Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Is Tubular Bells all he's ever going to do?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Mark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Dec. 2007
Posted: 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 should point out that far from slagging it off, I love the new album, I just thought he had moved on.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Dec. 05 2007, 20:25

Are you really sure about this, i.e. MotS being another rework of TB1? If it is, then Crises also is; then some of The Wind Chimes also is; then Profondo Rosso by Claudio Simonetti also is :D; then the theme from the movie Halloween, by John Carpenter, also is :D. The list could go on forever. What I mean is that, at least IMHO, if some music features a rythmic structure or a sonic reference which sounds vaguely like Tubular Bells, it doesn't mean it's a rework of it. If we put it in those terms, TB is a rework itself - Mr. Oldfield stole it from the Toccata and Fugue in B minor by Johann Sebastian Bach. :D Also, talking about classical music, Vivaldi employed the same structures, rhythms and moods throughout all of The Four Seasons. So, is Winter a rework of Autumn which is a rework of Summer which is a rework of Spring? :D

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Mark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Dec. 2007
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 03:46

Yes, I'm really sure about this.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 03:58

In general, I'm not really sure about anything.

I think Ugo's right, though.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Mark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Dec. 2007
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 04:00

Even Karl Jenkins says it's an orchestration of the Tubular Bells world.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 04:56

Quote (Mark @ Dec. 06 2007, 04:00)
Even Karl Jenkins says it's an orchestration of the Tubular Bells world.

I`m pleased that at least Mr Jenkins is holding his hands up,and I really hope Mike does as well come the albums release.With all due respect how anybody can listen to this album and not think of Tubular Bells is beyond me.Ok obviously Mike has done this numerous times before,but if anything there`s probablly more TB refrences inclulded in MOTS than there was in TB3.In some ways I can see why Mike is using very familiar themes to work with this being his first real foray into the "classical" field.But I agree with you here Mark,I like the album a great deal,but like yourself I thought once and for all he was going to move on from the tubular thing.Hopefully if this album proves to be successful he may feel more confident to do that in future.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 07:48

@ Dirk Star: sure there is very little of TB in TBIII, I've never considered it a proper 'rework' of TB - indeed, I think that Mike made only one proper rework of TB, and that's rightly called TBII. :D However, I still don't think that "Harbinger" or anything else in MotS is dependent upon TB. The rhythmic structure of Harbinger owes a great deal to Crises, more than to TB. And although Crises was intended as a rework of TB, it doesn't sound very much like it to me.
Regarding the build-up in "Musica Universalis", yes, one may agree that it's strongly reminiscent of the build-up in the Finale of TB part 1. Yet there were lots of people who did orchestral build-ups (known as crescendos) before TB. Rossini was one of them, he did it lots and lots and lots and lots of times in all of his overtures. He clearly enjoyed using that trick :), but when people started hearing him using it again and again and again, they said it was a trademark of Rossini's style. They never said any of his overtures was a 'rework' of a previous one. :)


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 08:31

Ugo I`m gonna` have to disagree with you I`m afraid.If you are alluding to certain trademarks or styles of Mike`s there are numerous ones to choose from.Such as grand finales of a theme concurrent in the piece.Not that Mike is a sole purveyor of that of course,although arguablly in a rock field he is.Or overhead electric guitars.Or that variation on a looping up/down simplistic celtic melody that seems to appear on almost all of his albums.Nearly always about a third to half way through part one as well.Or so it seems to me.It`s as clear as day on MOTS that`s for sure.  :D

In my opinion though this album has taken the two most infamous pieces of music from TB i.e. the introductory piano part which appears throughout this album.More so than Tubular Bells itself in fact.As well as the rhythmic bass line(TB1,2,3 Wind Chimes etc)  that appears as the main counterpoint for the last track.Honestly Ugo if that isn`t re-working your old material I don`t know what is.I can see what you are trying to say and I admire you for it.But if these are merely trademarks of Mike`s then I really wish he wasn`t making them so darn obvious.To be honest even that brief piano snippet during Quicksilver on his last album was enough to make me roll my eyes into the top of my head..And yet despite all that I still think there is enough to admire and enjoy about this album.I just wish he`d get over it once and for all,and do us all a favour.IMO the tubular references on this album are a hinderance rather than a bonus.Although I can see and understand to some degree why he has done it.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 08:37

Continuing from the above, I think we may safely that Mike O. has his own style trademarks, which he keeps using over and over as a way of saying "this is me". One is the fast, repeated sequence of alternating low and high notes; another is the ostinato, a short melody which is also repeated several times, with different instrumentation. These are in TB, in Crises, and [yes, sure!] in MotS. But they also are in Amarok (Africa II). And Amarok isn't really a 'rework' of TB, is it? :D So I guess that the whole question here is just related to terminology: I'm saying that MotS is inspired by TB and identifies itself as a Mike Oldfield work by using all of the trademarks of Mike Oldfield's style - I find nothing wrong about this; you're saying that it's a rework of TB. That's fine by me, and as far as I'm concerned the discussion ends here. ;)

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 08:45

@ Dirk: if Mike 'got over' the TB references, he wouldn't be Mike Oldfield anymore. He'd just be one of the crowd. :) If MotS lacked the TB references, it'd sound like an average Hollywood soundtrack - indeed some of it actually does, IMO!! :D In the same way, if Moby stopped using sampled voices from old 1930s gospel records he wouldn't be Moby anymore, he'd lose what brought him where he is now - indeed Hotel totally lacked sampled voices, and its sales were not as good as Play's sales.

