Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 08 2008, 09:16 Quote (Alan D @ Mar. 08 2008, 04:37) (...) but like anything else, the marketing can trivialise the image. Yes, exactly. That's the point of contention here. And I'm not saying Mike should go to jail for reusing the Tubular Bells theme again, and that Music of the Spheres is horrible because of that (like I've said before, to me it's his best album since Heaven's Open); but he is contributing to the wearing down of his own image there. It wouldn't be a problem if he didn't care about his image in the pop world, but just look at his history: he angsted so much about Virgin not giving him the promotion he felt he deserved, the first thing he did when he left was to release Tubular Bells II, and he makes records to sell. He's inevitably inserted into the pop culture, and want it or not, there are certain precautions you need to take. Like you said: Quote I guess I ought to stop here, because I'm just saying the same thing over again. But the number of times he has 'done it' is only a problem within pop culture. It isn't a problem outside it. So: Quote If you were saying that the Tubular-Bells-type motif (I mean musical, not brand symbol) has by now become a mindless formula, then that would be a different kind of discussion. But it wouldn't do justice to Music of the Spheres to describe it in those terms, would it? I don't think musically the motif is stale. Unfortunately, Mike seems to have driven himself into a place where every time he brings up that theme, the "no, not again" feeling will arise with many, many members of the audience, and even several fans. I like Music of the Spheres, but it's a shame that such an unconventional record has to follow the formula of Tubular Bells so closely. It could represent a drastic rupture, but the way it is, it seems more like a superficial shoulder brush. Now, keep in mind that I'm not really "inside" the whole business here. If Mike only included the motif for pressure of the record company, for example, feel free to forget everything I said here. I don't discard that possibility because, after all, executives are stupid. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 08 2008, 12:57 This is a lot clearer now, Sir M - thanks - and to a large degree I think the differences in our opinions have arisen from the fact that you are (deliberately, by choice, because that aspect interests you) looking at the situation from within the pop culture viewpoint, while I (equally deliberately, by choice, because it doesn't interest me in this context) am not. What we've seen unfolding here is one of those classic 'world view' differences - in which the important issue is not to try to reach agreement (because it's actually impossible from two such different world views), but to recognise the truth about how and why the differences come to be there. Good stuff. Thanks for persevering with it, Sir M. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 08 2008, 13:09 Quote (arron11196 @ Mar. 08 2008, 11:30) I hardly think that calling someone condescending is anything less than inflammatory, though. It's OK Arron - there's nothing inflammatory here. I'm sure Marky really did feel that I'd been condescending or he wouldn't have said so. Either there was something in the way I expressed myself that gave him that impression - in which case I apologise to him, and assure him it wasn't intended; or he simply misunderstood what I was saying - in which case there's no harm done. End of story - surely? Back to top

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Mar. 08 2008, 13:55 actually crisis sounded a lot more like a obvious use of the TB theme. It felt to me less honest and less real than sentinel..which alone is a tune that points out it was a great idea to revisit some of the tubular bells ideas. in fact, I'd go as far as saying that with some tunes on TB2, he outperformed and outshone his original composition. The way the fender sounds on sentinel is amazingly heartfelt. And the music in clear light was always touching. You know it's funny how people who do not like the re-usage of the TB motif make it seem like a marketing stunt while people who do love it, say it is from the heart ^^ maybe both are right. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 10:46 Quote (Jesse @ Mar. 08 2008, 13:55) actually crisis sounded a lot more like a obvious use of the TB theme. It felt to me less honest and less real than sentinel..which alone is a tune that points out it was a great idea to revisit some of the tubular bells ideas. Of course it's an obvious use, but it's an obvious reworking - whereas Sentinel (and, in my opinion, every other track that used the motif) is a mere reuse. If you notice, the Tubular Bells motif is almost always used to drag the listener into the shadows; it works as a kind of mist, in the way the tonality is minor, and it cycles on and on. on Crises, however, the motif dragged the listener out of the shadows and into the light; notice that it's always major key and it's a fully resolved theme, not just a riff. I think that's a great example of how to revisit an older theme and