liron
Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: Dec. 1999 |
 |
Posted: June 08 2001, 16:59 |
 |
mmmmmm... it seems i should apologize for my misbehaviour. maybe i'll take it slowly this time and let you see what i mean properly.
as dervish said, mike is an inspiration to me. he certainly was my big one idol when i was growing up. more than that - he inspired me to take on the guitar, and start playing myself. if you could go to the school i went to (hopping tat they still keep the same chairs and tables, and don't ever paint the walls) you would see engraved on various noticable locations the writing "OLDFIELD IS GOD!". well at least he used to be.
you know last summer i even went to see that old country side house of his - "the beacon", and even had a nice chat with mrs. griffiths (who is currently selling the house for 300,000 pounds). it was an old dream come true (well the real plans were to visit mike himself, though i never could imagine what i possibly had to say to him in that occasion). we were there, and it came to me that, mike doesn't really interests me as a human being this days, and that it would have been much more intriguing to meet him about 25 years ago. maybe it's just nostalgya and all - but it seems to me that he was more a REAL human than his post-therapuitic personality.
never mind that, the thing i am trying to say is that mike's music ment a lot to me. ok?
the way that he turned out to be is somewhat repulsive to me. and i must admit that there is an element of feeling betraied in all this. too personaly i know. whatever.
dervish - an artist is not your everyday child writing a poem about the sand box, or your everage scientist programming his machine. an artist (and i won't appologize by adding the infamos "IMHO"), is a man that can communicate his feelings, or thoughts of this earthly world, by the sublime and intricate art form he uses. and he is capable of doing it in such a way that for a brief moment, you are lifted up (or taken down), to see this world from a different view, or one that is parallel to your seeing.
this process demands great abilities that are more than technical.
which is leading to one mr. oldfield...
you see, i know that people change, and the way that they express themselves can change to (it HAS to change, because you can't repeat yourself forever expecting the resolt to be the same). YOU change and so does your music. that is fine. you experiment with new kinds ways to do the (basically) same thing. that is fine also. but an "artist", must remember the thin thread that devids a piece of art: "technique" and "expression". giving too much emphasys on one is the wrong way to communicate yourself. too much enhancment on expression and you are left with a work that doesn't mean shit to anybody beside the man that created it (an extatic smirred painting/
a bunch of screams on tape, and so on). too much emphasys on technique will lead to a castrated, emotionally devoided - though very aesthetic, work.
mike, in my opinion, is paying too much attention to the WAY he is creating (and that's an understatment - as you can see from previously written letters by me), he is not paying much attention (IF ANY) to WHAT he is saying. and so you are left with works that, are reduced to a mere proficiancy show. very nicely crafted jewls, that just sit there, and express nothing but the ability of the artist to craft very nice jewls.
very nice jewls dervish (and i am not going down on you, the only reason i went down on stuart was that he, for some reason, decided to address me as "Liviron", whatever that means), very nice jewls, you can find them anywhere. very nice jewls like brittany spears, or "five", that sings perfect, but tell you nothing. and so i hate (harsh words) mike oldfield for being that. if you experiment - bind that to the real essence of the thing you are doing - which is EXPRESSING SOMETHING. and don't you come back to me saying that he is doing his best, or that for HIM that is art, or some other postmodern thought. ART is NOT anything you so graciously call ART. like in real life - ART has certain definitions, it is not an amorphic concept floating in space, otherwise why call it "art"? you can call everything whatever you want, if it doesn't mean anything. you can call a dog a "cat", if you say that "the dog has "catish" personality", you can call one kids poem art, if you can say "the kid has CREATED". both the dog and the poem stay, a dog and (in the good case) a nice bunch of rhymes. ok?
and another thing - you can't come up to me and say, mike is "trying new things, and new ways of expression", cos' from what I hear the next "AMBITIOUS" project he is gonna do is (guess what?) "TUBULAR BELLS IV - 'the way i always wanted it to sound in the first place'". it really makes me lough histerically. and yes - I won't buy that record too (just cos' i already HAVE 4).
|
