My Bloody Valentine - mbv

I'm half way done the third track and all I can say is

  On 2/3/2013 at 7:45 PM, jefferoo said:

Money well spent.

Who Sees You, my god. This is the My Bloody Valentine track I've always wanted to hear, such dreamy, euphoric goodness. I would have gladly paid £9 just for this track alone.

Not as good as Loveless but enjoyable. Some really great songs and it also sounds like the whole album is a lot more experimental than loveless with its variation in songs. Kinda meh about it because although i did like loveless, it wasn't an album i craved to listen to. Definitely going to give it another listen because i feel mbv could be a grower

Someones review/impression that was humorous and perhaps somewhat accurate of its progression:

  Quote

 

This album is a journey through time, a tragedy in three acts: humble
beginnings (the Loveless-influenced first triplet of songs), the blind
optimism of the late 90s (the middle three dream-pop inspired songs,
possibly a reflection of worldwide economic growth and prosperity
heading into the new millennium), and the violent backlash against the
status quo/precarious unease of the 21st century (the last three songs,
and particularly the existential build-up to nowhere with "nothing is"
and the unyielding turbulence of "wonder 2").



Ladies and gentlemen, this album is the last 20 years in a nutshell, a
historic account that makes no pretenses of prophecy or prophylactic
prescriptions for our ailing society. It simply exists. Whereas Loveless
was almost dislodged from time, m b v can't exist in its absence
because it very much encapsulates time itself.



Brilliant.

wth is with copy and pasted text formating?

Still trying to download (time left 21 hours)

And now the redeem has expired. What a fucking joke this site is.

edit.

Whole site is now down again

I downloaded my 24 bit wavs in 5 mins

  On 2/4/2013 at 11:46 AM, oscillik said:

I downloaded my 24 bit wavs in 5 mins

Yeah, I don't know what's up with mine. Doesn't seem like anyone else has problems.

Mailed support - let's hope they're quicker than the download time.

Yeah, I got my 24 bit wavs in 5 minutes too.

Quite fascinated by this although it doesn't hang together that well as an album. Someone pointed out that the title MBV is like VU, which was a compilation, the Velvet Underground purging themselves of songs which didn't become an album. Seems quite likely to me. Shields spoke of it being "necessary" in an interview a few years back.

Agree "who sees you" is fantastic, and the twinned vocal and fuzz on "in another way" is that kind of feral Valentines sound I love. Rhythmically a boring album though, not like their older work in that respect. Several tracks are obviously built on a single rhythm loop, instead of drummed (Isn't Anything) or programmed with feel (Loveless).

Further on "MBV" == "VU" -

i don't get alot of the opinions here.

i don't see mbv as being a clear parallel to vu.

i don't see the album as being divided by thirds.

to me it's a ... relatively ... cohesive whole. the songs do jump around from styles but it still holds up as its own sounds from a to b.

  On 2/4/2013 at 11:48 AM, fumi said:

 

  On 2/4/2013 at 11:46 AM, oscillik said:

I downloaded my 24 bit wavs in 5 mins

 

Yeah, I don't know what's up with mine. Doesn't seem like anyone else has problems.

Mailed support - let's hope they're quicker than the download time.

just grab it from some other place if they can't seem to get their shit sorted.

they seem to take pride in the analogousness of the vinyl edition: "This vinyl album has been recorded as an analogue album. It was recorded on 2 inch 24 track analogue tape and mixed onto half inch analogue tape and mastered with no digital processing involved.

The vinyl is a true analogue cut, i.e. it hasn't been put through a digital process during the cutting process unlike over 90% of all vinyl available today."

most probably that there's a ton of digital processing applied on the instruments, is there any actual merit to recording it analogically ? i mean sure the analogue equipment has particular sonic characteristics, but it's not really an analogue album as might seem from such marketing..

I wouldn't know. I only listen to acoustic guitars, live.

