why do people think My Bloody Valentine are good

musicmonky

After suffering moments of these tw Ats at the electric picnic.

it REALLY is just noise. why not put your head in a washing machine with stones in it . Words cannot express how crap they are.
So £$%AS$€%Q64AGHú96W$%W$£^Z...éfasds4563afdsa-^£4&`'|-eer
is what they are and what they sound like. Non sensical.

Loudness doesn't not = good. Cause if it did Ian Paisley would be the Gandhi.

according to this they play at around 132 db
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bloody_Valentine

132db seriously dangerous
http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages/mps/utn/31204/v/1/cp/1/

S.I.R

same with nirvana, metallica, etc, except they dont have the retarded fan base they do or should i say did...


Irirsh people currently have a Very poor taste in music... U2 is bad enough but be'jasus its terrable.

though they are a cult'esk band... meh, i dont care for them as a band let alone humans.

SV

Why do people think they have any right to say what people should like or not?

People enjoy what they want.
If you don't like it then get the f**k over it.

Ye're probably the same type of people that go onto youtube videos of bands they don't like so they can comment on how 'crap these guys are'

John

musicmonky wrote: »

Loudness doesn't not = good.

That's true but luckily MBV make some of the most beautiful and enjoyable music that works really well at high volumes. You don't like them, grand but you have to accept the fact that they broke the mould at the time, have lasted the test of time and have had a huge influence on hundreds of bands.

musicmonky

ClioV6 wrote: »

Why do people think they have any right to say what people should like or not?

People enjoy what they want.
If you don't like it then get the f**k over it.

Ye're probably the same type of people that go onto youtube videos of bands they don't like so they can comment on how 'crap these guys are'

LOL. I was walking past them at the picnic and thought maybe War of the Worlds was happening. I just coundn't believe the amount of people that where into it. Thought it was a acquired taste. But it seems not.
I'll just listen to Napalm Death to do the ironing to now.

Its was the loudness that got to me. They are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or maybe the nuts that listen to it.
Over cooked and over done. Burnt music. So I'll send it back.
My opinion thats all.

lordgoat

musicmonky wrote: »

LOL. I was walking past them at the picnic and thought maybe War of the Worlds was happening. I just coundn't believe the amount of people that where into it. Thought it was a acquired taste. But it seems not.
I'll just listen to Napalm Death to do the ironing to now.

Its was the loudness that got to me. They are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or maybe the nuts that listen to it.
Over cooked and over done. Burnt music. So I'll send it back.
My opinion thats all.

LOL. People like them as they have sat and listened to them and found something there that they liked. Not walked past a tent at a festival. I walked past a tv before that had <insert any great film/tvshow> on and it was shi-te. Oh and the volume was way too high as well.

musicmonky

i could hear them for about 10 minutes walking around . I coundnt avoid hearing them. Would like to see your tv do 132db!

Loud tv is not as loud as a jet engine. BIG difference.
I thought music was about the Range of frequencies.
Prodigy's Firestarter at full volume is awesome and has depth.

I suppose i should lump them with all that crap rave as well with one beat for 4 hours. example Scooter.

Mindless , thoughtless and stupid.

Creamy Goodness

get the albums, i find if i see a rock band that i know none of the music they tend to just sound like a wall of noise.

i agree 100% with John though.

yeraulone

The guy walks past the tent and hears something for 10 minutes... he must know what he's talking about.

All those "tw Ats" attending every (sold out) MBV gig around the world, must be wrong.

You probably walked past the gig when they were doing their ear destroying feedback thing, in the middle of "You made me realise"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_po0RTKjsC8

Which lasted for 18mins. The other 1.5hrs was amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njqRt7PH-5I

jim o doom

musicmonky wrote: »

After suffering moments of these tw Ats at the electric picnic.

it REALLY is just noise. why not put your head in a washing machine with stones in it . Words cannot express how crap they are.
So £$%AS$€%Q64AGHú96W$%W$£^Z...éfasds4563afdsa-^£4&`'|-eer
is what they are and what they sound like. Non sensical.

