Loveless suXor, d00d

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I'm looking for reviews (especially 'legitimate' ones, har) of MBV's Loveless that don't heap praise on the damn thing. Can you help me out with links, etc? (Searching for Loveless stuff on the web is kinda one-sided so far, argh.)

― Josh, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The most damning criticism I've seen of Loveless on the net (not including dissatisfied Amazon.com buyers and message board posters) is a suggestion that the drums sound 'tinny'.

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Chuck Eddy piles it on (briefly) in The Accidental History of Rock and Roll, bless his contrarian heart. Dismisses it as sexless, amorphous nothing, but I think he was also taking more specific target at the idea of it being seen as some sort of rapturous, blissed experience -- not so much criticizing it as the reaction to it.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Josh, what do you think of the album?

― Clarke B., Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I must say, it's difficult for me to listen to MBV without thinking of really awful, adolescent Gregg Araki movies.

― Ali Gorji, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

well, eddy listed mbv as one of the 10 worst artists of all time so i think it's more than just the reception of loveless he has a problem with. i was hoping he'd elaborate in accidental evolution but he didn't really beyond saying that it's lethargic and new agey. i am also surprised that the critical reception is so one-sided since the album hardly enjoys such universal love among people i know, including a lot of indie fans.

i'm actually finding myself increasingly burnt out on mbv if i'm sober.

― sundar subramanian, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ah well, then keep drinking. Somebody's got to put away all that Labatt's.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Josh: How about this one ("nasty canned music")? Admittedly it's not a lengthy piece of analysis... This one concludes that it's admirable but mildly dull and dispensable.

― Ian White, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You might look to see if Uncut magazine's 'Sacred Cows' column has tackled MBV yet, but keep in mind that that column is contrarian-by-defintion; you may only be looking for reviews where the author brought nothing + or - to the table and ended up disliking the record. 'SC' is still a fun column though.

― Jeff Wright, Saturday, 25 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

my friend alex makes the case that production aside, mbv are just an ok indie band. i could easily imagine a criticism of the blank voices and often weak rhythm section (applies only to loveless, "soon" excepted) and what could be seen as a laid- back quality. i remember the album taking a beating on alt.music.sonic-youth within the past year or so.

the two mentions of mbv in accidental evolution:

". . . not to mention such british hypes as my bloody valentine who were trying to treat 'dream pop' as an end in itself, having heard suicide's 'dream baby dream' once and having thereby determined deadweight vocals sound menacing and new-age drones equal art)"

"social-tranquilizer cult acts like my bloody valentine codify old byrds and velvet underground moves into sexless obviousness, call it 'mystic,' and are embraced by critics who are in turn inpired to write with a lethargy that mimics the music; nobody ever cranks out reviews saying 'these my bloody valentine songs kick butt, but these turds over here totally bite the oceanic big one.'"

― sundar subramanian, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Heh heh heh. Thank you for providing those. The alt.music.s-y crowd are in the main tiresome, and that's as much as you'll get out of me in the way of fiery criticism of MBV detractors. Personally, while it's patently obvious that Shields was influenced by Sonic Youth, my own take has always been that MBV could do SY songs but that SY couldn't do Loveless if they tried. Others will disagree, though. ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Reading the reviews of this record on Amazon, is there any way you can be indifferent to this record? I bought it on the strength of "loomer" on ocean of sound, which was fab. I liked the CD, it took me a bit of time to appreciate it, I loved it for a week then put it away and consequently forgot about it on the whole. It was good, but not amazing. It sounds like people who are extremely preoccupied with it haven't heard much non-mainstream music. Loveless was very innovative, but not the be-all and end-all. I get the same reaction to sonic youth. I can't get why people are so enthralled by them, they have some nice tunes (and tunings)and textures, etc, but I can't really muster up that much passion for them. The point being, there is so much music that is innovative and fascinating out there that I find it difficult to swallow when one band is praised so on those same grounds. Still that's just my worthless opinion, maybe I haven't listened closely enough.

― Anas FK, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Heavens, don't think that -- there's no universal rule that says Loveless = godhead, certainly I don't pretend that. I just know what connects for me alone, and that CONNECTS.

I think the mistake, though, might simply be looking for something more avant-garde than it is. Loveless isn't the great breakthrough, as I see it -- I think of it as the great synthesis and projection. It has hooks, it has melody, it is very conventional in ways. Sundar's friend is perhaps more right than he knows but what I would argue is that in fact the production is the point.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I tried listening to it twice (many years ago) and got perhaps less out of it than any any other record I can think of, save maybe Grateful Dead live jams. In fact, like the Dead, it just seems as though the volume can't go high enough for the music to even register. I'm sure if I heard it again today I wouldn't be quite so indifferent (it would actually be impossible to be MORE indifferent); I'm sure I'd hate it instantly.

