Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]



 

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

Topic: Mike's Most Discussed Record< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: June 07 2008, 21:36

I just thought I'd draw your attention to some statistics that are so "under our nose" that they may not be apparent. Light and Shade is the most-discussed album in the forum; the least-discussed is The Orchestral Tubular Bells. Also Amarok is more-discussed than [/I]Tubular Bells[I] itself.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Olivier Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 1849
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: June 08 2008, 00:06

Kind of proportional to the length of the albums.

It would be very nerdy to count the notes of each album (there might be a heated debate about the guitars in Hergest Ridge). Mike could help us for the ones he has a MIDI version, something like the "Count words" of word processors. I'm wondering if this has been done already, like in Amadeus when some idiot declares "too many notes": the evolution of the number of notes, the tempo, their density (notes/time), within a piece, and through the career of a composer. I guess it couldn't be more pointless. Maybe they could do a movie, someone crazy counting the notes of music, the movie would explore the relationship between maths and non measurable things in music.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Marky Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: June 08 2008, 18:50

I think its simply to do with the length of time the forum has been online - obviously you would not expect the albums pre-Tubular Net to have such extensive discussion as the ones released after the site was set up! And similarly, the number of people who discovered the site will have grown over time so the most recent albums will benefit from more discussion. Music of the Spheres will probably overtake Light and Shade's volume of discussion when its had equal time online (allowing for the differential between release dates). And I bet the number of people on this forum has increased as a result of the exposure of MotS! That will benefit the next album, assuming there is one, of course! M
Back to top
Profile PM 
Marky Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: June 08 2008, 18:56

Quote (Olivier @ June 08 2008, 05:06)
.. I'm wondering if this has been done already, like in Amadeus when some idiot declares "too many notes". ...

This idiot was (I think...?) Emperor Leopold II. It may be that the movie fictionalised this quotation but who knows?
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: June 08 2008, 20:15

Quote (Marky @ June 08 2008, 18:56)
This idiot was (I think...?) Emperor Leopold II. It may be that the movie fictionalised this quotation but who knows?

No, he really said it. You'll find it in most Mozart biographies.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Marky Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: June 09 2008, 05:33

Quote (nightspore @ June 09 2008, 01:15)
Quote (Marky @ June 08 2008, 18:56)
This idiot was (I think...?) Emperor Leopold II. It may be that the movie fictionalised this quotation but who knows?

No, he really said it. You'll find it in most Mozart biographies.

You're saying that most Mozart biographies say some idiot says "too many notes"?? Remarkable. You think they'd look it up!
Back to top
Profile PM 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: June 09 2008, 07:23

Quote (Marky @ June 08 2008, 23:50)
I think its simply to do with the length of time the forum has been online - obviously you would not expect the albums pre-Tubular Net to have such extensive discussion as the ones released after the site was set up! And similarly, the number of people who discovered the site will have grown over time so the most recent albums will benefit from more discussion. Music of the Spheres will probably overtake Light and Shade's volume of discussion when its had equal time online (allowing for the differential between release dates). And I bet the number of people on this forum has increased as a result of the exposure of MotS! That will benefit the next album, assuming there is one, of course! M

I think there`s a good deal of truth in what your saying there.But I think also a lot of people did`nt like L&S,or people had divided opinions about all the different styles Mike explored on the album.On the whole most peoples response to MOTS has been generaly positive.You know a little bit of a discussion about Mike`s re-using of the tubular bells theme again.And some debate about whether the album should maybe be truly classed as a classical work as such.Nothing too heated or negative though imo.I don`t know if it`s a little mis-leading to me reading some of those old L&S threads.But it seems to me that there was maybe more regular posters here back then.Many of whom don`t seem to frequent this board anymore sadly.So I don`t know?Maybe L&S was kind of the last straw for a lot of people?In this country it was a commercial flop for him of course.But maybe in the grand scheme of things and in comparison to Mike`s latest album.It`s maybe not entirely percieved that way by a large proportion of his fanbase.I`m thinking maybe of some of Mike`s younger fans there as well.And then out in countries like Spain also where L&S was popular.I`m sure MOTS has brought some of Mike`s older fans back into the fold so`s to speak,but there was also a large number of people who never left in the first place.And then thinking about the whole kind of demograph scenario where Univeral aimed MOTS over here it kind of makes me wonder a little bit?Obviously at the end of the day this board as good as it is,is not wholly represesntative of the opinions of all of Mike`s fans.But then sometimes neither are record sales.You`ve just got to look at the initial sales for Amarok for proof of that.It`s complicated.Only time will tell.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: June 09 2008, 07:42

Quote (Dirk Star @ June 09 2008, 13:23)
Only time will tell.

