Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

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

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Oct. 01 2011, 16:31 Anyone else find part 1 to be one of Mike's best works and part 2 a complete contrast? It's like in the first few minutes or so he was out of ideas and just overdubbed 1000 guitars to get something going... I just don't feel part 2 is in the same ballpark as part 1. Part 1 may be the best he's ever done (especially how he plays it live in the montreal video) Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: Oct. 01 2011, 19:01 I always felt that Part II was under-developed. It's just three movements, and each of them is based on a very simple theme, while Part I is seven or eight movements and each one has its full and complex theme. However, I don't feel that Mike's piling-up of guitars (by the way, they're not 1000 - I think they're no more than 24) in the first section of Part II was because he ran out of ideas. My view of it is that he was trying to create something tormented, something like a mildly troubled sea - not exactly a storm, but neither a place you'd like to have a swim in. That main melody, which never manages to resolve itself until the very end of the section, may be another indication of the fact that the section was meant to represent something tormented, turbulent. At least that's how I see it. -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Oct. 01 2011, 22:08 I don't see how the melodies in part one are any more "complex" than those on the second part. In fact, the melody at the first portion of part two may be the most elaborate in the whole record. I'd dare say, in fact, that part two has a lot more flow and dynamics than the first part -- perhaps because the climax never tries to push itself over-the-edge in order to sound climactic, and ends up being more satisfying and interesting. Besides, the guitar solo in that is absurdly, ridiculously better than the "bleep! bloop! bleep bloop!" at the end of part one. -------------- 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

GusFogle Group: Members Posts: 198 Joined: July 2011 Posted: Oct. 02 2011, 01:02 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 01 2011, 22:08) In fact, the melody at the first portion of part two may be the most elaborate in the whole record. Are you even a musician? Ommadawn part 2, particularly the first portion, is very simplistic harmonically. It's in 4/4 time, in A minor, with a melody mostly composed of quarter notes at a very slow tempo. While there are lots of overdubbed guitars, they are all playing the same rhythm, and most of the notes are in unison with each other. The first harmonies don't really even occur until a couple minutes into the piece, at the C major climax, where simple 3rd's are used for the harmony. This is not to slight part 2, because I enjoy Ommadawn part 2, but it is certainly a very simple piece compared to Ommadawn part 1. I have learned and played both, and I can personally tell you that Ommadawn part one has a much tighter, more complex structure. Also, sounds like you've completely missed the point of the emotions and mood at the climax of part 1. What a shame. Back to top

equinoxe Group: Members Posts: 175 Joined: Aug. 2011 Posted: Oct. 02 2011, 02:27 The beginning of Ommadawn part 2 is not complex? You really should listen to a 5.1 mix (or if You haven't that possibility, You can recode a single tracks from that mix and listen to them separatelly). Maybe this is just a mixing issue of the original album, but in that movement there are many many other sounds hidden deep in the mix, than just overdubbed electic guitars. You can listen to a a very nice playing on the acoustic guitar (wchich really is playing his own melody - beautiful), bass guitar, accordion, organs.... In the original mixing you can't really hear more than just those electric guitars storm and maybe accordion, but if you listen to a 5.1... it's another world! I must say, that i wasn't a really fan of the Ommadawn album. When i bought a Deluxe Edition and listen to a 5.1 mix... i could hear those complexity of the entirely album, and loved it instanlty!!! I never knew about how much deep this suite is! How many tracks, sounds deep in mix exist. Now it's my favourite album, i changed my thinking about this album completely! And i find part II the same complex degree as part I. Part II however is too short, and i always felt, the "On Horseback" never was a part of the Ommadawn, but something like a bonus track. So the second part is only about 14 minutes long when the first half has 20 minutes, and this is only thing i don't like with this album. Back to top

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Oct. 02 2011, 05:43 Complex does not equal good. Nor is simple bad. Sometimes Mozart did the most incredible pieces using very simple progressions. I'm just saying the that part 2 sounds like it's missing focuss. It sounds a bit unfinished to me. Back to top

wiga Group: Members Posts: 2113 Joined: Sep. 2008 Posted: Oct. 02 2011, 06:51 Quote (Jesse @ Oct. 02 2011, 10:43) Complex does not equal good. Nor is simple bad. Jesse - I agree. And I'd like to use that quote in my signature. -------------- Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon. Back to top

bee Group: Members Posts: 1227 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: Oct. 02 2011, 07:35 Ommadawn is probably my favourite, in an eternal triangle with Tubular Bells and Amarok. Regarding side one and two, I'm not sure I like the idea of 'versus' but I understand the point you are making Jesse. I suppose I see Ommadawn very much as a whole.  I really like what Mike did with Amarok for that very reason, to create 60 perfect ( but mad/genius ) minutes of brilliance...no breaks.  Clever idea.  Take an hour and see what you can do with it. Side 2 of Ommadawn is almost vital after the climactic finish of side 1 in a way, and there's a lot I love about it.  It is joyful, for me it kind of finds a happiness within or an acceptance or a coming to terms with what really matters.  It has an understanding and a peaceful calm.  For me, it's just after the bells come in there is this overwhelming 'sigh' that all will be well.  Perhaps it is saying, "you have survived a tough time and are now strong enough to go forward". There's no 'doubt' or pain any more, just a facing the future with a touch of optimism and resolve.  It does, as it goes along, gather pace which suggests a supply of energy and a need to express it.  At the end of on Horseback the affirmation from Mike himself sums it up nicely 'it's good to be on horseback' followed by a little grunt as if a decision has been made. It is beautiful to me. Still. And it is nearly 40 years old, but each time I hear it it is like the first. -------------- ....second to the right and straight on till morning.... You heard me before Yet you hear me again Then I die Till I call me again Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Oct. 02 2011, 18:59 Quote (GusFogle @ Oct. 02 2011, 01:02) Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Oct. 01 2011, 22:08) In fact, the melody at the first portion of part two may be the most elaborate in the whole record. Are you even a musician? Depends on your definition. Either way, I'm not the kind who'd disqualify someone's opinions on those ground: people have ears, you know. Quote Ommadawn part 2, particularly the first portion, is very simplistic harmonically. It's in 4/4 time, in A minor, with a melody mostly composed of quarter notes at a very slow tempo. I only have my memory to rely on at this time, but that portion has quite a couple of modulations and left turns which are not very common on side one. Yes, rhythmically, it's very simple -- but that's just one aspect. And I have no idea what the tempo has to do with it. Quote I have learned and played both, and I can personally tell you that Ommadawn part one has a much tighter, more complex structure. Yes, definitely, the two parts are absolutely no comparison in terms of structure. I think it's fair to compare the "movements" and melodies individually, but not the two whole halves. Quote Also, sounds like you've completely missed the point of the emotions and mood at the climax of part 1. No, I don't think I really missed them: I just don't think they were well delivered. -------------- 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

Milamber Group: Musicians Posts: 2263 Joined: Feb. 2010 Posted: Oct. 03 2011, 02:22 I love Part II. It's the calm after the storm. It took almost Thirty years for it to surpass Part One for me. Some calm after the storm is never a bad thing. Back to top

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Oct. 03 2011, 13:46 Quote (wiga @ Oct. 02 2011, 06:51) Quote (Jesse @ Oct. 02 2011, 10:43) Complex does not equal good. Nor is simple bad. Jesse - I agree. And I'd like to use that quote in my signature. nice Back to top

[ 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