Loudness doesn't not = good. Cause if it did Ian Paisley would be the Gandhi.

I would say it is because taste in most things is entirely subjective & the question is retarded - I don't even know the band - but the question is ridiculous.

cosmic

idiot

Soundman

musicmonky wrote: »

according to this they play at around 132 db
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bloody_Valentine

132db seriously dangerous
http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages/mps/utn/31204/v/1/cp/1/

BULL!

Almost every venue and festival have legal Noise Restriction limits that they must adhere to. There is no way that they would have been allowed to reproduce 132dB of noise. Due to temporary threshold shift, after 2 minutes of listening at that level, you would be unable to hear pretty much anything. That is if your ears haven't started bleeding yet.

John

They do play that loud (or at the very least louder than any other band I've experienced and I've been to see Sunn O))), Merzbow, Neubauten, etc.). Part of their contract is that they play with no volume restriction or not at all. They were meant to be outdoors at EP but had to be put into a tent to contain some of the sound.

For those who think that MBV are just a load of mush, listen to the albums. Loveless is regarded as a masterpiece not only because the music is brilliant but because it is an example of a perfectly recorded and mastered album. Kevin Shields knows what he's doing when it comes to sound (and a physical feeling of music is what he's striving for).

musicmonky

John wrote: »

For those who think that MBV are just a load of mush, listen to the albums. Loveless is regarded as a masterpiece not only because the music is brilliant but because it is an example of a perfectly recorded and mastered album. Kevin Shields knows what he's doing when it comes to sound (and a physical feeling of music is what he's striving for).

John , you have sold me a bit on them now.
It think the question should have been ,
why spoil decent music with
complete and utter distorstion.

Im not a music snob by any means. I have not heard of MBV before that (ok, im a numpty then) and it was a bad introduction. After listening to there stuff on from the album. Not the live stuff. I get the smashing pumpkins,bits of the Cocteau Twins, and the awesome joy divison . A good well defined sound. Of its time , but good.

I didnt get this live at all. I would have listened more if I did. Its a shame they wish to blow the hell out of people, i think thats my point.

Its true to say the question is a daft question as all music is subjective. So i suppose i asked the wrong question. As I cant believe people dont like radiohead. :eek:

after a few listens of Loveless. fav song so far "I only said" then "sometimes"

John

The thing about Loveless is that it gets better the louder you play it (no joke, on low volumes it's a nice collection of songs, at higher volumes it's transcendental) which is why I think they blow the **** out of the audience live. Personally, I think it works well. I saw them in London and they handed out earplugs to everyone (I brought my own). The volume was too much with no earplugs but sounded great once you plugged up but could still feel the waves of sound vibrating your body. Who needs drugs?

TheBigLebowski

yeraulone wrote: »

The guy walks past the tent and hears something for 10 minutes... he must know what he's talking about.

All those "tw Ats" attending every (sold out) MBV gig around the world, must be wrong.

You probably walked past the gig when they were doing their ear destroying feedback thing, in the middle of "You made me realise"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_po0RTKjsC8

Which lasted for 18mins. The other 1.5hrs was amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njqRt7PH-5I

My hole. I was at this gig from the start and thought it was sh!te. The 18 mins of sh!te was just the final nail in the coffin for me and I left. The amount of people leaving during that 18 mins was unbelievable (although very understandable). Does it not occur to the band that people are leaving because they don't want to hear this sh!te and that maybe they should cut it short? Anyway, utter sh!te is my verdict.

chris d

I couldnt get near the tent for them. Was walking down from the mainstage area, but the whole hill was full of people all the way down. And then the mainstage crowd starting walking that way too, quite freaked me at the time. So i ran away and got some sausage and mash instead.

My only regret of the weekend.

John

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

My hole. I was at this gig from the start and thought it was sh!te. The 18 mins of sh!te was just the final nail in the coffin for me and I left. The amount of people leaving during that 18 mins was unbelievable (although very understandable). Does it not occur to the band that people are leaving because they don't want to hear this sh!te and that maybe they should cut it short? Anyway, utter sh!te is my verdict.

