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 ]

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 14:54 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 13 2008, 08:36) Quote (Jesse @ Mar. 09 2008, 12:23) It's just that the rationalization that we go through is pointless. No-one will judge Sentinel like you do if you didn't acually dislike it at first. Feeling comes first, then we try to explain it. Who said I disliked Sentinel at first? Well, I didn't. My active dislike of the song - and, matter of fact, of the whole album - after came from cold and careful thinking. I don't dislike things because I can't "feel" anything for them, or because I don't understand them, or anything. I refuse to have "feelings" on what I don't understand, because I hate making wrong judgments. Feeling comes after the explanation, for me. Before the explanation, feeling is a brainless, savage instinct, and I have no use for that; even worse is trying to "explain" it in retrospect. How can you explain something that has no reasoning? I could only try to make excuses for it, and end up sounding like a moron. I reject that. My feelings have to be fully conscious - the "heart" and the "mind" are not separated, isolated, opposed components - they're hemispheres of the same organ (lol, neil peart). ah I see. While truly judging music, you create dinstance between you and the music itself. It is a way to find out wether a piece is musically / technically an acomplishment. But the latter is unimportant. So I chose not to judge music in the way you do. I just take it in by heart. It was when I stopped comparing it to TB1, when I finally opened up to TB2. Now I consider it a better album than TB1. Which is hard to rationalize or defend. But it doesn't make it less true. Back to top

BTH Group: Members. Posts: 179 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 15:12 Quote (Bassman @ Mar. 12 2008, 16:14) BTH, I have not read any posts here that were negative.  The various comments were presented with reason and forethought.  As students of MO's work we dissect, we analyze, we ruminate-sometimes zealously.  It's what people often do.  No one meant any offense, and all the comments were qualified before or after by each person's praise and appreciation of the album.  If people want to discuss it, then what better place than a discussion board?  There should be no suppression of opinions here, not even yours-though your use of the phrase "get over it" is somewhat unfortunate.  Again, no offense was intended. There are a couple of slightly dismissive comments about MOTS towards the start of the thread Bassman that got my back up a little bit, even though qualified by still expressing a liking for the album... That's who the "get over it" is really directed at - not at the people here who are strongly justifying and dissecting their reasoning - which makes for very interesting reading!... Edited by BTH on Mar. 13 2008, 15:15 -------------- Tá mé an amadán ag cheoil... Back to top

Taynie Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 17:02 Quote (Mark @ Dec. 05 2007, 13:41) I've only recently heard M.O.T.S. so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but it's just another rework of TB1. Did he announce that this was his intention when he announced plans for the album, or did he just think we wouldn't notice? I agree with BTH. Mark's sentiments were definately cynical. They have no doubt provoked an interesting discussion but remain negative and over simplistic of Mike's music. It does a disservice to the uniqueness and complexity of his instrumentals. -------------- once these things get going it's jolly hard to stop them again Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 17:44 Quote (Jesse @ Mar. 13 2008, 14:54) While truly judging music, you create dinstance between you and the music itself. It is a way to find out wether a piece is musically / technically an acomplishment. But the latter is unimportant. You are right in that I do create a sentimental distance, but the intellectual distance needs to be 0 for me to absorb a musical piece properly. I don't think absorbing music intellectually first has ever harmed my enjoyment of music - on the contrary: that's one thing that prevents me from breaking down in tears when listening to Simple Plan. Also, if I notice quickly that a musical piece has no redeeming factors, I can abandon it soon and head towards other things - but I have to have a fully formed opinion, both to like it and to dislike it. If I can't form an opinion at all, such as when it comes to Tangerine Dream, I just refrain from making judgment. I become just neutral, or, in the worst cases, indifferent. But I reject "disliking" Tangerine Dream because I don't get it. Not getting it is a fault of mine, and I accept that. Besides, I don't think musical/technical accomplishment is irrelevant. If there's one piece that has no accomplishments whatsoever but is "moving", I discard it, because I can find a ton of pieces that satisfy me fully instead. I don't need "half nourishment". -------------- 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

