Talk:Loveless (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Loveless (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Albums (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Band's national origin[edit]

MBV is commonly named an Anglo-Irish group, just look at it's homepage on this website. And yet I find myself wrestling to keep that information on the site with someone I realise to be something of an Irish nationalist who has claimed Kevin Sheilds for Ireland (despite the fact he has constantly been called American) and with it the entire band... despite half the group being British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.19.27 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>[edit]

Colm's Broken Arm[edit]

This part should be looked into. In "Loveless 33 1/3" is is said that Colm couldn't use his legs and he was very sick. Its really more than just a broken arm, like this article makes it seem.


EPs in Chronology[edit]

I was skeptical about putting the EPs (e.g., Tremolo and Glider) into the chronology, but I referred to the Albums WikiProject discussion on the topic, and adhered to the comments therein. I was also skeptical about whether they could actually be considered EPs and not singles, but Kevin Shields has considered them such in an interview, as have others. ShaneCavanaugh 18:08, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

EPs are EPs. Albums are albums. Even if Kevin Shields feels differently. PetSounds 16:28 June 19, 2005

That wasn't the point. Regardless, I'll just mention the EPs in the article. ShaneCavanaugh 21:44, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Already done. PetSounds 18:02 June 19, 2005

Info about Reviews[edit]

reproduced from User_talk:ShaneCavanaugh

Instead of a string of edits and reversals, I'll try and make my points here as to my insistence on keeping the references to critical response in the Loveless article:
a)"receiving rave reviews by most of the British music press at the time it came out" seems significant to me in that this album in particular was, well, object of rave reviews. The point being not that it's generally considered good, but that compared to many other albums of the time, and many albums in general, it obtained a great ammount of positive attention, to the point of pure hype, and is still regularly touted as one of the greatest musical references of modern music, as if it were some sort of holy cow. Even now, albums get compared to (or when reviewed, are passingly associated with, even if jokingly) Loveless as soon as they veer off into noisy-pop territory. It's mentioned in the article already, yes, but in passing, and only to make the point that it didn't sell quite as well as expected, and using the first piece of info (acclaim) as a conduct for the second (low sales) doesn't seem precise to me, rather, they should be presented seperately and both with some attention. As my edit, I think, would leave it.
b)"and still often resurfacing on reviewer's lists of best albums to date.", meaning that it is still kept as an important musical reference by a number of people. Though said rankings list does show the point, it doesn't make it as explicitly, especially being at the very end of the article.
I'd like to get your reasoning as to the invalidity of these better explained here, hopefully, and maybe you can suggest a better way of phrasing this, or give me a convincing enough reason not to phrase it at all, which honestly, I haven't seen so far. Otherwise, since it's a tad ridiculous that two editors in particular are pulling this back and forth, we could take it to the article's talk page and maybe reach for a consensus. If you don't respond, I'll assume putting it back as it was before your reversal is okay. Cheers, Zeppocity 04:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with your points, as they are valid. My only problem is the placement of your points. The first paragraph, as I see it, is to be as succinct as possible, with the rest of the article to articulate the subject. Since there's already a paragraph on how Loveless was received by critics, mentioning your points there would be best, I think. Also, your point that you mentioned here about Loveless's hype might also be a topic worth mentioning, though carefully of course. I'll copy this to your Talk page because I'm not sure if you're going to check back here or at your own page. I'll also put it on the Loveless article's Talk page because it's relevant.ShaneCavanaugh05:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well, this did turn out nicely. I get what you mean as to a problem with structure the way I put it; I'll get around to trying to properly rephrase it as soon as I have the time (need to leave now), or someone else is free to do so, naturally. Zeppocity 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest creating a separate section devoted to its reception and influence. I'll start thinking about this as well. ShaneCavanaugh 19:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

- A proposal, then:

Style
The album, for the most part composed by main guitarist Kevin Shields, is characterized by highly amplified and distorted guitars, with bass guitar and drums kept low in the mix. The vocals, which are kept relatively low in the mix as well, are consistently highly layered, breathy, and for the most part high-pitched, serving a mainly melodic function, with somewhat free-form lyrics which are often hard to make out.
Melody and structure-wise, it is for the most part a pop record of sorts, filtered through almost avant-garde levels and types of distortion.
Critical Response
Due to its highly specific style, the record set itself apart from is sparser and often mellower peers in the shoegazing genre, therefore gathering a large ammount of attention by critics. While some dismissed the record as a work of pointless, repetitive noise and mediocre composition, a large number of reviewers in the British music press in particular touted it as one of the best, if not the best of its genre and the album eventually became one of the most highly regarded musical references of the nineties. To this day, reviews often casually use it as a means of reviewing other albums by means of comparison, and it still consistently pops up on "Best Albums" lists. Some casual listeneres classify this as sheer hype, as the myth of the album seems to superpass the album itself.

