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

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

larstangmark Group: Members Posts: 1759 Joined: Mar. 2005 Posted: May 17 2006, 15:56 I thought the idea of TB2003 was good at first, but as soon as the bass guitar enters the picture I realized I wasn't in for much of a treat. The bass guitar sound that Mike uses here is made to be a substitute for bass guitar, and it's a fairly good imitation. But it escapes me why one would use a samples sound like this when you're perfectly able to lay down a (well played) bass guitar track. It's meant to sound like a bass guitar, but it ends up sounding like an imitated bass guitar, mostly because everyone who hears the record has heard the exact same piece of music played with a real bass guitar. The whole album suffers from the same problem whenever a synth piano or samples bass appears. I admit that some sections (such as the acoustic guitar parts) benefit from the re-recording since they were a little too rough to begin with. But I can bet that Mike just thought that noone would notice it's not a real bass guitar. BTW anyone who has fumbled around with preset sampled bass guitars know how stupid it sounds when one adds vibrato via the modulation wheel. That happens a lot on the TB2003 introduction. And that is from a man who takes pride in his cultured vibrato technique when playing the guitar! -------------- "There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste" Mark E Smith Back to top

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: May 17 2006, 18:54 I agree. I think that bass early on sounds like something from Commodore 64 "Swynth", and really kicks the album down the stairs. -------------- "In the land of the Dacotahs, Where the Falls of Minnehaha Flash and gleam among the oak-trees, Laugh and leap into the valley." - Song of Hiawatha Back to top

Falc04 Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: June 2003 Posted: May 19 2006, 09:05 I guess my biggest complaint about this album, is that while listening to it, there are absolutely no surprises.  Mike went into this project, with just one thought in mind...redo his classic TB, using updated technology.  Having heard the original many, many times...this recording offers nothing new for the listener.  And there lies the reason why I enjoyed TBII and TBIII so much...because they offered different twists and turns on the original classic recording. To me, the time he spent in the recording studio doing this, could have been put to such better use.  Let's face it...Mike isn't putting out new recordings every year like he use to. Back to top

ImAFoolAndImLaughing Group: Members Posts: 536 Joined: Feb. 2006 Posted: May 19 2006, 13:26 Quote (Falc04 @ May 19 2006, 09:05) Let's face it...Mike isn't putting out new recordings every year like he use to. True... but I'd much rather he spent more time in conceiving and developing a new masterpiece - even if it meant a break of a few years - than releasing one new piece every year that wasn't up to scratch.  I guess if rerecording Tubular Bells has reminded him of the standard of the music he used to produce, then all to the good... Tony -------------- "I was in this prematurely air conditioned supermarket and there were these bathing caps you could buy that had these kind of Fourth of July plumes on them that were red and yellow and blue and I wasn't tempted to buy one but I was reminded of the fact that I had been avoiding the beach." Back to top

Daftyboy Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: June 09 2006, 10:20 Just 2 words to describe what I dislike about TB2003... John. Cleese. He just doesn't work for me. Viv Stanshall messed about when he was wandering about talking about eggshells but he introduces the instruments perfectly. Alan Rickman is fine if sounding a bit bored. Cleese is just fooling about. The rest of it is fine. Don't forget, of course, you can still listen to the original too! Cheers, Dafty Back to top

Matt Group: Admins Posts: 1186 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: June 15 2006, 05:31 Over the past couple of years I've been mostly listening to the 2003 recording (which I have on CD, more convenient than my vinyl of the original). I recently listened to the original recording again and my view is: Overall I prefer the original. Some sections of the 2003 version I find an improvement on the original but overall the original recording to me has more soul. In the original, the climax at the end of what is now track 1 makes the hair on the back of my neck tingle, not on the 2003 recording. On the original, the finale with the tubular bells makes my hair tingle, not on the 2003 recording. Ambient guitars, while lovely on the new recording, finished on the old with a very low key and quiet organ which - while it doesn't have a tingle! - does have an incredible sense of peace. This is replaced in the new by an overly loud blast which ruins for me what has just preceeded. I could go on and on but the conclusion for me is that while the new recording is technically impressive and in many sections lovely to listen to, it has lost the power that was present in the original recording. just my 2c worth... -------------- "I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels" Back to top

