Loveless: Classic or Not That Classic

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I could swear that we've done this before.. I distinctly remember someone saying that it sounded like their vacuum cleaner on reverse. But I went through the archives and couldn't find it. So I thought I'd post this before we got the top 10 list.

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

There was a Taking Sides: isn't anything vs loveless" thread a short while back.

Sean Carruthers, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

You mean it's supposed to sound like that!? I took my copy back to the shop and insisted on a refund "because it must have been transfered off a warped master or something".

Seriously, can anyone who has both the vinyl original and a cd version bought in the UK within the last year confirm that half the tracks on the cd are intended to sound like a 10th generation cassette copy of an early Ride album - that's got stuck in the tape machine - just before the tape snaps?

Scott, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I said on an earlier thread that it sounds like my vaccuum cleaner. Since then I've re-listened and yes, it still does, but I'm beginning to like it. I'm clearly spending too much time on ILM.

Dr. C, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that about sums it up.

I didn't like Loveless until last week, and I had had it for a year. It's a pretty good record, which the Smashing Pumpkins shamelessly cannibalized. But a few too many fluffy major seven chords for me, and only until I read the last thread did I realize that the singer was Kevin Shields. Christ he sounds like a girl. Anyways, I dig, but it's still been massively overhyped.

Dave M., Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Whoever told you the singer all the way through was Kevin Shields was misinformed. Vocals are split throughout the album between him and Bilinda Butcher, who is most definitely female. They often duet as well. On _Isn't Anything_ the division is rather more clear.

And there ain't nuthin' wrong with singing like a girl. :-)

Classic or not that classic? Oh, I *hate* it. Can't imagine *ever* liking it!

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

And there ain't nuthin' wrong with singing like a girl. :-)

Unless you're Stuart Murdoch, I assume, Ned?

I've heard some girls say that they like it if boys sing like girls, but they can't abide girls singing like girls. Which makes some kind of sense, in these crazy cross-dressing days of the big sexual crisis. That reminds me, did we ever find out where the hypersexualised environment was?

I've got Loveless on a tape somewhere. Must give it another listen sometime, seeing as it's the best album ever made and all.

Nick, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Unless you're Stuart Murdoch, I assume, Ned?

Stuart sings like a girl? I always thought he sounded like he was having intestinal difficulties. And I like Belle and Sebastian...

Nicole, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

No, that's just a case where Stuart Murdoch shouldn't sing at all.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I can't say I really like Loveless, sure it's a sonic departure...I prefer Slowdive.

james e l, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

It's like walking into a blindingly bright room and having the door slam behind you. My initial reaction was, what is this? is this it? I waited for my senses to adjust, tune in, recognise something, adapt to it. It's sensory overload, there's so much sound you can't hear anything; similar to being submerged, it's impossible to work out what water feels like when it's all over you skin. This analogy works, cause when I'm underwater I hear the sounds of my body, blood and pressure in my ears; when I listen to this album REALLY LOUD as you're 'supposed' to, I can feel the music through my body, it's sensuous, almost tactile. But even with the volume jacked up it's hard to distinguish anything, what's vocal, what's guitar, male or female, the tracks are swamped together. There are no edges, everything's blurred and diffused, quite unlike a wall of sound, where you can figure out where it's coming from and position yourself in relation to, this is constantly shifting, without noticable transitions. This is precisely why I like it, the disorientation is so alienating, that I feel the other extreme, intimacy.
Actually, I could talk about this all night, so I better stop. I'll tell you how I feel about my Hoover later.

K-reg, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

As I said in the earlier thread, I find it less classic than I used to. But, still, classic. Just not quite as much. That's all.

Robin Carmody, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

God, two shoegazer posts in one day; I'm beginning to like the way things are going on here quite a bit...