What about the people who stayed? When I saw them in London loads of people left during "You Made Me Realise" but they were all outside talking about how great the performance was. It might have just been too much for them, I like chocolate but I'd be hard pushed to eat a My Bloody Valentine of chocolate.

MrJones

I was there and really enjoyed it. I am a fan though.
I thought it would be louder coz i heard alot about how loud they are.
Pity they didnt play sometimes, prob my fav song ever!!
I will admit that i found the last 15 mins a bit much.
I was surprised how dedicated they are to it though, they stood up there and played it as hard as that for 90 mins..class.

Miguel_Sanchez

MrJones wrote: »

I was there and really enjoyed it. I am a fan though.
I thought it would be louder coz i heard alot about how loud they are.
Pity they didnt play sometimes, prob my fav song ever!!
I will admit that i found the last 15 mins a bit much.
I was surprised how dedicated they are to it though, they stood up there and played it as hard as that for 90 mins..class.

I don't think they've played Sometimes live since they reformed.

I'm a huge MBV fan and I left during the last bit too. Although when I saw them in Manchester they seemed much louder and I stayed for the full half hour that they played it and loved it - don't think I'd stay through it all too often though.

Earplugs are essential for an MBV gig though. At the Picnic there were a couple of Aussies beside me up the front who talked about not needing earplugs because they go to loads of festivals - by the end of the first song they were gone!

TheBigLebowski

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

At the Picnic there were a couple of Aussies beside me up the front who talked about not needing earplugs because they go to loads of festivals - by the end of the first song they were gone!

I'm going to take a guess and say they left, not because it was too loud, but because it was shlte.

John

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I'm going to take a guess and say they left, not because it was too loud, but because it was shlte.

Did you ask them and present the data garnered from the survey as a bar chart? No? Then your hyposthesis has not been proven. See my post above about the London crowd.

TheBigLebowski

John wrote: »

Did you ask them and present the data garnered from the survey as a bar chart? No? Then your hyposthesis has not been proven. See my post above about the London crowd.

I don't think you understand the word 'guess'. I never claimed it was a proven fact, just my best guess.

Here you go:

Guess
v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
c. to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition

You're welcome.

Call Me Jimmy

I've only heard one of their songs, it's in lost in translation and is pretty damn class. The distortion suits it perfect. I dunno about live though.

John

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I don't think you understand the word 'guess'. I never claimed it was a proven fact, just my best guess.

Here you go:

Guess
v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
c. to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition

You're welcome.

I do know what the word guess means and I also know what the word hypothesis means:

hy·poth·e·sis (hī-pŏth'ĭ-sĭs) pronunciation
n., pl. -ses (-sēz').

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

So you see, I never implied that you were stating a fact but indeed that you were hazarding a guess (I know you know what that means) and I was suggesting that perhaps with a little, tiny, teeny-weeny smidgen of thought you might realise that an exceptionally loud noise might be too much for people with earplugs who are otherwise enjoying the gig.

Miguel_Sanchez

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I've only heard one of their songs, it's in lost in translation and is pretty damn class. The distortion suits it perfect. I dunno about live though.

That's one of, if not the, quietest song that they have and I don't think they play it live at all. It is brilliant though.

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I'm going to take a guess and say they left, not because it was too loud, but because it was shlte.

Touche Sir - your Wildean wit astounds me! Although I'd say you're completely wrong considering how they talked about how much they were looking forward to seeing MBV before they came on so they were clearly fans, they just completely underestimated how loud they were going to be.

the fnj

Some people like peanut butter, when I was a kid I didn't like it, now I think it's ok but some people still don't like it. The only people that are wrong are those that have never tried peanut butter but somehow still have an opinion on it.

Instead of criticising them based on hanging around outside the tent for their show, I would like to think any discerning music fan would know better than to do this but that's a different issue, maybe you should go back a few steps buy or borrow Loveless listen to it a couple of times and if you don't like it/ don't get it that's fine.