― Kris, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I've never even heard the record but I want to hate it. Actually the only one I ever heard was called something like This is Your Bloody Valentine, and I thought it was pretty bad. Unless they improved drastically, this isn't my idea of a great, important, classic band in the least.

― Sean, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Much different band at that point -- first release, original band leader David Conway was in it, and he was Mr. Cramps/Birthday Party wannabe. Not saying you'll like Loveless automatically, but dismissing them on the basis of that release is like judging Bowie's career from, say, 1966 to 1973 solely on the basis of "The Laughing Gnome." ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Does it have to be on the web? I remember that Spin gave it a very lukewarm review the month that it came out. I saved the article for ages because they gave Loveless 3 stars or something while giving Pearl Jam or something ludicrous like that 5 stars. Alas, it's gone missing in some move sometime...

― Kate the Saint, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The review is in the 1991 issue of SPIN proclaiming Perry Farrell "Artist of The Year". It got a "yellow" (back when SPIN's rating system was "Red" "Yellow" and "Green". Almost everything got a green). The reviewer didn't seem to care much for it. Interestingly enough, the reviewer was Jim Greer, future Guided By Voices bass player, and in SPIN's Alternative guide, MBV get praised, and GBV trashed.

― Vic Funk, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'Appen that the boy Reynolds was a bit lukewarm about it in MM back in '91. No real progression from "Isn't Anything," should all have been like track 3, i.e. abstract ambience.

NME review (tho' still 8 out of 10) slagged the band off for not contributing actively to the struggle in South Africa. About 18 months post-release of Mandela, if I recall rightly.

Then again, practically everyone in NME between '84-'92 was slagged off for not contributing actively to Red Wedge/the struggle in (enter your name here).

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

four years pass...

Have we discussed this yet: http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/avail...4102006-103749/

A master's thesis that explicitly argues for the place of loveless in rock'n'roll history and implicitly calls into question the right of the FSU music department to ever grant another degree. Yikes.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 12 June 2006 21:41 (twenty years ago)

dammit, let's try that again: http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04102006-103749/

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 12 June 2006 21:43 (twenty years ago)

I'm not in the bibliography? RIPOFF.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 June 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

I guess we haven't discussed this. Sadly, Ned, that's only the beginning of the roffles.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 12 June 2006 22:34 (twenty years ago)

I don't much like this album -- as compared to, say, JAMC or Black Tambourine, the cleanliness of the feedback is unpleasantly sterile, and the particular effect they use makes me feel a bit seasick if I listen to it on headphones. (I should probably give it a chance not on headphones one of these days, but why even bother? I never listen to music without headphones.) And -- not that those other bands' lyrics are hallmarks of craft and insight, but at least they have lyrics, and they aren't deliberately attempting to obscure them -- there's an interplay, almost an adversarial one, between the singer and the band. Loveless is so sanded down that there's no interplay -- the singer is just another faceless element in their faceless music.

(Oh, dear -- now I look at the names attached to the previous posts, and... I'm not harassing this Ned guy. You have to believe me. Don't be too mad!)

― Pessimist (Pessimist), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 07:04 (twenty years ago)

The amount of OMG that ppl heap on it is now a mark against it

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 07:11 (twenty years ago)

"Chuck Eddy piles it on (briefly) in The Accidental History of Rock and Roll, bless his contrarian heart. Dismisses it as sexless, amorphous nothing, but I think he was also taking more specific target at the idea of it being seen as some sort of rapturous, blissed experience -- not so much criticizing it as the reaction to it."

This is why Chuck Eddy is incredibly awesome.

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 11:05 (twenty years ago)

and also why most listeners pay no heed to rock critics

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 11:39 (twenty years ago)

Heheh.

The amount of OMG that ppl heap on it is now a mark against it

Well yeah! Goes with the territory.

(Meantime, Pessimist, are you here to argue that JAMC are great lyricists or something?)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 13:28 (twenty years ago)

My issue with MBV has always been their unwillingness (or inability) to deploy such grandiose aesthetic ambitions within a less straitjacketed format, i.e. to move beyond the "blissed out pop song." The idea itself sounds perfectly tantalizing; the problem begins once you realize that Shields & Butcher are mostly inadequate as songwriters. MBV lacked formal imagination: their textures beg for a looser, more improvisatory or complex reinterpretation of pop song structure. Don't get me wrong, I do like Loveless quite a bit. But the endless digressions into Kevin Shields' purported genius, invoked whenever this or that dude recalls bliss with a Fender, seem misplaced. I've always thought of MBV as a seductive failure, train still underway...