  On 2/4/2013 at 3:41 PM, SPD² said:

I wouldn't know. I only listen to acoustic guitars, live.

not analogue enough im afraid:

  Quote

 

An additional complication arises when discussing human perception when comparing analog and digital audio in that the human ear itself, is an analog-digital hybrid. The human hearing mechanism begins with the tympanic membrane transferring vibrational motion through the middle-ear's mechanical system—three bones (malleus, incus and stapes)—into the cochlea where hair-like nerve cells convert the vibrational motion stimulus into nerve impulses. Auditory nerve impulses are best described as "clicks" which result when synapses release neuro-transmitting chemicals (see here.) The auditory information thus entering the brain is, strictly speaking, digital in nature. The brain then processes the incoming information and produces an impression of the original analog input to the ear canal.

I love the new album, but I am shocked with the sudden presence of a proactive social media / marketing team. It's one thing to have no music for 20+ years, but it was like the band was based in Guantanamo or something. Now, every 2 hours, they have a Facebook post. This will take some getting used to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with it, especially since I have some major ear candy, to boot.

Also, I'm fascinated by the clinical functionality of their new website.

No bio. No discography. Nothing to hint at human involvement.

It's basically just "buy" links for 1 album in three formats, tech specs, a clinical news feed, and a clinical FAQ section.

In one way, it's 100% function over form is great because it does very little to distract you from the music. In another way, it feels a bit like I'm doing my taxes when I visit it.

They've definitely earned it, but it does seem like they are on the ball, this time round, when it comes to selling.

Maybe waiting 20 years was the most brilliant marketing strategy in history?

first listen instant judgement post

listening on youtube as I'm sure they would have wanted. not on spotify. not gonna buy it.

"are obviously built on a single rhythm loop" I love it!

Great album :D

  On 2/4/2013 at 5:09 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

Not as good as Loveless

I know it's not a track from MBV, but I'm pretty sure Biosphere sampled 'Cigarette In Your Bed' in his track 'Sherbrooke'.

  On 2/4/2013 at 4:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/4/2013 at 3:41 PM, SPD² said:

I wouldn't know. I only listen to acoustic guitars, live.

 

not analogue enough im afraid:

 

  Quote

>

An additional complication arises when discussing human perception when comparing analog and digital audio in that the human ear itself, is an analog-digital hybrid. ... Auditory nerve impulses are best described as "clicks" which result when synapses release neuro-transmitting chemicals (see here.) The auditory information thus entering the brain is, strictly speaking, digital in nature.

 

Although wrapped in mostly correct statements, the bold assertion here is false. There is no timebase clock in the signalling of auditory neurons. The signalling is discrete because of the action potentials ("clicks" mentioned above, hardly the best way to describe them), but the timing of those action potentials is not clocked or quantised in any way, preserving the analogue quality of the waveform.

It's FAR from a linear transform, and the encoding process is far from known, but any argument that the nervous system is in any way digital is based on ignorance.

obviously i brought this quote for the bombastic statement and im a total ignoramus on the subject, you might as well edit that wiki ! : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

Sorry for the heavy handed answer, it's what I do for a living and statements that the brain is digital really press my buttons! I will edit the Wikipedia thing.

i'm a bit torn about this.

on the one hand i absolutely love it. it sounds exactly like the perfect followup to loveless which i was afraid it wouldn't be (i thought it'd be along the lines of seefeel's latest one for instance, which i felt basically just didn't feel like a seefeel record). so, shit is lush and mbv rules!

on the other hand it sounds almost too much like a follow up to loveless which has lent a kind of uncanny discomfort to the listening experience for me so far. perhaps this is just a shallow aspect of my first experience with the album but i admit there is a part of me that feels slightly disappointed that after 20 goddamn years i'm basically listening to something that would not surprise me in the least if it had been released in 1995. this is where i disagree with zaphod's claim that this is "forward thinking" -- b/c basically this to me sounds exactly like the third mbv lp should have sounded like if they put it out back in the day.

i guess this is both awesome and, sadly, for me somewhat disappointing.

idk, still give this shit an A though