Shaggy kid grows up, listens to his adolescent gut-pit 8:34 pm // Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Posted by jjb in analysis, blogging, my bloody valentine, siamese dream.trackback
This is so great, and so central to what (for me) HU is all about, that I am going to blockquote six paragraphs of it right here, unhidden behind a jump. This much is still not quite the whole thing, so do yourself a favor and go read it all on the music blog Thirteen Birds vs. The Record Desk:
If you throw a rock at bunch of shaggy kids in American Apparel gear, you’ll likely hit someone whose band *totally* has an ambient My Bloody Valentine thing going on. Of course, this claim is likely complete bullshit – this kid’s band probably sounds like U2 or the Cure. However, My Bloody Valentine is a much more acceptable band to talk about as an influence. They signify a certain kind of cool – cool that is decadent and European and detached from issues of pop and commerce. In short, invoking My Bloody Valentine means that you have the *right* idea of what is cool. Your sensibilities are in order. You are not some kind of “rawk” obsessed meathead. Basically, name dropping My Bloody Valentine proves that you are the sort of person who should be forming a band.
Some bands (like My Bloody Valentine, Television, the Fall, and even the Velvet Underground) provide a shorthand for musicians who want to discuss aesthetics and rule out the wrong kind of collaborators, but who don’t wish to appear snooty or discriminatory. And because fans of and dabblers in popular music are pack animals, pretty soon everyone learns the new codes and starts prattling on about how Loveless and Marquee Moon changed their lives – giving rise to a process of I’m calling inflation of influence.
For instance, a 13-year-old kid in 1993 might have bought a guitar because he was really into Siamese Dream. However, by 2002 this kid is out in the great wide hip world telling everyone how he wants to form a band that sounds just like Loveless. He doesn’t want to fess up that it was the wholly cornball Smashing Pumpkins who rocked his world. Instead, he uses his influences’ influence as a cover. Our imaginary kid doesn’t want folks to know that he once got his kicks from the corporate FM radio monster – an admission that might peg him as some kind of possible Nickleback sympathizer. So, our imaginary kid bites his lip and pretends to worship Kevin Shields instead of uncool Billy Corgan.
I’m not saying that no one loves Loveless or Hex [E]nduction Hour based on first-hand experience. I’m just saying that most people lie about how much they love these sorts of records. I know because *I’ve* lied about loving these sorts of records. I mean, I like Loveless and I actually really do love Marquee Moon, but not in that crazy, bloodied teenage way that you *really* love your favorite albums. These smartipance albums are a fine diversion after you’ve memorized every blip of “Baba O’Riley” and every squawk of “Heart Shaped Box,” but they aren’t the sort of things that you love deep down in the your adolescent gut-pit. Loveless and other “important” records like it present interesting ideas and new twists on the possibilities lurking about the fringes rock and roll.
Of course, I too am using Loveless as shorthand – in this case for a certain kind of album that everyone has decided to treat as a classic despite the fact that it was never super popular or embraced on a massive scale. I’m not saying that it isn’t an interesting or, hell, even an enjoyable album. I’m simply admitting that I almost never listen to it, and I almost never hear anyone else listening to it either. Loveless strikes me as a piece of “required listening,” not too different from so-called “classics” that you are expected to read in literature class.
Which brings us to our thrilling conclusion – I’m not sure if high school literature class is the best model for pop music appreciation. The wrong teacher or the wrong syllabus can ruin reading for many people. By extension, the wrong tastes or the wrong standards being forced on pop listeners and pop participants can kind of make pop music less fun and more like a never-ending struggle to keep up with what sorts of things make for proper listening.
I totally agree with the quote – I just wish they would’ve picked an album other than Loveless, which is really great, and actually really fun to listen to – repeatedly in the car, in the bloodied teenage way that most people probably enjoyed Siamese Dream back in the 90s. Why not Spiderland for instance?
I was just going to namedrop Spiderland as the other album every quotes as influential but is actually really fucking boring.
Madriz 260.65 (numbers?)
Spiderland is totally a better example. I really love My Bloody Valentine…and while it didn’t get me to pick up the guitar like Siamese Dream may have (I think I probably was that 13 year old kid), loveless fully one of my favorite sounding records and, in my mind, a 90s classic. I discovered it cause of a much older cousin in around 93 and it spoke to my already loving Siamese Dream sensibilities. Now though, as much as I still love that record, I would still cite early pumpkindom as a bigger musical influence, even when asked. This is of course often to the chagrin of the hipster elite, and even though we might like some of the same things Billy was always a better player than say Steve Malkmus (or Pajo?) and that’s what stood out. As hip as it is to cite some of the above albums, I’ve noticed that banging on the pumpkins is also hip. I’m guilty of this at times, although I like to think it’s much more based on critical thinking (and the band I love) than it is on faking tastes.
I always did love the Velvets too…Television not so much. Slint though? F*** ‘em. Boring and overrated. Not even compositionally that interesting, and I do like some of the post-rock.
Hmmm. I can so totally relate with this article, JJB — it’s a really great find. It’s refreshing to see a music blog (that’s not ours?) own up to guilty little secrets. Heck, I have podcasted (twice!) that I own three Third Eye Blind albums. Now, I’d never cite Stephan Jenkins as a musical influence – just a guilty pleasure – but honesty is so important and you just don’t get it very many places these days.