Personally I think Loveless is amazing, I don't really care for Isn't Anything but I often think that's because I had such high expectations for it after being so moved by Loveless. Saw them twice this summer and I love the wall of sound section. I was really sceptical/ worried about it after seeing youtube footage of people holding their ears but when you're in it the intensity is overwhelming.

However what is not a matter of opinion or taste is their huge influence on many bands and genres, you should at least consider that before calling them ****e. You mentioned Radiohead earlier, try and guess which 1991 shoegaze album had a big influence on the Radiohead sound?

TheBigLebowski

John wrote: »

I was suggesting that perhaps with a little, tiny, teeny-weeny smidgen of thought you might realise that an exceptionally loud noise might be too much for people with earplugs who are otherwise enjoying the gig.

Indeed that is one theory, but I, having been at the gig, was not concerned by the level of noise at all to be honest. I actually didn't think it was all that loud. I was more concerned with the quality of the noise and the 20 minutes or so of feedback crap I was hearing. I left along with hunderds of others who were not enjoying it. Taking all these things into consideration, I guessed that was why they left too.

Were you at the gig?

Miguel_Sanchez

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Indeed that is one theory, but I, having been at the gig, was not concerned by the level of noise at all to be honest. I actually didn't think it was all that loud. I was more concerned with the quality of the noise and the 20 minutes or so of feedback crap I was hearing. I left along with hunderds of others who were not enjoying it. Taking all these things into consideration, I guessed that was why they left too.

Well if you're still talking about the Aussies beside me then they had left by the end of the first song so it wasn't the feedback that got to them, just the volume.

Anyway - this discussion is futile. You don't like MBV, other people do. Some people left the gig because it was too loud, some left because they didn't like it, some left because their bladders were full, some left because they realised they'd left the gas on, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Let's all just agree that The Kaiser Chiefs are ****e and be done with it.

Potcher

I only seen 4 songs as I wanted a good place in the crowd for The sex pistols. Have to say I really enjoyed them.

JLemmon

John wrote: »

That's true but luckily MBV make some of the most beautiful and enjoyable music that works really well at high volumes. You don't like them, grand but you have to accept the fact that they broke the mould at the time, have lasted the test of time and have had a huge influence on hundreds of bands.

Completely agree with you John.
The reason the rest of you guys HEAR noise is because your not listening!!! There is difference you know!

Whether they are good or not is very subjective.

But what I can't understand is the reaction to them. This is not Pink Floyd reforming. This is not Queen touring again. Its a band that garnered vastly more NME praise than sales understandably having another crack at it. They played the Barrowlands in Glasgow lately, which hosts the likes of the Saw Doctors and the Tings Tings - popular bands but hardly monsters of rock. Perhaps that is a more accurate assessment of their size and impact rather than the hysteria from DJs and message boards in Ireland that greeted their reform.

yeraulone

I wouldn't be excited about Queen* or Pink floyd reforming. Must be down to that personal taste thing.

*might not be true.

Miguel_Sanchez

yeraulone wrote: »

I wouldn't be excited about Queen* or Pink floyd reforming. Must be down to that personal taste thing.

*might not be true.

I'd be excited about Queen reforming but only because I'd get to see Zombie Mercury!!!!

DadaKopf

Conor wrote:

But what I can't understand is the reaction to them. This is not Pink Floyd reforming. This is not Queen touring again. Its a band that garnered vastly more NME praise than sales understandably having another crack at it. They played the Barrowlands in Glasgow lately, which hosts the likes of the Saw Doctors and the Tings Tings - popular bands but hardly monsters of rock. Perhaps that is a more accurate assessment of their size and impact rather than the hysteria from DJs and message boards in Ireland that greeted their reform.

I don't really get this. Some people love Pink Floyd. Some people love MBV. Whether they're hugely wealthy, or a small band with a dedicated following playing smaller venues, shouldn't be of any consequence when it comes to people loving their music and sharing their enthusiasm with others. Music magazines? Inconsequential. They *have* to fill their pages with something, and half their staff are made up of music journalists who were around for MBV the first time and it's some kind of nostalgia trip for them.