Anyway, this album is one of 'em that got me on the first listen, and I feel like I cannot praise it enough. It captures some of the most hard-to-describe emotions I have, and listening to it in a half-awake state is one of the most interesting sonic experiences of my life. Certain times, it can even make me feel physically ill, but not necessarily in a bad way at all. I get nervous and tense while I'm listening to it, because I know after it's over I'm going to have to go listen to something that I probably don't like quite as much. So yeah, beyond classic.

Clarke B., Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Supernatural!

Keiko, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I'm gonna give it another go and play it loud. maybe listening to it on headphones hasn't helped!

james e l, Wednesday, 16 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Make your mind up, kids! Back on the Taking Sides, Loveless v. Isn't Anything thread everyone was banging on about how great Loveless is. Now everyone hates it. You pop fans and your fickleness.

The Dirty Vicar, Sunday, 20 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

MBV were the greatest art band of the 90's without peers.Loveless was and is the greatest record of the last 30 years...

cockney red, Sunday, 20 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

look out, 1971!

ethan, Sunday, 20 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah - what was this 1971 record that was even greater than Loveless? You should tell Ned about it. Was it Chicory Tip's 'Son Of My Father'?

Nick, Sunday, 20 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Fuck no. It was _Electric Warrior_ by T. Rex. Now *THAT'S* an album.

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 20 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

It is strange that we're doing this one again. But again: yes, classic by millions of miles for me. But re. what one poster said: my vinyl copy of it seems to have lost it completely and become a weird sound-warp. Steady Mike was present when I discovered this, which made it OK.

the pinefox, Monday, 21 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Had a session with Loveless at high-ish volume this weekend after playing the thing about 3 times in the last 8 years. Whilst I'm still not saying it's a total classic (yet), I have to say that "Only Shallow" "When You Sleep" and especially "Come in Alone" are probably the most beautiful things I've ever heard - to think I had this album under my nose for 10 years and gave up on it! I do think that "To Here Knows When" sounds like a tractor stuck in reverse gear though.

Dr. C, Monday, 21 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

But that's precisely why it's so good. :-)

Ned Raggett, Monday, 21 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Please allow me to ask again: whatever happened to my 'Stephin Merritt' thread? I can't find it anywhere.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 22 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

For some reason it ended up here despite your careful attempts to make clear its intended category. Sorry bout that. It is apparently a SEARCH AND DESTROY thread.

Josh, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks - which subheading is it under now?

the pinefox, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I was looking for an old thread called "Navigating through Krautrock", Josh. Any idea where that one has gone? Cheers.

Dr. C, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

This town needs a librarian.

Nick, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Dr. C - it's here, in "Only the Best Will Do" for some reason - will move it to "Search and Destroy" next time I do that sort of thing.

Josh, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Pinefox - it's "Uncategorized" at the moment, will remedy next time I'm doing that sort of thing. I believe it's supposed to be a SEARCH AND DESTROY thread?

Josh, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

#3 on my 40-records list. great for all the reasons ned discussed in his albums-of-the-90s list. useless if you listen to it as a rock album, i.e. for the singer's personality, for the drive and lock of the rhythm section, etc.

sundar subramanian, Wednesday, 23 May 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

one month passes...
To Ned and other shoegazer fanatics: I find the more abstract parts of Loveless to be the most thrilling ( 'To Here Knows When' and 'Loomer' in particular ). I can't claim to have heard much post- Loveless shoegazer, but what I have heard seems to emphasise the more "pretty" elements of shoegazer- the cooing vocals, the shimmering melodies. These songs seems to be descendants of Loveless's more, ahem, "song-based" material ( 'When You Sleep', 'Sometimes' ). The abstraction I crave seems to exists as IDM and other experimental electronic stuff. Is there any shoegazer that might provide what I'm looking for?