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 18:08 Some very interesting points being made here about the rational approach to appreciating music.  Love it!  For myself, music is a language that speaks to the soul, often without words.  I love some types of music that, by rights, I should hate.  That's just the brain trying to tell the heart what to do-and that never works! BTW, I love Tangerine Dream..... and beer.... and cheese.... Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Mar. 13 2008, 18:42 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 14 2008, 06:44) If there's one piece that has no accomplishments whatsoever but is "moving", I discard it, because I can find a ton of pieces that satisfy me fully instead. I don't need "half nourishment". For me, being moving is an accomplishment, one of the most important. For the most part that's what I listen to music for. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 14 2008, 04:11 Quote (raven4x4x @ Mar. 13 2008, 22:42) For me, being moving is an accomplishment, one of the most important. For the most part that's what I listen to music for. It's the only reason I listen to music. (I don't mean that I have to be 'moved' all the time. I mean that if the emotive response were completely absent, I wouldn't be interested in music at all.) I wondered for a moment whether I could say the same about visual art too, but in that case my interest often takes me deeper, in a scholarly sense - but even so, even when involved in the most minute analysis of particulars (say while writing an article), the driving force is the emotive response - the sheer love of the thing. Without it, there'd be nothing. Back to top

trcanberra Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: Mar. 14 2008, 06:35 Quote (raven4x4x @ Mar. 13 2008, 18:42) Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 14 2008, 06:44) If there's one piece that has no accomplishments whatsoever but is "moving", I discard it, because I can find a ton of pieces that satisfy me fully instead. I don't need "half nourishment". For me, being moving is an accomplishment, one of the most important. For the most part that's what I listen to music for. Yes, must say I agree with that sentiment Sir M.  Mike's music rarely fails to do just that, which is why I like so much of it. Hey, he even gets me to laugh now and again (Maggie in Amarok, the tempo changes in Out of Mind off Guitars etc). Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Mar. 14 2008, 07:59 I haven't read every post in this thread, but one point I feel is being missed out on here is that all of the reworkings of the theme are in completely different genres. OK, I guess Quicksilver isn't a million miles away from Source of Secrets stylistically, but otherwise I'd say the many occurences of this theme merely prove that, firstly, it is a remarkably flexible piece of music and works in all sorts of instrumental settings, and secondly, Mike himself is a remarkably versatile musician. I guess it's quite easy for MO fans to lose perspective of just how remarkable his stylistic breadth is in comparison to almost all other musicians. I sometimes feel people overestimate tunes and underestimate arrangement. Personally, it takes me a few minutes to come up with a tune, but a lot more time than that to arrange it into something I'm actually satisfied with. Arrangement is what makes a tune shine. The new arrangements he made for that tune make it so drastically different that to ascribe the reuse of the theme to lack of creativity seems a bit pointless to me; the creativity is very obvious, and it's in the re-arrangements. Back to top

changeling Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: May 2007 Posted: Mar. 18 2008, 11:43 Hi, I just heard MOTS for the first time tonight, I downloaded a copy. I have been deliberately avoiding these forums for months, so as to not spoil any surprises. I thought I would log in tonight and have a look as to what the general opinion was. This thread grabbed my attention, as the obvious nods to earlier TB themes were there, and I knew this would fuel large debate...boy was I right! My question to the group is, when an artist makes a new work, do you think that it is fair that they should feel the need to avoid all references to previous ideas, purely for those who know the previous work? I would have thought that each work of art should be able to stand on it's own, free from the prejudice or conscious influence of other forms of art. If Mike felt the need to explore some similar themes in this new work, than so be it. It is what it is. Sure there were instantly recognisable motifs here & there, not just from TB, I noticed nods to incantations in there too, but in the context of the whole piece of music, they were unique and (I felt) interesting. These motifs were never the same as the originals, but similar starting points from which the work then sprang forth into new directions. The main thing for me is the piece of music as a whole, and for me it worked. It didn't resemble anything else Mike had done as an entire piece, musically, sonically, structurally or dynamically. -------------- "Terrible, wonderful, crazy, perfect"                        Mike Oldfield 1998 Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 18 2008, 15:07 Quote (changeling @ Mar. 18 2008, 11:43) My question to the group is, when an artist makes a new work, do you think that it is fair that they should feel the need to avoid all references to previous ideas, purely for those who know the previous work? It's all a question of one asking himself how far he is from the blurry line that separates "self-reference" from "self-parody". It's a highly subjective matter, but merely thinking about that already means a lot. -------------- 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

