Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

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

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




Group: Admins
Posts: 1186
Joined: Nov. 2002
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 12:58

Quote (Alan D @ Dec. 08 2007, 17:44)
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.

I thought we all agreed he *is* the greatest musical genius the world has ever seen?  :D

As for the rest of your post Alan, very knowledgeable and well put. I have the same view but not the same knowledge or writing ability to put in in a post!

I'd love Mike to continue with these ideas of how music *could* be that he has had from his youth and continue experimenting. Listened to L+S recently and was reminded how much I love his *electric* guitar playing. Melding that with the orchestral ideas of MOTS, which I know some people have wished for before, would be great from my point of view!


--------------
"I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels"
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 13:34

Quote (Jesse @ Dec. 08 2007, 12:26)
besides....how bad is Philip Glass to you then:
"oh he AGAIN uses repetive melodies!"

I actually think the most accurate analogy would be if Beethoven started every symphony of his with a "dun dun dun DUUUUN", only changing the key;

or if Bob Dylan started all of his albums with a "how many [something]s must a [something] [execute some action]" line;

or if Pink Floyd started all their albums with two bass guitars blasting out a single note in tandem.

All of this has been discussed dozens of times, already. But this new album, well, it made me wonder whether the insertions of the same motif in so many tracks might be the sign the fear of non-recognition. If people don't remember who is "Mike Oldfield", maybe they need those little notes to actually remember. Just as it is annoying for a fan to talk about Mike Oldfield, and back it up with "you know, the guy who made the Exorcist tune", it must be annoying to bump into the Exorcist tune around every corner. It's a feeling of okay, we GOT it already, and I can't see why one should not understand that.

That's the effect on a fan. And the effect on the casual listener? Even worse. "Gee, that's everything that guy can do".

So why bother with the Exorcist tune at all? After Harbinger ends, we're thrown into a fresh, interesting piece of music that's fairly tangent to the overall structure of Tubular Bells, and we're only brought back to the nasty déjà vu at the final track. The album survived for half an hour only with non-Tubular-Bell elements, and that's because they're unnecessary.

Personally, though, I don't have a single problem with Music of the Spheres dragging back the Tubular Bells elements. It is only annoying because Oldfield did that so many times. If all the sequels of Tubular Bells didn't exist, it wouldn't be such a bother. And Music of the Spheres completely wiped out those albums from existence, to me. It's like a truckload of dirt has filled these pits of disappointment. So, I welcome Music of the Spheres as the one real sequel to Tubular Bells, and incidentally to many of his previous albums.


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




Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Dec. 2007
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 14:36

Very well put sir mustapha, my thoughts exactly. But I should perhaps point out again that I actually love M.O.T.S., I just thought we were getting something quite unique but instead we are once again covering old ground.
I'm quite surprised that he still does so much that's like TB1 considering the utterly deliberate hatchet job he did to it on "Exposed" and the whole tour for that matter. To me it seemed that he was sick to death of it, and was delivering one of the first Oldfield slaps in the fans faces.

Well, I'm of to play M.O.T.S. again and I might follow it up with S.O.D.E and Tr3s Lunas, or the truly beautiful Ommadawn. Then again, I also fancy a bit of My Chemical Romance too. What to do, what to do?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 16:15

Quote (Jesse @ Dec. 08 2007, 12:28)
mike oldfield:
"hey this is the fourth album out of 22 or so where you start with a repetive pianoline!"

It`s not just a repetitive piano line though is it.It`s THE repetetive piano line.It`s so obvious now in fact he doesn`t even need the piano at all.He just gets an orchestra to play it.
Back to top
Profile PM 
jonnyw Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 522
Joined: Oct. 2005
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 16:24

I am just skimming by here, saw Ugo's post and disagreed, and I agree with Mark to a certain degree. MotS is definitely a hark back to tubular bells.

I like the album, but I do feel THAT rhythmical pattern is getting a tiny bit old for me. It kind of puts me off listening to the album, I love Oldfield's work as it is, but the more I listen to MotS I definately am not madly impressed.

I read up there someone mentioned someone they know laughing at the opening, I had the same experience with a friend I have met who loves MO but doesn't come about here much (No internet at his student home) - but I let him hear MotS, and his reaction was much the same as "he is taking the piss surely!" as someone mentioned above.

I don't know, I find myself growing more and more disappointed in it as a whole. My first reaction was great, but the more I listen between the notes, I feel its a bit lacking.