I find it quite immature for people to assume that because a band is big and rich that they're good. Any history of music, first off, shows this is bollocks. Secondly, its thick because generally popular bands are the ones with massive amounts of investment and record company resources behind them. Take Pink Floyd. I appreciate them, but I'm not a fan. By contrast, I'd listen to Soft Machine, Yes or Gentle Giant for the rest of my life. Size doesn't matter.

But, hey, each to their own. Years ago, I spent an hour listening to F.M. Einheit play a giant spring and drill a sheet of metal while Caspar Brotzmann played delicate feedback on a Fender Stratocaster and thought it absolutely beautiful. At the same time, I went totally nuts for Tinariwen at the Electric Picnic.

John wrote: »

The thing about Loveless is that it gets better the louder you play it (no joke, on low volumes it's a nice collection of songs, at higher volumes it's transcendental) which is why I think they blow the **** out of the audience live. Personally, I think it works well. I saw them in London and they handed out earplugs to everyone (I brought my own). The volume was too much with no earplugs but sounded great once you plugged up but could still feel the waves of sound vibrating your body. Who needs drugs?

I totally agree with all of this. Loveless (and the show at the Electric Picnic) so brilliantly balanced melody, noise, texture, timbre, volume, a bit of punk, new wave, krautrock/motorik ... purely physical music. Up the front, the sound was great, though I'd imagine it lose quite a lot outside the tent, especially when you're walking past it accounting for the doppler effect :rolleyes:

Never seen so many people begging for ear plugs up front. Luckily, I'd got some off a security dude a while earlier. God, I wish I could be back in that gig right now... Bathed in music.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote: »

I find it quite immature for people to assume that because a band is big and rich that they're good. Any history of music, first off, shows this is bollocks. Secondly, its thick because generally popular bands are the ones with massive amounts of investment and record company resources behind them. Take Pink Floyd. I appreciate them, but I'm not a fan. By contrast, I'd listen to Soft Machine, Yes or Gentle Giant for the rest of my life. Size doesn't matter.

No no, wasn't talking about whether Queen or MBV or Pink Floyd are good or bad. I appreciate that the size of the band has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality - see Westlife. But the size of the band has everything to do with...the size of the band. And all this stuff about My Bloody Valentine being a huge 90s band (which I have heard suggested) or a 'seminal act' seem a bit misplaced. It's like when Aerosmith made a comeback in the 80s and flogged themselves on the basis that they were the biggest group of the 70s, which had a lot of people who remembered the 70s scratching their heads. I wouldn't say MBV were bad at all, frankly I don't know enough of their stuff and I haven't seen them live. But when it comes to suggestions that they were big, lets face it they join a list of acts like Dinosaur Junior, Sebadoh, Shed Seven and a host of acts that filled more spaces on NME than CD shelves.

DadaKopf

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, wasn't talking about whether Queen or MBV or Pink Floyd are good or bad. I appreciate that the size of the band has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality - see Westlife. But the size of the band has everything to do with...the size of the band. And all this stuff about My Bloody Valentine being a huge 90s band (which I have heard suggested) or a 'seminal act' seem a bit misplaced. It's like when Aerosmith made a comeback in the 80s and flogged themselves on the basis that they were the biggest group of the 70s, which had a lot of people who remembered the 70s scratching their heads. I wouldn't say MBV were bad at all, frankly I don't know enough of their stuff and I haven't seen them live. But when it comes to suggestions that they were big, lets face it they join a list of acts like Dinosaur Junior, Sebadoh, Shed Seven and a host of acts that filled more spaces on NME than CD shelves.

Ah, but then your issue is the music press, not the people who like the bands. I'm not sure MBV are going around saying they're the biggest band of the 90s, because if you measure that by record sales, obviously they weren't. But neither were they obscure unknowns.