I reckon these could be added, the first pinpointing the reason why it gets so much attention (which is ultimately not its quality, but its uniqueness) and offering a general notion of what the thing actually sounds like, which I reckon is appropriate in encyclopedic terms, while the second exposes the album's status as a, as I've said, holy cow of sorts, mildly explaining why and how it gets the sort of attention it gets.

With some tweaking, and appropriate changes to the present text, would these be appropriate pieces of text (as actual sections, that is)? Zeppocity 20:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. It will be, at the very least, a good start for future edits. ShaneCavanaugh 01:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well then, after some corrections (small errors), I've put them up as they were here, as noticed. And. Well. Yes, that's it. Zeppocity 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the cover is actually both a Jazzmaster (big pickup) and Jaguar(small pickup below) exposed on the same frame

Critical Response[edit]

This whole article needs a complete rewrite which I will complete when I have more time. In the short term I have slightly trimmed the text. If Zeppocity can post a link to a single published critic who "dismissed the record as a work of pointless, repetitive noise and mediocre composition" I will revert the text which is otherwise ostensibly his/her own opinion. Regardless of Zeppocity's opinion, Loveless is widely considered to be part of the western canon and has never received a bad review.Terwilliger 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize: it was based on an impression I had at the time; I went through quite a lot of reviews and I could swear I had seen such negative reviews. However, it's not appropriate for the Wikipedia space for me to work on assumptions, and as such, I apologize, and I'll try and find such reviews if they indeed exist, to make sure. It's not a matter of personal opinion and those comments were somewhat unnecessary, by the way. The album is one of my all-time favourites, and very important for me - hence my concern with building a better article at the time, and now that I'm trying to catch up with the articles I've worked on in the past, again an object of my attention. (PS: I think "...and has never received a bad review", an absolute statement, might be jumping to a universal conclusion with basis on personal experience, even if neither of us do come across such reviews - not an advisable concept to hold. This isn't meant as a dig or anything!) Cheers, Zeppocity 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Remaster?[edit]

  • Does a remastered version of Loveless exist?

This site says there was a 2003 remaster, and there is one listed here on Amazon as having a 2005 release.

However, reading the reviews on Amazon suggests that it may not have been a remaster at all.

Any one have more info on this?

Broken links[edit]

All the links to Pitchfork media (regarding being on the top 100 album of the 90's) are broken. With a quick search I couldn't find exactly what they were trying to point to so I thought I'd just leave this comment. Regards, Karih 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Album cover guitar[edit]

The article says it is a Jazzmaster, which it might be judging by the large pickups. However, look at the circular inlays - that's a Jaguar fretboard.

To compare the two - on the left is a '66 Jaguar, on the right is a '69 Jazzmaster: http://www.ggjaguar.com/jagjmast.jpg

It might be a modified guitar. Whatever. This is pointless. NIRVANA2764 14:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

>> Many Jazzmasters have circular inlays.

In fact it's a double exposure of a Jazzmaster AND a Jaguar together taken from one of the music videos. The Jazzmaster is a Japanese reissue that belonged to Shields' sister according to rumor and was used for the music video (and subsequently, the cover), I had this guitar in my possession for a while but sold it off because it was an unplayable piece of junk compared to a genuine vintage one. Cheesebot 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"100% Lies"[edit]

Kevin Shields has said that the rumours about the record costing £250,000 and nearly breaking Creation Records are "100% lies": There's info in an interview here: tinyurl.com/3cadwz PlazzTT 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some information about the recording cost. CrypticBacon 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing notes[edit]

The Notes paragraph to which a lot of citations link to is missing.