On a positive note though (pardon the pun) - it's made me listen to Mont St. Michel a hell of a lot more, and i would rather that one track to MotS entirety any day really.

Sorry if i have repeated what someone else has said, I haven't read this whole thread.


--------------
Grand piano.
Reed and pipe organ.
Glockenspeil.
Bass guitar.
Vocal chords.
Two slightly sampled electric guitars.
The venitian effect.
Digital sound processor.
And Tubular bells.

Solo music - http://-terrapin-.bebo.com

Band music - http://www.rsimusic.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 17:23

Quote (Alan D @ 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.

Some good points there Alan.There are a number of composers who have used the same themes and incorporated them into different pieces.Or who have just simply revisted them with a different ensemble or genre. John Tavener is one that springs to mind for me as does Arvo Part.And that`s just from my very limited knowledge within the classical field.

A good friend of mine said to me recently that all pop music is supposed to be disposable really.You listen to it a few times and then you move on to the next thing.In all honesty I don`t subscribe to that point of view at all.There are a large number of albums that I own that I never become weary of.Some of my favourite ones can still reveal something new to me despite god knows how many times I may have listened to it.And I would include some of Mr Oldfield`s albums in that list.

At the time I told my friend to listen to Up by Peter Gabriel which I knew he owned,and to tell me if he still felt the same way.Well I didn`t really get a straight answer off him to be fair as we then proceeded to talk about how great we both thought that album was...Now the thing is with that album you instantly know it`s Peter Gabriel,and there are moments during it that remind you of other songs he has recorded in the past.At no point though do I find myself sitting there going.."Oh no not this one again".... Obviously it was a long time in coming,twelve bloody years in fact.But for me that album is a truly great work of art,make no bones about it.At the risk of being strung up by the "Where the hells the new album brigade." And I`d probablly include myself in that mob.Maybe Mike needs to take a leaf out of Mr Gabriel`s book and only release something when he`s got something fresh to offer us.It`s not as if needs to pay the bills is it.Or is Mike about to become the Andy Warhol of Classical Music(uncool version)?

I will add that I have liked some of the things Mike has done with the Tubular Bells theme in the past.I just didn`t need to hear another one,especially after the 2003 debacle.Maybe Mike was so disappointed to the reaction to that album that he felt the need to visit it again I don`t know?Unfortunatly despite the fact that I really like most of MOTS I think he may well be disappointed again...Maybe he`s not bothered,and will *carry on regardless* Which brings me very neatly back to popular culture..Carry On Tubular Bells..? Stop messing about.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 17:54

Quote (Dirk Star @ Dec. 08 2007, 22:23)
A good friend of mine said to me recently that all pop music is supposed to be disposable really.You listen to it a few times and then you move on to the next thing.In all honesty I don`t subscribe to that point of view at all.There are a large number of albums that I own that I never become weary of.

I think all your friend was doing was offering a general description of popular culture. There will always be exceptions to the rule, and I have no trouble accepting that the albums you never weary of are probably among those exceptions. Out of the mass of ephemeral music there will always be little pockets of excellence that will survive because there's a degree of timelessness about them.

My point really is about the popular culture mindset - the dismissal of last year's music, last year's bestseller novel, last year's exhibition, as 'over and done with'. That is mainly what generates these 'oh no not again' type of comments. So often, with any great art, it's not so much what the artist says, but how he says it. Cezanne could never have painted enough views of Mont St Victoire (or enough apples, for that matter) to suit me, because each one I encounter offers additional insight into what I thought, mistakenly, was familiar territory.

The idea I'm putting forward is that the continual resurfacing of the TB archetypal themes and patterns in Mike Oldfield's music down the years is the result not of imaginative bankcruptcy (well, it might be, sometimes, but I'm talking about the basic principle), but of the fact that he finds them inexhaustible in their implications. You might as well carp about Mondrian knocking off yet another set of coloured strips and rectangles, or Haydn yet another string quartet, after so many. The carping arises only because what the artist is attempting isn't properly understood. Those exploratory, endlessly persistent revisiting ideas don't have a place within popular culture.

[I'm not knocking popular culture, please note. I like some of it myself. I'm just trying to be clear about what it is, and the kind of thinking it tends to generate.]
Back to top
Profile PM 
Trinidad Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 295
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Dec. 08 2007, 19:09

My ->OPINION<-

Quote (Alan D @ Dec. 08 2007, 18:44)
When Cezanne keeps on painting the same mountain it doesn't mean he's out of ideas - it means the original idea is inexhaustible.

