MY BLOODY VALENTINE

Look - I don't enjoy being disappointed by supposedly classic albums. When I first listen to an album that has an unassailable critical reputation I don't immediately look for the bad points. And if I am initially disappointed, if anything, I listen to the damn thing MORE, just because I have so much faith in other critics' opinions that I assume I MUST be missing something, anything. But, and perhaps I am a traditionalist in this respect, I kinda think great albums should have great songs on them. As far as I can tell, this album doesn't have any songs at all, let alone great ones. It is 'lush', of course, 'ethereal', 'dreamy', and 'eerie' (all taken from the All Music Guide's profile of it) but then so is fucking Enya and SHE ain't behind supposedly one of the great landmarks of alternative rock. Now I'm not saying this isn't a quite unique and initially interesting style of production but I'm sure Kev Shields could have spent the two years creating it doing something a little more productive, not least writing some good songs. That said, I wouldn't question its influence either and certainly Billy Corgan showed on Siamese Dream a couple of years later that using this symphonic styled production on a set of great songs will produce a great album. I think the central problem is that the vocals are mixed far too low. Shields and fellow vocalist Bilinda Butler mesh their whispered vocals together to form a kind of hushed backdrop that blends in with the shimmering guitars and keyboards to the extent that one forgets they are even singing at all. This ambient cocktail is apparently utterly amazing and astonishing, unless you're the kind of philistine that looks for a coherent lyrical exposition or a clear vocal melody in a song. Which is why I find it utterly confusing that this album is so praised for its melodicism. Where the hell is it? The whole project is probably marginally more melodic than Eno's Music for Airports and only slightly less boring. Not until ten minutes in (after the deadly dull endless amelodic droning of "To Here Knows When") do the band even tumble out of bed, with the vaguely up-tempo "When You Sleep" which, admittedly, does successfully corner the market for 'lush pop'. That song alone does show what the band could've achieved and would justify the extravagant claims made about the rest of the album. The aching ballad "Sometimes" also stands out but that is only because I remember it being used in 'Lost in Translation' - a film possibly even duller than this album (and Bill Murray's career best performance? Have these people seen 'Ghostbusters'?). In truth, I have to be negative because the reputation of this album so high. About half of the tracks are real songs and, with "When You Sleep" being the best example, they do show glimpses of how this album could be construed as being so special. "What You Want" is the pick of the rest and even then I had to relisten to it to remind me how it actually sounds. The overall sound might be quite unique but the number of good, independent songs is minimal and the listening experience as a whole, for me anyway, only rarely breaks out of a dreary dishwater doze, not least when I sporadically recall the reputation this album holds. That said, I am not going to argue with its influence and there are plenty of albums as well as Siamese Dream, the Flaming Lips spring to mind, that showed how impressive this sort of lush production can be when combined with great pop songs. Unfortunately, I cannot shake the thought of this album being nothing more than Enya for indie kids.

From: mike noto

Thank you. For once, someone realizes that this isn't the greatest album God gave to man, in opposition to half the employees of Pitchfork. Half of the songs are really good, but half of them are either terrible or totally average. I'm keeping it short, but I totally agree with this 6/10 instead of the 6/10 you gave the Minutemen, which I disagree with. Even with that awesome guitar tone, which is brainmeltingly cool, some of these songs suck - "When You Sleep" has such a dinky hook that it might as well have been played on a toy piano. But "Soon" is brilliant.

From: ddickson@rice.edu

Kudos, sir. Finally, someone doesn't consider Loveless a masterpiece for the ages of man. I would agree with your assessment of this album--except the other way around. Great songs, shitty production. And I mean DETUNED. On at least half the tracks, Keven Shields shows an unhealthy predilection for playing with the guitar track tape speed, something that makes me wanna smack his hand with a ruler. Most of the songs, writing-wise, are decent melodically, you just can barely hear the vocals under the twenty layers of this loud, warbling, outta tune destructo-noise.
That said, I do enjoy the opener, "Only Shallow", a LOT. Heck, Blenda Butcher even SINGS like Billy Corgan on that one. And "Soon" is something we don't get a lot of in the States. Maybe it's just our lack of chiming open-chorded guitar talking, or our dearth of tambourine-saturated dance beats, but I consider that song the quintessential '90's British rock tune. It embodies the psychedelia, the danceadelia, and experimentadelia we Yanks have sorely lacked for 17 long years. Personally, I'm no big fan of the Stone Roses, but give me this over endless Kurt Cobain ripoffs any day of the week.
Oh, and by the way, Enya IS behind one of the great landmarks of. . . well, it ain't alternative rock, but it IS Watermark. Give it a listen. You may not like it, but you WILL be shocked at how many songs you recognize on it from movie soundtracks and the like. It is the Thriller of New Age. No kidding. Say. "Blown a Wish" kinda sounds like Enya. I like that song too. "I Only Said" blows, though. As does "To Here Knows When".
Overall, I give this album a 7/10. It IS good makeout music, after all.

• Return to the main page

Email me at: jackfeeny@yahoo.co.uk