Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

Late to this discussion. Wanted to make a small correction to Davey Mores first, and very good, post. A lot of the times the bands gazed at their shoes, instead of at their audiences, because they had all sorts of effects pedals that they had to switch between with their feet. At least that's what I've heard. So it's not just because they were pretentius, it was kinda necessary to play this kind of music.

As to the discussion afterwards, I must admit I found starrynight's position kind of weird. I think my main problem was when he said this: 'I think a band is important as the music is good to me' Why use the word 'important' when it's completely interchangable with 'good'? The discussion was mainly about whether anything could be called objectively important at all... Which is a boring discussion really (The answer is: Of course it can. Loveless is objectively important. There, I just did. If anyone finds that sentence to be meaningful, then it can be called objectively important in a meaningful way). If you accept that some albums have historical importance, and that that importance can be measured by examining historical statements from before, during and after, then there are very few albums that has as good a claim to being important as Loveless has. Plus, it's brilliant.