give it new life; with Sentinel, he went back to the theme to give it its old life. In Harbinger, the theme is there for the exact same purposes. My "complaint" stems from there. I'm not entirely opposed to it, but I can't help but think the naysayers DO have a point, there. I'm glad that this conversation has led into the conclusion that we're merely discussing from within two different contexts. It helped me realise that is far more important than it sometimes seems. I'm one of those people who, deep inside, wished Mike Oldfield would get more recognition and respect, because he  deserves it. But, of course, he has to help; if it's his option to keep on working within his own, well defined realm, I'm not one to condemn here... but still, obscurity is a sad thing to live in. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 12:23 hm well I could delve into it..but even though sentinel is minor (a minor if i remember well) the feel of that riff and tune and the intro of TB is very different to me. Sentinel sounds very smooth, soft, deep and even tender. A very bright minor feeling, not sad. The intro of tb1 sounds enigmatic, curious, darker and spookier slightly. but you are right! it is not important It's just that the rationalization that we go through is pointless. No-one will judge Sentinel like you do if you didn't acually dislike it at first. Feeling comes first, then we try to explain it. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 12:50 Quote (Jesse @ Mar. 09 2008, 17:23) Feeling comes first, then we try to explain it. Truly observed, and well said. Quote It's just that the rationalization that we go through is pointless. But not entirely pointless. It can be valuable (as here) to be able to understand why two or more people can have such radically different views about the same activity (in this case, MO's frequent reference to the TB motif). I'm reminded of the discussions over the years about whether Bob Dylan can sing. If we define 'good singing' by referring to Caruso, then he can't. If we recognise that the whole issue of what constitutes good singing has been redefined, then he not only can, but is one of the very greatest singers. It all depends on which box you choose to stand in. Back to top

TubularMike Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 15:35 Quote (Mark @ Dec. 05 2007, 13:41) I've only recently heard M.O.T.S. so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but it's just another rework of TB1. Did he announce that this was his intention when he announced plans for the album, or did he just think we wouldn't notice? I should point out that far from slagging it off, I love the new album, I just thought he had moved on. How sad for you (finding it close to TB1). To me it´s really another world although there is no problem in hearing it´s Mike´s music. But I never have any problem in picking out composers like Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi, Mozart, Bach etc anyway. So, What´s the problem? What are you looking for? A reinvention of the wheel? (Ok, by the way, Mike reinvented the world of music in Amarok. Could you name anyone else even getting close to that?) Back to top

Harmono Group: Members Posts: 759 Joined: May 2005 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 16:06 Quote (arron11196 @ Mar. 08 2008, 13:30) Quote (Harmono @ Mar. 08 2008, 04:14) Quote (arron11196 @ Mar. 08 2008, 02:18) Not again... please no more pointless bickering... Is debate bad? I like the fact that people talk. What are we, if we don't talk to each other? all this is fertile, i think. I like discussing stuff. Everyone agrees? btw. Im a little bit tipsy wipsy at the moment Debate isn't bad at all. Reasoned conversation is great... it's one of the reasons I stuck around here in the first place, because I enjoyed the company. I hardly think that calling someone condescending is anything less than inflammatory, though. I mean, even if he was being condescending, which I don't personally think so, but anyway... even if he was, why would you just go out of your way to call on it? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.... If we're going to have a debate about a topic then great... but please let it remain at least civil. I'm sorry, I thought that by pointless bickering you meant this topic in general. I didn't think Alan was being condescending either, and yes, it is pointless to say that he was. At least it's not the kind of conversation I was trying to defend after I had misunderstood your words. Back to top

