Best Ever Albums

Re: my bloody valentine

meccalecca — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:09:15 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/17/2013 18:09

L Lawliet wrote:

Well I don't think it is even possible to listen to something in the context of its time after that has already passed.

But I never had issue with that to begin with. Just this idea of lyrics lacking depth in the early 60's which just isn't true. And when you are using the "number one hit" as an example I think it shows you haven't actually given it a lot of thought. The supposed "depth" of number one hits isn't any greater today either is it?

I'm not saying that Dylan was the only deep lyricist of his time. I understand that's a major exaggeration, but you cannot argue against there being a massive shift in lyrical songwriting that happened during the mid 60s.

Re: my bloody valentine

L Lawliet — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:25:23 GMT

Author: L Lawliet

Posted: 05/17/2013 17:25

meccalecca wrote:

Both times I was trying to illustrate the same point. Maybe I illustrated it poorly, but everything I said was about the role of context in listening. Not really about Dylan. Dylan was just an example.

And really. in the early 60s, the majority of popular music was bubblegum. Not saying they weren't good songs, but they didn't have the same depth.

Freewheelin' Bob Dylan was released in 1963. Jimmy Gilmer and The Fireballs "Sugar Shack" was the #1 hit that year, followed by Beach Boys "Surfin' U.S.A." If you look at the hits from that year, there's nothing even remotely close to what Dylan was doing.

Dylan's rise to popularity gave radio, bands and labels room to steer away from the bubblegum formulas of the time.

Re: my bloody valentine

meccalecca — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:15:53 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/17/2013 17:15

L Lawliet wrote:

See the problem is you have gone from saying.

"nearly all other popular music being released at that time had the lyrical depth of a kiddie pool."

Which is bullshit really.

To saying that Bob Dylan made influential music.

Well obviously he did, he made music which people listened to, can't get more influential than that.

Re: my bloody valentine

L Lawliet — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:52:43 GMT

Author: L Lawliet

Posted: 05/17/2013 16:52

meccalecca wrote:

Maybe my wording wasn't perfect, but I don't really think the concept of what I said changed.

As for the Beatles. Sure, they still continued to release more than a handful of love ditties but even those songs were far less direct, and containing introspection that had not been present on the earlier releases.

I'm not saying Dylan was the only songwriter with any depth in his time or anything like that. I was simply saying, placed into the context of when released, those albums seem more profound than had they been released today.

Re: my bloody valentine

meccalecca — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:33:41 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/17/2013 16:33

L Lawliet wrote:

Whilst I agree with some of this, it's not actually what you said before is it?

And this needs to be said, implying that before Dylan popular music was mostly love ditties. Whereas after his first few albums popular music had lyrics of more depth and then citing the Beatles as an example is ridiculous! The Beatles wrote more love ditties than anyone I can think of. Even in their later albums this had barely changed.

Re: my bloody valentine

L Lawliet — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:16:59 GMT

Author: L Lawliet

Posted: 05/17/2013 16:16

meccalecca wrote:

I dunno. At the time of Dylan's first two releases, popular music was primarily simple love songs. Sure you had Woody, Hank Williams, Phil Ochs and Johnny Cash before or around the same time, but I think one could argue that Dylan was by far the one with the most immediate impact on the popular music of the time. Enormous bands like the Stones, Beatles and Beach Boys all transitioned towards more lyrical songwriting, especially John Lennon.

Re: my bloody valentine

meccalecca — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:01:17 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/17/2013 16:01

L Lawliet wrote:

I don't see why. the claim is to ridiculous to merit a proper response.

Re: my bloody valentine

L Lawliet — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:45:35 GMT

Author: L Lawliet

Posted: 05/17/2013 15:45

meccalecca wrote:

If you're gonna dispute my claim, it'd be great to expand upon your response.

I don't see why. the claim is to ridiculous to merit a proper response.

Re: my bloody valentine

Anonymous — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:26 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/17/2013 15:44

I've started to get a bit bored of Loveless. :/ I think I prefer MBV. I don't even remember Isn't Anything, so it definitely deserves a relisten.