FF7 Reference[edit]

I read somewhere that the Loveless banner/play passing reference (see the intro of the game) in Final Fantasy 7 was in homage to this album. Is this true, can it be confirmed with a source? It'd be interesting under a "trivia" section. 71.111.112.58 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that, with a reliable source, this may be relevant in the "Legacy" section, as trivia sections are generally not used on Wikipedia. However, it would might be more relevant if inserted appropriately into the FF7 article. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
there is a fansite at http://www.ff7citadel.com/gameinfo/enc_etymology.shtml which connects the two, but the image shown should be the best evidence. 161.57.226.33 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality[edit]

Why does this article describe the band as having a nationality, and on what is that declaration based? This appears to my eye to violate WP:NPOV. Hiding T 13:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd add that being neutral is a part of the good article criteria. Hiding T 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note I can cite off a quick library search three Rolling Stone articles describing them as British, for starters. My suggestion is to drop the nationality, since the article is about the album and not the band, and discuss any issues in the band article. Hiding T 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • More to the point, the article even quotes the NME as describing the band as an Irish/English partnership. We're offering mixed messages. Hiding T 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Quick answer: The band is from Dublin. That's why the lead says Irish—Dublin is in Ireland. Rolling Stone probably said British because that term is (unfortunately) sometimes used to generalize everyone in the area. After all, it is called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Dublin ain't in Northern Ireland—but hey, everyone makes mistakes! Grim (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify: MBV was formed in Dublin by three Irish kids and one guitarist born to Irish immigrant parents in New York, who then moved to Ireland at age 10 (that'd be Shields). They moved to around to places like Berlin, then settled London in 1986 and added two British girls. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Two Irish members, two British members; formed in Dublin, based in London. Wouldn't that make them the very definition of Anglo-Irish? Baclightning (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. They weren't anymore based in London than they were in Berlin for a time. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Cites please. We don't use our own opinion, that's original research. I reckon I know the history of the band as well as anyone, I saw them enough back in their heyday. For starters, how is nationality relevant? Secondly, bands aren't born, they are formed, and this is a band that has formed and split a number of times. Our article even quotes a reputable source as stating the band are an Irish/English partnership. So why are we making the POV claim that the band are Irish in the lead? How do you even begin to decide what constitutes nationality for a band? Do we describe the album itself as English based on the label it was released? What's the agenda here, a npov encyclopedia or our own opinions? It's contentious, so it shouldn't be asserted as a fact. Hiding T 09:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I'm just treading water until my fellow editor Ceoil gets here. He was there too back then, and he's Irish, so he obviously has some thoughts on the matter. By the way, I'm drawing my information from the 33 1/3 series book on the album, which is based on extensive interviews with Kevin Shields. You know me Hiding (I'm trying to get used to your new name); I'm not one to just throw stuff out there. Frankly I don't have a vested interest in whether or not the band is labeled as Irish or British (or, god forbid, the clumsy "Anglo/Irish"). In band and album articles it's convention to list the band's nationality, and given all the reading I've done to work on this article Irish just seems like the most sensible one to me right now. But as I said, I'll step back until Ceoil has his say (as well as Brandt Luke Zorn, the other major editor on this article). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is this: since a number of the lyrics were composed by an English person, I feel it is misleading to state that it was made by an Irish band. That's the question I am asking; was this album made by an Irish band. I'm interested in debating how policy apples. Are we presenting a bias declaring this album was made by an Irish band when the lyrics were composed in part by an English woman. You state you are happy that we do so, and I'm asking how that fits in with the NPOV. What point do we make in declaring the nationality? I'm happy to hash this out, with regular participants here as well as the wider community. The broader the consensus the better. Hiding T 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's funny that you mention the topic of the lyrics because the band has established they go out of their way to obscure the vocals as much as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Because, from memory, they worked so hard on them and felt they were too important and personal. Also, again from memory, Shields was interested in using the "shapes" the lyrics made as another sound, rather than as simple lyrics, which to him made the lyrics even more integral to the overall sound. But that's rather beside the point. Like I say, are we misrepresenting the facts here? Hiding T 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much true, although the sound was more important than the lyrics (Shields does strees that they put a lot of time into the lyrics). I wasn't asserting anything, though. I just said it was funny considering. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I remember Shields stressed the lyrics were important for the sounds they made. It wasn't a case of any word would do, they had to fit in with the sound. He's also noted that Butcher write far more image based than he did, or words to that effect, her lyrics had more meaning than his. Sorry, I thought you were trying to make the point that the lyrics were unimportant and could have been anything, a point Shields has defended in interviews. Hiding T 11:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the band are describing themselves as other than Irish at [1]. Hiding T 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one minds I'm going to redirect discussion of this matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music since it bears upon all My Bloody Valentine articles (and in the case of this article, it really only impacts one or two words in the lead). WesleyDodds (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I've chucked my two cents there, and added an RFC pointer. Hiding T 10:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cost[edit]

