fellow band members. The result of this practice is that the personality of each individual player is often better captured. Each player's individual performance is strengthened by the technique. Japancakes is Eric Berg, rhythm guitar, Nick Belli, bass, Brant Rackey, drums, John Neff, pedal steel, Heather McIntosh, cello, Andy Barker, production.

And turns out there's a brief mp3 clip up for "Only Shallow," so there ya go.

I wonder where skot got those lyrics from? Most MBV lyric attempts I've seen are riddled with gaps and ??? here and there and never quite seem like theyre right (similarly cocteaus lyric fansites).

Hey that Japancakes stuff is really good! I was sad there is no singing on it though :( But its beautifully done.

no singing on it?

Right, let's get a copy and let's get some singahs!

Well "Only Shallow"'s vocal melody is there but played by a cello.

classic. not dud.

can't we just combine all the MBV threads into one thread and then make it its own board?

oh hay look japancakes are going to do a thing.

i bought a big muff and now im going to make my guitar glow

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.

is there much diff about the second disc of the remastered edition?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interestingly enough, I listened to The Stokes' debut at the weekend and it was fucking great.

never liked it

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.

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?

Absolutely not.

i think 'pills and thrills' did ok, sales-wise. the singles were hits.

I think The Stone Roses might have sold a few copies as well.

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.

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.

That's it, banri.

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

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.

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.

MBV are really just the Irish Daniel Johnston

Except they're not, are they?

wait, what's ok computer?

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?

Not even every indie geek likes them. Ned aside I don't think I've ever met anyone who really cares about them.

...we obviously haven't met.

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.

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.

Loveless is pretty good, BTW

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.

a i didt even care about this record when it came out, it was all about ride back then for me

Hi Alan!

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, June 29, 2008 4:15 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

^^^so true

It's like, "Is "Treasure" regarded as a classic up there with "Appetite for Destruction"?" or something

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.

the best part is the sample of James MacMillan's Brittania between "What You Want" and "Soon"

Happy twentieth birthday!