MBV Cool, Cocteau Not: Shoegaze Vs. Dreampop [Archive]

andylama

Dec-27-07, 10:17 PM

Yeah, I never understood that either.

Same deal with Bill Nelson: He sort of invented the (now prevalent) practice of inserting soundbites of ephemeral vintage recordings into instrumental music. 20 years later, Eric Clapton dabbles in it (probably after listening to Bill Nelson's work), and now everyone credits Clapton with 'breaking new ground'. Makes me want to scream "Nelson was doing this literally 20 years ago, dingbats!"

Typical. Annoying, but typical.

Maybe because MBV was more angst-y (the noise), and angst is still in. Cocteaus were about beauty...

Valid observation, though highly debatable. (waiting for Robin to pop in and say something pithy here)

wAtChLaR

Dec-27-07, 10:20 PM

Bill Nelson :clap:

andylama

Dec-27-07, 10:24 PM

Yeah, baby. If I had to declare one singular 'musical hero', Bill Nelson is the man. He is the pinnacle of my music pantheon. Not because he's the greatest anything, but he's more than the sum of his parts. I just admire his entire career arc. He's like the Energizer Bunny with a guitar in one hand and a synthesizer in the other.

I looooove that guy.

randomrob

Dec-27-07, 11:43 PM

I feel like a old fart for saying this but the term 'shoegaze' makes me wanna dynamite my shoes.

wAtChLaR

Dec-27-07, 11:44 PM

hardcore shoegaze purists are annoying :rolleyes:

andylama

Dec-28-07, 2:42 AM

Utterly.

Well, you know me: I find anything purists kind of annoying.

randomrob

Dec-28-07, 3:03 AM

even analog synth purists...........? :blush:

wAtChLaR

Dec-28-07, 3:05 AM

mmm analog :drool:

andylama

Dec-28-07, 4:19 AM

even analog synth purists...........? :blush:

Ohhh fuck. More than any of them! You have no idea. Analog synth snobs are only slightly less irritating than sanctimonious Apple/Mac bigots. OMFG. I am a total synth slut, but I have no use for blinkered analog fanboys. I am of the firm belief that they are so far up their own asses about the 'sacred purity' of analog, that it becomes purely academic (geeks gone bad), and they don't even make music. It's like Spinal Tap's guitar thing ("don't touch it...don't even look at it")

Analog and digital are truly the yin and yang of sound synthesis. Each is incomplete without the other. Anyone who dismisses digital outright, can go suck it as far as I'm concerned.

It felt good to mini-rant about that.

wAtChLaR

Dec-28-07, 4:22 AM

:crying:

ossian

Dec-28-07, 4:56 AM

Frankly, I'd rather not hear about CT from some shitgazing copyists.

shoegazr

Dec-28-07, 5:14 AM

mbv were groundbreaking in their own way and somewhat ahead of their time, as were so many of the musical greats. but let's face it: terry riley, lamonte young, bill nelson, david sylvian, harold budd, all of these guys were doing amazing stuff years ago and they are STILL unappreciated on the level that they should be. mbv is way too easy to grab onto these days thanks to terrible acts like ladytron and just about any other "nugaze" band you can think of claiming them as influence, but the fact is that when the ep's & albums were coming out, most of the bands that would go on to try to copy the sound verbatim were still in diapers. you gotta face facts that some of this stuff is nearing 25 years old, which qualifies it as "classic rock", and the noise/distortion that people found grating 15 years ago is now a norm in music. and i can't remember soft/pretty music ever making a splash, everyone's into rock music with big beats, chunky chords and screamed vocals. i think that mbv suffers from the same hero worship that joy division is now experiencing. it's killed the original purpose of the music, and the mainstream just keeps burying it deeper and deeper.

and the term "shoegazer" is probably the most misappropriated musical term that i can think of. the group moose was the first to be coined shoegazer, and they sound NOTHING like mbv, ride, slowdive, cocteau twins, etc. and on top of that, most people have no clue who they are, including fans of shoegaze music. just goes to show the ignorance coming full circle.

i'm personally glad that ct's music hasn't caught on with the mass music consuming mainstream. maybe i'm selfish, but i just don't want to see another great act reduced to the same status as radiohead, bjork, beck, mbv, pixies, joy division or whatever else band/artist that has been killed by sudden popularity.

