What is so good about this album? I just don't get all the hype surrounding it.
Listen to it high
>>63260669
listen to it again
>>63260669
it's pretty
>>63260708
>>63260724
These.
I relistened to it on Valentine's Day and it honestly wasn't as enjoyable as I remembered
still a good and innovative album but it is not the peak of shoegaze
>>63260669
It's a meme. Nowhere is the better shoegaze classic.
>>63260669
ib4 louder lmao
I have listened to it a few times, and there are some tracks I like but overall the vocals are annoying and the whole thing just kind of sounds muddy.
When My Bloody Valentine walked on the stage of feedback-pop, something truly magic was finally created in the realm of psychedelia. The mini-album Ecstasy (1987) explored the ambiguity that would make their mature sound so haunting and devastating: ecstasy and terror were two faces of the same moon, and that moon shone day and night. Daydreaming and nightmare became the same state of mind as guitars enveloped naive melodies and drums smashed vocal harmonies. Isn't Anything (1988) went one step further than Jesus And Mary Chain, in that it renounced punk's violence and harked back to the most dilated forms of acid-rock. Kevin Shields' "shoegazing" guitar fullfilled Jerry Garcia's and Jimi Hendrix' galactic bliss, and helped the sweet litanies grind their way into a transcendental trance. Electronic keyboards joined guitar noise on Loveless (1991), the ultimate exploration of textures in rock music. Its stunning chaos can be viewed both as an enraptured "om" to the universe or as a deranged scream in a madman's cell or as a terrified paralysis in the face of a supernatural force. The album changed the meaning of the word "music" by proving the equivalence between "noisy" and 'symphonic", the same way that Einstein proved the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass.
>>63260669
Download the flac version. put on some headphones, turn off the lights, just lay down on your bead listening to this record with eyes closed.
Those fuckin' wall of sounds...
>>63261269
>flac
Is there REALLY that big a difference?
I don't really get it, either, OP. I keep trying a few tracks and I ultimately get bored. Maybe I'll suddenly understand one day. That happens sometimes.
>>63260930
>The album changed the meaning of the word "music" by proving the equivalence between "noisy" and 'symphonic", the same way that Einstein proved the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass.
What did HE mean by THIS?
>>63261296
yes. The label nearly went bankrupt while mbv were recording the album. Kevin Shields was very perfectionist.
Everyhthing sounds just like he wanted. The mixing and mastering process were very slowly made.
>>63261422
he wants to fuck 12 year olds
>>63261296
if you care more about the actual music than the quality of the music then no, 320kps mp3 is more than enough to get the point across
>>63260768
Nowhere is on the same level dude- it's like saying Souvlaki is the best shoegaze album- they're the top three in the genre for a reason
>>63260755
but it definitely is even though I personally like Deathconsciousness, Velocity : Design : Comfort, and Souvlaki a lot
only /shugazi/ dudes would say otherwise
CLOSE MY EYES
FEEL ME NOW
>>63261501
But what should and shouldn't be the "top three" is disputable. Loveless deserves to be in it by virtue of the fact that it is quite literally the genre-defining album and MBV pioneered the style, but Souvlaki is an arbitrary choice. Eyedazzler is way better in my opinion.
>>63261438
>>63261477
the 2 sides of /mu/
If Loveless hasn't clicked, I feel very sorry for you. That's all I'm gonna say.
(Loveless bros know what I'm talking about.)
>>63261438
>>63261477
>>63261961
I love this album. I listened to it with my buddy, it was his favorite at the time, and at first it wasn't my cup of tea because it's not really my style of music. But after a few more listens (some sober, but mostly tripping or high) and now I find it extremely beautiful. I hear new things everytime. My buddy swears that flac is better though and I have listened to it in both mp3 and flac. I just don't hear a MAJOR difference.
I love this album but I can only really listen to it every now and then. It's such a violent sound, it beats the fuck out of my ears when I listen in headphones.
>>63262165
>violent sound
Not really. It's strangely calming and soothing once you develop shoegaze hearing.
>>63262088
i don't know...i would have to ear the album in mp3 again. For years i always listened to it with the original cd.
