Honestly Loveless by MBV really seems to be a case of the emperors

>>72235859
Agreed op, its been over rated for decades by shoe gaze fags but I always thought it average

>>72235859
>I mean the words are completely intelligible
Aaaaaaand he missed the point

someday people will realize Isn't Anything is their only good album

someday...

I like the mood that it puts me in. I had a phase where I listened to it every day after a break-up and the songs resonated with me. I love Belinda's soft vocals and the walls of sound. When You Sleep is an all-time amazing track. I think certain sections are about boring and don't consider it perfect like a lot of people do, but it has such a unique sound and some standout tracks, and lyrically it's great if you care to look them up.

File: 1491438452974.jpg (52KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x640px

>>72235950
OP here
in your case it really just seems like you just associate this album with some kind of happiness and it puts you at ease. Which is completely valid and beautiful lol.
but completely from a non biased person listening to it from a completely objective viewpoint you have to understand how i feel.

>>72235859
No album seems to capture the magic of Loveless. It's very creative. The lyrics are supposed to be kind of "irrelevant," as you mention, and it isn't really an issue (to most people) that all they do is convey a feeling. Because that's what words are supposed to do right? Mostly the vocals and lyrics fade into the overwhelming walls of guitars to create this monolithic soundscape that is fun to try and pick out little sounds out of. Most of the songs have really catchy hooks to them and then just pile on all this sound that sounds extremely epic and beautiful. You mention how it is very interesting it has that sound. The main reason people like it is how its unique sound is able to put out such emotion with basically a few tracks of really creatively fucked with guitars. My thoughts were kind of a mess but hopefully this helps shine some light on things

>words

music might not be for you honestly

>>72236040
>but completely from a non biased person listening to it from a completely objective viewpoint
404. kys fatty

>>72236040
I don't know, I can certainly understand you not liking the album, but I don't think you can claim objectivity any more than I can. The fact that it hits me emotionally means it has something going for it. Sonically, it's pretty damn interesting and I feel like maybe you haven't peeled back all the layers. I don't think it's the GOAT, but I do think maybe you just haven't been fully immersed in it. Not that it's a failing on your part, I have a lot of bands/albums I wish I could get into but just haven't been able to.

>>72235859
>suggest a feeling
The point of shoegaze, you mean?

>>72235859
>I mean the words are completely intelligible unless you are reading the lyrics
You probably meant "unintelligible". Misusing words when you're trying to puff yourself up as a non-conformist ubermensch makes you look like a bigger twat than you otherwise would have.

File: PWLIALIL.png (857KB, 888x888px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 888x888px

try this instead

I love plebs

>>72236057
Hmm yeah i agree with you, i think my viewpoint is actually changing now that i am reading these comments. The reasons that i listed that described why I didnt undertand this album are actually what makes this album is cool and unique. I think I understand what shoegaze really means in general. It truly isnt traditional music The idea that lyrics could convey something besides a straightforward narrative was foreign to me so I sort of rejected it. BUT I UNDERSTAND NOW.
>>72236139
yeah i get it now

>>72236159
relax i mistyped jesus christ

>>72236174
wow implying?

I'm totally with u my dude.

I'm a melody man and the melodies on this album to me are just not that compelling

>>72236196
Don't fret, my dear.

>>72236196
glad to have your viewpoint expand. also how long have you been on this board? lmao

>It's a unique, influential and interesting album but is it good?

>>72235859
>music must be "intelligible" and "cohesive"

plebe spotted

>>72236245
is it really that unique..........I mean....guitar music. let's just say twin peaks did it first

>>72236207
making an update.

revising the album on spotify and am currently digging "Come in Alone"...sounds fairly epic and huge with eastern overtones

if y'all are still shitposting in a bit I'll post some updates as I re-review it

>>72236242
umm since like 2011 or 2012 i think

>>72236246
yeah I understand that was actually the entire point Here i wrote an entire shitty post about it >>72236196 I implore you to read it nigga

>>72236260

What the fuck are you even talking about?

File: 1488738285598.png (862KB, 841x1065px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 841x1065px

>>72236040
>but completely from a non biased person listening to it from a completely objective viewpoint you have to understand how i feel.
Why are people still posting in this thread?