From: "The genesis of Creation They began with a loan, almost ended in bankruptcy and made a deal with Sony. But over their 10 years, Alan McGee's Creation records has been at the edge of indie music" The Guardian (Manchester); Feb 25, 1994; CAROLINE SULLIVAN;

(Copyright Guardian Newspapers, Limited Feb 25, 1994)

After the Jesus And Mary Chain had departed for a lucrative deal at WEA, McGee spent the rest of the eighties signing bands and allowing them to spend as much as they liked making records. My Bloody Valentine, whose oeuvre is trance-inducing free-form noise, spent around pounds 250,000 on one album. "Twice we came very close to bankruptcy. Both times it was just stupidity. Then I discovered CDs, House Of Love {back-to-basics guitar poppers} and Ride {shoegazing teen idols}, and they and the Primals album bailed me out. We had a turnover of pounds 600,000 a year up until 1989, and 250 per cent jumps in turnover since then. We were running a pounds 5 million-a-year business like a pounds 500,000 one. Almost going bankrupt made us realise you need cashflows, year plans."

  • Might be of use in the costing section, reconfirms a £250 000 price tag but perhaps of more use is the assertion that McGee just let bands spend what they wanted. Hiding T 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The point of contention is that Shields has asserted that the cost of Loveless itself was not 250,000 pounds, arguing that they were also given money to work on the Tremolo and Glider EPs plus music videos, thus the budget was far more inclusive than just the album. That, and he thinks McGee likes to exaggerate (although they apparently get along these days). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the point was to look for relevant information that could be used in the article. Isn't another point of contention that My Bloody Valentine near enough bankrupted both themselves and their label during the recording of it? If you let me know what points we're looking to push in the article, I'll gladly look for sources. Hiding T 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't intend my reply to be antagonistic. What I was intending to say was that the Guardian article doesn't really add anything new beyond what is already present in the article; it's just McGee saying the same thing again. Personally I don't trust either Shields or the folks at Creation over one another. Both have their own agendas, so we really shouldn't be trying to give the actual cost too much creedence (which, as demonstrated, cannot be properly verified). What matters is the debate over the cost. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's my point though. To me the quote above demonstrates that McGee wasn't interested in keeping tabs on costs; it supports the fact that he's unreliable on knowing what the costs were. Still, no bother either way. Hiding T 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary review[edit]

Per request for contemporary reviews:

"My Bloody Valentine is the seminal band in the dream-pop genre, which is beginning to invade the States from across the Big Pond. The frequently catchy riffs and melodies, as well as the limpid vocals, come swathed in thick layers of distortion. The combination certainly has its energizing moments--To Here Knows When sounds like a swarm of electronic bees circling your head--but to me this stuff more often seems like nasty canned music." Givens, Ron Stereo Review v57, n6 (June, 1992):88

Also have the Maker review. Will try and track down Spin another day. Hiding T 14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Melody Maker one would be the the moste essential right now (although given Simon Reynolds wrote both the Melody Maker and New York Times reviews, shoudl we substitute one for the other?) WesleyDodds (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The maker one is more expansive, and offers criticism, but the NYT gives an international flavour. Is your email active? If so I'll email you the maker one. I haven't got the Spin one, sorry. Is there a US library of magazines? I've asked the British Library but I'm not hopeful. Here's a snippet of the only criticism in the Maker review: If there's scope for criticism, it's that while My Bloody Valentine have amplified and refined what they already were, they've failed to mutate or leap into any kind of beyond. "Soon" and "To Here Knows When" are the most radical tracks on the album and remain signposts to the future: the first posits an underexplored avenue of funk/noise fusion, the second proposes absconding from rhythm into ambient drift. Reynolds also made a big thing of them sounding pregnant. Do you want the American press release too, or have you got that? I can't track down any newspaper reviews as yet, but if people want I can take a trip up town in a couple of weeks and search the archives, I'm thinking one of The Guardian, The Independent and The Times would have reviewed it. I can't remember if Caitlin Moran had started at The Times back then. Hiding T 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you can e-mail it to me. I'm tempted to use both reviews, since Melody Maker was the other major British music weekly of the time and The New York Times is the most respected newspaper in the States, even though they saw fit to hire the same guy to review the same album. I've found the press release online; I don't think we need it, and it's best to avoid citing press releases anyway. Let me know if you acquire the reviews from the other British newspapers. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We're already citing the press release, I've just noticed it's the Hype cite. I'll email you the maker review asap. Hiding T 09:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Melody Maker review and hid the New York Times review with invisible text tags until we decide if we want to do anything with it. WesleyDodds 10:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Googe and cabbying[edit]

