Talk:My Bloody Valentine (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name origin[edit]

I've heard that the band found out about the Canadian movie after forming the band. CrypticBacon 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

About indicates the name came before awareness of film, whilst a transcribed spiral scratch article stands neutral. an online website FAQ supports the name from the film, as do blogcritics and I think it'll be hard to get a definitive answer. Might be best to couch it, it has often been claimed Conway named the band after the Candian movie of the same name; however, it has also been claimed Conway merely liked the sound the words made together and became aware of the film at a later date. Hiding talk 15:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should trust those secondary sources as there's a good possibility one article started the assertion that the name was based off the film and subsequent publications just copied. Here are the only primary sources about the name I could find:
From spiral scratch:
They adopted the name My Bloody Valentine for the gig, duly played and decided to move en masse to Holland. It was a question of "hell, let's just do it". The name had been Dave's idea, "it seemed like some good words" was apparently the reason.
From an AOL interview with Kevin Shields:
Question: Why are you called My Bloody Valentine?
Kevin: Cos Dave, our singer from 84-87 suggested it and a couple of years later we discovered it was a really really crap terrible Canadian film
One interpretation is that Conway thought up the phrase himself but it wasn't until later that everyone in the band found out an earlier film shared the same name. Another interpretation is that Conway suggested the name based on the film, the rest of the band assumed it was Conway's original construction, but later learned it was the name of the film after Conway had left the band. This is not implausable since My Bloody Valentine was released in 1981, only 3 years before the band formed. It is unclear what Shields means by "we". Based on these sources alone I think we can only assert "Dave Conway suggested the name My Bloody Valentine; it is unclear whether he based it off the 1981 horror film of the same name." Can anyone find any other sources? —jiy (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

British group[edit]

MBV were British?

  • Two irish and two english members. 96T 16:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My recollection is that Bilinda and Debbie are British, so I don't see any reason to remove the British category. Hiding talk 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The article states that they were formed in Dublin, town of formation generally having a major influence on where the band is judged to be from. And all material I have ever read considers MBV as Kevin Shields' baby. Nevertheless, I suppose the tag doesn't hurt. However, I am currently trying to sort the British musical groups category into its English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Ireland musical groups subcategories, so do you know which British country Bilinda and Debbie are from, so as to refine the categorisation? Jdcooper 23:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • They would stay in the British super category. Regardless of Debbie and Bilinda's nationality, given the nature and makeup of the notable incarnation of the band, Shield's being Irish-American, Colm being Irish, I would think leaving it categorised as both British and Irish is the least contentious thing to do, especially given the fluid nature of the immigration laws of Ireland and the UK. I would also argue that where a band is formed is of minor importance when deciding on the nationality of a band, more important is the nationality of its members. As to My Bloody Valentine being Shield's baby, he has always noted that Bilinda is still a member of the band, and it is her vocals which are most readily associated with the band, alongside Shield's production work. Note also that the media considers them a British group, The Observer listing Loveless as one of the 100 greatest British albums, [1]. Hiding talk 12:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My two cents - if the band has a mixture of English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/Irish members in any ratio (except for "members" who hung around just long enough to play tambourine on one track or something like that), I'd say they were British (by which I don't mean "UK-ish", I just mean "British" as in British Isles). If membership is restricted to just one of those nationalities, then I'd say they have that nationality. MBV seem to be British on those terms. :-) --DaveG12345 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What, one Irish, one American and two English members. The band was formed in Dublin. That doesn't make them British. And you can't say there from the British Isles, that term is offensive and outdated and I know you meant to offend every living Irish person when you said it ; ).--Play Brian Moore 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 :-D Yes, it was political incorrectness gone mad. --DaveG12345 09:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
what a prick. besides, just because the British media likes to call them British, it doesn't make them British. Formed in Ireland, by Irish(-American) musicians, its an irish band. Replacing the original line-up with English musicians later doesnt make them a British band, just like replacing the original bass player/drummer of Oasis doesnt mean the band is no longer Mancunian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