>>72236040
>non biased completely objective
lol

>>72236292
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPmF7HQo1KE

>>72236279
update:

"What you Want"-

shitty drummer being recorded by a tin can. no thanks

Sometimes:

pretty unremarkable melody. bore

Soon:

oh shit Black and white by MIchael Jackson!

plus muh drone detuned guitars.

samey samey samey

>>72236040
>but completely from a non biased person listening to it from a completely objective viewpoint you have to understand how i feel.
nugger

>>72236398
update:

Loomer:

pretty razed by the various production decisions on this album. song has bizarre layering. I would have made the toms deafening. instead they are barely audible. singer is not demonstrating much versatility.

seriously, if the toms were loud and resonant this would be pretty cool. instead kev gives himself center stage with his muh drone

how the fuck do you think something becomes so influential in the first place?

I get if you're just not that into the record... but you sound like a fucking 12 year old pleb

>>72235943
the you made me realize and feed me with your kiss eps are where it's at

>>72236430

update:

Touched:

follows in the fine tradition of bands self-indulging with literal shit interludes. wow this is bad.

To here knows when:

apart from the surrealist title, intro is gleaming. descends into samey muh drone. this entire sounds like a b-side collection

again, strange decision-- outro should be loud and clear. instead its subdued and dull. interesting solo guitar idea nonetheless. would move it forward

>>72235859
lyrics aren't important in shoegaze dummy, it's about the overall feel. they are simply another instrument. ...look at them like a synthesizer or something..
it IS like "suggesting" a feeling. Haven't you ever listened to Cocteau Twins or Sigur Ros or Dead Can Dance. Their lyrics are usually/always/often not intelligible because it's more about the feels they give you in conjunction with the entire composition.

it's a great album because when that record came out, people were trying to understand how he made all those sounds come out of a guitar.

for someone grew up listening to the artists that were influenced by loveless and have explored ever deeper into the ideas that loveless brought to the fore, i can get you thinking it's overrated. but for starters, consider why the artists you do respect like it so much, also, try not to apply your 18 year old pleb outlook to a fucking classic.

go listen to tokio hotel or chainsmokers or whatever the fuck gay teenagers listen to these days if this record goes over your head

>>72236535
>how he made all those sounds come out of a guitar.

its one sound. its a detuned drone

It's called the Dionysian sublime. Let the music absorb you. Don't try to figure anything out. Just put it on, pay attention to the layers of melody, and enjoy.

>>72236472
touched was always one of my favorite parts and it's the only one that's credited exclusively to the drummer

>>72236472
Yeah, you act like you know what your talking about, but you are trying way to hard to intellectualize a pop album. And I have no idea where you are getting this idea that there is a "drone" in there. It's literally just melody.

>but is it actually a good album?
Yes.

>>72236040
Literally everyone who likes it was once "non biased with an objective point of view." We didn't come to the album knowing we would love it.

Music is subjective. It's impossible not to be biased.

>>72236246
I guess he's not into merzbow either

>>72235859
>muh lyrics

Good job pleb

>>72235859
>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence. And i get sonically its very interesting how the sound has such a uniqe sound, feeling and texture
I've recently gotten into shoegaze and I have definitely noticed that most albums from the genre grow on you after multiple listens. At first, I Only Said was an instant favorite, but I didn't care as much for the rest of the songs on the album. Learning to play that song, listening to the album at different times in the day and watching this video gave me a new perspective on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQsdO8e8fwY
If you are familiar with instrumental music, shoegaze shouldn't be indigestable. And I don't think that's what the genre is for. However, I'm yet to find another shoegaze album this unique and meticulously made.

>>72236472
OP, if you are still here, please listen to this song I linked. Some fans of shoegaze may consider this song a high point comparable to shoegaze, maybe you'll like it because it doesn't have some of the stuff you were complaining about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMKkbco7UFE

>>72236594
>but you are trying way to hard to intellectualize a pop album
Not him, but a pop album? Is Eno's Another Green World just a pop album by your criteria? I'm not a fan of pop music, but I like shoegaze nonetheless. At the core it is pop, but disfigured, often lighthearted and drowned in pleasant noise.

>>72235859
>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence.
answered your own question

>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence. And i get sonically its very interesting how the sound has such a uniqe sound, feeling and texture. Like big pink soft furry walls.

You kind of answered your own question. Loveless is a triumph in texture and production. Things like melody and lyrics are only there enough to form a functional song and rarely any more than that. Those things aren't the point of the album.

