Loveless: Classic or Not That Classic

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!

Remember Remember the 5th of November.

Gunpowder treason and drone

if you put a comma between those first two you get a Manic's album title.

Anyway, the Japanese tribute album Yellow Loveless is out. And yeah I already had things to say about Boris's 'Sometimes.'

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

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"

do jo swells

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.

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

it's okay to love music bro

Yellow Loveless (full LP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbf8h3sykiw

I always liked "Isn't Anything" better. I thought I was alone.
Thanks, ILX, for being the support group I need in trying times.

That's a great cover of When You Sleep.

WATER TOWER FRONT MAN, KENNY FEINSTEIN RELEASES DEBUT SOLO ALBUM, LOVELESS: HURTS TO LOVE, A RE-MAKE OF THE CLASSIC MY BLOODY VALENTINE ALBUM, LOVELESS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sfGEXhvY-8

Front man for Portland, Oregon-based roots-bluegrass-punk outfit, Water Tower, Kenny Feinstein will release his debut solo album, Loveless: Hurts To Love, a tribute to My Bloody Valentine, on Portland, Oregon-based Fluff & Gravy Records September 17, 2013. The record, which contains all eleven tracks from the My Bloody Valentine classic, plus the track "Swallow" from their 1991 Tremolo EP, released nine months prior to Loveless on Creation Records, finds Feinstein paying homage to his favorite record, while not just covering it, but re-creating it with acoustic guitar, mandolin, dobro, fiddle, and dulcimer.

This sounds horrible! Fuck that dude.

And it should be noted that Japancakes got there first

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000UTOQPG