My Bloody Valentine → My Bloody Valentine (band) – {more than one entity with such a title}



  • Matthew 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Weak oppose as per comments below. — sjorford (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per sjorford. Jdcooper 09:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with comments added below — ShaneCavanaugh 10:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the band are the more notable of the two, I doubt many people have heard of the film but not the band, whereas I would expect people to have knowledge of the band but not the film. Hiding talk 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't think this is necessary - I've added a {{otheruses}} tag to the top of this article, which links to the disambiguation page. The band seems to be a lot more famous than the film, which would suggest leaving the band article at this location. — sjorford (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • As there is only one other use, i put a manual message in linking straight to the film article, to reduce the reader's effort. I agree that the film is far less notable, article is in the right place. Jdcooper 09:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines offer some help on questions of confusion with regard to what someone searching would expect to find. — ShaneCavanaugh 10:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I have update the format of the discography. to the extent that the eps and labusm are side by side. however i was unsure whether this looked right. If anyone doesn't like it; i have no concerns if it is changed back. The idea was to compact it. Chadwholovedme 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've added images of most of the EPs and changed some of the smaller details such as having 'stars' (e,g, 4of5.png) for All Music Guide reviews, I feel this makes info boxes much nicer to look at. I've also added a page for Ecstasy and Wine, I added this bacause the majority of other bands the have compilations of two EPs or albums create a seperate page (e.g. Surfer Rosa & Come on Pilgrim by Pixies. Similarly if anyone wants to make changes feel free! Ajplmr 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I updated the EP pages with a bunch of discographical information, credits, etc. I also recategorised Ecstasy and Wine as a compilation album, simply because that's what it appears to be. I kept it out of the album chronology though, as it doesn't strictly go there.
I also upgraded the music genre linkage on the EP pages (well, it wasn't all shoegazing after all) and added the merest hint of intro text to some of them. However, they sure could use more (but bearing in mind WP:NPOV, which was a fault of the debut's article before I re-edited it).
I had problems trying to categorise the EPs. In fact, I ended up creating a category called Category:My Bloody Valentine singles, which I'd now prefer to rename to/replace with Category:My Bloody Valentine EPs to avoid a speedy delete, since categories involving "Singles" are currently being purged (for example, Category:Singles by artist and their brethren are all now toast by the looks of things)
But, fairly obviously, the EPs don't belong in Category:Songs by artist, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs seems to be pushing. I searched their discussion pages over there, but their advice on EPs simply doesn't apply to MBV stuff. There were no albums for most of these tracks, they are mostly not named after their lead songs, and they don't really deserve merging up on a huge and rambling discography page or something like that.
So, I intend to stick the EPs in a newly-created Category:My Bloody Valentine EPs (as a child of Category:Albums by artist) and whack my Category:My Bloody Valentine singles to avoid annoying the album categorisation purists with their fingers on the button. :-)
Any other ideas/thoughts on this, please comment here. --DaveG12345 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
(Although the recategorising deed is now done...) --DaveG12345 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a 7" called "Instrumental" released in November 1988. Could someone add it? --EpiC-- 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Didnt the origion of the term originate from descriptions of the secondwave bands, spec. Ride/Slowdive, rather than the ear shattering, visceral MBV Coil00 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

no -- 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

you might do better than that to convince me, boy. you seen them around that time?? they were particularly nastly --Coil00 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