If only Loveless were actually amorphous...

― you will be shot (you will be shot), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 13:54 (twenty years ago)

"and also why most listeners pay no heed to rock critics"

Yeah, like "most listeners" own/dig MBV. Arguments from democracy won't succeed when the general public is rightly apathetic.

― js (honestengine), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 15:27 (twenty years ago)

some of the sounds and leitmotifs are sort of annoying.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 17:32 (twenty years ago)

None of you would be saying such things if you'd read that thesis.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 18:14 (twenty years ago)

I actually like the idea of academic studies geared toward critical justifications, but agree that this sounds absurd*:

"The essential objective of this thesis is to justify My Bloody Valentine as one of the most important bands in music history"

* Not really knowing My Bloody Valentine, I'll just say "sounds absurd" rather than "is absurd." : D

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 18:19 (twenty years ago)

I kind of agree with all of you will be shot's post and with what I said here. I just tried listening to Loveless and I have to say I'm not sure that the production has even aged all that well, with everything compressed into the midrange like that. The heavy mid-range fuzztone on the guitar that dominates the sound on almost every track doesn't really strike me as that interesting of a texture anymore and sometimes seems to get in the way of what could be interesting texturally. It works as an overall druggy rock sound on the tracks that I consider stronger melodically, like "Sometimes", but a lot of the songs just sound a little obvious and repetitive. The keyboard riffs might actually be my favourite part of the album. I would say that a lot of today's bands who are purportedly influenced by the album might have made some stronger music.

"You Made Me Realise" really rocks though.

― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 19:55 (twenty years ago)

(Keep in mind that I'm always changing my mind about these things + I probably know the damn thing by heart.)

― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 19:56 (twenty years ago)

Mike McGonigal's book for 33 1/3 will be of interest to y'all, trust me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 19:57 (twenty years ago)

having heard suicide's 'dream baby dream' once and having thereby determined deadweight vocals sound menacing and new-age drones equal art

Odd -- I don't think anything by MBV sounds like "Dream Baby Dream."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 20:03 (twenty years ago)

x-posts - I mean, even if you were writing about Bach or someone, you would think that you'd want to use the term "significant" to describe certain accomplishments rather than "important."

So, yeah, obv., sheesh!

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 20:15 (twenty years ago)

i listened to it again a couple of weeks ago - for the first time in years - and it blew me away all over again. fucking work of era-defining godlike genius. hataz can swivel :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 22:22 (twenty years ago)

Mike McGonigal's book for 33 1/3 will be of interest to y'all, trust me.

I trust, I trust. Do we have a thread on the 33 1/3 series yet. I read three this weekend while travelling and they, um, varied widely in value.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 00:09 (twenty years ago)

Could it not be argued that this contemporaneous album was the truly era-defining one?

http://www.musiq.pl/images/35/SWA_Winter.jpg

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 00:10 (twenty years ago)

Do we have a thread on the 33 1/3 series yet.

Several...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 00:14 (twenty years ago)

holy shit, that thesis is beyond words.... jaw dropping. they give Master's degrees for that? (rolls head at declining academic standards)

― Jacobo Rock (jacobo rock), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 00:19 (twenty years ago)

I still think that 'You Made Me Realize' and 'Isn't Anything' are both more fun, more rocking. I like a couple of tracks in 'Loveless' but the whole thing kind of bogs me down.

― The Boy Who Cried YSI? (Freud Junior), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 00:28 (twenty years ago)

"more fun."

God give me strength.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 09:57 (twenty years ago)

you hate fun?

― Seriously, Try Punching This Guy in the Face and See What Happens (Enrique), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 09:58 (twenty years ago)

I do.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 10:23 (twenty years ago)

I'm just disgusted that some bloke got a Master's for his shittily written album review.

― Shadow of the Waxwing (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 June 2006 10:35 (twenty years ago)

That thesis would be funnier if the Committee hadn't approved it.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 14:16 (twenty years ago)

We wanted to create . . . music that would unexpectedly change dynamics, from so extremely quiet that the listener had to strain to hear the music, to so recklessly loud that one had to run out of the room. In the process, we wanted to move people to uncontrollable tears while lyrically satirizing the redundant nature of the American-suburban life that we were all victims of in our youth.

HI DERE 1994 ALT-ROCK RADIO

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 14:20 (twenty years ago)

(or 2004)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 14:21 (twenty years ago)

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