My Bloody Valentine Reissues

  On 5/1/2012 at 7:31 PM, kaini said:

  On 5/1/2012 at 6:21 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/1/2012 at 9:23 AM, chenGOD said:

If you're going for dreamy spaced out pop wash are low end kicks really what you're after?

"Soon" has low end kicks in it.

 

soon predates loveless though, and is quite different to the rest of the album, innit?

I was just sayin.

I'll give it to you that it is different, tho.

  On 5/1/2012 at 9:36 PM, kaini said:

this is quite lovely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Ah2Eo-HMQ

The slide-guitar outro is splendid, but overall it's somewhat jarring to hear the corpus of a track from Loveless brought out of the ether of it's native habitat into a world of defined edges.

  On 5/2/2012 at 12:26 AM, Goiter Sanchez said:

The slide-guitar outro is splendid, but overall it's somewhat jarring to hear the corpus of a track from Loveless brought out of the ether of it's native habitat into a world of defined edges.

a career awaits you at pitchfork!

  On 5/2/2012 at 4:07 AM, kaini said:

  On 5/2/2012 at 12:26 AM, Goiter Sanchez said:

The slide-guitar outro is splendid, but overall it's somewhat jarring to hear the corpus of a track from Loveless brought out of the ether of it's native habitat into a world of defined edges.

 

a career awaits you at pitchfork!

Loveless gets a 7.4; quite good...

Isn't Anything > Loveless

imo

But, my favorite song is You Made Me Realise.

Newsflash

my friend bought the EPs 88-91 CD today at Amoeba (import) in Hollywood.

The remastering definitely sounds better. The unreleased tracks are sick too. "How Do you Do It" and "good for you" are particularly good.

I haven't heard the new versions of the full-lengths, but I bet they are worth grabbing, if you are a fan. Good stuff.

so these are getting a vinyl release soon right? not sure whether or not to grab all the discs now, or wait...

I don't know if there are plans for vinyl. If so, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it.

I get my info from the fan site

  Quote

[Ed: As of right now, a vinyl edition is not planned for release at this time, but I was told to "watch this space"]

http://www.mybloodyv...news/index.html

btw...

http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/8809-kevin-shields/

  Quote

Rumors of My Bloody Valentine reissuing their back catalog started whirling around the internet as early as 2004. But, as is the case with most things involving these shoegaze originators, things took a bit longer than expected. A solid eight years later, though, they're finally here. On May 7, Sony releases remastered CDs of 1988's Isn't Anything and1991's Loveless, along with a compilation of the band's early material, EP's 1988-1991, that features three unreleased tracks including the rumbling "Good for You", above.

While many would assume that MBV leader Kevin Shields' notoriously meticulous work ethic was responsible for the delay, that's not really the case, according to the man himself. Instead, the story behind these reissues is one of corporate greed and suspiciously lost tapes that nearly required the services of Scotland Yard to retrieve. "The true story is as yet to be determined," says Shields on the phone from London, looking back on the twisty saga. One thing's for certain: These reissues were seen through by Shields, and he's proud of them. Though he does few interviews and is typically out-of-sight, Shields isn't especially shy or mumbly during our chat. Talking about the different ways he's been screwed by labels over the years, he sometimes veers off into the harried cadence of a conspiracy theorist, though there's no reason to doubt his claims.

The crown jewel of the reissue series is a 2CD version of MBV's all-time classic Loveless that features a remaster of the original disc as well as another based on previously discarded analog tapes. (Shields says vinyl versions of the remasters are due "probably in a few months.") And the overall project just might act as a precursor to the two-decades-in-the-making follow up to Loveless. "We might finish it really quickly, and it might be up in a few months," he says, tantalizingly. "I tend to work really quickly, suddenly, and I might be willing to do that right now. We'll see!" In the meantime, we get a great excuse to revisit one of the most influential groups of the last quarter century.

"We've had incredibly huge obstacles in our way-- no tapes,

no royalties, no cooperation on any level-- and we sort it out."

Pitchfork: These reissues have been in the works for a few years. Why did it take so long for them to be released?