I can perfectly understand that you and other people are growing tired about Mike re-hashing old ideas. But his old ideas are what made him unique, and he may as well be re-using them forever. I don't care about it. :)


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sweetpea Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: April 2007
Posted: Dec. 06 2007, 13:13

Quote (Mark @ Dec. 05 2007, 13:41)
it's just another rework of TB1.

The only real tubularisms I see are the Sentinel/Harbinger and Bell/Universalis similarites, so I think calling MOTS "just another rework of TB 1" is stretching things.


--------------
"I'm no physicist, but technically couldn't Mike both be with the horse and be flying through space at the same time? (On account of the earth's orbit around the Sun and all that). So it seems he never had to make the choice after all. I bet he's kicking himself now." - clotty
Back to top
Profile PM 
Mark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Dec. 2007
Posted: Dec. 07 2007, 02:47

I don't think it's streching things at all, but that's just my opinion. Oh, and it's Karl Jenkins opinion too.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Dec. 07 2007, 18:10

Karl Jenkins didn't say "It's a rework of TB". He said "It's an orchestration of the TB world". It's different. :D

And however, I hope we're not stretching this rubberband to the point it's really stretched too much and it breaks, slapping all of our faces... :)

@ Dirk: I'd like to know the meaning you're giving to "us all" in the sentence "do us all a favour" in your post above. If you mean "all we fans who are tired of Mike re-hashing old ideas", that's fine. But if you mean fans in general, I wouldn't like to be included in that "all", because, if Mike removed all the tubularisms from his work, he wouldn't do me a favour. On the contrary, I'd immediately stop following him and his music.


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Dec. 07 2007, 21:59

Obviously Ugo I wasn`t including you in the "Us a favour" there,although I know of a number of fans who are fed up to the back teeth of all these tubular re-incarnations.He`d certainly be doing me a favour big time,which in all fairness is probablly how I should`ve phrased it originally.Although I`d just like to add to that he`d certainly be doing my wife a favour as well..."Not another Tubular Bells..How many is that he`s done now?" Was her very first comment to me as soon as those first few bars came out of my speakers.And I hadn`t even warned her what I was listening to,so she could leave the room,or emigrate to a country where they`ve enforced a tubular ban or something   ... ;)

I`ve already mentioned elsewhere on this board what a fellow Oldfield fan I know said to me when he heard that "Rhythmic Bass line" on wind chimes for the first time..."He`s taking the piss now surely!" And I have to say although I was a big fan of that piece at the time I had to agree with him really.And that was 20 years ago,and yet here we go again with an orchestra..What`s next the mouth and comb version,back to basics????

I`m not saying Mike has reworked the whole Tubular Bells album,although I agree with the way Karl Jenkins has tactfully worded it.What he has done though is to re-use yet again the two most famous passages of music from the piece..It`s not a style,or a trademark(although quite frankly it is now and has been for a long time) it`s regurgitation beyond belief for me.If I wanted to hear it again I`ve already got the original thank you very much.It just makes me think that he`s finally admitted defeat to it.He has said as much in interviews in fact,but personally I strongly disagree with him .Because in my opinion he has created so much more without ripping himself off note for note.And that does`nt mean to say that he completely overlooked everything he learned or achieved during TB..when he created Ommadawn,Incantations Or even SODE..Although even that has a Tubular World all of it`s own of course.But at least there it`s not staring you in the face from track one,and nor is it a carbon copy of it either.

That said I still think Mike has made a very beautiful and emotional album.And for him to do so with no electric guitar whatsoever is very impressive indeed for me.I`m inclined to think though that Mike is going for a double whammy here..A modern Tubular Bells aimed squarely at a part time classical market.Can`t have yer coffee table musos listening to cavemen shouting and bawling.Or "fast guitars" suddenly lurching from nowhere out of the mix.It simply wouldn`t do.It would scare the living daylights out of them.

I don`t want Mike to "remove his tubularisms" either as such,it`s part of who he is.I just don`t want to hear the same ones over and over again.I know what you`re saying Ugo,and I love the way you make your point.I apologise if it sounds like I`m getting worked up here,it`s all down to that Oldfield bloke and nobody else believe you me.
 :D
Back to top
Profile PM 
arron11196 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: April 2005
Posted: Dec. 07 2007, 22:08

I think again we come back to the idea of "what is tubular bells?" .... really can any one of us answer that question?