Miguel_Sanchez

Deleted User wrote: »

But when it comes to suggestions that they were big, lets face it they join a list of acts like Dinosaur Junior, Sebadoh, Shed Seven and a host of acts that filled more spaces on NME than CD shelves.

I don't know if people claimed that they were big in their time, did they? I think the hype around the comeback has been because of the influence that they had, which I think was huge. So many bands were influenced by MBV.

And also - Shed Seven???? How dare you! They were ****e of the highest order.
:P

DadaKopf

Yeah, that came from so left of field it came from right field. Basically, it went all the way around. SHED SEVEN???

I was trying to think of those bands that seemed to appeal to NME readers!

I don't have a clue what Shed Seven sang, just remember them being in every issue of NME and wondering who was buying anything by them. I guess I should've hung around with the brown aran jumper crowd more, and ditched the Joe Bloggs stuff!

Dudess

All the bands I'm really into would be of the same vintage/genre as MBV (80s/early 90s indie, "shoegazing", "grunge" etc) but MBV... I just never "got". Find them too difficult to listen to.

Does that mean I'm right and their fans are wrong though? No. It's an opinion.

That said, anyone who likes Basshunter is WRONG!!!

the fnj

I think it’s clear that the NME and the music press in general are to blame. They aren't being consistent enough in telling us who we should listen to. How else will we know who is wrong and who is right?

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

That said, anyone who likes Basshunter is WRONG!!!

Eurodance.

Its not really music at all.

the fnj wrote: »

I think it’s clear that the NME and the music press in general are to blame. They aren't being consistent enough in telling us who we should listen to.

They are very consistent.

Bands that sell little are great 'crucial' or 'vital'. Long hair, messy clothes or retro stuff like flares, and looking miserable helps. Bands that sell bucket loads are bad. The odd time they will make an exception, most notably the Smiths, the Stone Roses and Oasis. But the rule works 99% of the time.

DadaKopf

the fnj wrote:

I think it’s clear that the NME and the music press in general are to blame. They aren't being consistent enough in telling us who we should listen to.

Naw, that's not what I meant at all. Magazines are businesses. They have audiences who they sell their product to. Companies advertise in most of them and, with the exception of small niche mags (Foggy Notions, Loose Lips Sink Ships, Plan B etc.) the music industry feeds them with press releases, free booze cruises etc to publicise their latest investment.

That's the reality, so I fully expect music mags to lie to me about how X is 'the greatest band ever' or whatever. I habitually don't buy them, and that includes The Wire.

When I were a lad, I bought Vox, Select, Melody Maker. I was young and foolish. I believed so'n'so were the best band ever and bought their albums only to realise they were far from the best of anything. And that's how I went from a naive teenager to cynical geezer.

Gimmie blogs'n'bulletin boards, or give me dearth.

the fnj

Deleted User wrote: »

Eurodance.
They are very consistent.

Bands that sell little are great 'crucial' or 'vital'. Long hair, messy clothes or retro stuff like flares, and looking miserable helps. Bands that sell bucket loads are bad. The odd time they will make an exception, most notably the Smiths, the Stone Roses and Oasis. But the rule works 99% of the time.

It’s interesting that these obscure bands don't start selling more records, especially with all this critical acclaim. This would imply that no one reads the NME. I certainly don't read it and none of my friends buy it but it's still in publication. The only conclusion I can reach is that the NME must be a money laundering front for some sort of organised crime. It could possibly involve the illegal trade of human organs.

Liking MBV is a matter of taste, nobody claimed they’re a huge international band but there is no denying their importance. They heavily influenced many bigger bands and continue to be a source of inspiration to new artists.

You don’t have to like them to accept this but denying it is arrogant foolish.

PS I was joking about blaming NME in my earlier post, I should of inserted more smiley faces

DadaKopf

Well, I've also heard that a certain prominent, nationally distributed music magazine prints vastly more than it sells so it can say to advertisers, "We print 50 kajillion copies! Give us loadza money!", then they print them but don't bother distributing all of them. I don't know who buys it, but it's managed to stay in business, miraculously. Not sure how true this really is.

the fnj

the fnj wrote: »

This would imply that no one reads the NME.