>>63262200
I've been listening exclusively to shoegaze at the moment so "shoegaze hearing" but I listen to it loud. Even if I didn't it's such an intense wall of sound that I usually need a palette cleanser after, something lighter with more clarity
>>63260669
It's extremely boring, don't listen to the try hards telling you to listen to it again.
If you don't like it the first time don't force yourself to try and like it, thats called being a pretentious hipster
>>63262283
Delete this
>>63262303
did I say you could reply to me?
>>63262283
lol. How can you listen to an album once and decide if you like it or not? hell i can't barely remember anything from one listen. The name of the tracks, what they actually sound like. 3 or 4 listenings it's the bare minimum.
Music is to be appreciated, not be listened like a factory producing cars or wtvr.
pleb
>>63262245
>palette cleanser
Kevin intentionally included sonic "palette cleansers" at the end of several tracks on Loveless. Doesn't the ending of Soon get you pumped to want to hear the album again? It celebrates the lush nostalgia for the track you just heard while it's still going on.
>>63262413
That's because you're a pleb. Try actually listening to music instead of just putting it on in the background while you browse /mu/.
>>63260669
Better than Shitvlaki.
>>63262413
well then you must have some sort of retardation. When a normal human being is listening to a song , they either are affected or are unaffected.
>>63262413
Thank you. I've been shot down for saying this so many times. You really can't know an album without repeated listens.
>>63262283
>I only like albums that are instantly accessible
Doesn't get any more pleb than that
>>63262468
>instantly accessible
>implying you have to try to like music
OH the irony, top pleb
>>63260669
Even if you don't like it I think it should be pretty obvious why this album is remarkable. There isn't really anything else that sounds like it.
Not only does it take the concept of textural exploration to its conclusion, it's one of the few shoegaze albums that's actually backed up by really good songwriting as well. I think this album is one of the classic pleb filters. There's literally no reason to dislike it besides plebeianhood on a fundamental level.
>>63262468
You don't have to "know" an album to appreciate it on an aesthetic level.
>>63262437
When i listen to musi i only do that, you dumbfuck patrician. One listining it's not enough. In any scenario. RYM is filled with ratarded patricians like you. People which only listen to the album once and write "OMG IT's THE BEST ALBUM EVER!!!!!!1111" on the review
>>63262088
There have been studies that show humans can't perceive the difference.
It's basically a placebo.
>>63262504
Listening twice is hardly 'trying'. it's caring about music enough to actually develop a meaningful opinion of an album and not just consume it as quickly and superficially as possible, which is literally pleb as fuck.
>>63262578
>having to listen to music twice to get it
plebeius maximus
the initial experience was me was jarring cos it sounded so different but then then the songs themselves were written very well so i kept coming back to the album. then you grow to like the weird sonic experimentations and you enjoy them
>>63262578
You clearly have ADHD or some kind of ear problem, then. I can quite easily make my mind up on a piece of music after a single listen.
Also, please learn to use the English language. This is painful to read.
>>63262648
Honestly, if I feel like I have fully absorbed an album after one listen, I usually take that as a red flag. It means the album is uninteresting and won't have much replay value in the long run.
>>63262734
>music actually loses replay value
pleb,
>>63262734
You don't have to have "fully absorbed" an album to appreciate it on an aesthetic level.
>>63262648
A lot of dense albums require more than one listen. Loveless is an album that gets better with each listen.
>>63262648
i dare you to listen to an album once and telling 24 hours later all the tracks names in the right order and what they sounded like.
>>63262763
By "aesthetic" you mean on a 'surface', 'basic'. 'overall' etc. level. That's true but that level of appreciation doesn't mean shit.
>>63262767
Any album that doesn't require another listen for its nuances to be appreciated is probably shit-tier anyway.
>>63262830
>>63262773
most of us aren't mentally handicapped so we can do that, It's weird how you just can't fathom that being a possibility
>>63262830
>>63262846
Fugg, misread your post. Sorry m8
>>63262850
Bullshit
>>63262870
go get your IQ checked you fucking moron, get off this website it's turning you into a mongloid christ.
If you can't remember something you JUST listened to then I don't know what the fuck to say
>>63262890
Nice backpedal, faglord. He said all the track names in order and the characteristics of each track. 24 hours later.
