My Bloody Valentine: Review of Critical Coverage and the Issue of Product Errors

Fans of My Bloody Valentine should read this blog post before buying the recently released remaster of Loveless.

While of course many CDs have already sold, buyers have the right to know that there are major errors in this release that have now been identified. The two critical problems are widely reported mislabelling of the CDs (as they each represent different tapes of exactly the same sessions and music it's almost farcical) and a clearly identifiable digital transfer glitch sound on one of the versions of 'What You Want.'

It was Analog Loyalist's blog that made the comprehensive case with good analysis, so all credit to him for breaking the story. Here is the litany of woes:

details: My Bloody Valentine Loveless 2012 remasters - manufacturing errors

Pursuant to my other post on critics: notice that no critics until this blog have identified that the CDs were mislabelled, or found this glitch, or indeed attempted to figure out which of the tracks Kevin Shields had digitally limited as alluded to in his interview with Pitchfork.

Pitchfork in their review have now pointed to Analog Loyalist's blog. I have to take issue with some elements of Mark Richardson's review. As lovely as the prose and the history lesson are, I genuinely feel that today's music writers are doing their readers a disservice by not properly holding record labels to account over the quality of remasters they release. Reissuing old material with a new master is often more profitable than releasing new material, and yet the business aspect is hardly ever mentioned. This is at the expense of fans who are seemingly told by a unanimous chorus of voices that the reissue heralds a bold new opportunity to really appraise the artist. Based upon the real level of difference that a remaster brings this is often false.

More after the jump.

This review confirms for me that there is a major problem of priorities. When confronted with a reissue, music journalists are given to appraise the music at the expense of considering whether its re-release has added any value. Mark Richardson spends pretty much the entirety of the review talking about the chronology of My Bloody Valentine's Creation Records era material and the fact that it's really good. Just one thing, the newest piece of music that was part of this reissue campaign originally came out in 1991. We have known it was good ever since, with Pitchfork consistently editorializing so in the years prior to this reissue. You would have to argue it was bad to really make a critical reappraisal.

Okay, okay, maybe I am being a little harsh. After all, the occasion of a reissue is a great time to talk about an old work, this is something I'm doing myself. But granting all of that, I am still compelled to say that it just does not read like a genuine review. It is just chronology and praise with little consideration for the interest of readers.

There are a couple of specific instances in the text where I feel Richardson demonstrates a lack of proper priorities. Take this:

As has been pointed out elsewhere, it's possible that the two discs are mislabeled, and that the half-inch analog master is identified as coming from the DAT and vice versa. Which is neither here nor there when you consider that no one in their right mind would ask themselves, "Which Loveless remaster should I listen to tonight?"

In saying this he makes people like Analog Loyalist, to whom he is directly referring via hyperlink, out to be problem cases when the real problem is with the reissue. Why write an apologia for Sony Music? Do you think that a subsidiary of a huge corporation cannot take criticism? or be held responsible for its product? Does the fact that Kevin Shields agreed to do an extended interview with you negate advocating for the interests of readers who, as fans, want the music to be presented in a way that preserves it for posterity in the best possible light?

Oh, and that 10? What would it take to drop 0.1?

I would also appreciate some more rigour when it comes to utterances like this:

Aside from that detail, the remastering across all three sets is well done. Loveless was famously and appropriately one of the quietest "loud" records of all time...And this breathing room pays off in spades in the dynamics of the record; when the guitars surge on "Soon" and "Only Shallow", it can still shake you to your core.

The critical problem here is the blurring in the argument of the old with the new whilst the comparison is made. First we read that the remastered versions are good, then we are supposed to follow that the original was mastered quietly allowing headroom for dynamic range and transients (which it certainly was). Thirdly we are left to grasp that the same "breathing room," a fine substitution for headroom really, remains present in the remasters. The comparison is poorly worked because the degree of dynamic range permitted in the new remasters is completely independent of the old masters. It would have been more direct to simply say that while louder, the new masters preserve enough dynamic range from the recording to make the loud moments compelling in their contrast to the quieter moments (something I am not currently in a position to judge).

I really hope this is not simply construed as a rant about an article on the internet that I happen not to like. For me it's more than that, like I said previously I am attempting to craft a style that combines the review format with perspective journalism and technical insight. And maybe I am in a bit of a glass house here--it's honestly not that bad an article. I'm not trying to show the guy up as much as point out that there are systemic problems with the way that music is publicised.

P.S. I am currently listening intently to EP's 1988-1991 and thoroughly enjoying it. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on it in a future post where I'll discuss some of the mastering issues I've noticed compared to the originals and offer some general thoughts (mainly positive!) on what this collection heralds.