Kevin Shields: The process actually started in 2001, when we managed to come to an agreement with Sony, who inherited us from Creation. Part of the Sony deal was that I wanted all of the EPs made into one package because, back in 2001, you could get the albums pretty easily but not the EPs. So it was basically a compilation of all the EPs, and that was it.

Then we decided to do Isn't Anything and Loveless as well-- if we're gonna remaster [the EPs], we should remaster everything. In 2002, I tried to start working on it, but the studio that had the tapes, Metropolis Studios, lost them; the analog multi-tracks were all missing for a year. Only after I started threatening to get Scotland Yard involved did they magically, suddenly reappear. The true story is as yet to be determined, but we'll fight that one out in the near future.

That took us to 2003. And then Sony fell into complete breach of contract due to various issues, and it took until last year to fully sort it out. In the meantime, I started the work anyway in 2006, and I completed it in 2007-- those are the ones [that leaked] on the internet, that was the near-completed work. And then Sony behaved very badly again-- like most sociopathic companies do, they can't help it-- and I had to re-adjust the situation until it was slightly fair again, and that's why stuff is coming out now.

Pitchfork: Are you saying Sony hid the tapes on purpose back in 2002?

KS: Oh, they did. The contract we did in 2001 basically gave me ownership of the tapes, and then the Sony regime that existed when that contract was signed left. And when the new regime came in, the tapes disappeared. That was relevant because even though I was the owner, it would only revert back to me if I remastered from the original tapes-- if the tapes were gone, I couldn't remaster from them and hence I couldn't ever own them.

[When asked for a response to Shields' comments above, Sony sent the following message: "We have really enjoyed working on these hugely iconic re-issues with Kevin, and can't wait for the release."]

Pitchfork: Is the idea of ownership over this material important to you?

KS: Ownership and control is important, because if you don't own what you do, all sorts of stupid stuff happens to it, and people spend good money on garbage. For example, in America, Warner Bros. licensed Loveless and Isn't Anything to Plain Records, and they basically just ripped [the audio] off the CD and put it on vinyl [in 2003]. They did an awful, terrible job. It was done without my permission, and the sound quality was 100% wrong. It was a rip off to anyone who bought it. But I didn't know anything about it until they were in the shops. We actually got an injunction against it being imported into the UK at the time because it was technically a bootleg but, in America, Warners operate under their own law, so it might have been slightly legal in the United States.

Also, you don't get paid if you don't own it-- you know, we've never been paid one penny from the United States from any of the records we've ever made. In the record company's world, we're always in debt. But the strange part of the story is Loveless alone sold enough copies in its first year to put us out of debt. But somehow Warners have managed to create a situation where, hundreds of thousands of records down the line, we're still in debt. That's why the compilations aren't coming out on Warner Bros. They're extremely in breach of contract as well at the moment.

[We did not receive an official statement from Warner Bros. on this matter by press time.]

Pitchfork: Sounds like you've been dealt an awful hand with these label issues.

KS: I'm no victim here-- this is just the way it is for everybody. It's a bit like being in the middle of a battlefield and getting shot in the arm and going, "Why me?" I mean, to put it very, very, very simply: The corporate system is fully psychopathic, and any creative people who enter into business with any of these organizations come up against a lifetime of issues. You just deal with it as you go along. It'll keep on happening until people reorganize the organizations.

Pitchfork: What do you mean exactly when you refer to these labels as psychopathic entities?

KS: Well, the organizations are, but probably 70% of the individuals in them are decent people. But a significant controlling minority have no empathy. They don't give a shit. If you put them in a situation where they can't make any decision but one that is in your favor, they will-- but that can take years. That's the game. Most people just give up with time and go, "I'm a victim." The only reason I've got the reputation for delays and spending a long time on things is because I just don't stop. We've had incredibly huge obstacles in our way-- no tapes, no royalties, no cooperation on any level-- and we sort it out.

Pitchfork: So the delay of these reissues was basically out of your control?

KS: It was out of my control in the sense that we could have put out an incredibly substandard version of everything a long time ago. We wouldn't have used original master tapes. We would have just done what a lot of people do, which is to take the CD and put it into a computer, make it louder, put some different EQ on it, and say it's "remastered." Believe it or not, a significant amount of remasters are done that way. Most good artists do it the right way, but a lot of commercial and back-catalog stuff from the 60s and 70s are not from the original tapes. It's crazy.

