Anyone else here think that m b v is better than loveless?
It's like the best possible following to that.
>>63345742
nah loveless is way better
>>63345765
I can understand that personal taste comes first, but you can't deny that m b v is a pretty solid release.
It's like a sequel release to Loveless made in the 90s
>>63345742
No. But it's still really good. It sounds like the logical continuation of Loveless without really sounding dated. Loveless still sounds like it lives in a world of it's own and so does this.
>>63345792
I usually have a pretty solid release as well, every day around 4pm. That doesn't mean people want to listen to me shit
>>63345808
Speak for yourself, shitcore is my favorite genre.
>>63345808
>not listening to Ecstasy
Go back to pitchfork
it sounds like an aged, stoned Loveless. most of it is okay, but you can tell they couldn't keep up with how great their previous albums were
also the last two tracks are awful. I'm all for repetition in music but the semifinal track goes nowhere. the last track is an unlistenable mess
>>63345880
Couldnt agree more anon
>>63345880
This. There was so much good material on m b v, but in the end, a lot of it was repeated 3 or 4 more times than it should have been, and also offered little in the songs' overall progressions and developments
