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 ]

Miguel Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 22 2005, 18:42 Quote (arron11196 @ Oct. 22 2005, 13:43) I mean, and this is my personal opinion, trance music, ok, he's doing something new, experiementing, fine, fair enough, not my cup of tea, but ok. But to destroy Romance like that?? I mean that is, for me, like sheer musical disrespect. A beautiful spanish love song that completely rips the heart and soul out of the original, just to use it as a tune over a backbeat. Yeah! For me Romance it's one of the best examples of what Mike shouldn't ever do! But now tell me people, what is really NEW and EXPERIMENTAL in this kind of music?? I mean, no ofence to those who like it but, i can't see nothing new beeing experimented on those repetitive beats! Mike own now the same clichés as any vulgar dance music Dj. Just listen for example to the beginings of those dance tracks and you will notice that they have exactly the same "crescendo" drums that we can listen in almost ALL the disco music. Is this what you call experimental?? Hmmm.... Although i really abominate those songs, L&S still have songs that i like and it's not because i don't fancy an album that i start disliking the composer, of course!! His 80's records are also full of electronic synth pop songs that i rather to forget... but i still adore him because of his greatest albuns! On those he was really unique...and experimental...and new.... I would love to see the "good and old" MO again in the future! Lets wait and see what's his next step...           Cheers!   Back to top

Wanderer Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: Aug. 2002 Posted: Oct. 22 2005, 20:14 Quote (arron11196 @ Oct. 22 2005, 13:43) Mike's not the only one either. Eva Cassidy did it with 'Fields of Gold'. I absolutely loved that song and still love Ten Summoner's (Sumners) Tales, but the version she did payed almost no respect to the original. I mean, yeah, so it's a completely different song, and it sounds good, and for all intensive purposes IS A GOOD song, but the fact that it's nothing like the original... to me... it's like stealing. In my opinion, there is no point doing a cover of a song if you are going to do it exactly like the original. If the artist doing the cover version isn't going to put their own spin on it, then you might as well just listen to the original. Whenever I hear a cover which strives simply to impersonate the original, I'm reminded of Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot-word-for-word remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho"... Van Sant seemed to be totally devoid of any creative ideas of his own he could bring to the table. The result was mind numbingly boring for those people who had seen the original, as it was almost the exact same film. Soon after I saw that movie, I saw John McTiernan's remake of Norman Jewison's "The Thomas Crown Affair"... the remake was true to the original in terms of it's thematic content and characterisation, but there were some huge differences in the way that the narrative unfolded. I liked it because, whilst paying homage to the original, it had a distinct character of it's own, which meant that as a member of the audience familiar with the original, I wasn't bored. Getting back to music for a moment, two examples which spring to my mind are Jimi Hendrix's "All Along The Watchtower" or Santana's "Black Magic Woman"... two covers in which the performers brought their own distinct style to the piece whilst paying homage to the original... Or, closer to home, there's Mike's cover of The Shadow's "Wonderful Land"... I know some people who say that he cluttered it up, taking a simple tune and trying to make it more complex than it needed to be... but I liked that his take on it was so different and so much his own, cause, like, I already owned a copy of The Shadows doin' it... Back to top