Pitchfork: People fetishize the sound of Loveless in its original form, so why did you even want to remaster it in the first place?

KS: The technical reason why remastering is valuable is because, up to around the late 90s, there was this endpoint called zero, and you couldn't get louder than zero. Loveless has a very wide dynamic range-- there's no compression over the overall mixes. Because of that, it's a very quiet record; most of it is about four or five dB below zero while most modern records are about six or seven above zero. That's a huge difference in volume because every three dB is perceived as being twice as loud. But that's not too important because people should just turn it up if they want to hear Loveless loud. But there's this other side of it, because the processors in CD players and most digital playback systems operate at their best in the top three dB-- the player acts like all the stuff below that level isn't as important, so it won't process it as heavily.

So, of the two Loveless CDs that are coming out, one of them is exactly the same as the original, but everything's brought up to zero without crushing it with digital limiting, which essentially takes all the information and chops off the spiky bits-- transients-- that you don't hear as much as you perceive subconsciously. Those are the things that make you feel connected to the music. So something can be 10 dBs louder, but it somehow sounds slightly less involving. Each of those chopped-off peaks puts a little piece of distortion there instead, so the overall sound gets this hard, unpleasant kind of sheen, and you can't hear it as well. There is a tiny bit of digital limiting on one song on the Loveless reissue, but I'm not gonna say which one because it was a sacrificial lamb to get the rest of the album up a bit. And since the sound is brought back to zero, it means your CD player will be able to process it a bit better, so that it kind of sounds... "better" isn't the right word, it just feels different.

Pitchfork: What's the thinking behind releasing the analog remaster as well?

KS: The original Loveless was from a digital master because it was much closer to the picture I wanted, and, at the time, the analog one was slightly twisted-- the process of putting it onto tape widened the stereo image and made the top and bottom ends too loud, so the guitar placement wasn't correct. I wasn't happy with that and I didn't use the original half-inch analog tapes. But, this time around, I had the time to take the original analog tapes and fix all the things I didn't like, so all I left was essentially the benefits of the analog with none of the disadvantages.

When people hear the two new remasters, some can't hear the difference. But, for anyone who's slightly into it, I can promise that if you listen to the record from beginning to end, you're gonna have a completely different feeling with one version compared to the other. They're both good for different reasons; the digital one is slightly more like an inner head trip and the analog one is more physical, like you're conscious that some people did this.

Pitchfork: In light of your reunion shows a few years ago-- which were famously loud-- it's ironic that the original Loveless CD is quieter than most.

KS: I know what you mean-- we cover most extremes. It just comes from not wanting to compromise, doing things a certain way, and feeling good about it.

  On 5/6/2012 at 6:17 AM, jefferoo said:

btw...

http://pitchfork.com...-kevin-shields/

 

  Quote

Rumors of My Bloody Valentine reissuing their back catalog started whirling around the internet as early as 2004. But, as is the case with most things involving these shoegaze originators, things took a bit longer than expected. A solid eight years later, though, they're finally here. On May 7, Sony releases remastered CDs of 1988's Isn't Anything and1991's Loveless, along with a compilation of the band's early material, EP's 1988-1991, that features three unreleased tracks including the rumbling "Good for You", above.

While many would assume that MBV leader Kevin Shields' notoriously meticulous work ethic was responsible for the delay, that's not really the case, according to the man himself. Instead, the story behind these reissues is one of corporate greed and suspiciously lost tapes that nearly required the services of Scotland Yard to retrieve. "The true story is as yet to be determined," says Shields on the phone from London, looking back on the twisty saga. One thing's for certain: These reissues were seen through by Shields, and he's proud of them. Though he does few interviews and is typically out-of-sight, Shields isn't especially shy or mumbly during our chat. Talking about the different ways he's been screwed by labels over the years, he sometimes veers off into the harried cadence of a conspiracy theorist, though there's no reason to doubt his claims.