This is probably my favorite album, everytime I listen to it I'm it's entirety I realized, there's more beauty to it

The bad thing is that it doesn't really match its title and how people describe it. Whenever I listen to it I feel like I'm in the midst of mania that you get when intensely crushing on a person and listening to it when you are in a bad romantic period just fucking hurts

>>72235859
>I mean the words are completely intelligible unless you are reading the lyrics and even then the words barley string together a cohesive idea. They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence.

Dumbest thing I've read on /mu/ today. Good job.

is "touched" about rape?

>>72235859
>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence.
so?

>>72237091

Touched is about revisiting distorted VHS tapes.

>>72235859
OP, your analysis and inability to understand anything beyond it being a conventional, literal work tells me you have a mental disability.

Loveless is good, you understand what it was made to convey to you instantly which is the mark of anything that is good.

Don't approach things critically if you are mentally incapable of understanding a simple concept.

>>72237170
so if a song is trying to convey a feeling but does a poor job doing so its bad. That makes sense, yeah i realize i was wrong, read my other posts.

>>72236207
I'm a melody man

>>72237188
I read the whole thread and am scared by how fickle you are.

Most music is made purely for monetary gain. Music, in the context most often discussed, is an entertainment stage show so technically anything that gets an audience excited is 'good' in that regard.

Something can only be critiqued with regard to what it is, what it is designed to be and then how successful it is under those headings.
One of the reasons Loveless is so popular is because it works as a pop record as well as actually having value conceptually. Generally speaking, if something is really popular like Radiohead or NMH or MBV then it adheres enough to pop music conventions to appeal to a broad enough audience to facilitate massive popularity.

>>72237251
>if something is really popular like NMH or MBV
/mu/tards are fucking delusional desu

>>72237188

Loveless doesn't do a poor job of it, though. Its melding of harsh noise and pop melody is almost parodoxical in its execution. The listener is very clearly being assaulted with walls of loud guitars but there's a sweetness underlying it all that betrays the intensity. It's like Psychocandy if the feedback were somehow fused to the pop undercurrent rather than just being a top layer to it. That's not easy to pull off and considering how troubled the creation of the album was it certainly wasn't easy for MBV. There's definitely been louder shoegaze and there's been more melodic shoegaze but it's pretty damn hard to find another act that synergized the two extremes as well as Loveless did.

I don't care about the lyrics, it sounds good.

>>72237277
Don't get upset because you've never left your house. MBV and NMH are incredibly popular. Playing 'Oh Comely' for 10 hours straight at a house party is typical of middle class kids in their early 20s, and when I was in college literally everyone listened to MBV to try and fit in.

>>72236472
>apart from the surrealist title
>surrealist title
>surrealist
>surreal

>>72236472
please stop and never start again

>>72235859
>And i get sonically its very interesting how the sound has such a uniqe sound, feeling and texture.
This is what I go for in music. So, there ya go, that's why it's awesome.

>>72235859
>put the album on
>BUUUUUUWWWWEEEEEE BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>BUUUUUUWWWWEEEEEE BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>BUUUUUUWWWWEEEEEE BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>BUUUUUUWWWWEEEEEE BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I can't say I really like it too much at all. Muh innovation, muh different sounds, muh interesting sound layouts and all, whatever you want to say. It's not good music. You can like listening to the sound, but that just makes it sound that you like.

>>72237700
>Oh, boy, isn't the Internet just great? Everything is a meme!

>>72235859
>Yeah, it was very influential in the shoegaze genre but is it actually a good album?
Quite the opposite to what you're implying, Loveless is actually the only good shoegaze album. The fact that it created millions of awful clones is the downside, and the fact that it's a masterpiece itself is the upside.

>>72237831
You can meme all you like, but that doesn't make it good.

>>72236040
yeah your opinion is the be-all and end-all when it comes to music. thread over!

>>72237913
Sarcasm is not something you can easily convey in plain text on a drumming sub forum of a Polynesian shadow puppet theater blog.

>>72237927
But this is surely a valid point of criticism.
>BUUUUUUWWWWEEEEEE BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I know it's too tempting not to shitpost, but can we at least try to make this place less cancerous? Here's a video wtih a competent analysis of the album:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQsdO8e8fwY

>>72237952
That's almost the exact sounds it bombards you with as soon as the album starts though. It's hard to put into words but that's pretty much the sound being blasted at you immediately.