Personally, I've always looked on Tubular bells as "the great experiment." Like, "I wonder if i can do something weird and wonderful like this..."

which translates into the unique album structure and playing method we've identified on Tubular bells as being his "style".

If that is his signature, his style... which we can hear throughout so many of his other albums to larger or lesser extends; ommadawn, incantations, crises, TMB, and others... when we recieve something else in the same vein, should we be so surprised?

I think actually, it'd be very difficult NOT to have something like tubular bells. I believe what people here are associating with that original album is actually his unique style that has pervaded much of his work... to ask him to abandon that style is like asking an artist to write instead of paint.

I for one am glad that his contributions to our society remain in the same vein; its what I know him for and what I appreciate about his music. Heaven forbids he becomes a punk rocker and abandons his style completely.  :D


--------------
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
Profile PM 
Mark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Dec. 2007
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 08:03

I agree about nods towards TB1 being Mikes signature, but to use practically the whole album AGAIN, is his signature, his home address, post code, blood type, inside leg, dental records and more besides.
Back to top
Profile PM 
arron11196 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: April 2005
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 08:24

Hmm, maybe i'm just missing the point then. I have both and apart from Harbinger and the structure of Musica Universalis, I can't see any melodical similarities.  :/

--------------
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
Profile PM 
Jesse Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: Aug. 2007
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 12:26

Quote (Mark @ Dec. 08 2007, 08:03)
I agree about nods towards TB1 being Mikes signature, but to use practically the whole album AGAIN, is his signature, his home address, post code, blood type, inside leg, dental records and more besides.

pft...only two references and people start moaning about tubular bells references....

the intro sounds vaguely like tb. I mean, look at the notes, it's not as if it is the same melody.

now I do admit Mike seemed lazy with a few albums, but here's he's right on the ball again.

besides....how bad is Philip Glass to you then:
"oh he AGAIN uses repetive melodies!"
Back to top
Profile PM 
Jesse Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: Aug. 2007
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 12:28

or Mozart:

"oh he AGAIN plays cheerfull piano sonatas in the same fassion".

o Bach:
"Das wohltemperierte klavier 2? come on! move on from that!"

or the prodigy:
"Hard beats and screaming music again? hardly original!"

mike oldfield:
"hey this is the fourth album out of 22 or so where you start with a repetive pianoline!"
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 12:44

Quote (arron11196 @ Dec. 08 2007, 13:24)
Hmm, maybe i'm just missing the point then.

I don't think so, Arron.

I think your idea of Tubular Bells as 'the Great Experiment' is an excellent starting point, here. My own feeling is that MOTS is the latest of several extensions of that Great Experiment, based on the extended question: "I wonder if I can do something weird and wonderful like this... with an orchestra?".

Personally I can't see what the fuss is about. People don't complain about the reappearance of some of the same characters in the Harry Potter books - that's part of the whole idea, the whole adventure. When Cezanne keeps on painting the same mountain it doesn't mean he's out of ideas - it means the original idea is inexhaustible.

So with Mike Oldfield. The new work is capable of standing brilliantly alone, vivid and fresh, for anyone new to his music. But for those familiar with the back catalogue there's the additional knowledge of the great adventure that lies behind it, and that led to this point.

This is how artists work - and I mean great artists of all times and all mediums. Constable's great landscapes - the masterpieces that people travel from all over the world to see - almost all derive from a couple of sketchbooks he filled around 1813/14, of a few places within a few hundred yards of each other. Turner painted Norham Castle at intervals throughout his working life (all based on the same original sketch), his efforts culminating eventually in the most famous, final version which is one of the most outstanding achievements of Romantic art. Elgar had no qualms at all about taking whole chunks from his earlier 'Arthur' suite and building them into the plans for his 3rd symphony. Vaughan Williams frequently used similar musical ideas in his symphonies. Ted Hughes built up his book What is the Truth? using poems that had sometimes been written years earlier. This re-use of old material isn't even slightly unusual in any form of art, by the greatest of artists.

The problem arises because in pop culture only the instantly appealing, the new, the novel, the quirky, or the unexpected, counts for anything. Pop culture is driven by the refusal to be bored by yesterday's music (and bored we will largely be, because the fundamental nature of a pop song is mainly like that of a firework: it entertains briefly, then disappears). For that very reason, it dates as fast as it's made. There's nothing basically wrong with that - just as there's nothing wrong with newspapers or fireworks. They're here for today. Tomorrow we want something different.

It's Mike Oldfield's misfortune, perhaps, to straddle the two. He's a great artist, much of whose work is seen as belonging to popular culture. But mostly he doesn't fit there. Some of his work fits - like the contrived 80s pop songs and a little bunch of pot-boilers. But the real Mike Oldfield, the near-genius and creator of stunning new kinds of music, is a real artist, doing what real (great) artists so often do - ransacking their old stuff to explore it in new ways.

The day he stops doing that will be the day he either becomes purely a pop musician, or becomes the greatest musical genius the world has ever seen. Neither is likely.
Back to top
Profile PM 
131 replies since Dec. 05 2007, 13:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net