The crown jewel of the reissue series is a 2CD version of MBV's all-time classic Loveless that features a remaster of the original disc as well as another based on previously discarded analog tapes. (Shields says vinyl versions of the remasters are due "probably in a few months.") And the overall project just might act as a precursor to the two-decades-in-the-making follow up to Loveless. "We might finish it really quickly, and it might be up in a few months," he says, tantalizingly. "I tend to work really quickly, suddenly, and I might be willing to do that right now. We'll see!" In the meantime, we get a great excuse to revisit one of the most influential groups of the last quarter century.

"We've had incredibly huge obstacles in our way-- no tapes,

no royalties, no cooperation on any level-- and we sort it out."

Pitchfork: These reissues have been in the works for a few years. Why did it take so long for them to be released?

Kevin Shields: The process actually started in 2001, when we managed to come to an agreement with Sony, who inherited us from Creation. Part of the Sony deal was that I wanted all of the EPs made into one package because, back in 2001, you could get the albums pretty easily but not the EPs. So it was basically a compilation of all the EPs, and that was it.

Then we decided to do Isn't Anything and Loveless as well-- if we're gonna remaster [the EPs], we should remaster everything. In 2002, I tried to start working on it, but the studio that had the tapes, Metropolis Studios, lost them; the analog multi-tracks were all missing for a year. Only after I started threatening to get Scotland Yard involved did they magically, suddenly reappear. The true story is as yet to be determined, but we'll fight that one out in the near future.

That took us to 2003. And then Sony fell into complete breach of contract due to various issues, and it took until last year to fully sort it out. In the meantime, I started the work anyway in 2006, and I completed it in 2007-- those are the ones [that leaked] on the internet, that was the near-completed work. And then Sony behaved very badly again-- like most sociopathic companies do, they can't help it-- and I had to re-adjust the situation until it was slightly fair again, and that's why stuff is coming out now.

Pitchfork: Are you saying Sony hid the tapes on purpose back in 2002?

KS: Oh, they did. The contract we did in 2001 basically gave me ownership of the tapes, and then the Sony regime that existed when that contract was signed left. And when the new regime came in, the tapes disappeared. That was relevant because even though I was the owner, it would only revert back to me if I remastered from the original tapes-- if the tapes were gone, I couldn't remaster from them and hence I couldn't ever own them.

[When asked for a response to Shields' comments above, Sony sent the following message: "We have really enjoyed working on these hugely iconic re-issues with Kevin, and can't wait for the release."]

Pitchfork: Is the idea of ownership over this material important to you?

KS: Ownership and control is important, because if you don't own what you do, all sorts of stupid stuff happens to it, and people spend good money on garbage. For example, in America, Warner Bros. licensed Loveless and Isn't Anything to Plain Records, and they basically just ripped [the audio] off the CD and put it on vinyl [in 2003]. They did an awful, terrible job. It was done without my permission, and the sound quality was 100% wrong. It was a rip off to anyone who bought it. But I didn't know anything about it until they were in the shops. We actually got an injunction against it being imported into the UK at the time because it was technically a bootleg but, in America, Warners operate under their own law, so it might have been slightly legal in the United States.

Also, you don't get paid if you don't own it-- you know, we've never been paid one penny from the United States from any of the records we've ever made. In the record company's world, we're always in debt. But the strange part of the story is Loveless alone sold enough copies in its first year to put us out of debt. But somehow Warners have managed to create a situation where, hundreds of thousands of records down the line, we're still in debt. That's why the compilations aren't coming out on Warner Bros. They're extremely in breach of contract as well at the moment.

[We did not receive an official statement from Warner Bros. on this matter by press time.]

Pitchfork: Sounds like you've been dealt an awful hand with these label issues.

KS: I'm no victim here-- this is just the way it is for everybody. It's a bit like being in the middle of a battlefield and getting shot in the arm and going, "Why me?" I mean, to put it very, very, very simply: The corporate system is fully psychopathic, and any creative people who enter into business with any of these organizations come up against a lifetime of issues. You just deal with it as you go along. It'll keep on happening until people reorganize the organizations.

Pitchfork: What do you mean exactly when you refer to these labels as psychopathic entities?

KS: Well, the organizations are, but probably 70% of the individuals in them are decent people. But a significant controlling minority have no empathy. They don't give a shit. If you put them in a situation where they can't make any decision but one that is in your favor, they will-- but that can take years. That's the game. Most people just give up with time and go, "I'm a victim." The only reason I've got the reputation for delays and spending a long time on things is because I just don't stop. We've had incredibly huge obstacles in our way-- no tapes, no royalties, no cooperation on any level-- and we sort it out.

