it's decent. maybe like a 6/10 so far. Ive maybe given it like 2 good listens all the way through. Is it eventually gonna blow my mind?
This album is shit. Don't worry if you don't t get it. Its just like every shoegaze album ever made
Keep with it but make sure to play it loud so it feels like you're drowning in the sound
>>64188233
i mean, i dont think its awful, its just overrated
>>64188270
yeah, this shit is getting blasted.
No, it's really not that difficult of a record to understand. If you don't think it's a 10/10 by the second listen you need to give up on music as a whole because it's not for you.
Loveless is easily a 9/10. No other "rock" album even comes close. I've heard it 400+ times and have yet to get sick of it.
Deconstructing it in your head is the fun part.
>>64188154
It's greatness will creep up on you, it will happen it is only a matter of when.
It is one of this couple of albums whose hysterical reviews elaborate at length about the feeling and the immersion and the profundity and the impact and the blahy blahy blah while not once referring to, you know, the actual music. The actual compositions. Which means there hardly is any. Weak-minded, young people read how they're supposed to JUST GIVE IN TO THE MOOD of this album, do it, and empathically allow themselves to get convinced it's good. A self-induced, conceded-to delusion.
In reality, it's just a lazy, highly uninspired job.
>>64188648
>lazy
Lmao.
No rock album until Loveless or since had so much effort into layering, texture and creating a unique sound. Plus, the melodies are fantastic, every single song is memorable. Looks like you havent even listened to it wtf. Its okay to not enjoy it, its not everyones cup of tea, but to dismiss purely because you didnt like it is absurd.
>>64188535
>Deconstructing it in your head is the fun part.
I agree
>>64188715
The 'texture' and 'layering' your apology relies on was not an end in itself on this album -- they were a smoke screen designed to obscure the lack of creativity melody-wise. The band was not only untalented -- that alone would be fine -- it was also disingenuous in how it peddled their 'sound' on that album as a musical merit and goal in itself, while in fact it was a mere sonic vehicle to draw the attention from the fact that the music was absent. The purported melodies are some five times sparser than in the (not even that ambitious) prog I've found after just a couple of years of listening.
>>64188323
Dont put your speakers in the same surface as the turntable. You'll end up damaging something in the turntable or your vinyl
>>64188323
Listen to this guy: >>64188826
It's overrated. Let it go.
>>64188825
Seems to me you just dont like their songs and melodies. They always knew how to craft great pop songs, they always had good songwriting skills, this is a fact. Any EP preceeding Loveless proves it. Hell, on Isnt Anything the songs are more upfront and they dont rely on soundscapes much. And yes, Loveless's songwriting is superb, and the use of open tunnings adds a unique flavor to them.
>>64188648
It's fine to not like Loveless but to call it lazy just shows how woefully ignorant of the album you are. I doubt you even listened to it.
>there are plebs on /mu/ who think texture should always take backseat to melody no matter the genre
Bleh
>>64188535
>No other "rock" album even comes close.
You're being retarded.
Yes this album supplants the usually riffs that focus on tonality, and instead puts all its effort into timbre, which is interesting and ahead of its time given that our generation seems much more focused on texture than notes, but it's a trend. Not a bad one, but a trend nonetheless. It's just a cultural shift in how we balance priorities in music. There are plenty of rock albums with much deeper tonal composition that, yea, maybe they aren't as washed out and hypnotic in the way that this one is, but that's not the end all do all of music, it's just one thing it can accomplish. Don't be a fool, respect all qualities of music, because they're all important.
>>64188648
>A self-induced, conceded-to delusion.
Nope. When I was new to /mu/, I saw the album posted here and I listened to it blind. I didn't know if it was good or bad or meh, but now it's my favorite album of all time. I don't care what people say; if tomorrow, the new /mu/ and professional opinion becomes that it's an overrated, shit album, I'll still love it.
To me, it's genius.
>>64189016
>>64189363
Well, then I find it pretty sad how easy it is to gyp you people out of discrimination. You're like people who insist there is beauty in monotonous mumbling next to masterful, forceful, subject- and emotion-aware recitation.
>>64189144
Are you retarded? I hope this is bait, but I'll take it anyway. Different genres and albums have differents approaches to musical elements, as in any art. Watching a arthouse film or read Finnegans Wake for its plots, but for other artistical reasons. If you don't think texture is important in music then you're probably an idiot who has no knowledge about anything in art.
>>64189417
Did I say your opinion about the album is wrong? If you think it's shit, then that's your opinion. What's wrong is that you think I like it because other people say I should like it.
