Author Topic: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991  (Read 2047 times)

loveably tiny demon

  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:40:01 AM »
Anyone ever read this, an interesting one to say the least.

http://reynoldsretro.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/my-bloody-valentine-loveless-melody.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

connect_icut

  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
    • Bubblegum Cage III
Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2014, 04:43:58 PM »
I read this when it was published. Am I the only old person still on this forum? :s

Hugh Jazz

  • Moderator
  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
    • View Profile
    • Expect Delay
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2014, 11:03:30 PM »
This is one of the few coherent period reviews of Loveless that I've seen.

Am I the only old person still on this forum? :s

No, but the board is pretty dead.

Feed The Collapse

  • Moderator
  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2014, 06:21:00 AM »
I think it's interesting how it reads like he's somewhat disappointed in it. Maybe it's all in retrospect, but I guess I'm not entirely sure what he was expecting.

but yeah, I generally agree with Reynolds more often than not. Very descriptive way of putting why I love the album.

loveably tiny demon

  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2014, 08:14:40 AM »
I like the interview, although some bits kill me slightly.


I'm old but in 91 I was not buying melody maker -

The board is dead ----- for now :::::::: 2015 !!!! It's ep time

Happy new year babes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

only swallow

  • Glider
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2015, 01:52:38 PM »
"Throughout Loveless, MBV sound pregnant, like their music is about to metamorphosise to a higher state that they themselves can't quite conceive, just as a liquid doesn't know what lies ahead when it's on the threshold of turning into gas."

Love this.

Here's hope for 2015, ep, Springsteen song, yay!

ToHereKnowsWho

  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Swoonstruck
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2015, 06:01:12 AM »
Wow, I remember reading this when it came out (being 41 and probably amongst the oldest on this forum). An overdose on adjectives but how enthusiastic! The description of my favourite Loveless track is epic:

"Blown A Wish" is yet another Ecstasy-blitzed bower, sickly and soppy enough to give even Liz Frazer tooth-ache, while Bilinda's hyperventilated 'oooh's and 'aaaah's sound like she's got hummingbirds in her stomach. It's swoony, but in the end, it's too much: like staring into lover's eyes whose pupils are so dilated they're black holes pulling you to your doom"

only swallow

  • Glider
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2015, 06:24:00 AM »
Wow, I remember reading this when it came out (being 41 and probably amongst the oldest on this forum). An overdose on adjectives but how enthusiastic! The description of my favourite Loveless track is epic:


It's wonderfully described, so well written... By the way, I thought your fave was soon?

Lotus

  • Glider
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2015, 07:10:51 AM »
"soon" was the first he heard I think, referring to a previous conversion.

Sure, this is a fun read, and whilst I was well old enough to have read it, I wasn't that into music back then and certainly hadn't consciously heard any music by mbv. I recall them being on the CD jukebox in the uni bar (I mean seeing name of the band in it). And I danced my tits off to indie disco in the uni club every Friday, so I'm sure they were probably played and I probably did hear them (I only remember "Sit Down" by James and "Dizzy" by Vic Reeves at the end of each night to be honest!). I certainly didn't notice an mbv track until late 1993 at the very earliest when Gary Crowley played it on his Sunday radio show on BBC GLR (I've said this before I know!).

Anyway, getting back to the piece, this bit is utter bollocks "Those of us who are a little harder to please have been hoping that this LP would shame the imposters back into oblivion.
Loveless isn't, quite, the record to do that." It EXACTLY did that.

Simon is a journalist who was, like us, very much moved by the music of mbv over the years, as he's written about a lot. I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy reading his pieces very much (even if this is probably the review that KS was referring to as "flowery" when he commented on the journalistic stylings at the time "loveless" was released). But some of his later comments on guitar music (after his revelation into electronic music and rave culture) I feel are sometimes a bit too negative, almost trying to re-appraise some things with hindsight. But I 100% agree with him on everything he has said about "touched" throughout the years; I really do believe it's one of the most important pieces on "loveless".

Feed The Collapse

  • Moderator
  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2015, 08:08:54 AM »

Anyway, getting back to the piece, this bit is utter bollocks "Those of us who are a little harder to please have been hoping that this LP would shame the imposters back into oblivion.
Loveless isn't, quite, the record to do that." It EXACTLY did that.



eh, I kind of agree with him. While Loveless rightfully towers over the rest of Shoegaze, it didn't necessarily render all its imitators obsolete and leave us with a reaction of "a chorus pedal? how cute.", though I think that has less to do with Loveless and more that Ride, Slowdive, etc. weren't quite the carbon copies they were made out to be.


but yeah, there's absolutely no competition between Loveless and pretty much any other Shoegaze act.

connect_icut

  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
    • Bubblegum Cage III
Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2015, 06:45:06 PM »
Historically speaking, Loveless really did kill shoegaze dead. Some of the bands were already popular enough to limp on for years after its release but - as a cultural phenomenon in the UK - shoegaze 100% died pretty much as soon as Loveless came out. That's how it seemed to me at the time, anyway.

I remember Melody Maker publishing a letter the following week that listed a bunch of words used in the review and said something like: "These terms are not in my dictionary. Can Mr. Reynolds please explain them?" Major respect to anyone who can post a scan of that.

Hugh Jazz

  • Moderator
  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
    • View Profile
    • Expect Delay
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2015, 03:12:37 AM »
A lot of the UK reviews of Loveless at the time seemed to indicate that, on the basis of the Glider and Tremolo EPs, critics were expecting Loveless to be much more extreme than it actually was.

Feed The Collapse

  • Moderator
  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2015, 03:38:41 AM »
Historically speaking, Loveless really did kill shoegaze dead. Some of the bands were already popular enough to limp on for years after its release but - as a cultural phenomenon in the UK - shoegaze 100% died pretty much as soon as Loveless came out. That's how it seemed to me at the time, anyway.


I think some of that was just timing as almost immediately after Grunge/Alternative and Britpop quickly popped up. Coupled with Ride soon moving away from the genre, and it seems like by 1993 most of the original wave had moved on along with the trends.



Quote
A lot of the UK reviews of Loveless at the time seemed to indicate that, on the basis of the Glider and Tremolo EPs, critics were expecting Loveless to be much more extreme than it actually was.


I'm not entirely sure what gave them that indication beyond the track Glider and maybe THKW. Otherwise, plenty of material between the two EPs is almost folky.

Lotus

  • Glider
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2015, 04:44:44 AM »
It's probably fair to day the big leap forward happened in glider and tremolo. Think about it; soon and thkw, honey power, moon song, swallow, don't ask why, glider all in the public domain, plus i only said and when you sleep were already part of the live set. loveless doesn't take it much further forward than the step between isn't anything and glider ep really. loveless more brings it all together in one place as a complete work.

I still think loomer and touched and the instrumental noodles between tracks on loveless are the big moves forward.

Feed The Collapse

  • Moderator
  • Ecstacy
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
    • View Profile
Re: Melody maker, loveless review: 1991
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2015, 01:06:38 PM »
... and now the exact opposite of Simon Reynolds:


(click to enlarge)


lofuckingl Rolling Stone (Scroll down, Loveless review excerpt listed as well)