There isn't even any My Bloody Valentine on my chart anymore.

Re: my bloody valentine

meccalecca — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:41:41 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/17/2013 15:41

L Lawliet wrote:

Mmmmmm, no.

If you're gonna dispute my claim, it'd be great to expand upon your response.

Re: my bloody valentine

L Lawliet — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:28:51 GMT

Author: L Lawliet

Posted: 05/17/2013 15:28

meccalecca wrote:

I've been going back through the history of music chronologically, and it's been a really refreshing experience. Dylan's lyrically brilliance reaches new heights when you realize that nearly all other popular music being released at that time had the lyrical depth of a kiddie pool.

Mmmmmm, no.

Re: my bloody valentine

meccalecca — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:23:07 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/17/2013 15:23

Mercurydylan89 wrote:

I have yet to have that moment when I just realize that deep depths of genius that is MBV. I'm almost there. Like I can see that they were really cool and amazing, but I have not yet had that moment when I become infatuated with them.

I have never heard mbv. Out of "Isn't Anything" and "Loveless" if say my fave is "Isn't Anything". Both are awesome though.

I really think context plays a major part in comprehending the genius of a band. To place Loveless in the context of 1991, it seems far more important. When I first heard My Bloody Valentine in the early 90s, I had never heard anything quite like it. But since then there's band thousands of bands who have emulated that sound, so hearing them now makes them a bit less earth-shattering.

I've been going back through the history of music chronologically, and it's been a really refreshing experience. Dylan's lyrically brilliance reaches new heights when you realize that nearly all other popular music being released at that time had the lyrical depth of a kiddie pool.

Re: my bloody valentine

GeevyDallas — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:54:44 GMT

Author: GeevyDallas

Posted: 05/17/2013 14:54

Torchlin wrote:

Are we just limited to studio albums?
I always thought they made better EP's than full length albums. So far "You Made Me Realise" eclipses everything else in their discography.

I agree,I think I prefer You Made Me Realise to everything else they have done.

Re: my bloody valentine

Torchlin — Fri, 17 May 2013 09:15:07 GMT

Author: Torchlin

Posted: 05/17/2013 13:15

Are we just limited to studio albums?
I always thought they made better EP's than full length albums. So far "You Made Me Realise" eclipses everything else in their discography.

Happymeal wrote:

This Is Your Bloody Valentine

Really not that bad!! It's their worst album yeah but after all the negative criticism I expected something truly horrendous but it was just an average post-punk album.

Re: my bloody valentine

SingingPeasant96 — Fri, 17 May 2013 08:14:08 GMT

Author: SingingPeasant96

Posted: 05/17/2013 12:14

ffudnebbuh wrote:

Did you mean because the obvious answer is "Loveless"?

yes

Re: my bloody valentine

Facetious — Fri, 17 May 2013 04:48:08 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 05/17/2013 08:48

This Is Your Bloody Valentine = 4.3
Isn't Anything = 7.2
Loveless = 8.1
m b v = 5.4

Re: my bloody valentine

TracyJacks — Fri, 17 May 2013 04:36:48 GMT

Author: TracyJacks

Posted: 05/17/2013 08:36

Is anyone here who saw them playing live?

I'm going to see them on the 9th of June and I just can't wait to listen to their music LIVE. 😎

Re: my bloody valentine

Anonymous — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:20:50 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/17/2013 00:20

Mercurydylan89 wrote:

It took me a little while to get Loveless, but now I love it. mbv, on the other hand, is boring and is only so well-received because of the hype built up by their refusal to release an album for 20 years.

Re: my bloody valentine

Mercury — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:03:15 GMT

Author: Mercury

Posted: 05/17/2013 00:03

I have yet to have that moment when I just realize that deep depths of genius that is MBV. I'm almost there. Like I can see that they were really cool and amazing, but I have not yet had that moment when I become infatuated with them.

I have never heard mbv. Out of "Isn't Anything" and "Loveless" if say my fave is "Isn't Anything". Both are awesome though.

Re: my bloody valentine

ImpeachObama — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:23 GMT

Author: ImpeachObama

Posted: 05/16/2013 23:55

loveless