'Secondwave bands'? That begs the obvious question: second wave of what? Shoegaze? Indie? Dream pop? Noise pop? Besides I cannot think of a single genre that is defined by how loud or quiet it is being played. Are you suggesting that when the amps are set to 7 it is shoegaze, but when the amps are set to 11 it is some other style of music? (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, douchebags, first guy is right. Do a little research before you start spewing out your wannabe-elitist bullshit. Technically, My Bloody Valentine formed in '84, years before anything was ever dubbed "shoegaze." As early as '87 they had developed their noise pop sound with the EP, Ecstasy, and a year later released the obviously seminal LP, Isn't Anything. Legend says it wasn't until a performance by another rock band, Moose, who'd formed in 1990 (by the time Loveless was being written and recorded), was the term officially invented and applied. I've never EVER considered My Bloody Valentine truly "shoegaze", they're simply a visionary and avant-garde rock band. Experimental, if you will. Shoegaze was just an easy rip off of My Bloody Valentine. Shoegaze was everything produced after Isn't Anything from far crappier bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The music came first, and then someone thought of a word to describe it. That's how it works. It's the same with any genre of music. By your logic the Pale Saints, Ride and Lush weren't shoegazers either, as they released their first EPs in 1989. While we're at it, I suppose Mozart and Beethoven weren't 'classical' composers either, because nobody described their music as such at the time. But hey, I'll let you get back to your 'research'... (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The first guy is indeed right, and as the article on Shoegazing correctly describes, My Bloody Valentine (along with J&MC and Cocteau Twins) were a PRECURSOR to shoegaze. Describing My Bloody Valentine as "shoegaze" is no more correct than describing The Stooges as "punk". (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

active 1984-present?[edit]

  • when was the last time My Bloody Valentine released a recording or played a show? i think it's inaccurate to describe MBV as presently active. --G0zer 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • "No. When Colm and Debbie left in 1995, we were still recording on and off until 1997. We didn’t really think we were finished, because in the studio, I did most of it myself anyway. On the “Loveless” record, except for 3 tracks, it was just me and Bilinda anyway, so it didn’t seem that different cos we weren’t playing live." from this interview
        • Nonetheless, they stopped recording, and thus stopped being active, in 1997. —ShaneCavanaugh 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:My Bloody Valentine EPs up for CfD[edit]

Intention is to merge these to Category:My Bloody Valentine albums.

People should make their thoughts known on the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page (search the page for it, it isn't directly linked).

My own view is, if the category's good enough for Category:The Beatles EPs, it's good enough for other artists. --DaveG12345 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problems[edit]

I think there are a few problems with respect to WP:NPOV. One particularly egregious example is describing Butcher's vocals as "otherworldly". Certainly there are less biased/charged words that we can use here to describe what her singing actually sounds like? —ptkfgs 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any more specific examples? TBH, the article as a whole doesn't seem riddled with POV to me. Rather than a blanket tag based on one example, would it maybe be better to just edit the offending word?--DaveG12345 03:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Unfortunately, the record failed to have the expected impact, "
  • "Kevin's low and brooding vocals"
  • "extremely tuneful and carried by Butcher's beautiful, otherworldly backing vocals."
  • "boyishly nonchalant, at times wistful vocals like those generally sung by Kevin Shields"
There might be other examples. Hopefully I'll have time to go through and tone them down today. —ptkfgs 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Results 1 - 50 of about 146,000 for "my bloody valentine" "shoegaze". (0.30 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 50 of about 90,400 for "my bloody valentine" "shoegazing". (0.10 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 50 of about 84,000 for "my bloody valentine" "shoegazer". (0.12 seconds)