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Tuesday, 26 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

mitch, you may be interested in Accelera Deck's Narcotic Beats. its not shoegaze, its some guy from alabama and came out in about 1997. the supposed kevinshields drum'n'bass record, the jungle-loveless, that never appeared? it may have sounded something like this. when i first got it, i was like *ohmygod*, its dated a little now (but then i have played it a lot). the other accelera deck records i've heard are not like this, so i think it was a one off.

gareth, Tuesday, 26 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I'm with Mitch on this one: always thought "Blown A Wish" was by some way the weakest track on Loveless.

Robin Carmody, Tuesday, 26 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

By way of an answer to the original question, I used to be of the impression that this was an out and out dud when I first got my hands on it on a second-hand cassette in the early nineties, and can distinctly remember thinking that the tape must be stretched or something because of the 'awful' noise coming out of the speakers. So I spent hours winding it forwards and backwards and playing it over and over again, in an attempt to 'correct' the backwards noise assault that was infilitrating my head space. Sometime during this 'correction period' I started to like what I was hearing, until I became absolutely obsessed with the album and bought an 'uncorrected' copy on CD. I still love listening to the full album at wall-shaking volume while I get ready for a night out, although parts of it DO sound like a vacuum cleaner on reverse. Which is no bad thing.

Add, Tuesday, 26 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

When "Loveless" came out in 1991, I guess, it was a really ground- breaking album. I used to listen mainly to US bands like the Pixies, the Breeders, Dinosaur Jr and the Lemonheads. MBV brought the attention back to England. Ride, Lush, Catherine Wheel and the Pale Saints were working on similar ground. Even Wedding Present's brilliant classic "Seamonsters" somehow fits in here. I used to listen to "Loveless" in the winter 1991/92 and I especially remember how brilliantly it sounded when driving in the fog which was quite frequent at that time in Luxembourg. I went to see them in Brussels and there I was a little disappointed. It did not work live like on record. Of course the famous end of the show in one fifteen minute guitar noise chord was shite but somehow it turned out that this music was probably too elaborate (MBV are known for their perfection which is also a reason for their slowness in releasing stuff) for live concerts. Recently I bought the CD (before I only had a tape) and I was quite disappointed. It did not age well. There is a lot of filler, only 3 or 4 tracks stand out. Many tracks became utterly unlistenable to me. And it is true the sound quality of the CD is really bad, this probably is intended. Yesterday I listened to four mp3 tracks (on their website) by Your Precious You from San Jose or San Francisco. They sound like a mixture of Smashing Pumpkins and MBV (with maybe some Idaho influence). And they sound better than those two groups (and I think Smashing Pumpkins debut "Gish" is still one of the most underrated records). Especially "Wake" is amazing. I had the impression the voice started quite low on this song and became more and more high- pitch towards the end. They use a lot of droning and when listening on the headphones I really got addicted. Does anybody know where to buy albums of Your Precious You? I read they released two records: "Painkiller EP" and "Test Pattern". Amazon and Ebay did not have anything when I checked.

alex in mainhattan, Tuesday, 26 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...
Loveless sounds like the cover looks, and that's ace. Classic.

Nick Southall, Sunday, 15 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

three years pass...
It's actually kind of good, isn't it?

jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 30 August 2004 19:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the rhythm tracks are kind of banal for an album that's so otherwise sonically adventurous

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 19:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hmmm.

I'm listening to it on CD and on headphones for the first time. (I've had a cassette for a while, but I never listen to it, and I've always considered it overrated.)

jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 30 August 2004 19:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Just because something's overrated doesn't mean it's not great.

n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 30 August 2004 19:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

amateur!!st otm, but that's one of the things that gives it its character. It's probably got the most linear dynamics of any album evah

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 30 August 2004 19:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i have no problem with people loving this album, but there are certain qualities of it that seem to have become the basis for something of a whole aesthetic, even an ideology, for some people. in a lot of mentions on ILM it ceases to become an album and becomes, like, a totem.

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 19:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I keep forgetting that I was in a band in college that covered "Only Shallow" once.

jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 30 August 2004 19:49 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i really like this record btw, but there are at least 15 other records released in the 1990s that communicate more to me

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 19:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

a whole aesthetic, even an ideology, for some people

Are you saying you don't have albums like that for yourself? ;-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 August 2004 20:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Ned, he doesn't even know what this thread is about.