Of course, but saying it another way, when Cezanne keeps on painting the same mountain it doesn't mean anything, just that he is using the same idea again and again. When comparing it with somebody who's really run out of ideas, the result is quite similar.

Quote (Alan D @ Dec. 08 2007, 18:44)
This re-use of old material isn't even slightly unusual in any form of art, by the greatest of artists.

I know that's not the intention, but when people say this it sounds to me as saying that artists are great because they re-use their material. Artists are great because they create great works. And artists are original because they create works different from anything else, or re-use elements of other works in an unexpected way, in a different context.

What I can't find in MOTS is the originality or greatness I love from other Mike albums. It reuses old ideas, that's ok, but they're too much concrete ideas, I'd say, and from TB again. Why? Why the most known parts from his most known work? I really can't see him thinking "Ok, I've finished the album... wait, doesn't this part sound slightly similar to something I've done before...?". I don't have many doubts that he thought about it from the start, and that's not a style trademark, that's something different. And about the other ideas present on the album, tough well distributed, I feel they're repeated a little too much.

I really love the album, and I'll buy it as soon as it's on the shops, but I had bigger expectations about this Mike's piece; for the first time, I think that he's not out of ideas, but that he just doesn't want to take the time to think about them. And I'm very sad.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Dec. 09 2007, 05:31

Quote (Trinidad @ Dec. 09 2007, 00:09)
I know that's not the intention, but when people say this it sounds to me as saying that artists are great because they re-use their material.

But importantly, that isn't what I'm saying, Trinidad, and indeed I think that would be nonsense. I'm only arguing against the 'Oh no not that again, he's run out of ideas' kind of criticism as a basis for criticism. I'm merely pointing out what many great artists actually do, because I'm trying to demonstrate that there's nothing wrong in principle with an artist going back to old material as often as they deem it necessary, and that it's common practice among even the greatest of artists. Everything depends on whether the result is formulaic and devoid of new insights, or whether it's exploratory and alive. Whether the basic material itself is new or re-used is neither here nor there.

Quote
When Cezanne keeps on painting the same mountain it doesn't mean anything, just that he is using the same idea again and again. When comparing it with somebody who's really run out of ideas, the result is quite similar.

I don't think the result is similar, except on the most superficial basis. Your second case produces formulaic work devoid of life or insight which has no lasting value. Again, it was never my intention to argue that painting the same subject several times over is in itself a good thing. I'm only saying that it isn't in itself a bad thing.

In effect, when composing MOTS, Mike Oldfield went back and ransacked his early sketchbooks for ideas yet again - behaviour entirely typical of many great artists. The only question that matters is whether MOTS is sufficently exploratory to be a satisfying work of art on its own terms, not on whether some of its subjects or themes are familiar. It sounds as though you, Trinidad, think it doesn't quite manage it - but that's where the real debate lies.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Trinidad Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 295
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Dec. 19 2007, 17:02

A late response, I'm not really having much time these days.

Quote (Alan D @ Dec. 09 2007, 11:31)
Quote (Trinidad @ Dec. 09 2007 @ 00:09))
I know that's not the intention, but when people say this it sounds to me as saying that artists are great because they re-use their material.

But importantly, that isn't what I'm saying, Trinidad, and indeed I think that would be nonsense.

Of course, I know it. I think I didn't express myself clearly. There're times when our subconscious takes an idea and turns it upside down, and even though we know the exact meaning of it, our mind can play a dirty trick on us, and the idea "reusing old material is something great artists do" can be one of those ideas. I just wanted to stress exactly what you've said, that there's nothing bad, but also nothing good, in principle, with using old material.

Quote
The only question that matters is whether MOTS is sufficently exploratory to be a satisfying work of art on its own terms, not on whether some of its subjects or themes are familiar. It sounds as though you, Trinidad, think it doesn't quite manage it

I don't think it doesn't manage to be a satisfying work. I think it's a good album - not a great one, not a very good one, but not a bad one. But still I had bigger expectations about it, and that's due to what Mike said about it time ago: "back to the roots", "not trying to be this or that", "me doing my music", "orchestral work", ... it looked like something GREAT. But at the end, what I think it doesn't manage to, is to measure up to his words, as I understood them. I just don't find it as satisfying as I expected. But, anyway, I think my expectations have been fulfilled just two or three times in my life :D  .