If you can't hear the melodies, listen to it louder and listen to it more. At first I thought it was just wall of noise after wall of noise but after a while the melodies start to appear.

Took me about 15 listens before I finally heard that synth-sounding melody behind the crushing guitars in the chorus of What You Want.

it is literally one of a few albums that is perfect cover to cover.

not my fault people try too hard to listen to albums.

>>72237963
I agree, but that shouldn't make you dismiss the album. While I don't think shoegaze is a challenging genre, Loveless definitely grew on me after multiple listens. At first, I Only Said was an instant favorite and I didn't care that much about the rest of the tracks. Watch the video I linked, try to get a different perspective on it and listen to it again.

>>72238020
I mean the entire point was that it's nonsense placed on this ridiculous pedestal, people can like it or not, but revering it as something groundbreaking is absolutely silly

>>72238031
Again, I don't think Loveless is a piece of art comparable to The Rite of Spring, but I guess you would call that nonsense too, because of the atonality. If you are a musician, you can have a better grasp of why Loveless is so revered. That's not to say that you have to be a musician to understand music.

>>72235859
It's catchy as hell and there is some interesting texture. Pretty good. I prefer Nowhere though.

>>72237700
>>72237880
Putting "muh" before positive descriptions of the album isn't criticism, you complete retard.

>>72238085
It wasn't about the album, it was about praising things just because they're atypical of "regular" sound.

That's all /mu/ ever does for most things anyway. Fucking Captain Beefheart, Radiohead, Neutral Milk Hotel, shit gets memed everywhere just because it's different, but not necessarily good at all.

>>72238116
Or maybe you just don't understand why those albums are acclaimed in the first place? Jesus christ I hate /mu/

>>72235859
>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence
That's probably the point

>>72238164
The albums sound like shit, who gives a fuck about them being acclaimed. They have some redeemable parts but they're largely sound and some parts even are just whining in the case of NMH. It's a joke to be honest.

>>72238116
All right, not all albums frequently discussed here are the end all be all of music. But please don't tell me you're not of those who think the increased complexity of music equates to it being "objectively" worse. Should rock and other genres of music have remained at the beginning stages and not dare question and expand on them?

>>72238178
>who gives a fuck about them being acclaimed.
You were the one making the points about why they were acclaimed, apparently only because they sound different.

>It's a joke to be honest.
You're a joke. Just leave this board.

>>72238178
>The albums sound like shit
Great constructive criticism. I'm glad we can all see where you're coming from.

>>72238190
Never acted like they were supposed to be the end all be all, but god forbid anything gets discussed that isn't
"/mu/core" by way of being needlessly complex or just having noise. There's a reason all those meme charts exist with images of space and whatnot while having a bunch of made up genres. They're a parody of what is already a parody of musical discussion that takes place here.

>>72238198
But that's just it. They are only acclaimed because of "groundbreaking" or "new" sounds. They aren't very good.
>Just leave this board.
Looks like I hit a nerve. Sorry I insulted your favorite music but guess what, I didn't tell you to stop listening to it or anything ridiculous. Why don't you fuck off, me and that other guy were having an actual civil discussion.

>>72238199
You sure showed me.

>>72238235
>They are only acclaimed because of "groundbreaking" or "new" sounds. They aren't very good.
You really love repeating this sentence as if it's a fact, when it really isn't.

>me and that other guy were having an actual civil discussion.
Civil discussion, meaning nothing actually constructive going on?

>>72238256
Every single post on /mu/ has to be a constructive criticism or else!

And you haven't posted anything to the contrary, so why are they good? Especially when it's entirely subjective?

>>72235859
this is a reasonable assessment. /mu/ is a herd of sheep. Good record though.

>>72238178
>these albums sound like shit
They don't though

File: I+don+t+think+so+_21f6faf63491f26529ec447c24381777.jpg (16KB, 351x329px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 351x329px

>>72238235
>/mu/ core is needlessly complex
How utterly fucking retarded do you have to be to think this?

>>72238235
>They aren't very good
Why not?