MikeArnold Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Mar. 19 2008, 23:25 Mark, you make a good point. As a long standing Mike Oldfield fan, coming on 30 years now (gosh, I'm showing my age!), the thought had crossed my mind several times over the past 5 or 6 albums. Having been extremely naughty, but impatient like some other M.O. fans, I downloaded the unauthorized version of MOTS, and have been listening to it for the past few months now. But, until Tuesday this week, when I picked up the official version from HMV in Vancouver (thank you HMV for being so prompt in stocking MOTS!), I really didn't feel justified in saying anything at all about the album. Yes, it is annoying to keep on hearing the TB intro making it into Mike's recordings (albeit in a different key, or with slightly altered notes), and I really wish he would stop this. I mean, once in a blue moon is okay, but this has been so overplayed now. The problem stems from the fact that the original TB is Mike's obvious best seller, and everyone tells him this is what he's remembered for. Personally, as an album I find TB Part One to be stunning, but Part Two very disjointed, morose, fun, weird and wacky. But, I found Ommadawn and Incantations to be infinitely stronger albums. Maybe just a personal preference! As one reviewer of the time commented when referring to Ommadawn. Tubular Bells seemed to be a "dry-run" for the real thing. My take on MOTS: Despite the oft-used TB-style Intro, and other obvious nods to TB, I think that MOTS is very good. At the very least, MOTS ranks up there with the original "big four" albums Mike released. I am going to risk drawing a lot of flack here, but I believe this album is better than Tubular Bells, and the one and only true successor to that album. Well done Mike, you have certainly found your niche. Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Mar. 20 2008, 04:49 Quote (MikeArnold @ Mar. 19 2008, 23:25) Mark, you make a good point. As a long standing Mike Oldfield fan, coming on 30 years now (gosh, I'm showing my age!, the thought had crossed my mind several times over the past 5 or 6 albums. Having been extremely naughty, but impatient like some other M.O. fans, I downloaded the unauthorized version of MOTS, and have been listening to it for the past few months now. But, until Tuesday this week, when I picked up the official version from HMV in Vancouver (thank you HMV for being so prompt in stocking MOTS!, I really didn't feel justified in saying anything at all about the album. Yes, it is annoying to keep on hearing the TB intro making it into Mike's recordings (albeit in a different key, or with slightly altered notes), and I really wish he would stop this. I mean, once in a blue moon is okay, but this has been so overplayed now. The problem stems from the fact that the original TB is Mike's obvious best seller, and everyone tells him this is what he's remembered for. Personally, as an album I find TB Part One to be stunning, but Part Two very disjointed, morose, fun, weird and wacky. But, I found Ommadawn and Incantations to be infinitely stronger albums. Maybe just a personal preference! As one reviewer of the time commented when referring to Ommadawn. Tubular Bells seemed to be a "dry-run" for the real thing. My take on MOTS: Despite the oft-used TB-style Intro, and other obvious nods to TB, I think that MOTS is very good. At the very least, MOTS ranks up there with the original "big four" albums Mike released. I am going to risk drawing a lot of flack here, but I believe this album is better than Tubular Bells, and the one and only true successor to that album. Well done Mike, you have certainly found your niche. Some good points there Mike.I think I agree with you about MOTS being a better album than Tubular Bells in some ways.It`s certainly a more fully realised piece I guess.And Mike has certainly shown a great deal of self discipline and restraint in it`s composition.Maybe it`s more of a classical realisation to part one of TB Imo.Bookended by new re-interpratations of those most familar themes that started and ended his most famous "side" of music.It`s Mike coming full circle once again of course,but maybe this time he`s done himself and his composition full justice this time.It`s all down to indivdual preferances at the end of the day.But I think you are right it`s quite probablly Mike`s one true successor to his original concept. I was never really too fond of TB2 myself which always seemed to me like a jigsaw puzzle in reverse.All the pieces were in place exactly were they were supposed to be.But then the actual pieces themselves had been dis-assembled, and  I`d find myself mentally re-arranging them again back to their original state.TB3 on the other hand I really enjoyed,but I don`t think it quite works as a fully realised piece.And tracks like Moonwatch and Watchful Eye I thought were pretty much filler by Mike`s high standards.MOTS on the other hand contains no filler at all IMO.It`s just a shame for me that it took a number of incarnations to get to this one. I can see why Mike is considering that maybe MOTS isn`t a bad album to retire on.Maybe once and for all the journey is finally complete he`s possibly thinking.I still think he`ll be back myself though. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 21 2008, 06:04 For the Coronation of Edward VII in 1902, Elgar wrote a Coronation Ode, in which, at its climax, he re-used the big tune from the Pomp and Circumstance March no. 1 and fitted words to it. (He later publishing the song yet again, separately, as Land of Hope and Glory.) Anyway - I couldn't help smiling today as I read what the Manchester Guardian critic had to say, back then: "It is astonishing to hear people finding fault with Elgar for using this tune in two different compositions. I find it most natural in a composer, to whom music is a language in which, desiring to say exactly the same thing again, one has no choice but to say it in the same notes. Besides, such tunes are composed less frequently than once in 50 years. How then can one blame Elgar for not composing two in six months?" Edward Elgar. Mike Oldfield. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 21 2008, 10:47 Nitpick alert! Nitpick alert! After all, the only occasion in which Oldfield used exactly the same notes was in Tubular Bells 2003, which is a complete rerecording. In all other occasions, he used an imitation of the original theme. And there's a clear difference between being honest and saying the exact same thing wtice and exposing the same idea several times in different ways, over and over, making people think you're really smart because you're saying so many things, when in fact you're just repeating ideas redundantly, saying the same thing over and over again, making people think you're saying a lot, when in fact you're just talking a lot because you're always saying the same thing, but using different words, so you're really making a huge speech that doesn't add anything, because you already said what you wanted to say ages ago, but it seems like you're full of ideas because you're talking so much... -------------- 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: Mar. 21 2008, 13:42 Not sure if you're responding to my post here, Sir M - if you are, then I think you've taken me too literally. I was just interested and amused to find this kind of thing being said 100 years ago about England's greatest composer, and I thought others might be amused by it too. I wasn't wanting to open up this whole can of worms again - we already know we disagree on this issue, and we understand why. Back to top