Re Googe formed the supergroup Snowpony in 1996[46] and had also been sighted working as a cab driver in London. Just curious as to the phrasing there. Googe definitely cabbied prior to forming Snow Pony. Hiding T 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold[edit]

This article's good article nomination has been placed on hold. The following are notes as to how the article stacks up against the GA criteria. When you have satisifed the requests below, please contact me on my talk page so that the article can be reviewed, and hopefully passed as a good article. If the requests are not dealt with within 7 days, the nomination may fail. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The specific release date can/should be mentioned in the lead.
Fixed.
  • ”Released in November 1991, the album took two years to record, and involved eleven engineers, and a number of recording studios.” - Overuse of “and”, may wish to split to 2 sentences.
Fixed.
  • ”a figure that came close to bankrupting their record label Creation Records.” - “their” --> “the band’s”
Fixed.
  • ”Shields trusted to perform tasks such as micing the amps” - amps should be amplifiers
Fixed.
  • ”Concerned friends and band members suggested this was as a result of the unusually loud volumes MBV played at their gigs” - MBV shouldn’t be abbreviated, gig should be wikilinked
Fixed.
  • ”The album was edited on an aged machine that have previously been used to cut together dialog for movies in the 1970s” - “have”: --> “had”
Fixed.
  • ”As the previously prolific MBV were unusually quiet,” - MBV --> My Bloody Valentine
Fixed.
  • On source 22, Guitar World can be wikilinked
We might jus end up removing links from the references aside from dates because they aren't mandatory. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Debbie Googe did not perform during the album's recording, despite receiving a credit on the album sleeve." - Refs?
It's verfied by Butcher's statement at the end of the paragraph. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "it was like fucking Woodstock" - wlink for woodstock?
Fixed.
  • "NME editor Danny Kelly" - wlink for NME?
Fixed.
  • You might want to give the full names and wikilinks for people like McGee occassionally - by the time I reached the Reception section I had forgotten who he was!
I'll see about inserting full names more often, but individuals should only be wikilinked once in an article accoring to MOS guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "rock album".[44]In Spin's entry" - Need a space after the ref.
Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed version: [2] Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kemp quote[edit]

I've got slightly different text in Mojo for the Mark Kemp quote. Is the Cavanagh source a quote? Mojo run it from "After three minutes [of the holocaust] people began to take deep breaths, cover their ears and eyes. Anger took over. After four minutes a calm took over. The noise continued. After five minutes a feeling of utter peace took over...". Just struck me as I was reading it, thought I'd pass it on. Hiding T 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good work![edit]

I found this article to be a great read, and I remember it being nominated for GA and now it's featured. Seems like the alternative rock WikiProject is really working well (although I have concerns that other areas in popular music are more neglected). It actually made me want to listen to the album again for the first time in a long time. Keep it up.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Go listen, NOW! ;-) Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#FORUM (although there is also WP:IAR), but I prefer Going Blank Again by Ride (band) to Loveless. Having said that I did listen to Loveless today again and it is a fine album, one worthy of a featured article. My only concern is that Wikipedia rock music featured articles are concentrated in the alternative rock area, which is a bias, as a result of the work of the Alt Rock WikiProject.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

lead[edit]