ResetTwo

Dec-28-07, 5:17 AM

I think it's because MBV is more rock oriented. People are more accustomed to that style even when it's underneath mindblowing noise. I can see someone liking MBV but not CT, although most people that I know that like CT also like MBV.

ossian

Dec-28-07, 5:33 AM

There'll be a Kylie minogue shoegazing album next year. Sorry, dubstep.

Dpressed

Dec-28-07, 5:37 AM

Can someone please explain why we have to put labels on music? I know I like what I like whatever it's labelled as

mike_mhg

Dec-28-07, 9:39 AM

Probably talking through my arse here.... but to my mind shoegaze (of the sort of total noise of MBV, can in some cases disguise a lack of substance. Dreampop a la CT needs to be essentially good... have a good melody.

Baddy2shoos

Dec-28-07, 10:11 AM

Is it me or has Kylie only just listened to the Supernature album?

Baddy2shoos

Dec-28-07, 10:12 AM

I fucking love Soon.

I think its track nine on Loveless that sounds spookily like CT.

andylama

Dec-28-07, 11:43 AM

Can someone please explain why we have to put labels on music? I know I like what I like whatever it's labelled as

It's kind of human nature, ya know?

I mean, I know what you're saying, and I laugh heartily at all the silly-sounding sub-sub-sub-genre labels people have come up with (even though the only difference is speed), but on the other hand, you gotta have some way of describing new music to someone who's never heard of it.

If I want to tell you about some great new thing, and I say "oh, they sound just like Kraftwerk gone dub", and you say "craft who? and what is dub?", then you'll have no clue until you go and spend money to buy it or spend time to download it, only to find that it really sucks...whereas, if you already know who Kraftwerk is, and already know you hate them, then you'll already know, and no time or money is wasted.

The paradox is this: I have never liked anything anyone has ever presented to me as sounding "like Cocteau Twins". I listen, and wonder what connection they saw. "are you sure you didn't mean Thompson Twins?"

Once again, language fails us, smileys or no.

randomrob

Dec-28-07, 11:47 AM

Can someone please explain why we have to put labels on music? I know I like what I like whatever it's labelled as

because nobody has TIME anymore, because of the international timesucking crisis, to sit down and listen to something that might challenge them without the music being predigested by the self-conscious precepts of yet another micro-genre, so as to avoid any possible artistic discomfort. (which is the whole point of art, to make one uncomfortable enough to be able to access a new idea)....

micro-genres. Blecch.

YES, MICRO-GENRES. THAT'S THE WORD. I'M SICK OF EM.

spangled

Dec-28-07, 11:54 AM

Micro-genres....aren't they a post disco nugaze minimalist techno band? :666:

Dpressed

Dec-28-07, 11:55 AM

This micro-labelling is more of a US thing. In the UK CT were always refered to as indie (which covered everything from the Smiths to MBV)

andylama

Dec-28-07, 11:58 AM

Well put, Rob. We're slowly approaching the day where every band/artist is their own nano-genre, and the line between name and genre label is blurry.

...and it will all sound like early 80s new wave revival, done by people who are too young to have been there.

[flash-forward dream sequence, setting=record company exec's office]
"so, like, I have this great idea for a dance song...a song about security or safety or something, and we could spell out the word 'security' or 'safety' in the song lyrics..."
[/dream sequence]

andylama

Dec-28-07, 12:05 PM

This micro-labelling is more of a US thing.

Could be, but that sounds debatable too. I think the styles of music that are most susceptible to micro-categorization are far more popular in europe than in the US. Is no disctinction made between, say, Aphex Twin and Goldfrapp, when talking about them? Is it all just "indie" or "electronic"?

