elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
I hope so, but he said he's posting the 40 in full...you don't think he meant all in one post do you?
cripes! I hope not!
I hope so, but he said he's posting the 40 in full...you don't think he meant all in one post do you?
I must say I'm surprised The Cure and The Police haven't appeared yet.
....
....
Did he leave for the day and not tell us?
You'll get the names soon enough.
For now, however, I will be taking a half hour off to build suspense. When I return, the top 40 will be post in its entirety.
He said he was leaving for some good amount of time I thought
I had Zenyatta Mondatta fairly high up on mine. Hopefully it will appear, although it's looking less and less likely.
Does anyone just arriving want to see the list of 41-100?
Does anyone just arriving want to see the list of 41-100?
translation: Is anyone too lazy to go back 20 pages and see the results so far?
Ghost was in my Top 15. I'd be really surprised if it didn't make the list. Same with Pornography.
I'd hope Synchronicity and Disintegration finish in the top 25.
Good God man, that was fast.
Number 24 0verall? Methinks the children are doing the wrong drugs. Painfully bad, boring and fit more for the wiping of the arse than the playing on the box.
The worst album I own. It's a shame this is rated so high. I love how people think of unique ways to describe this mumble because its a album of noiseless nonsense. This album sounds like the whole band has been submerged underwater and the sound they come out with is a more horryfying sound than jaws would make when he's ripping a person apart.
Quite possibly the worst album I've ever heard
I suppose most people would say that I just don't get it. I'd have to agree with that. I really don't have any sort of clue as to why people love this album so much. The one saving grace of this project may have been it's originality, but just because something is unique doesn't make that thing good. In the case of Loveless, I think that the reason it is so unique is not because Kevin Shields has some kind of devine musical insight that other artists lack, but rather that other artists have had the good sense to avoid using the same kinds of songwriting strategies and production techniques. Those that HAVE been influenced by My Bloody Valentine seem to use the techniques a little more tastefully.
Music really just comes down to a matter of taste. Specifically your taste in musical styles and more importantly in the case of loveless, your taste in the aesthetics of the sound.
Musically, I think that Loveless is tolerable, but certainly not good. I find absolutely no emotion communicated with this music-- it seems pointless and uninspired to me. The biggest issue with the music (as with much popular music that uses distorted guitars) is that one of the key elements of music is all but ignored: dynamics. There is only one dynamic in Loveless: painfully loud. From start to finish, this doesn't waver much. It's just a matter of personal taste, but typically I can't stand songs with such rigid dynamics.
Sonically, I find Loveless to be the most gut-wrenching horrific unatractive pile of terrible sounds that I have ever experieneced. It is not just that I don't prefer this type of sound-- I actually do appreciate the use of noise and feedback in some cases-- but the constant onslaught of piercing noise on Loveless is actually physically painful to me. I can not physically stand to listen to this album. One song in particular, Blown A Wish, contains a particularly piercing almost inaudibly high frequency tone throughout. I'm not the only person that has expereinced this with that song in particular. That leads me to my central problem with Loveless. I'm not convinced that Kevin Shields spent all the time and money on this album to "perfect his artistic vision." I think that much of the production on this album was very accidental and unintentional (like the piercing sound in Blown a Wish). I much more envision Kevin Shields experimenting with layering much more haphazardly rather than by some kind of methodical plan to achieve a desired sound. I could be wrong, and it's entirely possible that Loveless turned out exactly the way Shields wanted it to from the beginning. I just don't think that's the case.
What's very important to me is that sound (texture) and music work together in their artistic goal. For me, the very extreme (and unpleasant for most) sounds of Loveless fail to communicate any emotion at all in conjunction with what I feel is very apathetic music-- especially due to the constant dynamics of the music and the repetitive structure of the songs. The vocals are almost sigh-like and very low in the mix-- almost as to say "nothing I'm saying is important".
If you really love this album: so be it. I respect your taste. Personally, I found it to be appalling. No other album has aroused in me such a desire to turn it off. After repeated listening-- trying to give this album a chance-- I would be perfectly content to never hear it again.
The one question that the uninitiated should ask themselves before buying this CD is how well can you tolerate noise. I don't just mean the noise of kids playing at the park or of car engines in traffic. I mean noises like radio and television static-- piercing arrays of many many frequencies. This album doesn't use noise as an instrument (like an industrial or electronica artist... or a NES game cartridge) -- rather, the noise is the canvas on which the music is applied. Make no mistake-- this album contains constant piercing noise. If you can't handle that, I'd definately reccomend HEARING this album before you buy it.
an elephant stuck in an escalator
I swear, when I finally get around to listening to Loveless it better not suck.
Yeah, yeah, there are other shoegaze albums besides this one. But is there one this unique, singular, and downright beautiful? I haven't heard it.