Rather rude to revert without comment, no? i don't see why "A number of My Bloody Valentine's contemporaries, including Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins and Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, have cited the album as an influence on their music" should be in the lead, surely this is pandering to current american alt rock fans in rather a patronizing way, and misleading people about the album. Asserting that the album is influential will suffice for the lead, with details in the body. There is no strong continuum from the work here to the work of those two artists as they are today (i don't see any strong audible linkage at all, just a tenuous one to maybe Siamese Dream and "Rhinocerous" perhaps) and there's no need to give a misleading impression about Loveless in the lead. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead because the lead is a summary of the entire article, and the latter part of the article talks about the album's legacy, particularly specific artists who have praise the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
and a phrase like "cited as influential by critics and artists" would not suffice? Why not put Phish in the lead then? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
NIN and the Pumpkins are the two bands who most often cite the album as an influence. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The emphasis you put on them in the lead is not relative to the article. I don't think you're being very open-minded about this, or addressing my arguments. Perhaps you're too wedded to the idea of the lead as it stands? Are you more a fan of SP and NIN than of Phish, btw? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree with the IPN-user's argument. It's subjecting the user to subliminal bias right from the start and excludes other band's that draw influence from Loveless. The bands are fairly well known in the world of popular music and it gives the impression that MCR influence major rock stars. Billy equally cites The Cure as a heavy influence but the distinction isn't made in other respective articles. NSR77 TC 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean MBV, of course. Wesley? - 86.44.6.14 February 2008 (tilde is broken:P ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it, although it does perhaps seem a bit muted now; maybe someone wants to fuck around with it a bit more. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

not sure how to edit this, but you have the engineer's name wrong: it is "Guy Fixsen" not "Gary Fixsen" as shown in the article :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.112.248 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Spin review[edit]

Why is my Spin review being reverted? The album rating is from the review but as reviews from sources ranging from Rolling Stone to Allmusic change with time, I don't see why this Spin one is any different. This is how Spin felt about the album in 1995. I can't see anything on WP:Albums that says this shouldn't be here, and another FA for Green Day's Dookie album uses the Spin review before I even added it. So what's the problem? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is: is this a reprint of the original review Spin magazine published for the album, or is it one written for the book? Because if it's for the latter we don't include it in the infobox; we'd want the review from the magazine itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is "we"? I've read through Wikipedia:Albums#Professional_reviews and they don't seem to have anything against this type of review. In fact they encourage more recent reviews. The citation suggests it's from 1995, so it lives up to everything it needs. So what's the problem again other then personal preference? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The monthly magazine publication is the primary product of Spin. Many magazines print record guides, but they don't always reproduce reviews from the magazine; oftentimes they are original. Right now, unless you can verify otherwsie, you are citing a review in a book not published in Spin magazine, when what you should be citing is a review from Spin magazine itself, because the review section is intended for music publications (print or internet), not record guides. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What Wesley means is that you have no proof that this book factually or accurately represents Spin album reviews and ratings. NSR77 TC 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello two years ago, I've found the original review from the magazine, and added it to the article. They thought the album was pretty "meh". Who would've thunk it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Historical context is awesome! Thanks, dude. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Programmed Drums[edit]

according to a kevin shields interview in this issue of tape op: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28203754@N04/, the two tracks colm played live drums on were only shallow and come in alone, not touched, as the article currently states. in fact, shields explicitly says that touched was all programmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.27.181 (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guitar World quote[edit]

I've been trying to remove a quote from Guitar World that's being used in the wrong context in the article, however it keeps being reverted by comrade WesleyDodds without explanation. Is there a reason for this? 62.77.181.13 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the context. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is. The "In attitude toward sound, yes, but not in approach" quote is presented in the wrong context at the moment. In the Guitar World article, it is actually Kevin Shields' response to the interviewer comparing him to Robin Guthrie of the Cocteau Twins. The use of the quote is misleading at the moment. I was just trying to clean up the article by removing the offending line. The alternative is to rewrite that paragraph mentioning the Cocteau Twins rather than the use of wah-wah pedals, which you're welcome to do... 62.77.181.13 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
WesleyDodds you do not own the article.193.178.95.4 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Anna Quimbly - or not?[edit]

The article mentions "American flautist Anna Quimbly". But Sean O'Hagan calls her "Anna Quimby". I can't see obviously overwhelming evidence for either spelling, so I won't make a correction. But I do think someone should try to work out which form is correct, since O'Hagan is not alone in his spelling. TheGrappler (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Remaster[edit]

No info on the Remastered 2-Disc edition? --Wiz-Pro3 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a remaster but not much information out their about it. Someone should look into making a section about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.161.168 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation and quotes[edit]

I've learnt that in written English, commas and full stops are placed before an ending quotation mark if the sentence ends with the quotation. In this article a reversed practice is used about as frequently, i.e:

Dutt recalled: "Kevin would sing a track, and then Bilinda would get the tape and write down words she thought he might have sung".

instead of:

Dutt recalled: "Kevin would sing a track, and then Bilinda would get the tape and write down words she thought he might have sung."