Do not arbitrarily remove references to "shoegazing" from this article. Shoegazing is a widely accepted and well defined term. It is perhaps the most frequent genre used to describe this band. The article shoegazing credits them with inventing the genre. If you have a serious concern with using this established term to describe the band, please try to articulate it here. Thanks. ptkfgs 06:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The band is described in the first sentence as a "rock" band, but this really should read "shoegazing" band, I think. I changed it but somebody changed it back again. 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't understand why you think that the term "shoegazing" is a valid description of My Bloody Valentine, just because some rookie writer for a music publication decided to try to give the music a name, as if it was part of an entire separate genre of music. It doesn't acknowledge the fact that MBV were pioneers, in that they sounded like nothing that came before them. A lot of MBV fans, including Kevin Shields himself, don't think anything of the term - it doesn't even describe the music. All it seems to refer to is a type of music that involves musicians gazing at their shoes - it's just ludicrous. An encyclopaedia shouldn't describe bands & music using poorly implemented journalese. My Bloody Valentine haven't been at the forefront of any larger musical scene or movement - both their studio albums also sound completely different. The only bands that sound like them came after - and they are often accurately dismissed by MBV fans as mere emulators. You can't compare it to terms like "punk" or "metal", both of which are valid genre terms that refer to specific movements and sounds that aren't necessarily attributed to one group of people, and which both have a lot to recommend historically. They have the added bonus of describing the music sonically - while "shoegaze" does not. As for the original description including "rock" - it's not as if this was all there was to describe them. The article subsequently elaborates on it - My Bloody Valentine were an Irish-British rock band best known for their creative use of guitar distortion, tremolo, and digital reverb. This is a sufficient description of their music, and gives it the objective and accurate treatment it deserves.

I don't understand why you think "shoegazer" is any less descriptive of how music sounds than, say, "heavy metal" (also coined by a rookie journalist), or "jazz" or "rock and roll" or "punk". It's an indisputable fact that they are strongly associated with something that music journalists describe as "shoegazing". Journalists using terms in publications is one of the primary ways we verify content for Wikipedia. This page is not supposed to be some kind of fan shrine to the band. This is, as you say, an encyclopedia article, and when the publications in this field describe them as the progenitors of shoegazing, we include that in the article, even if there happen to be Wikipedia editors who disagree with the genre division. ptkfgs 06:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Shoegazing" is a valid genre term. It's a subgenre of alternative rock, which is a subgenre of rock music. It's a term that's been identified, described, and utilized for over 15 years. And My Bloody valentine have been cited quite often as one of the definitive groups of the style. It's not just that they stare at their shoes. The reason they stared at their shoes was to focus on their guitar pedals, which were essential in creating the walls of sound that the genre was known for musically. So the band doesn't like the term. So? Goth bands don't like being called goth, but that's the genre they belong to. And why remove "shoegazing" and not "dream pop", a genre less clear-cut than shoegaze? WesleyDodds 09:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll keep an eye on this and start issuing blocks, we went through a similar thing with Bashman a while back. I think it is POV pushing and it is dangerously close to breaking the spirit of the WP:3RR. If anyone really needs a cite, try this definition, "SHOEGAZING The wall-of-guitar sound that was developed by My Bloody Valentine", from: "Are you listening at the back?" The Sunday Times (London); Sep 10, 2006; Mark Edwards; p. 32 Hiding Talk 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I could look up my stacks of NME's from the early 90's but as far as I remember the shoegazing doesn't solely refer to stage performance and looking at effect pedals. I seem to remember the term was first used by NME because the members of dreampop bands at the time came across as extremely shy and stared at the floor while mumbling evasive answers. Of course it's derogatory, the NME didn't like bands that made dreamy music with vague lyrics and showed no interest at all in politics or social issues, it was their way of describing bands which they thought were meaninglessly shallow.