Wanderer Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: Aug. 2002 Posted: Oct. 22 2005, 20:35 Quote (Miguel @ Oct. 22 2005, 18:42) But now tell me people, what is really NEW and EXPERIMENTAL in this kind of music?? When I say that Mike is "experimenting" with this kinda music, I'm not talking about this music in relation to what else is out there in the same genre, I'm talking about it in relation to what Mike has done before... Basically, I mean that Mike is dabbling in a different genre, trying things out that he hasn't done before. "Dabbling" is what I feel Mike has done throughout his whole career... He has dabbled with various different styles over the decades: rock, pop, folk, techno, heavy metal, new age But he has never fully assimilated himself into any one genre. Mike's approach to music seems to be that he dabbles in whatever style of music is floating his boat that week and then incorporates elements of that genre into his own sound... and the result is usually something only a niche audience can appreciate... Stuff like "Voyager" and "Ommadawn" can't be labeled genuine folk albums, despite containing folk elements... "Tubular Bells III" and "Shade" aren't real techno albums, despite containing techno elements... "Songs Of Distant Earth", "Light" and "Tres Lunas" contain too many loud guitar solos and percussion sounds  to be truly effective new age albums. Even his commercial 80s pop albums like "Islands" and "Discovery" contain large dollops of sonic weirdness. Mike has never really made the effort to properly assimilate himself into a given genre - it's probably his greatest strength as well as his greatest weakness as a composer, each album he churns out is just "Mike" in it's sound. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Oct. 22 2005, 20:36 Quote (Miguel @ Oct. 22 2005, 18:42) But now tell me people, what is really NEW and EXPERIMENTAL in this kind of music?? The synth vocals! Yeah, the synth vocals! They justify the entire double album!... yeah. If that makes no sense, it's because it shouldn't. -------------- 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: Oct. 22 2005, 20:38 Does the album need any 'justification'? Mike wanted to make it, that's why he did. It has more than enough tracks I like to justify it for me. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Oct. 23 2005, 04:18 Quote (Wanderer @ Oct. 22 2005, 20:14) Getting back to music for a moment, two examples which spring to my mind are Jimi Hendrix's "All Along The Watchtower" or Santana's "Black Magic Woman"... two covers in which the performers brought their own distinct style to the piece whilst paying homage to the original... Or, closer to home, there's Mike's cover of The Shadow's "Wonderful Land"... I know some people who say that he cluttered it up, taking a simple tune and trying to make it more complex than it needed to be... but I liked that his take on it was so different and so much his own, cause, like, I already owned a copy of The Shadows doin' it... And here's where the dichotomies set in, because even though in principle I dislike Eva's rendition of Fields of Gold, I really like Jimi's Watchtower and Mike's Wonderful Land. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I never heard the originals first. Then I remember hearing the Shadows Wonderful Land, and found it to be good also. So maybe it's because Eva's and Mike's Fields of Gold and Romance respectively are just so different from the spirit of the original piece, retaining nothing of it whatsover, that it feels like a travesty. -------------- 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) Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Oct. 23 2005, 05:03 Quote (arron11196 @ Oct. 22 2005, 22:23) Hmm, does this include Tr3s Lunas perhaps? Maybe jettison The Earth Spirit and keep SCF   Well, you've got me baffled there: Tr3s Lunas doesn't have those tracks! Are you confusing it with Brandon's Tr3sLunas 2, which does? But as for the original Tr3s Lunas, - oh my, no! The only track I'd jettison is 'To Be Free'. But I do have a mind to do what Toby did, and make an extended Tr3sLunas album by adding the TL pieces from Light and Shade. Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Oct. 23 2005, 06:10 Well, I was considering Tr3s Lunas and Tr3s Lunas II to be a double album -------------- 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) Back to top

Miguel Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Oct. 23 2005, 21:04 Quote (arron11196 @ Oct. 23 2005, 06:10) Well, I was considering Tr3s Lunas and Tr3s Lunas II to be a double album Tr3s Lunas II??? Is that another Tr3s Lunas album? I've never heard of it... Back to top

MusicallyInspired Group: Musicians Posts: 1445 Joined: June 2001 Posted: Oct. 23 2005, 23:31 It's not official. I made it myself from Music VR tunes that weren't on Mike's Tr3s Lunas album for those who have macs or just can't play the game or don't want to play the game to hear the music. http://brandonblume.commerceculture.co.uk/tl2.html -------------- BrandonBlume.com "The beauty in life is in the embracing of the variety of things. If all the world was blue there would be no colour blue." Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 03:11 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 23 2005, 02:36) Quote (Miguel @ Oct. 22 2005, 18:42) But now tell me people, what is really NEW and EXPERIMENTAL in this kind of music?? The synth vocals! Yeah, the synth vocals! They justify the entire double album!... yeah. If that makes no sense, it's because it shouldn't. They do because you get so worked up about them. Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 07:18 Indeed. Justification I suppose is a concept which is only required by the listener, not society, tubular.net or anything else, just the individual. Which would explain why there are different justifications for different people, etc. -------------- 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) Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 12:04 Quote (Holger @ Oct. 24 2005, 03:11) They do because you get so worked up about them. I know Light + Shade for you is what cows are for Indians, but I thought the irony would get through. For as long as Mike plays with his gadgets as if they were toys, there won't be any experimental value in his music whatsoever. Remember the synth sax, from Tr3s Lunas? That was just a toy. He wasn't "experimenting" with it, i.e., the technology in his hands was every bit as futile as movie-recording cellphones. Now, it's the Vocaloids. Same deal, only in 80 minutes instead of 60. -------------- 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

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 12:29 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 24 2005, 12:04) I know Light + Shade for you is what cows are for Indians, Had to think about that for a while until I figured out you meant India Indians, not Native Americans! -------------- "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