>>63262767
>A lot of dense albums require more than one listen
...for what, exactly?
>>63262773
What a fucking moronic proposition. First of all, that would be highly dependent on a number of variables: the quantity of tracks on the album, the level of variation between tracks, how memorable the compositions were etc. Secondly, that would be a fairly easy task for a majority of albums I've listened to. Thirdly, being able to name all the tracks in the right order has virtually nothing to do with being able to appreciate it. What on Earth are you talking about?
>>63262799
I'm not sure if you're the same person I said this to earlier but you seriously need to learn English before you post here.
Or, ideally, just stop posting altogether.
>>63262913
>24 hours
yeah that's having just listened to it.
And if you were to read the track names yes, why not? Why is this so unbelievable? Are you all fucking goldfish? Stop wasting your beta-permavirgin lives playing videogames and listening to music and start actually stimulating your brain for once
>>63260708
this
>>63262940
we've already determined that these kids are mentally handicapped and probably severely autistic with attention deficiencies. They spout obsurd logic like "WELL NAME EVERY TRACK IN ORDER ON AN ALBUM" like that has anything to do with actually absorbing the music.
They sound like that weird kid in school who ate his boogers and always had a chapped upper lip
>>63262940
That ad-hominem isn't anywhere close to a meaningful rebuttal. I was trying to take your pretentious and vague usage of the term "aesthetic" and ground it in language that actually makes sense to our discussion.
>>63263011
I don't care for the memory-test, that was the other anons thing, I just think you're bullshitting to posture about how easily you can absorb music, to cover up for the fact that you have such a passive and superficial interest in music that you don't even bother to develop meaningful opinions of albums through repeated listens. You probably listen to albums just so you can rate them as quickly as possible on RYM instead of for their inherent value.
>>63263078
I do not use RYM, I listen to albums over and over and over again, if they're good albums
If they're shit albums like Loveless, then I don't listen to them. I don't forcefeed feces down my throat like you plebs
>>63263078
>ad-hominem
>pretentious
>vague
Oh great, some more terms you need to lean the definition of.
>ground it in language that actually makes sense to our discussion.
If by this you mean "completely redefine it", sure.
I feel sorry for people that don't 'get' this album or think there's something deep behind it
Its just a well written rock album with beautiful guitar work.... The bends ,the swirls ,the distortion ,the moments where the bass cuts through the walls of sound coming from the guitars.Its just beautiful and if you can't into that stop trying to make other people feel like it's some kind of ruse by using the boring 'pleb' and 'patrician' memes
/Rant
Now i begin to understand why so many people in here jerk off to everything scaruffi says....i guess that he only listens to albums once as well. Given that he only writes short paragraphs and barely talks about the music.
This whole patricians/plebs thing arround here is completely fucked up, listening to albums once, but if they are asked to talked about them, they simply say: "yeah, you know, i liked it".
I pitty all of you
>>63263220
This is how you would respond to this post
>lean
Really? I think you mean 'learn'. Maybe try learning English before you use this board? Maybe just leave the internet altogether?
>>63263263
Exactly. This board is full of posers who listen to an album for just long enough to develop a pathetically surface opinion so they can spout it on /mu/ to show off. It's fucking cringe.
>>63263263
>>63263310
>waaaaaa people won't tell me how I'm ment to enjoy something
>>63263268
Except that was clearly a typo and doesn't affect the core meaning of my post.
>>63263392
Alright, how about this. Why not just say, 'No, I used the term 'aesthetic' for a reason, what I mean is...' instead of being such a fucking insufferable twat.
Cheer up guys it's only a album
>>63263452
It has a pretty clear, well-defined meaning. I suggest you use a dictionary.
>>63263310
>posers
what are you 12?
>>63263585
Were you not hugged enough as a child or something? Why are you such an obnoxious little cunt?
>>63263627
It's funny.
>>63263310
they probably only eat frozen food and mcdonalds as well.
>>63260669
I took me years to get this album. For years "Only Shallow" was the only song I thought was any decent. Now it's one of my favorite albums and I think it's a beautiful work.
Maybe just give it time.
