Talk:M b v

Album genre?

Would the album genre be shoegazing as it features the qualities of shoegazing (long, distorted, droning guitars). Duncandore (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that it belongs to the genre, but we need citations for the albums genre per WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is labeled as shoegaze/noise pop/dream pop at allmusic, metacritic and rateyourmusic. I wrote all three of them in the box--79.22.32.204 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi 79.22. Rate your music doesnt really cut it as regards a source, as its written by random fans. Re categories/genre: Dream pop really post-dates MBV, and is deritive of them anyway. Noise-pop is pushing it, considering the album is so laid back and laconic. Shoegaze at least is fine, but its a bit like calling Britt Ekland a "Britt Ekland type". Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to use to choose what citations are worth it, so you can include the ones allmusic included, but it'd be best if you can find the more common ones. I'm sure several other reviews have referred to it as shoegaze or what not, but you just need to find more sources describing the sound and genre of the album. It's the section that most people ignore when making these album articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And with good reason. Worrying about genres is missing the point. Music is fluid, it evolves and at its best soaks all around it, putting it in boxes retards understanding. Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's not easy to discuss people discussing the genre of an album (most writers are smart enough to stay away from that topic!) but I wish we'd remove it from the infobox. It's the thing I find most people reverting when infoboxes come into play. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But we have to live with infoboxes, and the reductivness they encourage. Viva that wikipedia was bulit by people whoes attitude is, we have the mark up, it needs to be strickly applied. Its a concentric circle of lateral thinking. Ceoil (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand you might be reluctant to put m b v under dream pop -though it definitely doesn't post-date mbv- or noise pop, so I focused on shoegaze being it the most obvious and went on to search for more sources. Surprisingly enough the vast majority of professional reviews doesn't refer to shoegaze even once, or if it does it's just to introduce mbv as its masterminds. Still, I was able to find something at Consequence of Sound (the album "eschews the heart and gnaws right at the brains, shifting their one-of-a-kind brand of shoegaze into something that’s startling, visceral, and almost apocalyptic"), the NY Times (this is really tenuous: "Unsurprisingly, “m b v” sounds like a sequel to “Loveless,” its much-loved antecedent and highest achievement of the post-punk subgenre often called shoegaze. It builds out from the earlier record, and establishes the same relationship to your ears"; it's basically saying m b v is similar to Loveless, Loveless is shoegaze --> m b v is shoegaze) and Pitchfork (While Shields was conceiving m b v through the 1990s "mixing drum'n'bass' whooshing walls of percussion with oceanic shoegaze seemed a natural pairing"). I understand none of these is crystal clear, but together with Allmusic and Metacritic they should be enough, especially considering where this album comes from. Also, I'd like to point out that the fact that not many reviewers refer shoegaze or any other genre shouldn't be seen as a sign of uncertainty about the genre m b v belongs to, but rather an attempt not to state the obvious or sound amateurial. Indeed having to look for sources that directly say m b v is shoegaze felt a bit like looking for sources stating Barack Obama is black. Shall we put shoegaze in the infobox now?--79.18.25.94 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Telegraph: m b v "sounds like such a continuation of their previous aesthetic that the band may have actually been cryogenically frozen for the last two decades." Their previous aesthetic is undoubtedly shoegaze.--79.18.25.94 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:User:Andrzejbanas, i take exception with one thing here - the inconsistency of the application of the policy you quote. Here we have Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, The Velvet Underground & Nico, Babylon by bus, Einstein on the Beach. The common factor? They are all long-lived articles - with no references regarding genre. You're being intentionally awkward. Kaini (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be, as I can't go through every album and add citations, but for the ones I've been paying attention to lately, I've been trying to enforce this. I can't watch every article! Honestly, I'm sure if we put any collective effort into it, just add the citations. But we can't just guess that it sounds like based on vague reviews. We need a solid statement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point. But I can also see a WP:DUCK with regards shoegaze and MBV. Kaini (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never really followed duck, but I'd rather follow WP:RS. Not that I don't think it's shoegaze (I do!), it's just I see far too many articles where people just toss in and out genres. If people want to include things, we need citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

fair point, WP:GENREWARRIOR is a bit of a plague on wiki! Kaini (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

Someone needs to add Robert Christgau's rating (http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/expert-witness-blogpost.aspx?post=8fd44d79-236e-4b9a-b498-006a6b7a400d).

It's a two-star honorable mention. However, since Christgau's has stated in various places that all honorable mentions are simply different variations of B+ records he doesn't feel the need to review with a full paragraph or essay, would anybody be opposed to listing his rating as B+ on the review section (rather than the awkward/confusing black 2-star rating) in an effort to normalize the table for the average, unknowing viewer? Or at the vey least acknowledging both its star rating and its grade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.44.63 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the name of this article "m b v"?

Sources seem to be consistent in referring to it so.—indopug (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Have been wondering that. I see m b v is a redirect. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Pickpocket Records

Can anyone find more reliable sources that the album was actually released by this label? The only source in the article about this is the album review from RTÉ. I have no idea where the reviewer (Alan Corr) got this from, because a search of the label name brings up nothing but some now-3-year old info about an EP released by Le Volume Courbe in 2010. There's no mention anywhere else of the album being released by this label. For the record, the CD inlay states the album was released under m b v records. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From scans I've seen, I can't find anything about Pickpocket. I'll be removing it for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MBV (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114215017/http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/my-bloody-valentine-reunion-confirmed to http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/my-bloody-valentine-reunion-confirmed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus by weight of arguments (WP:NOTUNANIMOUS). (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

M b v (album) → M b v – Removing unnecessary disambiguation. Target is currently a redirect to the disambiguation page MBV, but the specific title "M b v" is not ambiguous and refers only to this album. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS, while I may not have supported if the name was Mbv due to the fact people may well not capitalize when searching for acronyms I think the spacing makes it unique. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it's an album. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support – the spaces more than satisfy SMALLDETAILS (it's not like there's an M B V). No need for disambiguation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.