Shoegazing is not a valid genre term. It was a deragotory, throw away term during that time used exclusively by people who either couldn't stand bands like MBV or used it because they had heard said critics use it. If you look at interviews and articles of the day, there are no references to the term by anyone but people who held disdain for the genre. It's like saying "Emo" is a valid genre term to describe Sarah McLachlan or looking up Elvis and seeing him in the genre of "Colored Music." Just because journalists used those terms or people associate those terms with those bands doesn't mean they are legitimate. I think it is valid to mention the term but to note it is a deragatory term created by vehement critics of the band or similar bands and later used to describe those bands by people who knew nothing of the genre simply because the movement had not created a label of its own. The term actually began in the house music scene to describe overly drugged patrons of said scene and then was borrowed to describe the bands and followers of the bands in question. This is why, at the time, it was completely understood to be a solely deragatory term used only by those who disliked the bands/movement or who heard others use it without knowing what it means. Daduvab 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Artists do not define the categories that their music is put under. None of the composers whose music we now refer to as Baroque used that term to refer to their own music. Nor did Classical composers refer to their music as Classical. Most of the artists within the Trip Hop genre don't like the term. Indeed there are countless example of this. It is scholars and critics who come up with these terms, not the artists themselves. Another point that should be made is that whether or not the term may have originally derogatory is completely irrelevant. What is significant is how the term is understood now. People don't use the term in a derogatory manner now, just like people don't use the word 'bollocks' to refer to members of the clergy. Wasn't Punk a derogatory term in the beginning too? Does that mean that we should stop using the term? Most people don't associate the term Shoegaze with drugged-up fans of house (in fact you might well be the only person who does, can you back up any of this?) but with a specific style of Alternative Rock, this includes critics, so it makes no sense to come along seventeen years after the fact to dispute the usage of the term. 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Active 2007-present?[edit]

Can we please have a citation to a reliable source that states simply that they've so much as booked one show, or recorded one second of music this year? Otherwise we have nothing to indicate the band is active. ptkfgs 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this point has been resolved given their 2008-09 activity. Phenylphree (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Question About Name[edit]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but in what sense does the name use the word bloody? As in covered with blood, or like bloody hell? I was just curious, and if the answer is known, it might fit in the article somewhere. Godlord2 05:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • They've pretty much said it was just a cool sounding phrase, and that it's possible it was nicked from the porn film of the same name. I have never seen the film, so I don't know if it is an erotic thriller, which would suggest the first meaning, or an erotic comedy, which would suggest the second, or an out and out porn film, which would suggest it was just a good phrase. I think the ambiguity is a part of the appeal of the phrase, to be honest. Might be worth asking Shields if he ever does another webchat. Hiding Talk 10:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I second this explanation, but point out that the film was a camp horror film referenced by the band. With that in mind, 'bloody', I believe, was used in the literal sense and referred to actual blood. Phenylphree (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

another compilation[edit]

there IS another MBV comp out there besides Ecstasy & Wine, called Things Left Behind... and here's the page for it:
it oughta be added to the article seeing as how this comp is the only place where any of the material contained is available on CD. just a thought. Filter1987 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I have combined the singles and EPs into a table in a single section with additional info regarding formats and catalogue numbers. Several of those previously listed as EP's were also released as straight 2-track 7" singles (i.e. not 'extended play's in any sense of the word). I have also added the "No Place To Go" 7" single, which was released separately to the Geek EP a few months later.--Michig (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see someone's messed this up and put the mini-LPs in the singles/EPs section, confusing the chart positions. Ecstasy did not reach number 12 in the indie singles chart, it was number 12 in the indie albums chart, so the article is now incorrect. --Michig (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and copy and paste the old version of the chart onto the current page. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

use of whammy bar/tremolo arm[edit]

the introduction to this article used to contain a reference to my bloody valentine's use of the whammy bar as a signifier of being in the shoegaze genre, and it seems at some point it was edited out (i don't know when, it could have been more than a year ago). removing it seems to make the article less accurate, as it is a facet of their music present in many of their songs and the technique is one of the more recognizable elements of shoegaze. both terms vibrato and tremolo have been used in this article but i don't think either are appropriate to describe the specific technique i'm referring to, as vibrato would imply a regular or cyclical shifting of pitch, and tremolo has the additional meaning of a regular fluctuation in volume, neither of which describe the non cyclical pitch shifts that come from bending a note or chord with a whammy bar. i'm new at this but i didn't see any mention of the topic so i thought i would bring it up in hopes of at least prompting a discussion by those better able or qualified to discuss it. the technique i'm talking about is in most of their songs but i would suggest listening to soon if you don't know what i'm talking about, most prominent starting around 45 seconds in.