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: June 15 2006, 08:09 The original is electric. You can practically feel the heat coming off the tubes in the amps and equipment. The 2003 version sounds electronic, not electric. A lot less soul and warmth. -------------- "In the land of the Dacotahs, Where the Falls of Minnehaha Flash and gleam among the oak-trees, Laugh and leap into the valley." - Song of Hiawatha Back to top

captainjjb Group: Members Posts: 310 Joined: Feb. 2006 Posted: June 15 2006, 09:19 I like 2003 and prefer to listen to it rather than the original.  The original does indeed have more soul and, as someone here has already said, “Rustic Charm”.  Hearing the original makes it easier to recall what an amazing achievement this piece was for its shy young creator.  It was the music alone which made this piece go from obscurity to a worldwide hit and the music is great on both versions. I often play Simon Rattles version of Beethovens Eroica even though I prefer the old Solti version that I knew as a child. Back to top

moonchildhippy Group: Members Posts: 1807 Joined: Dec. 2004 Posted: July 05 2006, 07:55 Thanks to a post in another topic I gave my TB2003 another spin yesterday, I must admit I did have mixed feelings about rerecording a Classic, after all 16 million people around the globe can't be wrong.   Quote captainjjb   Posted on June 15 2006, 14:19I like 2003 and prefer to listen to it rather than the original.  The original does indeed have more soul and, as someone here has already said, “Rustic Charm”.  Hearing the original makes it easier to recall what an amazing achievement this piece was for its shy young creator.  It was the music alone which made this piece go from obscurity to a worldwide hit and the music is great on both versions. Quote hiawatha   Posted on June 15 2006, 13:09The original is electric. You can practically feel the heat coming off the tubes in the amps and equipment. The 2003 version sounds electronic, not electric. A lot less soul and warmth. Whilst I've warmed a little more to TB 2003,I find myself not liking it as much as the original.  TB2003 for me just doesn't have the same WOW factor as the original. For me TB2003 is ruined by John Cleese, he just doesn't deliver the goods for me  ,he just isn't Monty Python enough IMHO.  I much prefer Viv Stanshall's "Master of Ceremonies", also I'm not so keen on the  synthisised bass.However I did find what Hiawatha described as a "Klingon opera version" of "Caveman",brought a  smile to my face  .  I'm not sure exactly what Mike's intentions were for rerecording TB,was it to create a replica recording minus the "flaws", or was it to create a "new" piece.  I think TB2003  has a different feel to it compared to the original.   I know the original TB was recorded in a rush, and is a "warts and all" recording,but if there's any bum notes  or any sound quality issues here I don't notice them. If your'e  a musician maybe  it can be harder to be more objective about your own piece, as    your'e constantly hearing it as you work upon it. Still if Mike needed to get this TB rerecording out of his system  a  and in doing so has made himself and some of the fans happy then it can't be a bad thing. Don't forget Mike was a shy teenager when he composed Tubular Bells, what he felt he couldn't say with words,he communicated so eloquently with his guitar   .   The music sold itself.   Whilst I find TB 2003 pleasant enough, with perhaps the exception of John Cleese's M of C , I prefer the original, as I find it electrifying, and so emotionally moving,  something I don't find so much with TB2003   .   On  the cover artworkof  Tubular Bells, the sea is turbulent,and on TB2003 it's much more calm.  I wonder if this reflected Mike's emotional state at the time of recording.  I'm so glad that Mike judging by recent interviews seems to have found   inner peace.   If Mike's proposed appearance at the German NOTP and also the proposed symphonic piece are the shapes of things to come then that's GREAT!!!   . BTW as a result of this discussionon the versions of TB,I'm playing the  1971 Demos for the second time today   . -------------- I'm going slightly mad, It finally happened, I'm slightly mad , just very slightly mad If you feel a little glum to Hergest Ridge you should come. I'm challenging  taboos surrounding mental health "Part time hippy" I'M SUPPORTING OUR SOLDIERS BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!! Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1545 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: July 05 2006, 08:35 Quote (larstangmark @ May 17 2006, 15:56) I thought the idea of TB2003 was good at first, but as soon as the bass guitar enters the picture I realized I wasn't in for much of a treat. Ah, this says it all I think. The album doesn't sound very honest to me (although not as fake as MIllenium Bell)... Though I can imagine why some people like it more than the original. To me, just nothing will beat that one (except for Distant Earth maybe)   still... the tunes are the best ever -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