Ray Group: Members Posts: 857 Joined: Jan. 2000 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 19:06 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 08 2008, 14:16) ,,,,,,,after all, executives are stupid. You mean Universally Stupid? Who else would get an artist to re-use a 35yr old theme and also in the same album use his record companies name for one of the tracks. Only a very small prize for guessing the track name...... !!? RP -------------- Looking out over the harbour in Peel....... Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 21:26 The great thing about the use of the TB theme in crises was that he took it somewhere else.He brought it to a conclusion for me.As hypnotic and brilliantly mesmerising as the original TB theme is.It does`nt really go anywhere in the end,set in it`s original context.It just happens to be the most famous part of his biggest selling album.And Mike was still learning back then of course.But imo he made far better use of repetetive/minimalistic type themes themes during Incantations.They seemed more integral and important to the piece if you will.And not only that but they contained many subtle variations and compexities that the original TB theme did not.And maybe above all else they were different.Or maybe not depending on your standpoint of course. My standpoint is that Mike has not done enough with the TB themes on MOTS to warrant their inclusion for anything other than marketing purposes.If anything it`s a completely populist move rather than anything from a "classical" viewpoint. So ok I`m biased to a large degree because quite frankly I would`ve preferred that he had`nt revisited it at all.But lets just try and look at this logicaly for a moment. One of the fundamental differences between classical and popular music is that classical music should be much more varied and complex.The whole point of popular music boiled down to basics is that any kind of repetition within the piece/song is to make it much more accessible and immediate.It`s your quick fix mainline from the audio boogie pimp.Where style reigns over substance,and simplicity is the order of the day.Classical music on the other hand calls for "repetition without redundancy."One of it`s main requirements is for the composer to "maximise the minimum." To create the greatest possible variety from the minimum number of ingredients.Whilst it may well be a fact that it is common practise for an artist working within a classic field to re-visit or re-explore a piece of work he has already composed.It is surely quite another for him to repeat himself ad-nauseum.You have to ask yourself the question has Mike discovered or unearthed anything different here?Has he truly explored those TB themes at all in fact?Imo the answer has got to be a resounding NO! He`s following one of the biggest single laws of populist culture there is...Give the people what they want.The familiar.The literal repetition.Easily digested and quickly absorbed because we already know it so well.Watered down lush-string nostalgia for the post coffee table generation.Out with the cavemen and the fast guitars.And in with the boncept/cosmic spiritual and acoustic guitars.You know I don`t want to get too carried away here because I do actually like the album a lot.But in all honesty I really think this album should be filed under easy listening or something,because it requires almost no work whatsoever to listen to.There are no suprises,no twists.And with repeated listens I made very few discoveries it has to be said.It`s a nice record,and that`s probably the best way to describe it really. As Vivian Stanshall the master of ceromonies himself once said.."I`ll repeat that!"Or to put it another way"Lets go back to your childhood!" Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 10 2008, 04:43 Quote (Dirk Star @ Mar. 10 2008, 02:26) Or to put it another way "Lets go back to your childhood!" We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning TS Eliot. 'Little Gidding' Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: Mar. 11 2008, 01:34 A slight t/j here.  Apart from the obvious nods to TB on various parts of MOTS, has anyone else noticed that "The Tempest" seems to have similarities to the ending of Stravinsky's "The Firebird"?  And also how the ending of "Musica Universalis" resembles the ending of Respighi's "Pines Of Rome"? I'm not dissing MOTS, I quite like it.  And lest anyone thinks MO is ripping off other classical composers too overtly, he'd have to do it hundreds of more times to match John Williams and his continued pillaging of Holst, Wagner, Korngold, Steiner and on and on and on... ;). Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Mar. 11 2008, 04:30 Quote (Alan D @ Mar. 10 2008, 04:43) Quote (Dirk Star @ Mar. 10 2008, 02:26) Or to put it another way "Lets go back to your childhood!" We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning TS Eliot. 'Little Gidding' Poetic justice,I like it... Gruts for Tea by Ivor Cutler "Hello, Billy, teatime! Gruts for tea! - Billy! Billy! Come on, son. Gruts for tea! Fresh gruts!" "Oh, I don't want gruts for tea, Daddy." "What? I went out specially and got them for you." "Aw, but Daddy, we had gruts yesterday." "Look, son, I walked seven miles to the High Wood to get you gruts. That's fourteen miles in all, counting the journey back, and you don't want gruts? I fried them for you. Fried gruts - mm - I fried them in butter." "I don't want them, Daddy. Daddy, we've had gruts for three years now. I'm fed up with gruts. I don't want them any more. Daddy, can't we have something else for tea?" "Oh, son! Gruts! They're lovely." "Daddy, I don't want gruts any more. I hate gruts. I detest them. I have them every day and they're always fried in butter. Can't you think of another way of cooking gruts? There's hundreds of ways of cooking gruts: boil them or bake them or stew them or braise them - but every day - fried gruts. 