Quitequieter (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your observations. As you said, a whammy bar shifts pitch, and vibrato and tremolo are not the same thing. I'm sure MBV used boatloads of effects, but I agree that the whammy bar was a huge part of the sound. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, vibrato is a shift in pitch. The reason that the term is not appropriate here is because My Bloody Valentine used their whammy bars to achieve chord bending, and not the cyclical variation in pitch (frequency modulation) that would characterise vibrato. The most accurate term that we could link to on Wikipedia would be portamento (pitch bending). There's plenty of pitch bending in the sequenced parts on Loveless, too. (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical Acclaim[edit]

First time contributor to Wikipedia, so be gentle...

I propose that a 'Crictical Acclim' section be added to the article. This band's 1991 album 'Loveless' has been critically acclaimed by numerous sources, including Pitchfork Media, The Irish Times, New Musical Express (NME) among others as being the most important musical release of the 1990's. This is not given sufficient credit in the article.

Thanks for reading. (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ManAboutCouch yes, it received critical acclaim from hipsters, big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reunion 2008 concerts[edit]

Do we need to list all the festivals they play ? If so, that needs to be updated to the past tense IF they did infact play them. -- Beardo (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Move back to My Bloody Valentine?[edit]

Any reason why this shouldn't be moved back? The disambiguation page is at My Bloody Valentine (disambiguation) and a hatnote on this article should be sufficient for anyone not looking for the band. The vast majority of links to My Bloody Valentine are for the band.--Michig (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, don't do that. The first film is much more widely known -- if anything, it would be the other way around, despite the links. This is exactly the purpose of disambiguation pages and internal links on Wikipedia should be fixed over time. Qoz (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Generally with 2 articles there's no need for a dismbiguation page, but now the new version of the film has been made, it makes more sense to leave this article here.--Michig (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting site with detail on the early line-ups[edit]

Possibly not a reliable source by WP's standards, but this is an interesting page on the band with details of the band's early line-up and releases. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential new album[edit]

'TBA' does not belong in the discography. A discography is a list of releases, and an album that may or may not be released at some point doesn't belong. Why on earth does anyone believe that adding 'TBA' with a date that will likely not be correct adds anything useful to the article? --Michig (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed TBA section. It wasn't necessary as you've mentioned. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:My Bloody Valentine (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, I will review this article some time today. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Under formation, the two last paragraphs end with unsourced sentences.
 Done Added citations.
  • The end of the two first paragraphs under Island Records have the same problem.
 Done Added citations.
  • Reunion and Legacy have such problems as well, please check for this throughout.
  • Why does the entire tracklist for their first demo tape need to be listed under formation?
 Done Seeing as it was not listed in any other articles on Wikipedia. Removed and incorporated into This is Your Bloody Valentine.
  • "However, Creation Records co-founder Joe Foster, known as Slaughter Joe" do we really need to know the nickname of a guy who is only mentioned once?
 Done Suppose not, removed.
  • "The audition process, which Shields described as "disastrous and excruciating", was unsuccessful due to Shields "mentioning The Smiths, because [he] liked their melodies." I don't get this sentence.
 Done Added some additional prose for clarity.
  • Why no sample from Isn't Anything? Certainly more relevant than largely unknown EP tracks.
 Done Included a sample of "You Never Should" in "Style" to accompany appropriate prose.
  • "The band recorded five songs at a mid-range studio" What does that mean?
Not a professional studio but a basement studio either. Removed "mid-range" due to possible further confusion.
  • Wouldn't it make more sense for the image of Shields featured before that of butcher?
I think placing Shields' image from 1989 in a section about 1985-86 wouldn't be the best idea; and Butcher's image is directly beside mention of her recruitment, which seems the best place for it.
  • "Artistry" seems a weird title for a band article, something like "style" would be more appropriate.
 Done Changed to "Style".
  • The following sentence needs to be broken up: "Rumours of a My Bloody Valentine box set, which had circulated amongst the public in April 2008 following a listing on HMV Japan's web site,[50] began recirculating and after a number of reported delays, in March 2012 Sony Music Ireland announced the release of the compilation album EP's 1988–1991—a collection of the band's Creation Records extended plays, singles and unreleased tracks."
  • "One of the most recognisable aspects of My Bloody Valentine's sound is Shields' guitar sound" Could a word other than sound be used in one of the two occurrences?
 Done Sure thing, changed first sound to "music".
  • "Spin writer Simon Reynolds has noted that the band's lyrics often contain sexual themes." Elaborate?
  • Shoegazing is overlinked. Should only appear once in the intro and article each.
  • I heard Ó Cíosóig left the band due to mental illness, could be noted if true.
I'm almost certain that was during the recording of Loveless, along with a number of other factors. I searched online but couldn't find mention of Ó Cíosóig's reasons for leaving the band.

