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 ]

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 06 2008, 09:46 Amarok is an angel of an album. I think its "madness" is overrated, because when you really get down to it, there are very few moments of true dissonance, the "noise" is nearly nonexistant (try listening to Mogwai's Stereodee, for one), the "sound effects" all have a rhythmic/semantic function and don't sound like defaced aberrations like those things Faust used to do, and the album never interrupts its own flow. If you want to hear what that is, try The Faust Tapes, from 1973. -------------- 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

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: April 06 2008, 12:04 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 06 2008, 09:46) Amarok is an angel of an album. I think its "madness" is overrated, because when you really get down to it, there are very few moments of true dissonance, the "noise" is nearly nonexistant (try listening to Mogwai's Stereodee, for one), the "sound effects" all have a rhythmic/semantic function and don't sound like defaced aberrations like those things Faust used to do, and the album never interrupts its own flow. If you want to hear what that is, try The Faust Tapes, from 1973. Yes I would agree with that.I think Amarok`s more atonal moments if you could even call them that really,are Mike`s way of telling us that.."and sometimes I can be a bit like this as well."All those little idiosynchracies,warts and all put up on display.I always see Amarok as an acceptance and celebration almost of the many facets/moods of Mike`s "musical" personality.It`s like "take it or leave it guys this is who I am." In many ways it`s like the polar opposite to Ommadawn to me where you can almost hear the guy tearing himself apart in there.That said I probablly love both albums almost equally to be honest.Although I could`ve lived without Mrs Thatch coming into the equation. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 06 2008, 16:18 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 06 2008, 13:46) the "sound effects" all have a rhythmic/semantic function and don't sound like defaced aberrations like those things Faust used to do, and the album never interrupts its own flow. I expect if I could 'get it' (as I occasionally think possible, as in part 1 of my previous post), I'd be able to agree. But mostly I don't get it (part 2), and so for me the album does indeed interrupt its own flow - time, and time, and time again. But I'm well aware that whether a piece of music is perceived as music or as noise depends on whether you can get into the right box to listen to it (eg Bob Dylan can be perceived as an astoundingly fine singer if you can get into his box, but shockingly bad if you can't); and since with Amarok I've never managed to get properly into its box, listening to it remains a frustrating experience. So, while on one level I can believe it must be a fine thing (because so many people convincingly describe the powerful positive effect it has on them), I can only hear it for myself as something potentially great, but seriously damaged. Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 08 2008, 04:45 Personally I can't imagine Amarok without the "tantrum" bits (nice description by the way!). Of course I'm so familiar with the album that nothing about it can shock me any more, but all those strange aspects feel right to me in a way that is more than just familiarity. If you took them out I'm not sure what that would sound like. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 08 2008, 04:59 Quote (raven4x4x @ April 08 2008, 08:45) all those strange aspects feel right to me in a way that is more than just familiarity. I think that's the key point, isn't it - to be able to see them as part of the whole instead of as intrusions. I can't do it - but then, I have all sorts of blind spots (or should that be 'deaf spots'?) when it comes to dissonant effects in music. I've never been able to cope even with Stravinsky, or any of that kind of 'plink, plonk, and bang on the drum' kind of music, so there's not much hope for me. Back to top