'Billy, come in for tea. Fried gruts. I've walked fourteen miles. Seven miles to the High Wood and back.' Three years of gruts. Look what it's done to me, Daddy! Come here! Come here into the bedroom and look at ourselves in the mirror, you and me. Now look at that!" "Yes. I see what you mean. Son, let's not waste these gruts. Tomorrow, I'll go to the High Wood and get something else." "Look, Daddy, you've been saying this for three years now. Every day we have this same thing. I take you to the mirror and you say we'll have something else for tea. What else is there in the High Wood besides gruts?" "Well, there's leaves, bark, grass, and leaves. Gruts are really the best. You must admit it." "Yes, Daddy, I admit it. Gruts are really the best, but I don't want them. I hate them. I detest them. In fact I'm going to take this panful of gruts and throw them out." "Oh, don't do that! Don't throw them out for goodness' sake! You'll poison the dog!" Wasn`t aware of any similarities with Stravinsky`s Firebird Suite there bassman.It`s been a long time since I`ve listened to that work though so my curiosity is gonna` get the better of me now.Sure I`ve still got it on ye olde cassette tape somewhere.Can`t say I noticed much polytonality going on mind while I was listening to MOTS... Back to top

BTH Group: Members. Posts: 179 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 11 2008, 22:38 To those earlier in the post claiming that MOTS is repeating elements of Tubular Bells - Please tell me where? I hear elements that echo structures, moods, rhythms that have appeared throughout Mike's back catalogue but I hear absolutely nothing that is the same as another. It's incredibly lazy to claim that MOTS is somehow a "rehash" of something that's gone before. And obviously some people here are approaching their listening to MOTS with an already negative viewpoint - the "oh here we go again" brigade. If that's what you are bringing to your listening experience then why bother? Mike Oldfield is Mike Oldfield. He makes music that sounds like Mike Oldfield. Get over it.... -------------- Tá mé an amadán ag cheoil... Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: Mar. 12 2008, 16:14 BTH, I have not read any posts here that were negative.  The various comments were presented with reason and forethought.  As students of MO's work we dissect, we analyze, we ruminate-sometimes zealously.  It's what people often do.  No one meant any offense, and all the comments were qualified before or after by each person's praise and appreciation of the album.  If people want to discuss it, then what better place than a discussion board?  There should be no suppression of opinions here, not even yours-though your use of the phrase "get over it" is somewhat unfortunate.  Again, no offense was intended. Back to top

trcanberra Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 07:43 Quote (tranquilinho @ Mar. 06 2008, 19:03) MOTS has some obvious quotes, but other than that I feel it very refreshing (even more when compared to preceding works like Tres Lunas). I like it a lot and I think it means a return to the creativity of Mike's "classic" albums. I hope this album means a starting point for him to achieve even higher levels of creativity. Sounds like a very positive thought.  Haven't heard it yet - if the quotes are as limited as they were in TBIII and the music is as inventive, I for one will be happy. On the marketing, I must admit I shuddered when I saw the whopping big TB on the Millenium Bell CD case, luckily the music had very little to do with TB. I'm one of those who is pretty much over the TB references, Mike himself seems to waver - but I'm happy enought to give each new work a chance to win me over in its own right. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 08:36 Quote (Jesse @ Mar. 09 2008, 12:23) It's just that the rationalization that we go through is pointless. No-one will judge Sentinel like you do if you didn't acually dislike it at first. Feeling comes first, then we try to explain it. Who said I disliked Sentinel at first? Well, I didn't. My active dislike of the song - and, matter of fact, of the whole album - after came from cold and careful thinking. I don't dislike things because I can't "feel" anything for them, or because I don't understand them, or anything. I refuse to have "feelings" on what I don't understand, because I hate making wrong judgments. Feeling comes after the explanation, for me. Before the explanation, feeling is a brainless, savage instinct, and I have no use for that; even worse is trying to "explain" it in retrospect. How can you explain something that has no reasoning? I could only try to make excuses for it, and end up sounding like a moron. I reject that. My feelings have to be fully conscious - the "heart" and the "mind" are not separated, isolated, opposed components - they're hemispheres of the same organ (lol, neil peart). -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 09:22 It's about time I contributed to this