If the Shoegaze Fits: My Bloody Valentine Pioneer A Genre

My Bloody Valentine

My Bloody Valentine were one of the most influential artists to come out of the late '80s/ early '90s.  So it is surprising that I hadn't heard of them, given that I lived through the '80s and was pretty up on music.  They even fall into the category of the "type" of music I like.  So why hadn't I heard of them?

Recently, I started reading about them in magazines, how much they influenced other bands.  Other bands were name-dropping them as a driving force in their own sound - Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Hole, and even U2, who claim that their guitar sound on "Achtung Baby" was lifted directly from My Bloody Valentine.  Most notably, one of my favorite bands, Silversun Pickups, say that their sound is an homage to this Irish band.

My Bloody Valentine is credited with creating the shoegaze genre - popularized by such acts as Lush, Slowdive, Ride, Catherine Wheel, and, most recently, Nothing.  It was called "shoegaze", because the artists in this style of music tended to play their instruments without leaping all over the stage, staring instead contemplatively at the floor.  In other words, they cared more about their musicianship than their performance.  Shoegaze is typified by swirling guitars, ethereal ambiance, and confusing lyrics sung softly.  My Bloody Valentine created this sound.

Before their breakup in 1997, they released a handful of EPs, as well as two albums.  It is the two albums that I decided to review - "Isn't Anything" (1988) and "Loveless" (1991).

When I first listened to "Isn't Anything", I was, at first, taken aback.  I am used to shoegaze being, if not raw, at least melodic.  It was a hard listen for the first few times.  Was this really an album that other critics were saying was a "must listen"?  It is not an easy listen.  You are bombarded by a barrage of noise, most of it discordant and, well, droopy.  The music is like a candle that has lost its elasticity.  Yes, it burns bright, but it is melting all over the place, making an ungodly mess.

Then you have to remember - this was the '80s.  This was when bands like this were underground for a reason.  They weren't trying to create shiny, pop hits.  Their wall-of-noise-and-static sound is actually very similar to other indie acts of the time, like Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, or Dinosaur Jr.

After many, many listens of "Isn't Anything", I started to "get" it and actually sort of start to like it.  It started to make sense to me.  Yes, there are songs like "No More Sorry" and "All I Need" that are just about the atmospherics.  But there are several songs like "Cupid Come", [When You're Awake] You're Still In a Dream", and "Feed Me With Your Kiss" that are catchy and will remain on my phone's playlist.  I just have to add that Colm O Ciosoig's drumming is insane!  Especially on "Nothing Much to Lose".  It cuts right through the fuzz of the guitar.

"Loveless" is considered their magnum opus.  It definitely is different album.  It starts out strongly with the epic "Only Shallow", which I consider to be My Bloody Valentine's best song, certainly their most shoegaze.  Most of the album then dissolves into a much more impressionistic vibe than their previous release with songs like "To Here Knows When" and "Blown A Wish", which demonstrate the influence that Cocteau Twins has on this band with heavy reverb, effects-laden guitars and mumbled lyrics.  Kevin Shields and Bilinda Butcher share vocal duties.  It is said that Butcher would often be asleep during late night recording sessions and would be deliberately woken up to sing her vocal tracks to give them more of a sleepy, dreamy feel.  And it shows.  Other tracks of note include "When You Sleep", "I Only Said", and "Come In Alone".

These are both pretty good albums.  Not always easy to  listen to.  But I can see why they were so influential.  "Loveless" is more atmospheric and languid, but I prefer the more furious "Isn't Anything" out of the two records.

My Bloody Valentine recently got back together and released an album of new material 22 years after their last album.  It has been well received, even though I haven't listened to it yet.  It is supposedly very different from the other releases.  I will definitely have to check it out.

Moroni's Review of Sleigh Bell's "Reign of Terror"

I have a theory - nostalgia comes in waves about every twenty years to the point that it influences pop culture.  For instance, in the '70s, we had "Happy Days", remembering the '60s.  In the '80s, we had "The Wonder Years", looking back to the '60s.  In  the '90s, we had "That 70s Show", etc.

We love decade before the last one.  Conversely, we loathe the previous decade.  Growing up in the '80s, I hated that I used to wear bell bottoms in the '70s, but people started wearing them again in the late '90s.  (Not me.)

This nostalgia results in bands that sound like flashbacks to that time period.

As a teen in the late '80s, I started to take an interest in music from the '60s.  Not only was I wearing tie-dyes, but the music of the decade before I was born started to interest me.  Moreover, the bands of my teen years sounded like throwbacks to the '60s.  I'm not talking the Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, Michael Jackson crap that was prevalent on the radio back then - I'm talking about the underground music scene.

R.E.M. sounded like the Byrds.  The Smiths definitely took their cue from those early days.  The Jesus & Mary Chain, the Stone Roses, the Primitives - most of these bands of the '80s were heavily influenced and used the distorted guitars and vocals usually associated with the psychedelic rock of the '60s like the Shangri-Las or the Mamas and the Papas.

Of course, they made the sound their own - with a modern twist, and by the '90s, it was a sub-genre of its own.  Bands like My Bloody Valentine and Lush had the swirling guitars of '60s rock (and an influence provided by Cocteau Twins, my favorite band, as well.)  The critics labeled this sub-genre "shoegazing", because the musicians usually played subdued and moody sets typified by the artists gazing down at their shoes while they played, their hair hanging in their faces.

When I look for new music, I will usually browse through mp3 sites.  I came across the band Sleigh Bells, but I didn't even consider listening to it because of the name.  It sounded too festive, too Christmasy.  The next day, however, my brother posted a link to one of Sleigh Bells videos on Facebook, and I was hooked.  (Plus their singer is hot.)  I downloaded their album "Reign of Terror".

When I listened to it, the first thing I did was think, "This sounds just like Lush."  The dreamy vocals and the watery guitars.  But I can look past that.  From everything that I have written above, I LIKE when artists pay homage to earlier eras.  I loved it when my favorite bands in the '80s sounded like bands from the '60s.  It allowed me to imagine that I lived in the '60s.  And I love that all of the good bands today sound like bands that I liked in the '80s.  It gives me the illusion that my tastes are still relevant.

The first track - "True Shred Guitar" - truly sucks.  The music is played over the noise of a cheering stadium with Alexis Krauss, the vocalist, shouting at the audience.  Then they launch into this faux heavy metal episode that is grating.  Not a good way to start an album.

By the second track (which is called "Born To Lose") I was hooked - the distorted guitars.  After that, there is not a bad song on the album.  My favorites are "Crush" and "End of the Line".  "Comeback Kid" is a great first single for the album.  "Leader of the Pack" almost seems like an homage to the Shangri-Las, and I say this because Krauss sings like she belongs in that group.  "Demons" is a much better attempt at heavy metal.  "Road to Hell" and "You Lost Me" are beautifully mellow and discordant.  The album closes out with the dreamy "D.O.A."

I really don't know much about Sleigh Bells as a band.  But I am grateful for the much-needed trip down memory lane.  I would definitely recommend this album.