why do people think My Bloody Valentine are good

10-09-2008 01:51PM

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 · 10-09-2008 02:49PM

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 · 10-09-2008 03:47PM

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 · 11-09-2008 10:28AM

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.

11-09-2008 11:18AM

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 · 11-09-2008 11:26AM

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 · 11-09-2008 11:46AM

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 · 11-09-2008 12:01PM

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

11-09-2008 01:43PM

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 · 11-09-2008 01:49PM

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 · 11-09-2008 03:20PM

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?

11-09-2008 03:30PM

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 · 11-09-2008 03:46PM

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 · 11-09-2008 03:52PM

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 · 11-09-2008 05:22PM

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.

11-09-2008 05:32PM

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 · 11-09-2008 05:52PM

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 · 11-09-2008 06:24PM

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."

why do people think My Bloody Valentine are good

Comments