And when I said "I'm sad", I didn't mean I was sad with the album itself, but with it put in a context (I think it's also interesting to do so): Mike seems to be doing simpler albums each day (I'm not saying that they've been a piece of cake, of course), he is selling a big part of his musical stuff, the probabilities of MOTS being his last album are bigger than ever, ......, plus the (for me, surprising) use of ideas from Tubular Bells in the new album, again. He can still create GREAT things, but, taking everything into account, I think he just wants to save the time and effort needed, and use it for other things. I can't criticize him for that, anyway.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Trinidad Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 295
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Dec. 19 2007, 17:06

Quote (Trinidad @ Dec. 19 2007, 23:02)
......, plus the (for me, surprising) use of ideas from Tubular Bells [...]

That wasn't intended to be a joke! :O
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Dec. 20 2007, 04:53

Quote (Trinidad @ Dec. 19 2007, 22:02)
But at the end, what I think it doesn't manage to, is to measure up to his words, as I understood them. I just don't find it as satisfying as I expected.

That's fair comment, surely. I suspect, though, that the piece is as good as he's able to do right now, and even if he hadn't included the Tubular Bells echoes you'd probably have felt the same way. Do you think?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Trinidad Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 295
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Dec. 20 2007, 14:18

Quote (Alan D @ Dec. 20 2007, 10:53)
and even if he hadn't included the Tubular Bells echoes you'd probably have felt the same way. Do you think?

Quite probably; the TB motifs just helped.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Tubularman Offline




Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 2304
Joined: June 2004
Posted: Jan. 14 2008, 22:23

Quote (Mark @ Dec. 06 2007, 10:00)
Even Karl Jenkins says it's an orchestration of the Tubular Bells world.

nice way to say it.

It is far away from tb anyway.. But i guess it have the "tubular bells" atmosphere/mood.
I never get tired of it..
Lovely work!  :cool:


--------------
Mike Oldfield M i x e s
https://soundcloud.com/tubularman
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
trcanberra Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 349
Joined: Jan. 2008
Posted: Jan. 24 2008, 17:13

Being very new to these boards - just wondering how so many people seem to have heard it already?  Looking forward to it hitting retail - but where can I listen to samples in the meantime?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Marky Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 390
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: Jan. 24 2008, 18:51

I've no idea what any of you are talking about - have you heard this album or something? I'm waiting for the 17th here folks...this thread is a bit off putting to be honest. I just want to know if the comedian is funny, not if his jokes are told in a similar style to the ones he told last year....and anyway, concede all the points made, how much does it matter, really?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Marky Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 390
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: Jan. 24 2008, 18:51

PS I'm going to enter Ugo for the X-factor.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Jan. 25 2008, 04:26

Quote (trcanberra @ Jan. 24 2008, 22:13)
where can I listen to samples in the meantime?

There's an old thread here with links that are still active:

Music of the Spheres samples
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Jan. 25 2008, 04:50

Quote (Marky @ Jan. 24 2008, 23:51)
I've no idea what any of you are talking about - have you heard this album or something? I'm waiting for the 17th here folks...this thread is a bit off putting to be honest. I just want to know if the comedian is funny, not if his jokes are told in a similar style to the ones he told last year....and anyway, concede all the points made, how much does it matter, really?

A lot of this thread turned out to be not specifically about MOTS, but about the general principle of an artist continuing to re-use old ideas. I find that quite interesting to think about (which is why I wrote so much here), though I don't think it 'matters' any more or less than any other topic we discuss on Tub.net, Marky.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Bassman Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: Feb. 2008
Posted: Mar. 05 2008, 23:33

For me, I can confess easily that his occasional recycling of the TB arpeggios and other stuff makes me feel exasperated-but only sometimes.  I remember what MO himself said about repeating things.  I'm not quoting directly, but he said that there's nothing wrong with repeating yourself if something is worth repeating.

Now, what makes something worth repeating is a completely SUBJECTIVE topic, and even though I have just said that sometimes I get exasperated with it, most of the times that I hear him using familiar chords and leitmotifs I actually smile as I would upon seeing an old friend who's been away for a while.  It's a comfort when you want it to be.  You get to choose the time.

Considering the contributions MO has made to the musical form he can always be forgiven the occasional misstep.  Come to think of it, when you hit the ball out of the park your first time at bat, it's little wonder you want to revisit that experience again once in a while-not to mention the irony of the tremendous pressure that awaits you each time you walk up to the plate.
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 7 ... >






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