Sonilink Group: Members Posts: 393 Joined: Jan. 2005 Posted: July 08 2006, 11:49 There is a thing not many poeple know: it was in Mike's contract if he wanted to join WEA -------------- Take the Time Back to top

DanishDonJuan Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: Sep. 2003 Posted: July 09 2006, 08:12 About the attitude problem, I tend to agree. People love to complain, even when they have it good, and have no idea on how to make things better. I loved both the original and 2003, and like different things about both. I prefer the melody of the original, but the sound of 2003. I have loved all Mike's albums, as I love a lot of different genres of music in general and Mike's many changes of styles and melodies in his music. My only wish regarding this would be that this over-done Tubular Bell's thing would stop. I'm tired of people saying that the first album was the best, and then things has gone down hill from then on, maybe this explains why Mike keeps making Tubular Bells albums. But for me there is much more to Mike than TB, and I would love hearings something new, as I have loved Ommadawn, QE2, Discovery, TSODE, Amarok, and everything else including the rareties, and Light and Shade. I look forward to his next album. -------------- If every road we traveled were the easy, we would be weak, and would eventually think every road difficult. If every road we traveled tough, we would be strong and eventually think no road to be difficult. Its the tough road that leads to happiness. A smooth sea never made a great sailor. Back to top

New Incantation Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Dec. 22 2007, 04:54 Debates comparing the original with updated versions, in all walks of life, will never come to a satisfactory conclusion: some will love the original some will love the remake and so life goes on.... For me I prefer the original at the moment because I really haven't given TB2003 much chance to grow on me. I do recall playing TB73  on my old record player back in 1974 and was completely awestruck, not only in terms of Mike's vast knowledge of playing so many instruments but also arranging them into something as majestic as TB1973. Coupled of course with the knowledge that concept albums were not all that well known or popular back then. TB2003 is a kind of logical conclusion: with TB1973 Mike was just a kid with potential and loads of ideas, and had the luck of meeting up with Richard Branson from Virgin and the rest is history. But 30 years on, Mike is rich, full of talent, has the critical acclaim and can more or less do what he wants. But I sometimes wonder if this makes him a slightly more "lazy" composer compared to the raw energies of his youth when he had to bring out all the stops to get his ideas noticed. Mike certainly works hard on his albums but sometimes I just wonder whether he is a bit more aloof (I don't want to use the word "arrogant" as I don't think that is in Mike's make-up). He has all these digital "toys" to do the work for him that I sometimes wonder if he has lost touch with the inspirational musical rawness of 30 years ago. Imagine if Mike did a TB2023 in 15 years time - will the technology then just consist of pressing a couple of buttons and the computers will do the work for you? That's how I see it after listening to the rather synthetic digitally perfect rendition of "2003", "2023" (should it ever come to pass) would be just its natural progressive conclusion. TB1973 will appeal to one generation; whilst TB2003 will probably  appeal to another, as TB2023 will no doubt appeal to the future Generation X, and the comparisons & the debates will continue in much the same way as we have now...... Back to top

Ray Group: Members Posts: 857 Joined: Jan. 2000 Posted: Dec. 23 2007, 09:30 Both are great. If i want to listen in the car I use 2003 version as it's clearer, if i want to remember first hearing it on vynal in 1974 then I listen to the original version one. Another thing to remember is that he used a different set of instruments, almost completely.  So it is not a remake - it's a new version. Ray     -------------- Looking out over the harbour in Peel....... Back to top

clac Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: Feb. 04 2008, 11:28 i don't know if it's been said, but i read in the booklet "john cleese". is he the one giving the names of the instruments, at the end of Part1?   Back to top

Ray Group: Members Posts: 857 Joined: Jan. 2000 Posted: Feb. 04 2008, 15:01 yes -------------- Looking out over the harbour in Peel....... Back to top

clac Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: Feb. 04 2008, 15:06 ok, thanks! does anyone know how they know each other? i didn't read anything about it in "changeling" Back to top

Ray Group: Members Posts: 857 Joined: Jan. 2000 Posted: Feb. 07 2008, 13:15 Probably though agents - John Cleese is getting old for acting but his voice is very well known in UK and USA. -------------- Looking out over the harbour in Peel....... Back to top

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

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net