Only time.


(couldn't resist ;) )
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sweetpea Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: April 2007
Posted: Aug. 21 2008, 15:30

Quote (Dirk Star @ June 09 2008, 07:23)
I don`t know if it`s a little mis-leading to me reading some of those old L&S threads.But it seems to me that there was maybe more regular posters here back then.Many of whom don`t seem to frequent this board anymore sadly.So I don`t know?Maybe L&S was kind of the last straw for a lot of people?In this country it was a commercial flop for him of course.But maybe in the grand scheme of things and in comparison to Mike`s latest album.It`s maybe not entirely percieved that way by a large proportion of his fanbase.I`m thinking maybe of some of Mike`s younger fans there as well.And then out in countries like Spain also where L&S was popular.I`m sure MOTS has brought some of Mike`s older fans back into the fold so`s to speak,but there was also a large number of people who never left in the first place.And then thinking about the whole kind of demograph scenario where Univeral aimed MOTS over here it kind of makes me wonder a little bit?Obviously at the end of the day this board as good as it is,is not wholly represesntative of the opinions of all of Mike`s fans.But then sometimes neither are record sales.You`ve just got to look at the initial sales for Amarok for proof of that.It`s complicated.Only time will tell.

Interesting to think of this, Light + Shade, as being such a catalyst for fanhood. Especially since I think it's a lovely work and I listen to it much more than Discovery, Islands, and Earth Moving. Is L+S really so radical for Mike? I didn't come to it from the viewpoint of a huge lifelong fan - this was one of the first albums in my rediscovery of MO - so I didn't see it as a disappointment. Then again, maybe I just have low standards?  :laugh:


--------------
"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 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Aug. 21 2008, 19:50

[quote=Sweetpea,Aug. 21 2008, 20:30][/quote]
Quote
Then again, maybe I just have low standards?  :laugh:


Well I think that a lot of the problem in the case of being fans of Mike Oldfield is that we`ve set ourselves such high standards really.Simply because of the high standards Mike has often set himself of course.But yeah I can relate to what you`re saying there because I know initialy I was dissapointed by L&S.And to a certain extent I probably still am dissapointed by it in all honesty.But then the weird thing is I`ve always really liked it as well.And then I think "Well yeah,what`s new"?

You know I think I`m willing to accept that Mike no longer wanted to live and breathe the music 24/7 so`s to speak.And I`ve got nothing against Mike going for a much more simpler and direct approach to his music which he`s been saying for some time now.I just wish at times(which I probably have done since the early 80`s to be fair)that he was a bit more stylisticaly "on the ball".Now don`t get me wrong I`m not saying Mike should call in the bloody fashion police or something and get this thing sorted once and for all.I just think that when we look back and in the grand scheme of things.Is L&S that radicaly different from say an album like QE2 or even Platinum?Even looking back now in fact just a few short years later.So yeah maybe I`m still getting over it in a way?From my own perspective anyway.But yes like yourself SP I certainly listen to this album a lot more than all those albums you mention as well.Probably quite a number of other ones I`d add to that list also.

I know a lot of people would`ve liked to have heard more real instruments.Or they would prefer Mike to work on longer pieces of course.But setting the whole longer more complex issue aside for a second.I personaly did`nt have a problem with the whole computerised/fruity loops thing at all.You know I`m not saying "Yeah wow it`s the future of music,burn all your penny whistles daddio".But at the same time I don`t subscribe to this "let`s sit and worship at the alter of the analogue synthesiser mumbo jumbo"!Or even the "look no synths at all"! types as well.I just don`t get any of that at all I`m sorry.Sure you can mix it up and go back to more "organic" instruments if that`s what you want to do at that particular point in time.But by the same token I was`nt sat there cheering "Hooray" when I read the "Not much synth at all really" quip on the sleevenotes of Amarok initialy.You know I think I just thought "Ok fair enough"..."It`s a masterpiece I`m not gonna` argue with yer".  :p

But see now I`m gonna` go all hypocritical with myself in a way because I`m not entirely sure I`m comfortable with Mike putting his work into the hands of an orchestra.Even though I`m quite aware a lot of that is just down to my own personal tastes in music anyway.Conversely the release of MOTS has actualy made me appreciate L&S a lot more than I did first time around.And while there is very little evidence on this board to support this claim.Or even anywhere else online for that matter.Well yeah I just have this nagging suspicion that a number of Mike Oldfield fans might have similar feelings about it.You know even if it does`nt make them re-evaluate L&S I guess.I think at this moment in time though and from my own perspective if not anybody else`s at least.I`ve just got a little bit of that old "you did`nt know how much you`d miss it until it was gone" kind of feeling.

