arron11196
Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: April 2005 |
 |
Posted: Mar. 27 2008, 07:10 |
 |
| Quote (Alan D @ Mar. 25 2008, 10:37) | | Quote (raven4x4x @ Mar. 25 2008, 03:44) | | I did pick up several moments that reminded me of The Wind Chimes |
Yes! I thought I was just imagining it, but I too pick up bits of Windchimeiness. I haven't been able to quite convince myself fully, because the actual notes are different, but the 'feel' of them is the same. The bits I mean are the big sweeping 'wind-like' theme that starts about 32 secs into 'Empyrean' as the first fanfare ends; and the 'big' slow theme that begins about 4 minutes into 'Musica Universalis'.
Are they the bits you pick up, or do you have others? |
You know, I'm thinking that it may just be completely unavoidable... the similarity between various pieces that he's produced. Looking back over his career, we can see well over 20 albums, all with a slightly different meaning and message behind them (although some of them are linked).
Is it not true that if the musical output of each album is like a glimpse into Mike's creativity, a single facet if you will, of a cohesive entity, that you will sometimes see through the facet to other facets on the other side? like a diamond?
I think an artist would have great difficulty producing so many different things and still maintain his own unique stamp, his own injection of creativity on a project... and I think that mostly, we don't even realise that these albums have some homogeneity to them. Most artists evolve with their progression through their exploration of music, and so they're style changes - but you can still see the flow of the creative process over time - the evolution if you will.
With Mike, at least for me, it feels less like evolution (although I'm sure he has in his way) and more like various seperate standpoints of seeing this diamond, and its various facets. They're all talking about the same creativity, using the same language; and so its unavoidable that some of it will be similar... but I value each of the insights that he has given us (some less than others, granted, but I still do).
Therefore, I feel overall that the question "is tubular bells all he's ever going to do?" is a moot question. Tubular Bells, the themes and feelings he explored within that album... he said it himself, it was a raw exploration of his young soul, and took him years to create and compose. Thats a large chunk of the various facets devoted to that perhaps... so I think it stands to reason that it would be referred to again in later works.
With MOTS, as this topic is mainly considering, I think it was a choice to include the references, consciously. I don't think it was because he felt that he just needed something to fill the space; or couldn't be bothered to compose something different, I feel that he felt these themes were genuinely suited to demonstrating the point of the album... the music of the heavens and how that might be translated into something we can audibly appreciate.
Certainly for Musica Universalis, the composition, whilst quite similar to either finale sections he's produced before, DOES in fact give me this wonderful mental image of heavenly bodies moving and interacting and proceeding through the universe. I have explained elsewhere the exact imagery I get from it, so I won't do it again.
My thoughts.
PS.
After revisiting this I want to try and reiterate a point I was trying to make here, albeit not very well. I think with other artists, as their output is usually very similar; and "evolves", we never (usually) get shocked by something that that artist produces.
Take the artist Sting for example. His approach has long been the blending of various different forms and styles of music to create what otherwise might seem very normal songs - considering some of the lyrics contained within. Over the many years of his output, the stylisation of each offering has differed, but his core approach has remained much the same. Even when working with other artists, he tries out new things and different ways of expressing his own unique creativity - similar to the way Mike has, except Mike's offerings can be seen, certainly in later times, to be more about various musing facets (from my perspective) than straight logical evolution.
With an artist like Sting, therefore - we will see each of his recordings - the next not differing that much from the previous - and we won't bat an eyelid. Perhaps with Mike we expect so much difference between offerings, because he has given us some completely different music before, that some of us are dissapointed if there are any references.
Therefore, it leads me to ask the question that, if this is indeed true, are we not being heavy handed in expecting so much of Mike? He has explored many different facets of music through his own approach and creativity - more than any artist I know if. He's tried dance, trance, 70's, 80's, 90's pop, celtic chillout, gigantic synth works, classical - and of course - the foundation of the genre that he helped to develop. And with all these contributions - if one is so much like another, some become dissapointed.
Perhaps we would be even more dissapointed if Mike had produced over 20 albums of Tubular Bells style and structure albums only. I just don't know what the right answer is... part of me feels that we've seen so many different types and genres of music with Mike's creativity, that we don't really have the right to criticize based on partial similarity.
--------------
Arron J Eagling
Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature.
(insert the last 5 mins of Crises here)
|
