Joined: April 2008
||Posted: May 11 2008, 09:12
|Quote (nightspore @ May 11 2008, 08:08)|
|Quote (Alan D @ May 11 2008, 05:58)|
|I think Korgscrew said somewhere that he felt Millenium Bell didn't strike him as a particularly well-thought-out project, and I think (as usual for Korg) that's a helpful way of looking at it.|
For me, Mike's music appeals directly to the emotions, not the intellect (and that's why I think it's wholly appropriate that he often uses nonsense-words in chants, etc). If I want music with intellectual appeal I'll listen to Bach; but Mike's music goes straight for the emotional jugular like no other composer I know (and I have a huge library of "classical music"). And from this personal point of view, "The Millennium Bell" contains a higher density of such pieces then many of his other records. "Sancta Maria" is terrific, so is "Amber Light".
nightspore, you've hit the nail on the head there for me.
He appeals directly to the emotions. 'Thinking' implies being cerebral orientated as opposed to going with the flow of emotions. MOTS to me is more of a cerebral album to me than TMB.
TMB has everything in it to me, ie. tunes, good arrangements and experimenting with sounds, variety of emotions, playfulness, silly lyrics, passion, love, romance, pain, the spiritual, angry guitar, drama......very Mike Oldfield.
I generally like all Mike Oldield except some of his more commercial songs (ie. To France), and I've being trying to figure out why there is such a divide with TMB. It's not a commercial sound as such, 'production' problems have been mentioned, but that doesn't seem a big enough problem to take away from the music.
But I think I'm getting closer to the truth, something to do with the degree to which one values the intellect as opposed to emotion and what appeals most with the composing and listening.
I also wonder if it's almost 'uncool' now to like TMB.
As we all know, endings are just beginnings.