I’ve tried to listen to My Bloody Valentine and the Velvet Underground, among other ‘seminal’ influences of the Pumpkins. I can’t say I’ve had the reaction some of the other commenters attest to; rather, I definitely prefer Siamese Dream. It’s nice to listen to where your favorite bands came from, but as Thirteen Birds writes, don’t be a poseur about it.
So true, so true.
reCAPTCHA: “to reinforce”
I like Spiderland.
Whether you like it is not the issue. Do you love it?
Yea, I would say I love it. Although in a much different sense than I love the Pumpkins. Probably one of my top 10 favorite albums. Unlike the people, the author describes though, I would never pretend not to love the Pumpkins (even when my friends would continually bug me about That’s the Way being in that Ford commercial). It’s not inconceivable for people to actually feel very strongly about the albums mentioned. After all, they had to have gained their stature somehow. The problem is that most people claim to love those albums just to gain some sort of hipster cred.
The one thing that really made sense after reading this though was why Pitchfork talks so much trash about Corgan. I mean it would be just as easy for them ridicule Dave Matthews, Adam Duritz, etc. But they don’t, most likely because The Smashing Pumpkins probably had a tremendous effect on many of the writers there.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate. I do get the point the author is trying to make, and in a lot of ways he has some valid points, but I think it also belies a bit of a larger picture.
Most kids when they first get into music discover the easiest available, be it corporate rock or top 40 or what not. I mean, almost every teen goes through some form of classic rock phase where they “discover” Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd, or the Who, or someone else. Any rock star can probably pull out Sabbath teases at a moment’s notice, it’s ingrained.
As they get more and more into music, they delve deeper and deeper into the scenes as their own personal aesthetics are formed and fostered. Though I’ll freely admit that many of these efforts are probably in an effort to look “cool” and “hip.” But if you’re truly going to move beyond top 40 rock and become a serious musician, it’s a bit of a rites of passage. You can’t claim to love shoegaze if you’ve never heard MBV. It makes you less genuine. “Oh, you like the Pumpkins? You’ve never heard MBV? Seriously, you’ll love this album…”
I know someone pointed out above following your influences’ influences, which is definitely true. Though isn’t it at all possible that as you discover things you like buried deeper, that your initial influence becomes less important?
I mean, I have no doubt people namecheck records that in reality they rarely listen to or care about, but I doubt those same people are still secretly checking out the Top 40 countdown every week or blasting Siamese Dream every day. So in that way, it’s very much a “classic” listen as described initially, and it’s disingenous to praise a record just because you should, but that doesn’t mean your initial influence is what’s still driving you either.
I think Penn makes a good point in terms of Pitchfork’s talking trash about Corgan and the reasons why though. There’s reason to dislike him now if you don’t like the band’s output post SD or MCIS. With My Bloody Valentine and Slint, there’s such a small history that there was no time for backlash at following subpar albums to emerge, which has definitely heightened the aura around them (just as with Nirvana).
Side note: Loveless and Spiderland are two entire different beasts in my eyes. Loveless had tons of critical praise when it came out, which only heightened with Kevin Shields going into hiding. Spiderland has still only sold 50,000, most of them probably in the past 5 years, and is much more a revisionists’ history in terms of its influence. And it’s not that good, especially live. Dreadful.
Secondary side note: I am going to see My Bloody Valentine in September, and imagine it’ll be a great show. Though I’m more than a little wary about the holocaust…
@pins
but regardless of the initial difference in praise for Spiderland and Loveless, both of them have reached the same point of “awesomeness” that probably isn’t deserved.
shine scenes
Loveless is totally deserving. If not for it’s technical achievements alone as well as it’s place in the pantheon of 90s music. Spiderland on the other hand, not so technically brilliant. Just because something doesn’t crack the top 100 or hack into popular consciousness doesn’t mean it’s not a pinnacle of achievement. The Velvets were similar in their day…and have since become a pretty influential band. Not to mention ‘awesome’.
just because it’s a good record doesn’t mean that it is not being namedropped more than it deserves
“and pedestal”
I do recognize the “coolness” that Loveless represents in the music/indie world and hate it with a passion. I had heard of and maybe even heard (in the background) Loveless in my late teens, but it wasn’t until I was 21/22 that I actually downloaded some mp3s and listened to Loveless. I, of course, went out and purchased the CD post haste after one listen. It’s one of the few albums that actually bring me to tears to this day. Throw on Set The Ray To Jerry or Behold! The Nightmare and it evokes the similar feelings
True enough…and going back to the article, it is often dropped by people who probably don’t really like it so much. But name dropped, and influential are different…and I don’t think you can downplay the position of Loveless in 90′s rock…It may not be top 40, but it’s still important.
[...] Lindsay of Exclaim! offers a long piece on shoegaze, My Bloody Valentine’s well-regarded album Loveless, and the influence thereof. In it we are alerted to this: Los Angeles-based [...]
[...] last week, and I took in Saturday night’s show at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago. While some debate the legacy of a band that was nary a household name in their heyday, I tend to prefer the take that [...]
Rights )))