I was just listening to this actually!

())(())()()()(()(LASER)()()()LA(Z)E(R)()()()((L)()()(A)(S(E)R()()()) (ex machina, Monday, 30 August 2004 20:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yay

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 August 2004 20:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Are you saying you don't have albums like that for yourself? ;-)

no, i can't think of one album or even one genre that serves as a kind of organizing principle for my tastes.

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 20:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i was listening to this last night. i like that weird instrumental track. also listening on headphones reveals that the lyrics to many of the songs actually contain their titles!! who knew??

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 20:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

See, I don't know that better lyrics would make this album better. I think it's an important feature of this album that the lyrics don't draw attention to themselves. You can't always make them out, and the ones you can make out have a kind of hazy generality. There's never any lyric that stops your attention. I feel like that's part of what makes everything flow together.

jmm, Friday, 4 November 2016 19:15 (one year ago) Permalink

the lyrics are there for the sounds alone imo. i don't think i learned a single lyric until needed to learn the keyboard part to "When You Sleep" for a house show. the vocals being so whispery and abstract was a huge deal.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 4 November 2016 19:18 (one year ago) Permalink

"Loomer" so great!

not Wall of Sound, Mash Potatoes of Sound.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 4 November 2016 19:22 (one year ago) Permalink

the lyrics to this album have never bothered me because i've never been able to understand almost any of them

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 4 November 2016 19:32 (one year ago) Permalink

I've got a confession to make, I've never heard this album. FP me now.

The Doug Walters of Crime (Tom D.), Friday, 4 November 2016 19:38 (one year ago) Permalink

the lyrics to this album have never bothered me because i've never been able to understand almost any of them

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, November 4, 2016 12:32 PM (forty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

right, my argument isn't that we should dock this album points for not having great lyrics, it's that great lyrics are a bonus because the vast majority of lyrics are shit

brimstead, Friday, 4 November 2016 20:23 (one year ago) Permalink

lyrics in general i mean, w/r/t to my second clause there

brimstead, Friday, 4 November 2016 20:24 (one year ago) Permalink

ymmv, i suck deal with it caveat etc

brimstead, Friday, 4 November 2016 20:24 (one year ago) Permalink

What is the best shoegaze band for lyrics, anyway?

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Friday, 4 November 2016 20:25 (one year ago) Permalink

it's a good album and there are v transcendently beautiful and affecting moments on it but for me personally it is not particularly classic or essential

marcos, Friday, 4 November 2016 20:30 (one year ago) Permalink

i have no idea what the lyrics are on this album. a great album, i don't reach for it very often anymore, partly because my wife thinks it's shit. and i saw them when they did their reunion uk tour and they were the sloppiest band I've ever seen and it was garbage

harold melvin and the bluetones (jim in vancouver), Friday, 4 November 2016 20:33 (one year ago) Permalink

- I don't know what any of the lyrics are on this album, and I've really never cared.

- Even with this, and the albums sonic qualities in mind, I think the songwriting is actually quite strong and loaded with hooks.

- The drumming is noticeably sampled throughout the record.

- My original CD version is one of the quietest CD's I own!

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Friday, 4 November 2016 20:40 (one year ago) Permalink

What is the best shoegaze band for lyrics, anyway?

― I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Friday, November 4, 2016 9:25 PM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Slowdive.

Trump le Monde (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 4 November 2016 20:41 (one year ago) Permalink

Verve, probably.

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Friday, 4 November 2016 20:43 (one year ago) Permalink

What is the best shoegaze band for lyrics, anyway?

Cocteau Twins.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 4 November 2016 21:09 (one year ago) Permalink

Its like saying "Van Gogh's Sunflowers would be better with words"

(Like 'for Amy' heh..)