I'll bet the UK/Europe are not immune to this dread taxonomical disease.

randomrob

Dec-28-07, 12:14 PM

[flash-forward dream sequence, setting=record company exec's office]
"so, like, I have this great idea for a dance song...a song about security or safety or something, and we could spell out the word 'security' or 'safety' in the song lyrics..."
[/dream sequence]

oh yr goin to hell for that...

andylama

Dec-28-07, 12:19 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/andylama/forum4/cheney_drevil.jpg

Dpressed

Dec-28-07, 12:30 PM

Could be, but that sounds debatable too. I think the styles of music that are most susceptible to micro-categorization are far more popular in europe than in the US. Is no disctinction made between, say, Aphex Twin and Goldfrapp, when talking about them? Is it all just "indie" or "electronic"?

I'll bet the UK/Europe are not immune to this dread taxonomical disease.

It all depends but Goldfrapp is labeled pop & Aphex Twins indie ... .but in most record shops you'd find Goldfrap under pop/rock. In the lager stored The Appex Twins (if stocked) would be in the same section ... as would be a groud know as Cocteau Twins

andylama

Dec-28-07, 12:38 PM

So, what is "indie" anyway? "Independent"? Independent of what? Are the Arctic Monkeys independent of something? (Are they even still around?)

About 10 years ago, the US had a huge phenomenon of "alternative" music.

WORST. GENRE LABEL. EVER.

Alternative to what?!

It's all a load of crap anyway.

randomrob

Dec-28-07, 12:43 PM

Dpressed

Dec-28-07, 12:55 PM

So, what is "indie" anyway? "Independent"? Independent of what? Are the Arctic Monkeys independent of something? (Are they even still around?)

The Arctic Monkeys are still 'around'. Their 2nd CD (Famous Worst Nightmare) was released in the spring & has become one of my albums of 2007. According to the music press there will be a 3rd album out sometime in 2008 .... of course as they sing in their native South Yorkshire accent rather than a psuedo South US accent no one 'over the pond' will be able to understand them

Indie started out as Independant (i.e. on an independant label such a Rough Trade or 4AD) but after Stock Aietkin & Waterman had indie hits it became non mainstream groups i.e. Didn't tend to get played on daytime radio but could be heard in the evening.

btw How someone taking about Shoegazing (which was about a few bands & existed for 6 months) can critisice Indie (which is far wider & lasted for yearsin the UK) is beyond me

agcu418

Dec-28-07, 2:14 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/andylama/forum4/cheney_drevil.jpg

Is that Hughie Green

ResetTwo

Dec-28-07, 4:03 PM

The only time I've been able to find bands I like by listening to other bands in the same genre is when listening to shoegazing. Otherwise I'm looking for passionate artists with their own sound, which is why genres aren't much help to me.

andylama

Dec-28-07, 5:01 PM

mmmender

Dec-28-07, 5:33 PM

agcu418

Dec-28-07, 5:46 PM

thanks for that anyone in the uk agree with me this is Paula Yates dad of opportunity Knocks fame

shoegazr

Dec-28-07, 5:54 PM

...and it will all sound like early 80s new wave revival, done by people who are too young to have been there.

you're looking into the PAST, not the future. we've already experienced a new wave revival led by folks that weren't there: the faint, ladytron, trans am, fischerspooner, and a slew of others in the states. we're gearing up for another one, too, unfortunately.

it always amuses me to see how fired up the topic of music genres gets people. everyone always says the same thing: you shouldn't catergorize music. it's putting the artist in a box, making them conform to some sort of ideal. but then the artists want to be thought of as something specific, therefore creating the NEED for a label. so: fans don't want what the musicians want. it all comes down to opinion, like most other things. i've always discovered bands that i like by LISTENING to them, not by asking someones opinion or reading that this band sounds like so-and-so. i would never want to listen to a band that sounds just like something else that i know. it's called diversity, and it is not accomplished by adding or taking away labels. humans label, it's a fact, and it's not going away, not even in this age of EVERYONE having to throw their individuality in every one else's face. if anything, we're labeling more and more these days. this sub-sub-genre creation is simply following wider cultural trends which are obsessed with INDIVIDUALITY.