Pitchfork: So the delay of these reissues was basically out of your control?

KS: It was out of my control in the sense that we could have put out an incredibly substandard version of everything a long time ago. We wouldn't have used original master tapes. We would have just done what a lot of people do, which is to take the CD and put it into a computer, make it louder, put some different EQ on it, and say it's "remastered." Believe it or not, a significant amount of remasters are done that way. Most good artists do it the right way, but a lot of commercial and back-catalog stuff from the 60s and 70s are not from the original tapes. It's crazy.

Pitchfork: People fetishize the sound of Loveless in its original form, so why did you even want to remaster it in the first place?

KS: The technical reason why remastering is valuable is because, up to around the late 90s, there was this endpoint called zero, and you couldn't get louder than zero. Loveless has a very wide dynamic range-- there's no compression over the overall mixes. Because of that, it's a very quiet record; most of it is about four or five dB below zero while most modern records are about six or seven above zero. That's a huge difference in volume because every three dB is perceived as being twice as loud. But that's not too important because people should just turn it up if they want to hear Loveless loud. But there's this other side of it, because the processors in CD players and most digital playback systems operate at their best in the top three dB-- the player acts like all the stuff below that level isn't as important, so it won't process it as heavily.

So, of the two Loveless CDs that are coming out, one of them is exactly the same as the original, but everything's brought up to zero without crushing it with digital limiting, which essentially takes all the information and chops off the spiky bits-- transients-- that you don't hear as much as you perceive subconsciously. Those are the things that make you feel connected to the music. So something can be 10 dBs louder, but it somehow sounds slightly less involving. Each of those chopped-off peaks puts a little piece of distortion there instead, so the overall sound gets this hard, unpleasant kind of sheen, and you can't hear it as well. There is a tiny bit of digital limiting on one song on the Loveless reissue, but I'm not gonna say which one because it was a sacrificial lamb to get the rest of the album up a bit. And since the sound is brought back to zero, it means your CD player will be able to process it a bit better, so that it kind of sounds... "better" isn't the right word, it just feels different.

Pitchfork: What's the thinking behind releasing the analog remaster as well?

KS: The original Loveless was from a digital master because it was much closer to the picture I wanted, and, at the time, the analog one was slightly twisted-- the process of putting it onto tape widened the stereo image and made the top and bottom ends too loud, so the guitar placement wasn't correct. I wasn't happy with that and I didn't use the original half-inch analog tapes. But, this time around, I had the time to take the original analog tapes and fix all the things I didn't like, so all I left was essentially the benefits of the analog with none of the disadvantages.

When people hear the two new remasters, some can't hear the difference. But, for anyone who's slightly into it, I can promise that if you listen to the record from beginning to end, you're gonna have a completely different feeling with one version compared to the other. They're both good for different reasons; the digital one is slightly more like an inner head trip and the analog one is more physical, like you're conscious that some people did this.

Pitchfork: In light of your reunion shows a few years ago-- which were famously loud-- it's ironic that the original Loveless CD is quieter than most.

KS: I know what you mean-- we cover most extremes. It just comes from not wanting to compromise, doing things a certain way, and feeling good about it.

GREAT read; thanks for posting! I now have 100% faith in the quality of these remasters and will be grabbing them ASAP!

I heard one of the Loveless remasters playing in a record store yesterday, and my ears immediately started popping once again. Goddamnit, correct yer phasing!!! Still curious to hear how it turned out, will probably download and then buy if it ends up sounding significantly more awesome, but the phasing really does make it a hard album to listen to for me. Upon relistening to both, I think Isn't Anything is officially my favorite.

Waiting for my imports to arrive...

Anyone given these a listen? How do they stand up to the original and 2008 mixes?

Anyone seen this yet?

http://thepowerofindependenttrucking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/mbv-loveless-2012-remasters.html

I wonder what Sony will do. I'm gonna wait, I guess.

  On 5/9/2012 at 5:16 AM, Tauhid said:

Anyone seen this yet?

