liron
Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: Dec. 1999 |
 |
Posted: May 03 2001, 11:28 |
 |
well lads, lassis - i decided to write this one down, 'cos no one else did it 'till now. and it's a bit strange. what i mean is the story written inside the amarok booklet. i can only asume no one wrote nothin' bout it 'cos the general opinion about the story is "what you read is probably describing what you're hearing in the CD".
well i doubt it.
i think there are some things in the story particulary intersting.
first thing is about the characters - you can't keep track over them. they are only refered to as "the first man", "his friend" and the likes. those terms can be applied to each of the characters. it would'nt mean shit if the both were thinking the same, and acting the same way. but they don't. at least as i see it, one of them can be described as the "negative" fella, and the other is the "positive" or good guy, the interesting thing is that sometimes they switch places for example, let's take the first conversation between the two, after they set on their way to find the golden statue:
-"do you feel exhausted as i do?"
-"i've felt better (...) but we must achieve our aim (...)"
surprisingly it's the "negative" who sees the statue for the first time:
-"i see it"
-"what do you see?"
-"a gleaming of beautiful gold, a great haze of light...".
the dialog pauses as they walk on to the statue, and it starts again with us not knowing who is it that is talking, but if we'll follow the guide line of "negative"/"positive" it would'nt be that hard to find out who is saying what:
-"we'll never get there"
-"if we walk back we will get there"
-"why do you think so?"
they walk on and get to the "great pit". remember "negative"/"positive" :
-"what a mess (...) let's go and look"
-"you go"
they look into the hole:
+"we have come so far (...) i hear it has voices to speak of things we cannot speak of"
-"i am told hear that when a man hear its voice, it stays in their ears, they cannot be rid of it. it has many different voices: some happy, but others sad, it roars like a baboon, murmurs like a child, drums like the blazing arms of one thousand drummers, rustles like water in a glass, sings like a lover an laments like a priest"
+"i have heard it only says one word"
-"what do you mean"
+"imagine a creature with a melody for a voice. you either hear it or you don't"
-"i do not understand"
+"he describes himself but he cannot see it; when he sees it, he cannot describe it. but there is always the sound, he will always make the sound."
but the end of the story is'nt that clear. who was the one of the two that heard the statue sing?
the whole story seems a bit out of place, it seems like we miss some parts, or we are out of context to understand it all. i have a little explanation. and it's based on the answers that the "positive" man gives to his companion, in order to explain what is the nature of the statue, he says:
+"imagine a creature with a melody for a voice. you either hear it or you don't"
and:
+"he describes himself but he cannot see it; when he sees it, he cannot describe it. but there is always the sound, he will always make the sound."
i'll start with the second. it speaks about the passion of creating, and on the other side, about the conscience mind in the process of creation.
man have to create. that's the reason he "will always make the sound".
"he describes himself but he cannot see it; when he sees it, he cannot describe it", this one means, that from the moment a man is conscience to his drive, knows what is the motivation that fuels his passion for creating, and tries to intervene with it - he will no longer have the capability of "describing"=creating. how good you are in "describing yourself", depends solely on youre capability of letting go of the mental and conscience "blocks", that are preventing the pure "passion", which is the true "self", from getting out.
that's the reason "he describes himself but he cannot see it; when he sees it, he cannot describe it". which is very similar to the case of one mr. oldfield, at the time. when he did'nt deal with what makes him "tick", he was at his peak - doing TB, HR, OMM, INC... the minute he started "thinking" about the music, was the moment he stopped "feeling" it. when he started thinking "what will make people appreciate my music, what will make the record company satisfied, what will keep the fans love me", instead of just letting the pure "passion" come out in any form it may desire - was the moment he could'nt "describe" himself anymore. and on the opposite, when he became aware that that was the problem, and tried to go with his feelings again - AMAROK was created.
back to the story:
"imagine a creature with a melody for a voice. you either hear it or you don't"
this line seems even more out of context. and the connection between it and the line that we just explained does'nt seem to be in existance. i see it as a sort of premenition to the end of the story, where one of the men DID hear the statue and the other one did'nt. it speaks, as i see it, about the capability of understanding music, as opposed to clearly phrased words.
music, as a prototype for spoken language, is much more abstract and is directed to provoke emotions - as opposed to spoken language which is more descriptive.
that is why "you either hear it or you don't". you either understand (=hear) the statue, because you can understand the abstract emotional way it speaks in. or you don't hear it, 'cos you are more used to common spoken language as means of communication - and language is more mental than emotional.
so the character that finaly understood the statue and could hear it, understood the abstract (the music) as a way for communication, and the second character didn't hear (or understood) the statue because she can't understant the abstraction of it. she is used to words as a way of describing feelings and emotions, and she can't "compute" pure "passion" that did'nt get treated and filtered through. and so it makes sense that the "negative" character - the one that can't understand abstract - is the one that when describing the statue earlier, used all sorts of descriptive features ("roars like a baboon, murmurs like a child, drums like the blazing arms of one thousand drummers..." etc.).
the other character says this:
"i have heard it only says ONE word", meanning the abstraction of the first man's
descriptions.
that's it.
well, not exactly. when knowing what we know, and asuming the story was written AFTER the making of the album, it is possible, in my opinion, that william murray, when writing about two guys "possibly from ireland" - actually refered to mike oldfield and tom newman.
knowing that much of the influence of making the album and how it sounded at the end came from newman, and that oldfield was a bit "lost" as he described it - gives the story some new sense.
thus, when the two men in the story can't find they're goal (the statue, which we already said is a symbolism for the power of creation, muze, call it what you like) and one of them says "if we walk back we will get there", i see it as a "walk back" in time. as if it's newman saying to oldfield "listen up, yer stuck - try to return back to the time when you weren't".
and that's REALLY it for now... good night.
|