when working in record shops i've had people get offended that an artist would be filed in the "rock" section, but not in the "punk" section. they wanted sub categorization. but others would be angry that everything wasn't just filed under rock. who is right? who cares? if it were up to me, music shops would be categorized by alphabetical listing, a-z. that would be amazing. music speaks for itself. if you want to question labeling, then what about WORLD MUSIC? wouldn't that encompass all music made on earth? or folk music, music of the people, again an all inclusive genre. i think that fans of pop music (ie, mbv, ct, goldfrapp, aphex twin, which are ALL popular bands) tend to be a bit prissier than fans of other music and MUCH more opinionated. if you don't like the lables being used, don't use 'em. easy as that.

shoegazr

Dec-28-07, 5:59 PM

I was just wondering... How come just about every Shoegaze, Nugaze band gives props to MBV and credits them for inspiration but don't even acknowledge Cocteau? I suppose it kind of bothers me that Cocteau gets no love and now MBV are getting back together.... :werewolf: It's not that I don't like MBV, it's just that well; they're no Cocteau.

i know there are a lot of factors at play, but i think that a simple answer to this question is that the mbv sound is extremely easy to replicate. all you need are a few pedals and to bend the strings of your guitar. the ct sound is NOT so easy to replicate. i love mbv, but they don't have the genius of robin or the voice of liz.

halation

Dec-28-07, 6:24 PM

Ohhh fuck. More than any of them! You have no idea. Analog synth snobs are only slightly less irritating than sanctimonious Apple/Mac bigots. OMFG. I am a total synth slut, but I have no use for blinkered analog fanboys. I am of the firm belief that they are so far up their own asses about the 'sacred purity' of analog, that it becomes purely academic (geeks gone bad), and they don't even make music. It's like Spinal Tap's guitar thing ("don't touch it...don't even look at it")

Analog and digital are truly the yin and yang of sound synthesis. Each is incomplete without the other. Anyone who dismisses digital outright, can go suck it as far as I'm concerned.

It felt good to mini-rant about that.

Right on!

I have an Alesis Micron. Great little synth. There also a Roland Juno 60 at a pawn shop close to me that I would love to get. But I'd also take an Access Polar TI over a Minimoog anyday.

halation

Dec-28-07, 6:28 PM

Micro-genres....aren't they a post disco nugaze minimalist techno band? :666:

You forgot micro-house.

halation

Dec-28-07, 6:32 PM

Alternative in the 80's made sense.

It was an 'alternative' to what was on the radio. I remember thinking the Smiths and The The and They Might Be Giants kindof epitomized alternative to me in my late teens.

I remember in the Eighties when Depeche Mode was called "synth-pop" as a put down. Almost EVERY fucking song in the Eighties was synth-based.

shoegazr

Dec-28-07, 6:36 PM

I remember in the Eighties when Depeche Mode was called "synth-pop" as a put down. Almost EVERY fucking song in the Eighties was synth-based.

seems like just about every song NOW is synth based. let's give synths a break for awhile.

halation

Dec-28-07, 7:01 PM

seems like just about every song NOW is synth based. let's give synths a break for awhile.

Yeah, like the White Stripes? Purity, man.

shoegazr

Dec-28-07, 7:12 PM

:llama:

Fritter

Dec-28-07, 8:23 PM

MBV are probably hipper to namecheck because their sound was more intense. As if anyone really cares.

ossian

Dec-29-07, 5:01 AM

Secret fairies are afraid?

Dpressed

Dec-29-07, 10:52 AM

I'm not criticizing anything, just pointing out that all genre terms are undescriptive and naff. I actually wouldn't know the Arctic Monkeys if I bumped into them in the street--just that they made a big splash here ("ZOMFG!!! most important new music of the decade!!!!11!"), then I never heard another peep out of them since. Forgive us yanks for knowing or caring what the hell a "mardy bum" is) ;)

Typical isolationist US imperialist attitude. I'm sure most people in the UK don't really know what a mardy bum is either ..... it's a South Yorks term for someone who goes off in a huff or wont talk after an argument ... & tends to be more used by kids than adults. The US expects the rest of the world to understand it's local phrases but object when anyone else uses theirs. You'll probably only be happy when the rest of us are either totally USised or obliterated.