What's the preferred usage? Shouldn't the article be consistent in this matter? (Needless to say I'm not quite used to the English punctuation tradition.) ✎ HannesP · talk 00:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The second option seems far better. Ceoil 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Professional ratings[edit]

Hello,

let us discuss this here rather than edit warring all the time. I support the inclusion of this box as it serves as a quick search similar to the infobox above. Dozens of album articles use this box, so I don't see any problems to include it here. Regards.--Kürbis () 08:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The review template is only optional per WP:ALBUM, and is also redundant to the well-written Release and reception section. It is thus unfair for proponents of the template to go around adding it to stable and complete articles, just as it would be if its opponents were to go around removing them. Further, the template should only be used for contemporary reviews (i.e. released around 1991), but in this article it is mixed with retrospectives, which is inappropriate.
I will temporarily remove template as that is the status-quo version of the article that passed WP:FAC. I urge all editors to refrain from edit-warring over this until we can get consensus here.—indopug (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, as I should note, the template was added by a new user whose only edits so far have been adding the templates to articles that didn't have them. He didn't understand that the templates are optional, and I have explained to him the common reasons why they are excluded from articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Charts[edit]

Can you explain what your issue is with the above sources listed, User:WesleyDodds? As I've explained three times at this point, the Gaon Chart is the official chart provider of South Korea, and the weeks listed in the notes are indeed the weeks when the album reached its peak chart position there. Removing this information is akin to deleting a source listed in the latest Rolling Stones greatest hits, simply because it happened to be in this format. This information is, regardless, accurate. And do you also mind explaining why you're removing the correct citation style (per Wikipedia:Citation templates)? Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They are of low value overall. Fucking chart positions for such a seminal album. Give me abreak that you aruge and edit war of this. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Chart positions are chart positions. All available charts - baring WP:Deprecated charts - can be utilized in a Charts section of the album's article. And if you want to contribute more to this discussion, it would be helpful if you'd refrain from swearing and generally attempt to keep a civil tone when communicating with other contributors, or even jumping to conclusions. I have no idea why you claimed I had "grievances" with WesleyDodds. Were you talking about the discussion I had with him on my talk page almost 6 months ago? That was far from a "grievance" - it was a completely amicable, brief and polite discussion. I had completely forgotten about that discussion and it was in no way a contributory factor in my original edit to this article. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll be back later tonight to explain my edits further, but bear in mind there is no "correct citation style" on Wikipedia. I linked to WP:CITEVAR in my edit summary, which explains that there are numerous citation styles that can be used on Wikipedia--what is important is that they are used consistently. Not only does this article not use citation templates (note that CITEVAR states under "To be avoided": "Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates"), but it uses British dating, neither of which you utilized in your edits. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand your reasoning behind the removals. Your main issue with the Korean chart is that "with charts from specific weeks it's unclear if they ever charted higher." That strikes me simply as laziness on your part, or perhaps furtherance of suggested laziness on the part of the casual reader. Yourself and any other contributor/reader would be free to check the following weeks available (the entire year thus far is there) to see if the album peaked higher. It didn't. It spent a sole week on the main album chart, peaking at #43, before dropping out of the chart entirely. Its run on the international chart lasted two weeks - #7, then #37, never to be seen again. It takes all of 45 seconds to check. Comparatively, not many charts worldwide have a convenient Hung Medien link to entire chart runs. Sources listed for the majority of other charts in the world are for the individual peaking week to the chart provider's official website. Plus, there are plenty of individual chart weeks from the websites of IRMA, ARIA, OCC, FIMI, etc. scattered all through-out Wikipedia. There is no instruction on any Wikipedia guideline page that prohibits the inclusion of such content. And I feel the information listed - particularly the Japanese content - adds greatly to a user's understanding of the album's impact internationally. They aren't just some little critically acclaimed indie band all over the world. Their acclaim has netted the band some genuine success in the Asian market. That's most likely the reason they're touring the region early next year. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)