discussion, after reading about it for weeks... Sir M's post has me wanting to say all these things, the problem is I have no idea how to say them. This will probably sound rather vague and confused; it's because I'm still sort of figuring out how I feel as I'm writing it. Firstly I'll try and stick to the topic, and say I don't mind Mike's TB references. They certainly won't make me turn off the CD in disgust, but I'll agree that he doesn't (or shouldn't) need to be doing them any more. Tubular Bells II I think was quite an interesting idea, taking the same structure with different themes and moods, but after that I do question the need for TB III and the Millennium Bell to have the Bell in their titles at all. Without that theme in two tracks I don't think anyone would have thought TB III was overly connected to Tubular Bells. As for Millennium Bell I still have no idea why it's called 'Bell'. I guess I could be cynical here but I don't care that much about the title, cover or whatever. He could have been calling his albums Tubular Bells for his whole career and I'd still say he's the greatest musician I've ever heard (this links to the point I'll try and make later). I can't comment on MOTS as I haven't heard it yet (I'm either a traditionalist or someone who's too lazy to download it), but I doubt that my enjoyment of the album will be overly effected. Finally getting to my point now (and abandoning the topic somewhat), I think Sir M's last post revealed a lot about the differences in his thinking and a lot of other people's here, including my own. Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 13 2008, 21:36) My active dislike of the song - and, matter of fact, of the whole album - after came from cold and careful thinking. I think this may be the difference between us, possibly between yourself and Alan D as well (I know you two have had many iteresting discussions). For me, 'cold and careful thinking' has absolutely nothing to do with my like or dislike of a piece of music. Personally I have no idea why I feel the way I do about music. I can say "wow, I love that bassline" but I don't know why I love it. Nor am I worried about that. You say that relying on your feelings alone leads to wrong judgements about the music; I've found that the opposite is true. All that matters is what I feel about the music. Yes, Far Above the Clouds is way way over the top, yes it's an extremely simple structure, yes it's one of two dozen Oldfield climaxes, but darn it I still love it and no amount of analysis will change that. For me there is no explanation, because I'm not able to put my feelings into words. That's why I'm learning to be an engineer, not an art critic. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 10:21 Quote (raven4x4x @ Mar. 13 2008, 13:22) I think this may be the difference between us, possibly between yourself and Alan D as well (I know you two have had many iteresting discussions). For me, 'cold and careful thinking' has absolutely nothing to do with my like or dislike of a piece of music. Personally I have no idea why I feel the way I do about music. I can say "wow, I love that bassline" but I don't know why I love it. Nor am I worried about that. Good to see you back with an interesting set of comments, Alex. I think you're at least partly right about the differences, not just between Sir M's and my own views, but also the differences in many opinions expressed on this forum or anywhere else. I just want to add a few things: 1. A certain aspect of love is beyond reason. Often, we love because we can't stop ourselves from loving (or at least, would have to work very hard at stopping ourselves). That seems fundamentally human. 2. We may think we're rational creatures, but we are not  - and I say this speaking as a professional scientist, with great respect for reasoned argument. (You only have to explore the 2,500 years of western philosophy to realise how severely limiting is the purely rational approach to pretty well anything.) Human beings can and do rationalise anything, from slavery to the Spanish Inquisition and beyond, and in many, many cases, the rationalising is misleading - it covers over the underlying emotional motives, which have often been unconsciously buried. My personal conclusion is that a synthesis between rational, left-brain thinking, and intuitive, right-brain thinking is the thing to be aimed for. Emotion tempered with reason and the imagination - using the whole of the human mental and spiritual armoury, rather than just part of it. What I think it comes down to is this: if when you hear that TB-like reference at the start of MOTS, you groan inwardly and think 'oh no not again', then you will be able to find what appears to be a rational reason for calling MOTS 'bad'. If on the other hand, you feel a pleasant sense of recognition when you hear the TB-like reference, you'll equally be able to find a rational explanation for believing the music to be 'good'. That alone should call into question any claims for a rational approach as the final arbiter. Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 >

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net