Kofola Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Mar. 21 2008, 14:45 I just have to add my opinion here: 1. I donno who Karl Jenkins is ... should I care? 2. I hear only 2 referencis to TB. In my opinion it's not rebuld of TB at all. I think that people who say so just want to hear it there and don't listen to the music to the detail. You can flame me to death .. but I'll raise again! Back to top

Taynie Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Mar. 21 2008, 15:21 Quote (Holger @ Mar. 14 2008, 07:59) I haven't read every post in this thread, but one point I feel is being missed out on here is that all of the reworkings of the theme are in completely different genres. OK, I guess Quicksilver isn't a million miles away from Source of Secrets stylistically, but otherwise I'd say the many occurences of this theme merely prove that, firstly, it is a remarkably flexible piece of music and works in all sorts of instrumental settings, and secondly, Mike himself is a remarkably versatile musician. I guess it's quite easy for MO fans to lose perspective of just how remarkable his stylistic breadth is in comparison to almost all other musicians. I sometimes feel people overestimate tunes and underestimate arrangement. Personally, it takes me a few minutes to come up with a tune, but a lot more time than that to arrange it into something I'm actually satisfied with. Arrangement is what makes a tune shine. The new arrangements he made for that tune make it so drastically different that to ascribe the reuse of the theme to lack of creativity seems a bit pointless to me; the creativity is very obvious, and it's in the re-arrangements. Holgar's words articulates it for me. I get get quite excited when I hear a familiar hook or riff from a previous piece of music rearranged by Mike. TB3 comes to mind when the TB bass riff came in at the cresendo. That one blew me away. -------------- once these things get going it's jolly hard to stop them again Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 21 2008, 23:54 Quote (Alan D @ Mar. 21 2008, 13:42) Not sure if you're responding to my post here, Sir M - if you are, then I think you've taken me too literally. I did. It was a nitpick, after all. It was a valid point, though, but I think you've got a good point that it'll be no use to bring this up all over again here. I think (or at least hope) we got the message you tried to deliver, and there's no point in distorting it. -------------- 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: Mar. 22 2008, 13:26 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 22 2008, 03:54) It was a valid point, though Well yes - but whether judged from my standpoint, or from yours, the kind of crass repetitiveness that you were describing would be indefensible in either case. Vacuous repetitiveness is seen as bad by both of us. The real difficulty lies in deciding whether, in any given case, an apparent repetitiveness is a mindless waste of time, or the outcome of a genuine exploration of infinite possibilities. If an artist really is seeing a world in a grain of sand, then he might have to paint (or describe, or sing about) an awful lot of sand grains that look similar both to those who are potentially interested in the investigation but haven't understood it yet, and to those who think that one grain of sand is quite enough, thanks. 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