I enjoyed your analysis of the record, but I'm gonna have to take you to bat about a couple of things you said towards the end of your review. First off, I think I might disagree with you about this:
but I'm not entirely sure because you're a bit vague haha. Could you explain what you mean by that?
really has me scratching my head as to what you meant, seeing as Hüsker Dü broke up before Isn't Anything came out and also made very different music than MBV does. Also, I don't really get where you're going with the Stone Roses reference either, seeing as they really were part of a different scene in Manchester and also put out their seminal self-titled album pre-Loveless.
Anyway, good review overall. I would definitely quibble with the score (I don't think I would give this any higher than a 9), but that's not a huge deal. This is certainly a very, very good album and I could not be more pleased.
It's not as good as Loveless though.
The Stone Roses released after both Isn't Anything and Loveless. I'm referring to Bob Mould and his Sugar, which is the spawn of My Bloody Valentine. But I'll edit in Sugar instead of Husker Du, if it's clearer - I imagined referring to them as Sugar would isolate people, because they wouldn't know what I was referring to.
I don't see what the confusion is. It's impossible to not compare m b v to Loveless. Everyone's comparing m b v to Loveless. It's the follow up album that everyone's been anticipating.
I give it a matter of months until you prefer this.