>>72238235
>but god forbid anything gets discussed that isn't "/mu/core" by way of being needlessly complex or just having noise
I agree, discussing the same albums over and over gets tiresome and the board becomes stale. And what's your solution? Discussing Top 40 and manufactured music? Another day of nothing but DAMN. threads?

>>72235859
>emperors new clothes
That's a term I have to look up every time I see it used.

>>72238284
You're allowed to have that opinion, but they're not better than any other album that doesn't try so hard to be "groundbreaking".

>>72238291
Wow you refuted the point and didn't shitpost, in a manner that made you look not hypocritical because you were just complaining about it not 2 posts ago.

>>72238298
I already posted why.

>>72238301
No, but simply discussing within a thread should be at least fine to break up the monotony that this board has become.

And holy shit I wish there were a 1 thread limit on albums, maybe if not upon release the second day or something. The DAMN threads are kind of ridiculous.

>>72236159
>Misusing words when you're trying to puff yourself up as a non-conformist ubermensch
probably the most ironic sentence i've ever read
why don't you just say pretentious buddy
ubermensch fucking lol

>>72238268
>Every single post on /mu/ has to be a constructive criticism or else!
Every post doesn't have to be constructive criticism, but every criticism has to hold at least some constructive merit.

>And you haven't posted anything to the contrary, so why are they good?
Because these albums are loved by pretty much everyone, the burden of proof is on you. I'd list reasons, but then I'd be repeating what millions of listeners have said over decades.

>Especially when it's entirely subjective?
YOU are the one saying these albums are only loved because they are different, which is a quite objective stance.

>>72238314
>but they're not better than any other album that doesn't try so hard to be "groundbreaking".
Can you elaborate on this? Everything you've said until now revolves around:
>I don't like it
>It's not groundbreaking
>No album should even attempt to be groundbreaking
>Innovation in music is something I don't appreciate

>>72235859
People 'obsess' over it because they like the way it sounds, OP, is it that hard to understand?

>>72238335
>loved by pretty much everyone
[citation needed]

And the reason the albums are loved is because they are different, any description of them will include "groundbreaking, avant-garde, experimental, art-rock" or some other synonym.
The subjective part is whether or not you like it.

>>72238341
>>It's not groundbreaking
>>No album should even attempt to be groundbreaking
>>Innovation in music is something I don't appreciate

I literally never said any of those. Groundbreaking is the primary reason those albums are touted as good. I like parts of them but largely they are just not great to listen to. And you don't have to be so mad over some music my dude.

>>72238360
>And the reason the albums are loved is because they are different,
THAT is the subjective part you fucking moron. You are the one who assumes people like it because it's groundbreaking, when a lot of people do like it for other reasons. Time to pull your head out of your ass

>>72238360
>I like parts of them
This is exactly what I've said here:
>>72236694
And since then, I've changed my perspective on the album.
>And you don't have to be so mad over some music my dude.
I'm not mad. Your arguments are very vague and don't really offer anything other than what I've already mentioned in my previous post.

>>72238387
And yet, not a single person can list a reason besides "dude it has a x sound or a y feel"

So I guess it is subjective in that they can like it for whatever reason but they're only on a pedestal in the first place because of it.

>>72238392
Nah sorry the mad part was for the thread in general, not specifically you. And they really can't be arguments if it's just about "I like x" or not.

File: Screenshot_20161106-174230_01.png (379KB, 559x558px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 559x558px

>>72235859
>"Sonically the sound has a unique sound"
Unintelligently, your stupid brain belongs to a dumbass.

>>72235859
>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence
That's what makes it great
>Like big pink soft furry walls.
Did you just base this off the cover art?

>>72238235
>They aren't very good.
>>72238268
>so why are they good?

What makes something "good", aside from "Because I like it!"

>>72238416
>And yet, not a single person can list a reason besides "dude it has a x sound or a y feel"
Delusion
Just head to like RYM or whatever, many people have already written in depth reviews for these.

>>72238467
In the context of music, particularly discussing subjective like or dislike of albums? That is all. What's the difference in this case?

>>72238481
>What's the difference in this case?
You should be asking anon who wants to know why it's "good"

>>72238416
>"dude it has a x sound or a y feel"
All music boils down to this. What's the problem?

>>72238498
Whether it's good or not doesn't matter, it was just about the reason why it even gets brought up so frequently, regardless of actual quality.