Anyway despite all of that I do still like both L&S and MOTS.At the end of the day I have certain issues and reservations with both of those albums that I`ve probably ruminated on for quite long enough now.I just know that if my house caught fire right here and now and I only had time to get one of those albums out the door.Well yeah Music Of The Spheres would be melting on the shelf no doubt about it.Although in all reality that`s actualy a load of crap as I`d just grab my external hard-drive because they`re all on there anyway.Oh yeah and the wife and kids of course don`t wanna` forget them...And the dog...And maybe the cat if she promises not to take up all the room in the bed in the next house we move into.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sweetpea Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: April 2007
Posted: Aug. 21 2008, 21:19

Quote (Dirk Star @ Aug. 21 2008, 19:50)
I was`nt sat there cheering "Hooray" when I read the "Not much synth at all really" quip on the sleevenotes of Amarok initialy.You know I think I just thought "Ok fair enough"..."It`s a masterpiece I`m not gonna` argue with yer".  :p

LOL. I agree. I don't really have anything against synths, and I enjoy quite a bit of synth music, but I do appreciate the non-synth-ness (?) of Amarok. Still, if it had all been done electronically, it would still be a great piece. Okay, no way would I ever trade a Mike-played guitar solo for a synthesized one, but I think you know what I mean.

Thinking back to my first listen to L+S, I was hooked from the get-go. What can I say? Maybe I'm just easy. When it comes to MO, I mean. Errr... MO's music. The initial spacey synth, then the main piano melody, and even the weird vocals - all in the first thirty seconds - and I just knew it was going to be my kind of music.


--------------
"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 
Moz Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 600
Joined: July 2005
Posted: Dec. 21 2008, 05:49

Quote (Sweetpea @ Aug. 22 2008, 05:30)
Interesting to think of this, Light + Shade, as being such a catalyst for fanhood. Especially since I think it's a lovely work and I listen to it much more than Discovery, Islands, and Earth Moving. Is L+S really so radical for Mike? I didn't come to it from the viewpoint of a huge lifelong fan - this was one of the first albums in my rediscovery of MO - so I didn't see it as a disappointment. Then again, maybe I just have low standards?  :laugh:

How much we listen to an album is a point I come back to time and time again. Some time ago I asked which 5 MO albums everyone listened to the most. Some people surprised themselves by putting Tres Lunas on the list but not Amarok. The latter may be technically better, but I find that I have to be in the mood to listen to Amarok. Tres Lunas is much easier to pick up and play pretty much anytime.

Calling Tres Lunas or Light and Shade "easy listening" may be incorrect, but they do seem to be easier to listen to than some of the more "classic" albums. I listen to QE2 quite a lot, for instance.

I didn't enjoy L&S on the first listen, but it really grows on you. That said, I would have been quite happy if the album had only included: Angelique, Blackbird, Our Father, Sunset, Quicksilver, Tears of an Angel, Ringscape and Nightshade. The other tracks aren't bad (except Romance, which I can't bear to listen to) but I find most of them boring.


--------------
Twitter: @benbarden
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Dec. 21 2008, 06:06

Quote (Moz @ Dec. 21 2008, 05:49)
I would have been quite happy if the album had only included: Angelique, Blackbird, Our Father, Sunset, Quicksilver, Tears of an Angel, Ringscape and Nightshade. The other tracks aren't bad (except Romance, which I can't bear to listen to) but I find most of them boring.

"Nightshade" is the only track on the record I really dislike - particularly that repeated motif that sounds like a suit of armour trying to play leapfrog. My favourite pieces are: "Sunset", "Rocky", "Blackbird", "Closer", "Romance", "Tears of an Angel".
Back to top
Profile PM 
TheMann Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: June 2004
Posted: Oct. 24 2009, 03:30

I think "First Step" (the only long instrumental, in good old MO style) is clearly interesting, although not a masterpiece. There are really good parts, as the beginning, say first 2 min or so. Also the 2nd half of it has its moments, IMHO.

This is despite the fact that MO didn't play much at all, most of it seems to be sounds from data bases .. But it is .. interesting somehow.  First Step is the track I plays most often on L&S.

I prefer L to S. I generally really like track 1,2,4,6, and on S track 2,4,5. But the tracks on L seem more real MO to me. Our Father is really fantastic, I think, although it ends a little monotone.

All in all, far from a top MO album, but still with good moments.
Back to top
Profile PM 
13 replies since June 07 2008, 21:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

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

 






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