People who wear brown aran jumpers do. And shoegazers.

the fnj wrote: »

Liking MBV is a matter of taste, nobody claimed they’re a huge international band but there is no denying their importance. They heavily influenced many bigger bands and continue to be a source of inspiration to new artists.

Forgive my ignorance, but what bigger bands or new artsists were influenced by them or cited them as influences?

Of course, to qualify as a 'big band', they must appear in my non dance kusic CD collection. That narrows it to U2, Simple Minds, Depeche Mode and some New Romance and New Wave acts!

the fnj

Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins and The Cure

U2 producer Brian Eno was a big fan of MBV.

MBV, along with Slint, were hugely important to the rise and development of the post rock scene.

Kevin Sheilds is regularly sought out to remix and produce bands, examples of artists he has worked with include Placebo, Yo La Tengo, Primal Scream, Manic Street Preachers, Patti Smith and the Go! Team.

John

From a Hot Press interview/feature in 2004:

So, the My Bloody Valentine sound circa 1989-91 sound was at once as sensual as hot breath on skin and as hypnagogic as falling asleep in a snowdrift. It also had purgative properties. When U2 were on tour in Australia at the end of the Rattle n Hum campaign, The Edge, then going through the disintegration of his first marriage, was apparently heard playing MBV at deafening volume in his hotel room most nights. Was Shields aware of that?

"Only when U2 did interviews and stuff, and they talked about My Bloody Valentine having an influence on Achtung Baby. That was kinda nice, 'cos I used to go to the Dandelion Market to see U2, I saw their final gig there. I remember when I was at school there were two bands at the time, U2 and DC Nien. At the time they were equal on a level of popularity. There were great pirate radio stations, a lot of weird advantages in Ireland, and when I moved to London it wasn't the same."

SOFIA COPPOLA: "Loveless is one of my favourite records. I got it when I was in my early twenties and I would just sit in my house and listen to it over and over again. When we came to do the soundtrack for Lost In Translation, myself and Brian Reitzell talked about how great it would be tp get Kevin, although we weren't too sure if he would do it. In the end, what he did was perfect for the film; Kevin has that really romantic, melancholy feeling down so well. MBV do that sound like nobody else."

THE EDGE: "My Bloody Valentine were a huge influence on me during the Achtung Baby/ZOO TV period. I suppose we'd been through our back-to-the roots incarnation on Rattle n Hum, and to discover this music which sounded so modern and abrasive WQS really inspiring to me; it was a totally fresh way of approaching the guitar. I actually didn't know they were Irish when I first heard them. I'd been listening to some of the early stuff, and raving about it to various people, and one day my brother, Dick, said to me, "I've heard them, they're from Dublin." I was just like, "Really?!" They were head and shoulders above a lot of what was going on at the time."

TRENT REZNOR: "I remember listening to Loveless a lot when we were recording Broken. Production wise, it was a massive step forward for guitar music. What I really like about My Bloody Valentine is their diversity. They can do balls-to-the-wall rock and you can hear that in lots of our music, from 'Wish' to 'We're In This Together' - but there's also this serene, other-worldly quality to their records, and I hope there's a similar vibe on some of our stuff, like 'A Warm Place' or 'La Mer'. Loveless was actually a big factor in me asking Alan Moulder to work on The Downward Spiral. 'Only Shallow' is one of my favourite videos of all time too."

DAVID HOLMES: "Unquestionably one of the great Irish bands. It's not surprising to me that Loveless has stood the test of time, it really was a revelation when it was released. I love a lot of the earlier records too, stuff like Strawberry Wine has some gorgeous sounds on there. In a weird way, I think soundtrack work was kind of a natural progression for Kevin, since a lot of MBV's music has a definite cinematic quality, it's really lush and atmospheric. From my own experiences of the film world, I'd say he'll be on the wish-lists of a fair few producers and directors after Lost In Translation."