The constantly posted top 7 '/mu/core essentials' are hardly good albums, but they're all notable for being experimental or doing something out of the ordinary.

>>72238314
>I already posted why
You didn't though. All you've said is
>they don't deserve praise simply because they're groundbreaking
Which is questionable as is. If an album changes the way someone views music or introduces them to something new and interesting that they've never heard before, that album is worthy of praise. And if that albums innovations and experimentation leads it to be more enjoyable overall for the listener, those innovations make it a better album.
Also
>It sounds like shit
Not even worth addressing

>>72238416
>"dude it has a x sound or a y feel"
This is how the average person describes pretty much any album in a short sentence, regardless of whether it's consider innovative or groundbreaking. You're a fucking idiot.

>>72238416
These are the reasons why I enjoy Loveless.
As a guitar player, classically trained, I started to listen to jazz, jazz fusion, ambient and other genres more and more in recent years. It was only logical to do so. I have a disdain for pop music and other genres of manufactured music, so, at first I didn't want to get associated with anything even resembling it. But as I've listened to Brian Eno's "art rock" albums, shoegaze as a genre of disfigured, lighthearted, pleasantly noisy and deconstructed pop songs became more interesting. To Here Knows When is intriguing from a guitar player's point of view, as is Only Shallow. Wall of noise production technique and enormous track layering is also competently put to use on this album. You can listen to it on a rainy night, cloudy and cold afternoon, in a warm spring afternoon and the album still "fits". And the fact that Kevin Shields almost singlehandedly recorded the album is even more impressive.

>>72238520
They're noted for doing something out of the ordinary and experimental that works and creates new and interesting sounds that people enjoy. They're good albums because they sound good to the majority of the people that listen to them.

>>72238556
I think I've done a better job than "it sucks", "it's just a meme", "you don't get it", "it sounds like shit", "it's just pointless noise".

>>72238520
>it was just about the reason why it even gets brought up so frequently
Are you looking for objective facts describing subjective feelings? What answer are you looking for?
>The constantly posted top 7 '/mu/core essentials' are hardly good albums
Why not?
>but they're all notable for being experimental
I have a feeling you don't know what experimental means

>>72238522
>If an album changes the way someone views music or introduces them to something new and interesting that they've never heard before, that album is worthy of praise.

Literally anything at all could do this. All you have to do is go ahead and add the sound of someone pissing and play it backwards at random intervals, call it avant-garde, and wow, it really makes me view music in a new interesting way.

The point is things that are "new or interesting" are not always good, but if you want to like it you can. Again everyone seems to take this shit to a personal level.

>>72238542
What average person? If /mu/ was the average person don't you think the radio would be filled with nonsense?

>>72238556
See, it took a while but we got an actual post defending the album here. And guess what? He's allowed to like it for his reasons. I don't care for it that much as I originally stated, but everyone wants to foam at the mouth at a different opinion. It's ironic considering how the board treats itself as "different from normal opinions."

>>72238567
>they sound good to the majority of the people that listen to them.
[citation needed]

>>72238588
I'm the one who posted the list of reasons for enjoying Loveless, but I'm still getting the impression that you're utterly opposed to any genre of music being so bold as to dare to strive from its roots and innovate. Why is that? Again, I can fathom someone having a different opinion and I'm not arguing about that. So, finally, what are the albums you really respect and enjoy? I think people would like to know.

>>72238588
>All you have to do is go ahead and add the sound of someone pissing and play it backwards at random intervals, call it avant-garde, and wow, it really makes me view music in a new interesting way
That's idiotic and wouldn't work though

>>72238588
>The point is things that are "new or interesting" are not always good
Whether it's good or not doesn't matter

>>72238588
The point is things that are "new or interesting" are not always good
Ok, I'm not arguing against that. For every good innovative/experimental albums there's 10 duds that sound like shit. Please define what you think makes an album good.

>>72238627
Well you caught me using hyperbole, but you don't have any proof it wouldn't actually work. If someone like Kanye just did it in his next album I guarantee it would be praised.

>>72238628
Now you're getting it, but the point is that I don't really care for it, so it's not good (for me)

>>72238622
I don't mind innovation but I really just dislike the idea of something being popular because it tried something, even if it wasn't great. It feels like a hipster thing, "you wouldn't understand, it's too experimental for you"

>>72238644
Slightly discernible vocals to start, and having sounds that aren't layered noise, two of which this album doesn't really do much of.

