Now, some of you might be convinced that an album that has garnered God knows how many "*****" reviews must be the most amazing thing ever committed to tape. Well...hold on a sec. Yes, this is an incredible, peerless work by a truly gifted set of musicians, but it ain't fer everybody. If you go in to this record "unprepared", then it will undoubtedly leave you cold with the distinct aftertaste of hype lingering in your ears. So, with that in mind, here's a list of things you should know before you drop some hard-earned coin on the vaunted "Loveless":

-Musos beware! This band doesn't "do" ornate, baroque, "theory-happy", guitar-technique rock. You won't find any "fretboard fireworks", constantly shifting time signatures, "bitchin' licks" or any other "musical feats of athleticism" on this album. If you don't think that music can be impressive or innovative without any prog-rock/virtuoso wanking, then this ain't the album for you.

-If you don't "get it", then don't worry about it. This album isn't for everyone. It helps to approach this record with some knowledge of MBV's forebears and contemporaries. Listen to some Sonic Youth, the Jesus and Mary Chain, and Brian Eno (especially "Pussyfooting" with Robert Fripp). Being familiar with the first three Ramones albums wouldn't hurt either, considering that they are one of Kevin's big influences. Don't believe me? Listen to "Judy Is a Punk" and hum a MBV-ish "swooning" melody during the bridge. Bingo!

-Disregard any and all comparisons made between MBV and the Cocteau Twins. Similar aesthetic, radically different approach. The Cocteaus were filigree and lace, snowfall and sunlight, pretty, delicate, elegant and feminine. MBV was more like an erotic, androgynous blizzard of pink noise.

-Disregard any mention of My Bloody Valentine as an influence on crap like the Smashing Pumpkins. Layering 378 guitars isn't what MBV was all about. "Siamese Dream" may have been "inspired" by MBV, but it sounded like a pseudo-goth version of Boston in the end.

-Some folks claim that there are no "songs" on this album. Huh? "Only Shallow" is driven by an oceanic, Sabbath-esque riff that then melts into a beautiful pop melody in the verses. "When You Sleep" is a vast, goosebump-inducing slice of heaven that still manages to be a snappy little pop song. "Blown a Wish" melds sheer ambient loveliness with a beautiful melody and ends up sounding like Serge Gainsbourg circa 2400 AD. This is an extremely tuneful album. Anybody that doesn't think that there are any "songs" on this record needs to get their head examined.

-People often claim that LOVELESS sounds "flat" or "murky" and that the production on this record doesn't warrant the $500,000 price tag. Listen to this album with a pair of good headphones (the kind that don't say "Memorex" on the side) and prepare to find out where that half-mil of Alan McGee's cash went. If you want to hear really awful production values, then listen to "Isn't Anything" sometime. Hey, I've been a rabid MBV fan for over a decade and I still can't stand that album. The songs are fantastic, but the production is terrible. Yeech...

-Common complaint # 453: "You can't hear the vocals." MBV approached the vocals as another instrument, another layer of color. If you think that the vocals should have been mixed "high", then you're missing the point of the band's "symphonic" approach to making music. The vocals exist on the same aural level as the guitars and the bass so that each instrument would blend and harmonize to create new textures. Shields experimented with loops, tremolo, dissonance, harmony and the actual sound waves produced by the amplifiers to produce "ghosts" of melody that could only be heard when the amps were positioned just so and everything was mixed evenly. These "melodies" that were the result of the interference patterns produced by the instruments weren't composed, but they weren't accidental either. "To Here Knows When" and "Soon" are the best examples of this approach.

Enjoy!...


This will sound pretentious... but it needs to be said   January 9, 2002
 145 out of 196 found this review helpful

I'm not going to post a review of this album. Everything that I could possibly say about it has already been said a million times before. I WOULD like to address the people who gave this 1 or 2 stars though. Has anyone else noticed that the bulk of the negative reviews of "Loveless" were posted in the last two years? Had you ever spotted a copy of this cd in the used bins before then? I suppose that this is what happens when media sheep were convinced to buy this by Rolling Stone and Spin's "Greatest Records of The 90s" issues in late '99. If you rely on mainstream music magazines to introduce you to new music, then it goes without saying that you probably won't understand this masterpiece. Don't bother defiling "Loveless" if you tend to use cds as background music... leave this record to those of us who actually LISTEN to music and possess appreciation for it on more than a single level.


Strange and gorgeous aural mystery   April 23, 2007
 51 out of 51 found this review helpful

I'm an unlikely admirer of this record. 51 years old. Taking Lipitor. Bifocals. But, I've spent the last two years or so listening to this CD at least once a week. It's also an unlikely CD to admire. Perfectly reasonable people with refined tastes can be bewildered, even frightened by it. It breaks most of the rules that are supposed to apply to rock music. Brian Eno famously referred to the "vagueness" of the music and that's dead right. But, all I can say is that it magically finds some system in my brain that I have in common with lizards and plays it like a cheap guitar. It's wonderful.


Quite possibly the worst album I've ever heard.   May 23, 2004
 38 out of 67 found this review helpful

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.


Swore I'd never do this...   October 22, 1999
 36 out of 45 found this review helpful

I never wanted to write an album review, but after reading the previous 60-some reviews, and considering it was this album, I changed my mind.

I remember the first MBV song I heard - Honey Power - off a Sire Records CD sampler (Just Say Yes!). As soon as I heard it, I needed more. I looked them up at a record store and bought Loveless.

It is now (1999 - 1991 = 8) eight years and 217,000 listenings later. I have found nothing better and like nothing more. I don't even know the names of the songs - I don't think I care. (Kevin who? Belinda wha?) I just put it in & push play. What else matters?

Whenever I hear it, I feel like I can name every other time & place I listened to it previously (I was living in So. Cal. when I got it, so of course those memories take precedence). It's the closest thing to a time machine I'll ever experience.

So add this weak rendition of a review to the pile. And for those of you who don't understand MBV - I don't care!! It's mine! Go eat a big bowl of shut up and let me listen!