Talk:My Bloody Valentine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Name origin 2 British group 3 Requested move 3.1 Voting 3.1.1 Support 3.1.2 Oppose 3.2 Comments 4 Discography 5 shoegazer 6 active 1984-present? 7 Category:My Bloody Valentine EPs up for CfD 8 NPOV problems 9 Shoegazing 10 Active 2007-present?

[edit] Name origin

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 mp3.com. 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. Steve block 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)

[edit] British group

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. Steve block 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]. Steve block 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)

[edit] Requested move

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

[edit] Voting

[edit] Support

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

[edit] Oppose

• 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. Steve block talk 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

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)

[edit] Discography

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, ) 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)

[edit] shoegazer

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 --83.70.106.131 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)

[edit] active 1984-present?

• 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)

• • Accoding to this interview, they stopped recording in 1997. —User:ShaneCavanaugh

• • • "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)

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

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)

[edit] NPOV problems

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? —ptk★fgs 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. —ptk★fgs 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoegazing

• 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. —ptk✰fgs 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. 212.64.98.189 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. —ptk✰fgs 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 Steve block Talk 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Active 2007-present?

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. —ptk✰fgs 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)