And yeah I get the point of it is to do this or that and shoegaze doesn't HAVE real vocals it's SUPPOSED to sound vague, but I don't prefer it.

>>72237029
>in the midst of mania that you get when intensely crushing on a person
FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT

>>72238670
So basically, you don't like shoegaze, therefore it's bad?

>>72238670
>If I don't like something, it's just not good
>If you like it you need to explain why

>>72238685
I don't prefer it, so in my ~~~*** O P I N I O N ***~~~ yes

>>72238698
Well everyone who says this is a widely loved album should be able to easily list reasons why and it took a while but they were listed

I also posted reasons why I dislike it, so I don't see what you're problem is bud

>>72235924
'2 deep 4 u' and 'you missed the point'
aren't actually arguments

>>72238724
>I also posted reasons why I dislike it
They are not valid reasons. Disliking something because it tried something, even if it was great. It feels like a hipster thing, "I don't understand, it's too experimental for me"

>>72238724
>I don't prefer it, so in my ~~~*** O P I N I O N ***~~~ yes
If you don't like the album, that's fine. But if you want to say it's a bad album you need to substantiate it with actual reasons other than "i don't like it" and "people only like it because it's experimental".

>>72238670
>I don't mind innovation but I really just dislike the idea of something being popular because it tried something, even if it wasn't great. It feels like a hipster thing, "you wouldn't understand, it's too experimental for you"
But I offered a rather easily digestible explanation of the album, rather than claiming:
>>72238577
Did Stravinsky fail at innovation too, because 12-tone serialism and the concept of atonality was a and it still is a controversial topic in classical and other genres of music? Did Diamanda Galas fail too, because she didn't sound like another of thousandths of Aretha Franklin copies? And again, if you want discernable vocals, listen to folk music. It's the exact opposite of shoegaze and post rock, which doesn't make either genres worth dismissing. While I think Bob Dylan is a genius, I can also appreciate vocals as an instrument. That seems next to impossible for people who aren't musicians, which this board has quite a lot of.

>>72238757
Why aren't they valid? Because they don't match your opinion?

I already didn't like it, but it being popular here for the hipster reasons to boot makes it worse.

>>72238759
>"people only like it because it's experimental"
Didn't ever explicitly state this, but it's more along the lines of it gets noticed because it's experimental.
How aren't you getting this by now?

>>72238795
>Because they don't match your opinion?
Quote me where I stated my opinion?
>but it being popular here for the hipster reasons to boot makes it worse.
But blindly disliking a popular album for reasons you can't articulate properly is pretty hipster

>>72238795
>Didn't ever explicitly state this

>>72238235
>They are only acclaimed because of "groundbreaking" or "new" sounds. They aren't very good.

>>72238810
I already posted why I dislike it. The album sounds like a lot of pointless noise that's pretty grating for me to hear. Lyrics also seem like they just wanted to be there for the singer to have something to do.

I don't care what your opinion is, because you're allowed to haev it. I dislike the album for my own reasons and doubly so because other people like it for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual music.

>>72238821
Acclaim from critics isn't the exact same as the reason people like the album itself, but I'll digress

>>72238850
>people like it for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual music
Such as?

Given that you've ignored this:
>>72238622
>So, finally, what are the albums you really respect and enjoy? I think people would like to know.
And this:
>>72238763
I doubt you're actually being serious at this point.

>>72238850
>I already posted why I dislike it.
Well, they weren't valid reasons. I'll show you:
>The album sounds like a lot of pointless noise
How do you know it has no point? Citation for this?
>pretty grating for me to hear.
What is the speaker system you are using? perhaps you have malfunctioning equipment
>Lyrics also seem like they just wanted to be there for the singer to have something to do.
What's wrong with this? Do lyrics have to be distinct and intelligible? Maybe there was an another reason this effect exists?
>I don't care what your opinion is
Of course you do, you've been asking our opinions for the whole thread. Did you change your mind that you didn't care after we gave valid reasons? Which is it?
>reasons that have nothing to do with the actual music.
Like what?

>>72238724
Good and bad are absolute, factual terms. Likes and dislikes are choices made from your conditioning leading to perceptions about what you consider personally attractive culturally.