>>64189417
In other words, before I began to listen to popular albums, popular here on /mu/ for instance, I never realized how cowardly most musicians are. How much they cling to the facade that their murky sounds, sparse composition, slow tempo, and emotional indistinctness are not all pretensions concealing their inability to write and perform.
>>64189466
>Did I say your opinion about the album is wrong?
Yes you did, and that -- your idiocy -- is why I skipped you in >>64189417.
>>64189363
>if tomorrow, the new /mu/ and professional opinion becomes that it's an overrated, shit album, I'll still love it.
This.
Thought its unlikely to ever fall out of favor with critics given how influential it ended up becoming.
>>64189016
>They always knew how to craft great pop songs, they always had good songwriting skills
no they didn't. have you listened to some of the stuff from before bilinda joined? I love my bloody valentine and I think it's really interesting to listen to some of their older stuff just to see how they've progressed, but some of the early stuff is just awful.
>>64189568
Might have had something to do with that original vocalist. They got exponentially better after Kevin took over.
>>64188406
>you're listening to music wrong
that meme never gets old
>>64188154
keep listening keep listening
it'll click
listen to it at full volume before you go to sleep
try and listen to the layers of sound
and see them like kevin wants you to
>>64189231
>trend
all things are trends
talking heads were focusing on timbre over notes long before this
and people will continue to.
>>64189647
>and see them like kevin wants you to
This is actually pretty important. You should be able to see the sounds in your head as shapes and colors, even without the use of drugs.
Kevin talked about it in an interview.
>>64189733
do you have a link to that interview?
>>64188648
Compositionally Loveless is a basic indie pop album. It's actually even simpler than Isn't Anything. The reason the album is so acclaimed is because it's an exemplary exercise in mood and especially texture. This is not an album for those who value raw composition above all else, simple as that. Then again, the same could be said for a lot of pop music as all it needs compositionally is to be catchy and "snappy".
>>64189762
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/03/my-bloody-valentine-kevin-shields-interview
>>64189780
>exemplary exercise in mood and especially texture
I'm literally retarded, but after a year or so of programming and elementary math, even I could write a shitty program generating 'textures' that people will like to hear because they vibrate at some combination of frequencies or something by just random change of parametres. It's just guesswork. The more of guesswork and less of brainwork a piece is, the less respect I have for it.
>>64189647
>all things are trends
>talking heads were focusing on timbre over notes long before this
>and people will continue to.
Yes, people have done so in the past and will continue to do so. I don't see how that addresses my point though, that just because our generation seems to value that aspect of music more than others that it somehow makes music that focuses on other things less valid or artistic. He was saying that no other rock album comes close, which is pure ignorance, as well as arrogance.
>>64189954
>it's so easy! anyone can do it!
go make the next Loveless then pal
>>64189849
thanks anon
>>64189954
Then do it. You might attain a fanbase if you're good enough at it. Also, I'm somehow not surprised that someone who immediately jumps to programming and math has a hard-on for composition and structure.
>>64189608
yeah but you can't know that the experience of playing those early, shitty songs didn't shape Kevin in his songwriting. Kevin didn't get good at writing songs overnight, he(and the rest of the band) had to work really hard, and you can see it through their discography.
>>64190062
jesus christ why do people like you keep popping up in discussions about art?
>>64188826
Actually if you're playing on an AT it won't harm your records. Those things are built to resist sound vibrations.
>>64190108
>go make the next Loveless then
>>64190144
>Then do it.
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzaBAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZza(aaaabaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)zaaaaaaaaaaAaAaBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzaBBBBBBBBBBBza(a)(a)aaaaaaaaaaaaaabZaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>>64190249
Little bit more complex than that. The melodies may be simple but they still are synergized with the noise. Really, the album is basically the endgame of what Psychocandy hinted at.
>>64190249
:----D
>>64190291
>>64190381
I don't think you appreciate the intricate interplay of continuous and discrete parentheses sequences, as well as highly planned inclusion of two-character interludes, as well of conditional inclusion of initial and terminal a's and b's at certain units... There is more structure to that BZZZZZZZZZZZ than meets the eye. Give it a couple more reads, it will blow your minds.
I know I can´t expect every single one of you anons to be positive about this album.,it´s not even my favourite album,but if we would really love music and our passion would connect us on this board,then there would be no way
>>64190453
>>64190453
Clever, but Loveless isn't quite that pretentious either. Its melodies are poppy enough to take at face value once you hear them under all the noise. It's really a very simple album buried under, yet still at harmony with layers of noise and guitar effects.
>>64190187
>jesus christ why do people like you keep popping up in discussions about art?
Oh, you must be one of those people that think it's a sin to think. Ideas shape your reaction to art, if you don't take a minute to consider the bias that makes you think a certain thing then why should anybody give a fuck about your reaction to any art?
