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:

Quote:

It is impossible to review the album without a little bit of comparison with the band's sophomore release.

but I'm not entirely sure because you're a bit vague haha. Could you explain what you mean by that?

Also, this:

Quote:

As well as reinventing the sound that bands such as Smashing Pumpkins, Husker Du and The Stone Roses found themselves adopting from My Bloody Valentine's two initial albums

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.

Originally Posted by Kelly Doherty

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.

Nah The Stone Roses definitely came out two years before Loveless.

Okay yeah that makes more sense if you're talking about Sugar, didn't pick up on that. Not a big fan of Sugar in general but I get what you're saying.

Okay well yes, obviously you're not going to be able to listen to it without thinking about Loveless. But to me at least (and this could be purely personal preference) I think it's necessary to try one's best to consider m b v on its own merits as much as possible. Whatever though, you mostly do that anyway so I'm just squabbling about semantics I suppose haha.

We shall see, but I doubt it. That's not a put-down to m b v though in any fashion.

Originally Posted by Kelly Doherty

Nah, Isn't Anything came out in 1988, The Stone Roses came out 1989. Loveless came out 1991, Second Coming came out in 1994.

Oh I was talking just about the self-titled (don't really care for Second Coming at all) never mind

Originally Posted by Kelly Doherty

Nah, Isn't Anything came out in 1988, The Stone Roses came out 1989. Loveless came out 1991, Second Coming came out in 1994.

Yo just quoting you to say I went back and listened to Sugar and it all makes sense now haha. Keep on keepin on