moonchildhippy Group: Members Posts: 1807 Joined: Dec. 2004 Posted: April 08 2008, 06:16 Quote (Alan D @ April 06 2008, 20:18) Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 06 2008, 13:46) the "sound effects" all have a rhythmic/semantic function and don't sound like defaced aberrations like those things Faust used to do, and the album never interrupts its own flow. I expect if I could 'get it' (as I occasionally think possible, as in part 1 of my previous post), I'd be able to agree. But mostly I don't get it (part 2), and so for me the album does indeed interrupt its own flow - time, and time, and time again. But I'm well aware that whether a piece of music is perceived as music or as noise depends on whether you can get into the right box to listen to it (eg Bob Dylan can be perceived as an astoundingly fine singer if you can get into his box, but shockingly bad if you can't); and since with Amarok I've never managed to get properly into its box, listening to it remains a frustrating experience. So, while on one level I can believe it must be a fine thing (because so many people convincingly describe the powerful positive effect it has on them), I can only hear it for myself as something potentially great, but seriously damaged. Yep I agree Alan, with regards to Bob Dylan, I do love some of his more upbeat numbers , such as Subterrainian Homesick Blues, All Along The Watchtower, Like A Rolling Stone, and Knocking On Heaven's Door (OK that one isn't upbeat), to name a few, I do think Bob Dylan can sometimed have a most lugubrious/depressing  voice, and sounds depressing.  Take for instance his version Of House Of The Rising Sun, I do think is most depressing, OK I know the subject matter isn't meant to be upbeat, but The Animals version isn't depressing at all, I think Alan Price's organ, Eric Burdon's soulful vocals, and also Hilton Valentine's  unique guitar picking pattern Am, C,D,F,Am,C,E,E make this song brilliant      I'm trying to master that picking pattern , but finding it difficult. Bobs version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49IzD9IE5Vc&feature=related The Animals version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRV9QCXLtHQ&feature=related The record buying public of 1964 couldn't be wrong as  it was a No.1 hit on both sides of the Atlantic. It just seems strange to me that it took groups of guys from London(Brian Jones was Cheltenham born), Newcastle or Liverpool, to take what was American music, (OK not mainstream) to the US, and make the often obscure  Bluesmen well known      .  Didn't Muddy Waters, a big influence on the Rolling Stones once describe the Blues tounge in cheek as being "Nigger Music". OH sorry I seem to have gone off on another tangent again there.   I know one of my neighbours is friends with my friend Val , and  he said to her about some of the "weird music" coming from my flat.  I know my immidiate neighbours are cool about it as we all like music ourselves, and do sometimes play it a bit loud.   I enjoy music that thinks outside of the box, to me the box is for manufactured talentlesss one hit wonders  such as those on that X Factor thing, that to me is not real music. I would say that the vast majority of Mike's music is thinking outside of the box. I love his long instrumentals, but Amarok is one I can't quite get my head round, and I find a bit scary .   I don't know why, is it 'cause I was expecting it to be Ommadawn2, and to me  it sounds nothing like Ommadawn.  is it because I nearly crashed my car whilst listening to it for the first time. No matter how I try I can't get into it, I can hear moments of beauty, but then Mike suddenly seems to throw a "tantrum". -------------- 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

The Caveman Group: Members Posts: 2178 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: April 08 2008, 07:38 Hi.I do agree with the fact that English guys took music from America and exported it back to them.What needs to be understood though (and blues is my other great love)is that at the time blues was almost a dirty word amongst the black communities in the USA.The younger generation regarded blues as the music of their fathers' and grandfathers' and therefore linked back to sharecropping and thus slavery before hand.They'd moved onto soul which they percieved more upbeat and life affirming.  When these good looking young white guys came along playing thier version of the blues it was then accepted.The knock on was that the original artists started to gain acceptance again. Regarding Amarok though,the tantrums( if you mean the brass stabs and wierd tan were to annoy Simon Draper at virgin who used to play music in the car also.It was an attempt to scare him.  You are proof it could have worked Btw keep up with house of the rising sun.The first song i ever learnt. -------------- THE COMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHEIF IS NIGH. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 08 2008, 09:27 "Outside the box"? Why, there is no "box" - everytime you think you hop outside the box, you eventually realise you're inside another box. You grasp atonality, then realise you're stuck to rhythm; you escape the square rhythms, and realise you're still using just twelve notes; you grasp microtonality, and then you realise you're thinking of "notes" instead of "sounds"; and eventually you're thinking of "sounds" instead of the lack of them... and no matter what, there will be always elitist snobs who think you're a sheep of the mainstream pop crap. -------------- 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: April 08 2008, 12:14 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 08 2008, 13:27) "Outside the box"? Why, there is no "box" I think we're talking about two different concepts of what a 'box' is, so clearly my 'box' picture isn't helpful. I'll try again. If I listen to - let's say - Wagner, then there is a certain way of listening to the quality, character, and expressiveness of the human voice if the music is to 'work'. Some people might get there instantly, but in my own experience, that was something I had to learn, and it took quite a long time, and quite a lot of listening, before the music changed from being something that was curiously interesting (but alien and sometimes repelling) to something that was able to provide some of the most profound musical experiences I've ever had. The great Wagner soloists are among the greatest singers on the planet - insofar as what they're capable of in a Wagner music drama. But if I then go and listen to Bob Dylan, while still thinking within a Wagner framework, I'm going to get a terrible shock. To understand Dylan, I have to abandon everything I know about what is classically, traditionally, considered to be 'good' singing - because he redefined what good singing is. I use Dylan and Wagner as examples, because both are types of music that I initially found repelling, and I had to learn how to appreciate them - so I know the route I followed, so to speak. But it's generally true that similar difficulties may arise with any ground-breaking artist. Many people were appalled by the first performance of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' because they didn't know how to listen to it. Eventually, many of them learned how (though I never managed it myself). That's what I mean by the 'box'. We have to be willing and able to climb into every artist's 'box' along with him, and see, or hear, in the terms that are appropriate to the particular art he's making. Sometimes it's so easy that we might not even be aware that there's a 'box' at all. But sometimes (as with me and Stravinsky, or Amarok), it simply may prove too difficult to do that. But I don't have any great fondness for the 'box' image, if it hinders rather than helps. I'm really just saying that if I approach an abstract painting expecting to get the same kind of experience as I get from a landscape, I probably won't get very far - and some barrier of that kind prevents me from properly appreciating Amarok. Back to top