 

http://thepowerofind...-remasters.html

 

I wonder what Sony will do. I'm gonna wait, I guess.

Damn, good call. I'll be waiting for a bit as well...

I picked them up on Monday, the differences in Loveless are subtle but definitely there. Not sure about the part in the article explaining that these 2012 versions are back-to-front; the second disc ("1/2 inch analogue tape remaster" according to the inlay) definitely fits the description in the article - "

  On 5/9/2012 at 5:16 AM, Tauhid said:

Anyone seen this yet?

 

http://thepowerofind...-remasters.html

 

I wonder what Sony will do. I'm gonna wait, I guess.

Sony won't do a thing. And considering that Kevin has left the audio glitch in 'What You Want' there for 4 fucking years, I think I will be skipping on buying these remasters. I certainly will not be buying the vinyl reissues that Kevin hints at.

I think they sound great, nothing really different but just a little bit louder - it helps everything to have a bit of space and when cranked up it sounds fantastic. The EP CD is a fantastic collection

wait, so these are the remasteres that were suppose to be out 3-4 years ago and leaked 3 years ago as well? jesus. talk about being slow.

  On 5/9/2012 at 2:27 PM, kinski said:

wait, so these are the remasteres that were suppose to be out 3-4 years ago and leaked 3 years ago as well? jesus. talk about being slow.

yep

Are the 2012 remasters the same as those put out in 2008?

Not sure.

All I know is that when I listen to the remastered version of Slow from the EPs in my car with the volume and the bass up, I get a silmilar feeling in my chest as I had at the concert. Granted, nowhere near as acute.

  On 5/9/2012 at 5:57 PM, Anthrax said:

Are the 2012 remasters the same as those put out in 2008?

  On 5/9/2012 at 6:38 PM, jefferoo said:

Not sure.

 

All I know is that when I listen to the remastered version of Slow from the EPs in my car with the volume and the bass up, I get a silmilar feeling in my chest as I had at the concert. Granted, nowhere near as acute.

The analogue tape remaster is exactly the same as the leaked one from 2008, the digital DAT tape master is a bit louder than the one that leaked in 2008.

if you're talking about the vinyl reissues from 2008, these are different.

  On 5/9/2012 at 8:03 PM, oscillik said:

  On 5/9/2012 at 5:57 PM, Anthrax said:

Are the 2012 remasters the same as those put out in 2008?

  On 5/9/2012 at 6:38 PM, jefferoo said:

Not sure.

 

All I know is that when I listen to the remastered version of Slow from the EPs in my car with the volume and the bass up, I get a silmilar feeling in my chest as I had at the concert. Granted, nowhere near as acute.

 

The analogue tape remaster is exactly the same as the leaked one from 2008, the digital DAT tape master is a bit louder than the one that leaked in 2008.

 

if you're talking about the vinyl reissues from 2008, these are different.

I'm talking about the brand new ones that just came out this week.

Unfortunately, I can't listen to my vinyl in my car... yet.

  On 5/9/2012 at 8:06 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/9/2012 at 8:03 PM, oscillik said:

  On 5/9/2012 at 5:57 PM, Anthrax said:

Are the 2012 remasters the same as those put out in 2008?

  On 5/9/2012 at 6:38 PM, jefferoo said:

Not sure.

 

All I know is that when I listen to the remastered version of Slow from the EPs in my car with the volume and the bass up, I get a silmilar feeling in my chest as I had at the concert. Granted, nowhere near as acute.

 

The analogue tape remaster is exactly the same as the leaked one from 2008, the digital DAT tape master is a bit louder than the one that leaked in 2008.

 

if you're talking about the vinyl reissues from 2008, these are different.

I'm talking about the brand new ones that just came out this week.

Unfortunately, I can't listen to my vinyl in my car... yet.

so am i

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16605-isnt-anything-reissue-loveless-reissue-eps-1988-1991/

Pitchfork gives these reissues '10's across the board (in spite of the gripes already covered with a digital artifact and disc mispressing). It's a fun read as it ups the gushing, emotive editorial ante even by Pitchfork standards; and the MBV catalog, of all catalogs, may just be worthy of this sort of unbridled venerative hyperbole (other than the aforementioned glitches that should have held it all back from 10.0; perhaps a 9.67).