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 14:23 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 24 2005, 17:04) For as long as Mike plays with his gadgets as if they were toys, there won't be any experimental value in his music whatsoever. Remember the synth sax, from Tr3s Lunas? That was just a toy. But Sir M, one of your arguments in favour of the brilliance of Amarok is that it doesn't take itself seriously and is a bundle of fun. So I'd have thought you'd be in favour of the idea of using musical instruments as toys - as instruments of play, or fun? What's the difference between using a synth sax (which, actually, I do accept as just a bit of fun, though also curiously expressive) and the sound of a breaking glass? There is a great deal to smile about in Tr3s Lunas, I find. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 16:05 I didn't mean playing with it "as a toy" in the sense of "having fun", but in the sense of just fooling around with it and not doing anything with it. Amarok had all of those "instruments" forming a much bigger whole along with the other "actual" instruments, while Tr3s Lunas had that annoying synth sax because Mike found it oh-so-KEWL to mess around with another hi-tech gadget. That's the attitude I find reading interviews and such. He was always so impressed with technology that he just had to include it in his music just so that it would be there. Honestly, the synth sax isn't being used as a tool for experimentation - his attitude is "wow, you mean he's playing a synthesizer with a guitar? That's AMAZING!!!". Maybe that's fun for some people - I just personally find it a bit futile. I don't see the point. I'm one of those who say "why?", and if a fan replies with "why not?", then I get down on my knees and cry: "why bother?" -------------- 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

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 16:07 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 24 2005, 18:04) I know Light + Shade for you is what cows are for Indians Sorry, but you know nothing about what I think of Light + Shade. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 16:34 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 24 2005, 21:05) Tr3s Lunas had that annoying synth sax because Mike found it oh-so-KEWL to mess around with another hi-tech gadget. But don't you think it equally likely that the breaking glass and other noises in Amarok were also put in because 'Mike found it oh-so-KEWL to mess around' with them? I do. At least, if you'd asked Mike at the time, he'd probably have said something very similar. What he says about the way he makes his music isn't usually a good guide to how the music is actually experienced, I find. Truth is ...  the sound of a breaking glass, or a ringing phone, or someone falling over, is no more meaningful in itself than the sound of a synthesised sax. Indeed, by using his prodigious guitar skills to produce a sound reminiscent of a saxophone, he does actually succeed in making something new. That sound doesn't express itself like a real saxophone; it's a saxotar, if you like, with a character of its own. I think you're being unjust to the guy. Back to top

Herc Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: Nov. 1999 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 18:33 I've been a serious Oldfield fan since 1992 and can remember the anticipation before every album from TSODE onwards. Mike's music has been the backdrop for my teenage years; it was the benchmark for everything else I listened to. Now though, in my mid-twenties, I'm getting more and more embarassed to be an Oldfield fan. Similar to other great musicians and composers, a painful youth provided Mike the motivation for his early creative outburst. He quickly developed a unique and dazzlingly expressive guitar voice and a very particular musical aesthetic. These are what still appeal to me so much about Mike's '70s albums, along with some '80s material, Amarok, TB2, TSODE, parts of HO and Voyager. Now, with 22 albums behind him, houses, children, money, motorbikes and a loyal fanbase, Mike's motivation for making music is more financial than artistic. Mike's voice and Mike's 'way' of making music, so individual and precise, so emotional and melodic at their best, have gone. Following in the footsteps of Tr3s Lunas and TMB, Light + Shade is shocking not just because it is criminally uninventive and derivative but because it is no longer recognisable as Mike! Do any of you agree that: (1) Mike's guitar work sounds hopelessly weak and flawed (2) Most tracks without guitar sound so generic as to be unrecognisable as Mike (3) The entire album has a lazy and half-baked feel with sloppy playing, dodgy timing and tinny production (4) Synthesised vocals are cringe-makingly, toe-curlingly embarassing and in any case seem to be merely a way for Mike to 'vocalise' when his guitar skills temporarily desert him (5) Mike has forgotten how to make smooth transitions between musical themes and/or the introduction of new instruments This has all happened before. When QE2 was released in 1980, precisely the same complaints must have been made. There are probably some among you who can remember the album when it was first released - if so please comment! Light + Shade certainly plumbs new depths for Mike at a point in his career when producing amazing music seems not to matter tp him any more. Based on Mike's work since 1996 I have a pessimistic view of his future career trajectory: (1) he will never work with any other (suitable) musician or producer in order to revive his music (2) his motivation for making music will remain financial (3) his original fanbase will quickly lose patience and let go (4) he will continue to be ignored by the general music-buying public (5) the residual record sales/online sales will be to curious newcomers who soon look elsewhere When QE2 was released, people predicted the same thing. It took Mike a full 10 years to return to brilliance with Amarok but return he did. This time, who knows? Back to top

tamas Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Oct. 24 2005, 22:23 I think this question about noises in AMAROK is much more about the question of liking or disliking the whole album. Probably there is not much sense of these sounds. However they were still organic, real sounds, and because of that strenghtened in my mind the overall "story" value of the album. I found them some kind of a "signs" to decipher a narrative behind the album. But maybe it is only my imagination, and my misconception of AMAROK.  But anyway it is any off topic... For me vocaloid works somehow much better than sax in Tr3s Lunas. Probably because imitating an instument with an other instrument is much more useless IMHO than imitating a voice. And I think vocaloid is more about distorting voices than producing voices. That is the reason it works brilliantly in more mechanical tracks like Nightshade or Resolution, and works quite bad in organic tracks, like TOAA 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