Mark G, Friday, 4 November 2016 21:18 (one year ago) Permalink

Cocteau Twins otm except despite having loved them hard for 20 odd years now they never once struck me as being 'shoegaze'...?

Trump le Monde (Le Bateau Ivre), Friday, 4 November 2016 21:22 (one year ago) Permalink

ya if anything they're kind of like proto-shoegazey but that's stretching it

maybe dreampop or something?

F♯ A♯ (∞), Friday, 4 November 2016 21:26 (one year ago) Permalink

I think the only shoegaze lyric I've *ever* registered was that Ride line after they weren't shoegaze anymore about the underfed girls, which is a great line.

I never had a problem w/MBV's lyrics or drums or anything. Just this nagging feeling that the album wasn't quite as revolutionary as it was made out to be, which isn't to say that I don't like it, etc. The songwriting on the previous album was more interesting, and I've always wished they'd figured out some way to incorporate that into the latter's sound. But they didn't, so whatever.

dlp9001, Friday, 4 November 2016 21:56 (one year ago) Permalink

We don't get music nerdy so much anymore, but they did this thing with major 2nd intervals that did/didn't resolve that was really interesting in the context of pop songs all fuzzed up.

dlp9001, Friday, 4 November 2016 21:58 (one year ago) Permalink

Shoegaze is to dream pop what funk is to soul.

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Sunday, 6 November 2016 20:05 (one year ago) Permalink

...

brimstead, Sunday, 6 November 2016 20:41 (one year ago) Permalink

In that shoegaze is an extension of dream pop in which some of dream pop's elements are further emphasised, like funk is a variation on soul with some of its elements further emphasised.

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Sunday, 6 November 2016 20:53 (one year ago) Permalink

i guess i see funk and soul as two "branches" off of "r&b"

shoegaze more like dream pop + noisy indie rock

i don't know what i'm talking about, though

brimstead, Sunday, 6 November 2016 20:56 (one year ago) Permalink

ha

ya the world of categorizing music

basically though i never thought of cocteau twins in the same style as mbv, specifically because of mbv's noisier aspect

F♯ A♯ (∞), Monday, 7 November 2016 19:55 (one year ago) Permalink

but then again i can see cocteau twins and slowdive being compared so who knows

F♯ A♯ (∞), Monday, 7 November 2016 19:56 (one year ago) Permalink

My view of this is based 100% on the guitar magazine article I read when I was 13 that introduced me to the concept: "dream pop" and "shoegaze" are synonyms.

Spiritual Hat Minimalism (Sund4r), Monday, 7 November 2016 20:09 (one year ago) Permalink

And both terms refer to a psychedelic aesthetic where vocals are buried under a barrage of processed guitar sounds, extending the sonic experimentation of early Pink Floyd and Jimi Hendrix. I dunno wtf the Cocteau Twins have to do with this.

Actually, I have never heard anyone say "dream pop" irl.

Spiritual Hat Minimalism (Sund4r), Monday, 7 November 2016 20:14 (one year ago) Permalink

I want to find that article. It made the music sound so amazing. Loveless is great but I don't know if it ever fully lived up to what I imagined when I read it.

Spiritual Hat Minimalism (Sund4r), Monday, 7 November 2016 20:15 (one year ago) Permalink

I'm Only Sleeping

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 7 November 2016 21:47 (one year ago) Permalink

When I discovered MBV in the early 90s at the radio show their music was referred to as noisy rock or like Dinosaur Jr. or even Yo La Tengo at the time. I always found the term shoegazing a bit silly as it does not really describe the music.

it's the distortion, stupid! (alex in mainhattan), Monday, 7 November 2016 22:56 (one year ago) Permalink

Radio show of Bernard Lenoir on France Inter...

it's the distortion, stupid! (alex in mainhattan), Monday, 7 November 2016 22:57 (one year ago) Permalink

Shoegazing doesn't describe music at all, it describes looking down at pedals. That's not to say it isn't a daft term.