randomrob

Dec-29-07, 12:23 PM

seems like just about every song NOW is synth based. let's give synths a break for awhile.

a renaissance of grunge, then. Acck. :suicide:

shoegazr

Dec-29-07, 5:24 PM

a renaissance of grunge, then. Acck. :suicide:

you shouldn't joke about that kind of thing. :2cry:

shoegazr

Dec-29-07, 5:47 PM

The US expects the rest of the world to understand it's local phrases but object when anyone else uses theirs. You'll probably only be happy when the rest of us are either totally USised or obliterated.

not all yanks share in that opinion. i'm pretty irritated to see so much cross over of british/u.s. culture. for the most part americanization simply means "dumbing down" and i for one am sick of it. it's pretty embarrassing to see that our leaders are power hungry & money grubbing imperialist pigs...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2060/2146654211_e159661e67.jpg

randomrob

Dec-29-07, 10:55 PM

if ska makes a comeback it'll probably end up being called ShoePop.

:crying:

shoegazr

Dec-30-07, 1:16 AM

if ska makes a comeback it'll probably end up being called ShoePop.

:crying:

it'll probably be a new hybrid ska called two-drone.

Avninder

Dec-30-07, 4:30 AM

Interesting info and perspectives so far... I know that Robin and Kevin had a rivalry going on for a while regarding who could make the coolest and most different sounding guitar based sounds. However, on a purely aesthetic basis, Robin had nothing to worry about. So what if critics thought Kevin's was the coolest, Robin's was by far the most inventive and melodic. Personally, I think any nit wit could have made what Kevin considered genuine. Robin on the other hand was divinely inspired and had the benefit of having an angelic voice of Liz. In my book, Cocteau are the ones to aim my sights when considering embaking upon distortion based music.

shoegazr

Dec-30-07, 4:35 AM

Personally, I think any nit wit could have made what Kevin considered genuine. Robin on the other hand was divinely inspired and had the benefit of having an angelic voice of Liz. In my book, Cocteau are the ones to aim my sights when considering embaking upon distortion based music.

i love mbv and i think that kevin is a genius in his own right, but i agree with you.

ResetTwo

Jan-6-08, 3:13 PM

Thanks, shoegazr, for mentioning Moose. I am digging the EP songs.

shoegazr

Jan-6-08, 4:04 PM

Thanks, shoegazr, for mentioning Moose. I am digging the EP songs.

glad you're digging moose! russell yates' voice is remarkable...such a criminally ignored band.

cristian

Jan-25-08, 5:42 PM

I think both bands are different and deserve their own place in music history.

MBV were influenced by Cocteau Twins, that's true. You can hear the great sense of melody of the Cocteaus in songs like "Blown a wish" or "Swallow", but the guitar work is very different and unique. In fact, there's an interview were someone asks Kevin if the Cocteaus were an influence, and he answers:
"In attitude toward sound, yes. But not in approach. The approach for me is very simple, minimal effects. Whereas the Cocteau Twins is based on the idea of using effects as instruments. I think Robin Guthrie is quite good, by the way".

And that's really right. Bands like Lush, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of distinction, A.R. Kane and Slowdive were using the Cocteau's guitar effects (chorus, flanger and delay). On the other hand, MBV was using tremolo arm and reverse reverb, which are very different. So the "shoegaze" sound maybe is more similar to the Cocteau Twins than MBV. In that case maybe it would be wrong to label MBV as shoegaze because they were doing their own thing and they never considered themselves as a shoegaze band.

Kevin: "Then we'd get compared to a lot of other shoegazing bands; they were doing everything we hated, using loads of chorus, flanger and all these effects on their guitars and singing genuinely softly and it was all whispery. It was so hard to get away from that. We were singing as loud as we could to sing the way we wanted to. (Singer/guitarist) Bilinda Butcher's voice in particular had a really breathy quality to it, but she sounds like that when she sings pretty loudly, too. Neither of us could sing in a shouty sort of way. "