i am always too hard on things, loveless is an amazing album but i don't enjoy to listen to it from start to finish anymore. my mbv love started to fade when i saw them in brussels in the ancienne belgique in 1992. live they were not as mesmerising as on record. my most intense experience with their music was in the winter of 1992 when i listened to loveless in my car going home to luxembourg after a carnival party in trier. usually that ride took about 45 minutes at the time (the motorway wasn't finished yet i think). it took me more than two hours as the fog slowed me down to 20-30 kilometers per hour. i was really thrown back onto the music as i didn't see a thing. and the music was as nebulous as my view. it was like a kind of negative feedback. i can't say how happy i was when i fell into my bed.

the drums going from the left to the right channel and back on gish on headphones after having smoked. one of those moments when you think you meld with the universe. never saw them live. i envy you for your experience with "i just want to get there faster". that's fabulous.

I gotta disagree about "Loveless" and "Gish"--to me, "Loveless" seems the stronger album--it's probably an unpopular opinion now. "Gish" does boast some great tracks, like "Siva" and "Rhinocerous"...but I dunno--they seemed too careerist--whereas Kevin Shields and Co. just seemed like they were making music to make music--I mean, they spent three years in the studio and nearly bankrupted Creation to make "Loveless"--self-indulgent, sure--but it didn't seem ego-driven, like a lot of Corgan's efforts (especially following "Siamese Dream")

The music of "Loveless" seems completely liquid to me, a meld of psychedelia, noise and straight-up rock--whereas "Gish" seems more of a concious attempt to meld certain styles--it does work, for the most part--but not as much as "Loveless", i.m.h.o. And also--try and tell me "Daydream" (on "Gish") wasn't influenced by "Lose My Breath" (on "Isn't Anything").

at the time loveless was the more original, the more innovative record, mbv were the more new-sounding band. but today loveless has lost this advantage. the fact that mbv spent much more time and money on their record and that they burned out by making it doesn't mean shit to me. gish wasn't as spectacular in 1991 but for me at least it sounds at least as good now than then. whereas this definitely can't be said about loveless. what bothers me about it is the rich muddy sound, the Wagnerian bombast i hear in it. it's subjective i admit but did you listen to it recently? every time i have put the cd in my player in the last ten years i was disappointed. it is an album which is much better in memory than in today's reality.

your opinion is not unpopulat at all. ilm recently voted loveless best album of the 90's. gish didn't even finish in the top 100. and here is a no consensus thread on the best album of 1991.

lose my breath to me is one of the most loveless like song on isn't anything (together with all i need). the beginning is similar to the beginning of daydream but daydream goes somewhere else. in any case that song is probably my least favourite on gish. it finishes the album but doesn't really fit with the rest. and that's not only because of the girl's vocals. it has a different, less dynamic vibe than the other songs.

Ha Ha Ha--well, I don't hear any Wagnerian bombast when I listen to "Loveless"...but it does still sound fresh to me when I listen to it--and I still listen to it every so often--the last time was probably a few weeks ago.

I do remember a review of "Loveless" saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that it "invented a new sonic vocabulary", now that does seem a bit of a dramatic statement to me--but it's not that far off from what I think of it as well.

Shields' length of time and cost could be compared to Brian Wilson's making of "SMiLE" in '67--so maybe there's some Wilsonian bombast on "Loveless" ;-)

...anyway--it's still the better record overall, i.m.h.o.