Noel Emits, Monday, 7 November 2016 23:33 (one year ago) Permalink

I always thought AR Kane or Simon Reynolds writing about AR Kane came up with the term "Dreampop". And AR Kane were doing shoegaze before MBV as well if I'm not mistaken.

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Monday, 7 November 2016 23:57 (one year ago) Permalink

damn, i totally thought dreampop = cocteau twins and cranes

brimstead, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 00:12 (one year ago) Permalink

possibly but i don't think simon had pump up the volume in mind when he came up with it?

more of the cocteau twins sound

F♯ A♯ (∞), Tuesday, 8 November 2016 00:16 (one year ago) Permalink

Ha, I never knew A. R. Kane was part of M/A/R/R/S.

Spiritual Hat Minimalism (Sund4r), Tuesday, 8 November 2016 00:40 (one year ago) Permalink

possibly but i don't think simon had pump up the volume in mind when he came up with it?

more of the cocteau twins sound

probably means the when you're sad/so far away 12"

brimstead, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 01:06 (one year ago) Permalink

Lol yeah I wasn't referring to their M/A/R/R/S stuff.

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Tuesday, 8 November 2016 01:52 (one year ago) Permalink

I'm on an MBV kick thanks to this thread.

"Off Your Face" is amaaazing

jmm, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 04:11 (one year ago) Permalink

The only thing bad I can say about *Loveless* is I know of no other album that's harmed as much by mp3 compression. This one really, really requires FLAC to breathe.

Distribution of all possible outcomes (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 8 November 2016 12:32 (one year ago) Permalink

Just this nagging feeling that the album wasn't quite as revolutionary as it was made out to be

This is still one of my favorite albums, but i remember at the time thinking that Glider was the totally revolutionary release. I don't just recall where i was when I first heard "Soon" on the EP, but I can recall the entire experience. Loveless was perfect, and it would have been more revolutionary had it appeared first.

If there's any what-if about the album, it's how the album would have sounded had Colm performed more "live" drums on the songs as opposed to his parts being sequenced. Some of the songs might have benefitted from more emotional drumming.

Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 19:08 (one year ago) Permalink

yeah he was the secret weapon each time i've seen them

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 19:10 (one year ago) Permalink

"Off Your Face" is

yep, brilliant song

Ireland's Industry (that is what we are) (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Wednesday, 9 November 2016 23:41 (one year ago) Permalink

one year passes...

https://pitchfork.com/features/interview/my-bloody-valentines-kevin-shields-dissects-his-new-loveless-vinyl-remaster-talks-new-album/
Talking to the 54-year-old about Loveless is fascinating because it’s clear that the record is, for him, very much a living thing that exists in the present.
...
Are you working on a new My Bloody Valentine album now?

We started recording it a year ago
...
So you’d like to have it out next year?

Oh, we one hundred percent will.

Ich bin kein Berliner (alex in mainhattan), Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:50 (one week ago) Permalink

m b v is the best thing they've ever done. I want to believe the next one will top it.

pomenitul, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:54 (one week ago) Permalink

When it comes to technical stuff Kevin has this way of saying things that sound like they might be bs but are actually entirely the case.

Obviously this principal does not necessarily apply to release schedules.

Noel Emits, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:56 (one week ago) Permalink

Though you could have made this new vinyl version a 2xLP set, putting less information on each side and improving the overall quality, you decided to do a single disc. Why?

I wanted it to actually be played the way it was originally conceived, which is basically an A and B side: Loveless is like a mirror image of itself on each side. It works as a continuous thing. That’s where I got a little nuts, but it was one of the things that I got right (initially). The obvious thing to do in this day and age would be to cut it onto two vinyls. That’s something I will do someday, just for the pure sound quality. But from the perspective of listening to it, I didn’t want that to be the only version that people had access to, because it just breaks it up. There are compromises.

very cool

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 November 2017 16:17 (one week ago) Permalink


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