Thanks for your review! Hope the recent edit resolved all these issues. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Looks good, I saw them live last month, so it is nice to review this article. One last thing, it seems they also have a distinct visual style for their cover art, videos, and stage shows, maybe something could be mentioned about this? FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, the second paragraph under Reunion should end with a source. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done As for the visual style, you're absolutely right but all I've managed to find—online, at least—are two very vague mentions of the live "psychadelic" visuals which aren't exactly helpful. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 04:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright. Could be good to elaborate on that if you want to take it to FAC one day, but it's good for now. Passed! FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Errors re. "shoegazing"[edit]

While there may be a source that states the term was coined by NME journalists in the late 1980s, this isn't true. It was first used in 1990 in a Sounds review. MBV were not one of the bands labelled as shoegazing at the time either, it's just journalistic revisionism. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And this is all sourced in the Shoegazing article. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, McGonial's book just mentions "British press" along with the quotation. Changed NME to Sounds, AGF with the source provided in the other article. --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 21:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't the late 1980s, it was the early 1990s. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


I corrected some of the punctuation around quotes but some seem to have been changed back. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:PUNCT#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

shoegazing,[21] a term coined by Sounds journalists in the late 1980s[edit]

Primary source please. There was no shoegazing in the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Passing through—is the band not far and away the primary topic? I haven't checked yet but I can't imagine it being otherwise. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Edge[edit]

I know its sourced, but can we really trust The Edge to say Loveless was a major influence on the guitar sound of an album released just two weeks later? Hey, perhaps The Edge was allowed to listen to tracks from Loveless before their release but it sounds a bit odd to me.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre in lead[edit]

User:Second Skin Shoegaze, noise pop and dream pop are all considered alt-rock subgenres, which is why it was included in the lead.--MASHAUNIX 19:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's many articles on Wikipedia for bands that are all random bouts of rock genres and the band itself is just introduced as a rock band. For example A Perfect Circle, Tigers Jaw, Real Friends and American Football (band) and numerous' others, but I guess if it really bugs you that much just change it back. I didn't see it that big of a deal but whatever. Second Skin (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't care much either, just wanted to explain it. For those other bands you mentioned, their genres are not so easily summarised. EG for Tigers Jaw, emo and pop punk aren't a subgenre of alternative/indie rock, so you can't use that, whereas indie isn't a subgenre of punk rock, so you can't use that either. Therefore, just "rock" is included. For My Bloody Valentine, their key genres are all alt-rock subgenres.--MASHAUNIX 14:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Discography POV[edit]

Current version starts the band's "albums" in 1988, even though they released their first in 1985 and second in 1987. The omission of these albums reflects a preference among fans of the group's later work who don't really care for the band's early material. This POV is reflected in MBV's album articles as well with opening lines like, "Isn't Anything the debut full-length studio album by My Bloody Valentine" invisibilizing the group's earlier albums, which, though shorter in length, still albums. Morganfitzp (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Discogs entry agrees with you, too. QiQi La Rue (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And AllMusic splits the difference, listing the 1985 record as an album but the 1987 record as an EP. Morganfitzp (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)