It's pretty damn good! Like a mix of Isn't Anything and Loveless, and I love the Colm drums too... Even better, the thing's barely compressed - it's almost TOO quiet!
Was never much of a fan (saw them on the 'Loveless' tour and they remain the worst headline act I've ever seen - and half the audience that night were with me and left early). Having heard 'mbv', my opinion hasn't changed, I'm afraid.
Musically, there it sound like they've progresses one iota since 1992, but even that aside - the production sounds terrible. Kind of like they locked the band in a small wardrobe, wrapped it in a thick layer of cotton wool and threw them in the ocean, then recorded the result from a fishing boat on the surface.
Biased? Yeah maybe. I've never understood why Shields has been so highly revered all this time, but I was willing to give this record the benefit of the doubt, being perhaps a little more open-minded than perhaps my 21-year-old self was. It failed. I still don't get it. Am I wrong?
May I take this opportunity to correct the first sentence in my second paragraph to: Musically, it doesn't sound like they've progressed one iota since 1992...
There. Teach me not to proof-read...
Thanks Roots. Support for the dissenters is thin on the ground, we must stick together!
Being a big fan of their earlier stuff I can say objectively that this is a good album - weighed against their other releases that is. But I'm not impressed by it at all. Taking 22 years to come up with an album that sounds no more creative or original than a modern copycat band could have done is not good. While I may not wholly agree with Robster about mbv in general, I think it is fair to say that he is right about them not progressing one iota, and that's where I am disappointed.
I'm sure all the easier to please fanbase will love it for just that reason - it sounds like a rote follow up to Loveless without any evolution in evidence, or chances being taken. Shields could have easily pooped this out in 1993 and buried the band for good.
I like it just fine.It sounds exactly like I thought the follow up to Loveless should sound. As for "progress", well, Loveless was WAY ahead so I guess the rest of the world may have caught up with them. 22 years - I could compare it to Third by Portishead - that took 10 years, and it was devastatingly good - worth the wait. MBV could have been released very much earlier if its composer had wanted or needed to.
MBV has a lot of the same sounds that the band used 2 decades ago, true. Many of the melodic stylings are also very familiar to those of us who have listened to everything they've recorded numerous times. But while I always felt like the songwriting quality on Loveless was perhaps a bit lacking and that the album succeeded on the amazing texture of instrumentation, this new one feels like all of that is in balance. The melodies and hooks are great, yet there is in many cases even more subtlety to them than in the past, which is saying a lot considering how many layers of noise shrouded earlier melodies. So many of my favorite bands have come back years later with followups that severely disappoint me. This album, however, has grown on me more and more with each listen, now running through listen #6. Who knows where this album will stand in contrast to loveless 20 years from now but to me it matches up quite well. Much respect to kevin and the others for avoiding the disappointment that most everyone assumed was inevitable.
I can barely believe that I'm listening to it. Very happy tonight.
ReplyDeleteWas never much of a fan (saw them on the 'Loveless' tour and they remain the worst headline act I've ever seen - and half the audience that night were with me and left early). Having heard 'mbv', my opinion hasn't changed, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteMusically, there it sound like they've progresses one iota since 1992, but even that aside - the production sounds terrible. Kind of like they locked the band in a small wardrobe, wrapped it in a thick layer of cotton wool and threw them in the ocean, then recorded the result from a fishing boat on the surface.
Biased? Yeah maybe. I've never understood why Shields has been so highly revered all this time, but I was willing to give this record the benefit of the doubt, being perhaps a little more open-minded than perhaps my 21-year-old self was. It failed. I still don't get it. Am I wrong?
I'm with Robster, I didn't get the hype then and I don't get it now. I think it's a great for the die-hard fans but thats it....
ReplyDeleteMay I take this opportunity to correct the first sentence in my second paragraph to: Musically, it doesn't sound like they've progressed one iota since 1992...
ReplyDeleteThere. Teach me not to proof-read...
Thanks Roots. Support for the dissenters is thin on the ground, we must stick together!
well, I think it's amazing as fuck and orgasmic at some points. so yeah.
ReplyDeleteBeing a big fan of their earlier stuff I can say objectively that this is a good album - weighed against their other releases that is. But I'm not impressed by it at all. Taking 22 years to come up with an album that sounds no more creative or original than a modern copycat band could have done is not good. While I may not wholly agree with Robster about mbv in general, I think it is fair to say that he is right about them not progressing one iota, and that's where I am disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure all the easier to please fanbase will love it for just that reason - it sounds like a rote follow up to Loveless without any evolution in evidence, or chances being taken. Shields could have easily pooped this out in 1993 and buried the band for good.
i'm a bit blah about the whole thing. one listen will suffice i reckon. not much point really.
ReplyDeleteI like it just fine.It sounds exactly like I thought the follow up to Loveless should sound. As for "progress", well, Loveless was WAY ahead so I guess the rest of the world may have caught up with them.
ReplyDelete22 years - I could compare it to Third by Portishead - that took 10 years, and it was devastatingly good - worth the wait. MBV could have been released very much earlier if its composer had wanted or needed to.
MBV has a lot of the same sounds that the band used 2 decades ago, true. Many of the melodic stylings are also very familiar to those of us who have listened to everything they've recorded numerous times. But while I always felt like the songwriting quality on Loveless was perhaps a bit lacking and that the album succeeded on the amazing texture of instrumentation, this new one feels like all of that is in balance. The melodies and hooks are great, yet there is in many cases even more subtlety to them than in the past, which is saying a lot considering how many layers of noise shrouded earlier melodies. So many of my favorite bands have come back years later with followups that severely disappoint me. This album, however, has grown on me more and more with each listen, now running through listen #6. Who knows where this album will stand in contrast to loveless 20 years from now but to me it matches up quite well. Much respect to kevin and the others for avoiding the disappointment that most everyone assumed was inevitable.
ReplyDeletedon't these tracks pretty much date back to 1996-1997? i think of it as an unreleased album from that time, not an album that should sound like 2013.
ReplyDelete