moonchildhippy Group: Members Posts: 1807 Joined: Dec. 2004 Posted: April 08 2008, 12:44 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 08 2008, 13:27) "Outside the box"? Why, there is no "box" - everytime you think you hop outside the box, you eventually realise you're inside another box. I disagree that jumping outside of a box , you find yourself in another box ,   I was on Hergest Ridge there were no boxes, only my one pumping out Hergest Ridge from the speakers   . I think what I'm trying to say is I hate this "one size fits all" attitude to music over the years, I know there was this idea to dress  bands in matching suits, which I know many bands eventually rejected, I know that members of the Rolling Stones accidentally/deliberately  lost their "uniforms", and so did the Beatles loose their suits for a more individual style. In the 80's there was Stock Aitken and Waterman, with their one  size fits all hits factory, that is what I call boxed or manufactured music.   To me creating music is all about being an individual, expressing your ideas, breaking the mould and not being what someone else wants you to be.  Take a band such as Queen could you see them wearing the same stage clothes and doing what their manager wanted , I doubt it, that would never have worked. Oh yes the members of Queen have had fights, but in the end they kiss and make up. Queen were together as the original line up for 20 years, and I'm sure they would have still been going beyond that were it not for the untimeley and sad death of the Late Great  Freddie Mercury.  I know Brian May and Roger Taylor have reformed as Queen and Paul Rodgers, to me this is Queen meets Free   . As regards Mike's music, well weren't Virgin taking a risk with releasing Tubular Bells , an instrumental work ( unless you count the growlings of Piltdown Man as vocals), by a virtually unknown  artist.  It could've all gone belly up. Tubular Bells is music that grabs you by the balls, (assuming you're a guy), I know it grabbed me by the balls or it would if I wasn't a girlie     .  I know Mike was hardly thinking inside the box when he composed TB, unless of course the box was a bottomless magical treasure chest, with endless possibilities, (maybe I've been watching too many fantasy films again).  Edit  : I've just noticed Alan's post above , he must've posted it whilst I was typing my reply,as he said  maybe the "box"  anology wasn't the best thing to use -------------- 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

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 08 2008, 15:14 Quote (moonchildhippy @ April 08 2008, 16:44) as he said  maybe the "box"  anology wasn't the best thing to use Yep. Looks like I've been spreading mayhem and confusion. I shall speak no more of boxes! Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 08 2008, 15:37 Moonchild was right - I was referring to his box, not your box, Alan. I understood your box analogy very well; it boxes your ideas nicely, and I have no reason to box your thoughts with inane objections (I'd rather have my ears boxed). Besides, I'm not in the mood for bickering and boxing - I wanna get home in time to catch House in the box. -------------- 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