If you want to talk about what you like then fuck off to Facebook because that's literally smalltalk. You can't discuss opinions unless you're discussing the idea of opinions, which isn't what this board is for.

Things are and aren't good depending on the presented criteria of a discussion and this discussion is about an album unto itself and there is no argument you can make that will label Loveless as bad with regards to what it was constructed to convey because it actually does what it intends to - meaning it is good in this context.

>>72238884
This is it I guess.
/thread

>>72238876
The point that was being the whole time argued. It's trying something new, and someone happens to like it, and other people hear about this new thing and decide that it's new so it has to be good, even if they don't actually like it themselves.

>>72238885
>How do you know it has no point?
Not sure if you're actually serious. If the artist intended for it to have a point, that's all well and good, but noise is still noise.

>malfunctioning equipment
Tried several different ways to listen, all sounds similar so I can say it's not this

>lyrics
Nothing is "wrong" with this, I don't like or prefer it

No, I don't actually care about your opinions in particular. You like the album or you don't, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm repeating myself over and over and nobody seems to be able to see that this is an opinion that I hold and am entitled to have, the same as everyone else.

>reasons that have nothing to do with the music
see above

>>72238884
Well for starters I can give you an A+ list here: http://www.scaruffi.com/music/essentia.html

>>72238920
You're welcome to think so, but I can still have the opinion and there's absolutely nothing against the rules of the board saying so.
You'd be correct about the criteria of your discussion and the album doing what it intends to, but that doesn't mean anything when the entire thing was about something that everyone doesn't seem to get which is the opinion that is held by a single individual which you're all getting so hung up about.

>>72238957
>The point that was being the whole time argued. It's trying something new, and someone happens to like it, and other people hear about this new thing and decide that it's new so it has to be good, even if they don't actually like it themselves.
Now you're presuming to know why people like the album, which is completely fallacious. This argument has no basis in reality.

>>72238973
We're here discussing it right now. It's real, anon.

>>72238957
>Scaruffi's list of favorite albums
I knew you weren't serious. Thanks for the slightly glorified shitposting I guess.

>>72238981
Yes, we're here discussing your argument that's based on an image of the average shoegaze fan that you've constructed in your head and has no basis in actual fact. What's your point?

>>72238957
>You're right that 'bad' and 'I don't like' are unrelated but it's still bad because I don't like it and everyone else is wrong for calling me a retard while I sperg out defensively because people explained that an opinion has no place in a discussion to me
Stop posting already

>>72238957
Here's another interesting list:
http://www.scaruffi.com/music/best100.html
Oh, look, what's the 25th album on his list, huh? Can you guess? I like classical music too, but every other genre is beneath you, right? Just abandon this thread people.

File: 1484335619274.jpg (10KB, 299x299px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 299x299px

>>72238957
>Well for starters I can give you an A+ list here
>Loveless is on it

>>72235859
OP I kind of like all the things you talk about disliking, but I'm still not really a fan of this album. I like vocals that are more a texture element than lyrical and I like the melodies obscured by noise. This album has never sounded special to me though. I think a lot of the current love for it is hype honestly, or like valuing its perceived significance to the genre too much. Like you see that "music fans" in your demographic of 18-24 year old white guys like this album so you think you should too.

>>72239072
Thread is over. Thanks for playing OP.

>>72238957
>Well for starters I can give you an A+ list here: http://www.scaruffi.com/music/essentia.html
Links Piero's classical list and doesn't understand why Loveless is good. You are a new species of madmen

>>72238957
>If the artist intended for it to have a point, that's all well and good
Hence your criticism is not valid.
>but noise is still noise.
Since there is specific chord sequences and melodic arrangement of notes, it's not "just noise"
>Tried several different ways to listen
Like what? List them
>Nothing is "wrong" with this
Hence your criticism is not valid.
>No, I don't actually care about your opinions in particular
But you started a thread asking for our opinions, so you do care. Which is it?
>see above
I don't see it. What are the reasons?

>>72235859
If you think that music needs to "make you think" or have some kind of concept behind it then you can go find some literature.

>They're more like words that suggest a feeling rather than make a complete sentence. And i get sonically its very interesting how the sound has such a uniqe sound, feeling and texture. Like big pink soft furry walls.

That's your answer.

>>72240017
Did you have to bump? Especially after this:
>>72239072
>>72239068
>>72238957