My Bloody Valentine - Loveless (1991)
i wasn’t going to write about shoegaze this much, but it’s autumn, after all, and autumn is the time for pretty swirly noises. there are books about loveless, too. it’s one of these albums that have magically been elevated to a legendary status, however, it also lives up to the legend, something you can’t say about daydream nation, psychocandy or even the white album (i abhor the beatles, so there).
part of the thing with my bloody valentine isn’t really the music. they started out as a bad eighties pop group (don’t believe me, huh? go check out the filesharing networks), then moved to jangly indie, and by the time their debut, the lovely isn’t anything, was released, they found themselves at the forefront of a new, exciting subgenre called shoegaze. then kevin shields started to go nuts, and the band did way too much ecstasy. that might sound bad, and i guess it’s not exactly healthy to be high on fuckall all the time, but they probably needed to be fucked up to create something as swirly and drugged-out as loveless.
the album was three years in the making, produced by seventeen different producers, and nearly bankrupted their label. it wasn’t even such a smash hit when it first came out. the years and money were well spent, though. you’ll rarely hear such accomplished music. ‘only shallow’ has the strangest, sometimes metal-sounding guitars, distorted to the point that they could be anything. ‘loomer’ approaches sonic perfection with its outlandish, heavy swirls of music around some kind of strange ballad. ‘blown a wish’, ‘what you want’ and ‘when you sleep’ are pop songs in a very noisy gift wrap. ’soon’ still sounds like the future of rock.
the album’s centrepiece, however, is ‘to here knows when’. the sonic barrage is almost too much to bear, but bilinda butcher’s drugged-out singing somehow smoothes the omnipresent ripples of monster guitar out. the singing on loveless is strangely androgynous anyway, it’s quite impossible to tell if it’s kevin or bilinda warbling on and on about sex on acid. come to think of it, ‘touched’ deserves special mention. if you can make what presumably is a guitar sound like an enraged elephant, you can use me as a foot bench anytime.
with today’s technology, all of this sonic trickery wouldn’t have been all that remarkable, i agree. and that’s precisely why loveless is such an extraordinary record: you can try to record something that sounds like it, but you’ll never quite get there. shields’ mysterious production techniques simply can’t be imitated with midi and protools and whathaveyougot. my bloody valentine made the whole shoegaze/noise genre seem obsolete and primitive in a flash, and then proceeded to blow their brains out with a vast array of hallucinogens.
is this a tragedy? maybe. imagine what’d happened if the mythical follow-up to loveless would have seen the light of day… and was no good. they were probably going to become a boring dance band anyway (oh yes, there’s evidence. ’soon’? the glider remixes ep?). the only thing they ever released after loveless came around, their home studio destroyed itself and kevin ‘fatso’ shields started hallucinating all day, was that wire cover, ‘map. ref.’. it’s good, but it’s not exactly magic. it’s… not loveless. so, will mbv ever reform? i really don’t think so. is that a bad thing? i… don’t know.