Harmono Group: Members Posts: 759 Joined: May 2005 Posted: April 08 2008, 15:46 Quote (Alan D @ April 08 2008, 18:14) That's what I mean by the 'box'. We have to be willing and able to climb into every artist's 'box' along with him, and see, or hear, in the terms that are appropriate to the particular art he's making. Sometimes it's so easy that we might not even be aware that there's a 'box' at all. But sometimes (as with me and Stravinsky, or Amarok), it simply may prove too difficult to do that. But I don't have any great fondness for the 'box' image, if it hinders rather than helps. I'm really just saying that if I approach an abstract painting expecting to get the same kind of experience as I get from a landscape, I probably won't get very far - and some barrier of that kind prevents me from properly appreciating Amarok. There are so many of these 'boxes' that it must be impossible for any individual to get inside all of them. As you point out, being willing isn't always enough. I have a very hard time listening to death metal and grind core, although I try at least once a week because two of my friends play that stuff. I think they're very talented, and for me to get inside that 'metal box' would be very helpful, but it's so hard I think I'll never be able to get there. It's easy to understand your problem with Amarok Alan, and the fact that you've tried, and that you understand the 'box' concept makes it even more understandable. Most people (and at least 99% of the people I know) don't really understand Mike Oldfield's music at all. People complain about things that are completely irrelevant to me, and that's mainly because they can't find their way into the 'Oldfield box'. That's ofcourse ok and understandable, I just listened to Vietnamese folk music and just didn't get any of it. My point is that when people critisice and review music they should be aware of 'boxes'. I'm not saying one has to like all music, but some people's tone is often too harsh. Critics can be wrong. I can say I hate Stravinsky, that's ok. To say that the composer was insane or that the notes in, say Firebird are without any meaning, is just wrong.  As I said, it's impossible for any individual to understand everything, every musician's vision. Still there are critics who think they are so professional that they can say just anything with complete intellectual integrity. This could be summarized in fewer words I'm sure. I don't even remember exactly what this thread is about. Anyways, the 'box' concept can be very useful. I have thought about it before but it's good you gave it a name and a good definition. I think it's not really a synonym for the word 'genre', though close. After all Mike doesn't have his own genre (yet), but he has his own box. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 08 2008, 16:19 So I'm in the happy situation of thinking I'm misunderstood when really I'm not! (Smiles brightly.) Have you heard of the English composer Sir Arnold Bax? I bought a CD of his chamber music recently, hoping I could try to get into the Bax box. I'm hoping it might help to read boox about Bax too. In fact, I want a box of boox about Bax. Back to top

Harmono Group: Members Posts: 759 Joined: May 2005 Posted: April 08 2008, 16:38 I've never heard of Sir Arnold...I was just thinking about the word box, it has appeared in this thread a few times... That darn youtube didn't have that Monty Python's letter-box sketch... well, this will have to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKhwUE_EokA Back to top

moonchildhippy Group: Members Posts: 1807 Joined: Dec. 2004 Posted: April 08 2008, 18:05 Quote (Alan D @ April 08 2008, 20:19) So I'm in the happy situation of thinking I'm misunderstood when really I'm not! (Smiles brightly.) Have you heard of the English composer Sir Arnold Bax? I bought a CD of his chamber music recently, hoping I could try to get into the Bax box. I'm hoping it might help to read boox about Bax too. In fact, I want a box of boox about Bax. Oh no not more boxes of boox, or books even.  I've so many books I haven't  got bookshelves to put them all out on, that's what I need book shelves, as it is most of my books are in boxes in a big cupboard, but still it's not worth me getting my books out of the boxes, as I'll be upping sticks for Warwickshire shortly  , and of course I'll need some more boxes to pack my stuff into  Speaking of boxes I was watching mine a little bit earlier, and now I;m thinking what shall I play on my music box, ie my CD player. Oh yes whilst I'm on the subject of boxes here's a Laurel and Hardy  classic "The Music Box" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9KT9eOMEs&feature=related I'll just say that I won't be hiring Stan and Ollie to move my stuff to Warwickshire, as I want it to arrive in one piece not many Incidentally the steps are still there , but they have changed somewhat see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llq7v3jYzow&feature=related Oh yes The Music Box is actually 1932 and not 1934,a plaque marks the stairway,  yes I'm a BIG Fan of Stan and Ollie. This is thinking outside of the box too, Gary Mullen a Freddie Mercury look alike, who fronts Queen tribute band "The Works" , he is pretty close to the Late Great Freddie Mercury in vocal performance, cover of Crazy Little Thing Called Love , with a vid of Stan and Ollie   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD2erNXijpQ That reminds me need to practise CLTCL on my soundbox with 6 strings, ie my guitar This one is thinking outta the box steam engines "Gordon" and Henry as Stan and Ollie singing "The Lonesome Pine"   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsznhqr1JHw -------------- 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

Jerke Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: April 2008 Posted: April 13 2008, 17:53 because of the wolf howling. Mike's spiritual guide must be the wolf. I saw a movie once in which an indian tells a researcher of wolves, that the wolf as a spirit-guide is called Amarok. Back to top

Sentinel101 Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: Mar. 2000 Posted: April 17 2008, 14:44 I'm an Amarokian because Amarok is so good that it changed my view on music in general. And I hate it because it set the standard so high. I really doubt that I will hear better music during my lifetime. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: April 17 2008, 22:01 If I listen to - let's say - Wagner, then there is a certain way of listening to the quality, character, and expressiveness of the human voice if the music is to 'work'. Some people might get there instantly, but in my own experience, that was something I had to learn, and it took quite a long time, and quite a lot of listening, before the music changed from being something that was curiously interesting (but alien and sometimes repelling) to something that was able to provide some of the most profound musical experiences I've ever had. The great Wagner soloists are among the greatest singers on the planet - insofar as what they're capable of in a Wagner music drama. But if I then go and listen to Bob Dylan, while still thinking within a Wagner framework, I'm going to get a terrible shock. To understand Dylan, I have to abandon everything I know about what is classically, traditionally, considered to be 'good' singing - because he redefined what good singing is. I use Dylan and Wagner as examples, because both are types of music that I initially found repelling, and I had to learn how to appreciate them - so I know the route I followed, so to speak. But it's generally true that similar difficulties may arise with any ground-breaking artist. Many people were appalled by the first performance of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' because they didn't know how to listen to it. Eventually, many of them learned how (though I never managed it myself). That's what I mean by the 'box'. We have to be willing and able to climb into every artist's 'box' along with him, and see, or hear, in the terms that are appropriate to the particular art he's making. Sometimes it's so easy that we might not even be aware that there's a 'box' at all. But sometimes (as with me and Stravinsky, or Amarok), it simply may prove too difficult to do that. But I don't have any great fondness for the 'box' image, if it hinders rather than helps. I'm really just saying that if I approach an abstract painting expecting to get the same kind of experience as I get from a landscape, I probably won't get very far - and some barrier of that kind prevents me from properly appreciating Amarok.[/quote] Still, you have to have some inclination to jump into the box in the first place. For example, I have no desire to accommodate myself to the no doubt sublime delights of the Wiggles. I agree with you about Wagner, incidentally: the Eucharist music from Parsifal must have been written with the deity looking over his shoulder. "The Rite of Spring" is fun, too, particularly if you're in a bad mood. But after listening to Frank Zappa's hilarious parody of Bob Dylan in his "Sheik Yerbouti" album, I'd never be able to listen to Dylan, even if I were inclined to (which I'm not). "Amarok"? Just another excellent album by Mike. I can't help thinking that the concrete music bits were put in simply to annoy Richard Branson, though. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 18 2008, 05:25 Quote (nightspore @ April 18 2008, 02:01) Still, you have to have some inclination to jump into the box in the first place. Oh that's right. There has to be something about the box that's intriguing in the first place. I take your point about Dylan, too. Despite being a child of the 60s, I couldn't bear Dylan for years and years. Then one day about 1999, I walked into a CD fair, and 'Masters of War' was being played - but it was like no version I'd ever heard before, being sung by what seemed to be a voice from some far-off place, broken but deeply affected by time and experience. It turned out it was a 1998 live bootleg recording. I bought it then and there, and fell headlong into Dylan's box (just in time for his magnificent tour of the UK in 2000, thankfully). Yet all those years in between I hadn't been able to summon any interest. So we can never know what's round the corner. I suspect I'll be putting on Amarok (and gritting my teeth in anticipation) for a long while yet, because the rewards, when you finally get into one of those boxes (if you have reason to think it could be a good one), can be so great. [Something went wrong with the quotes in your post, by the way, as you've probably seen already by now.] 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