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

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 16:49 I don't want to jack the thread further, but the Elvis connection really resonated with me.  I was one of those that for a long time thought all Elvis' best work was in the 50's.  I totally NEVER expected to gain the appreciation for his 70's work that I have now.  I'm not quite sure how this came about, but I am sure it has something to do with me recognizing that as Elvis himself got older, his choice of material to record would also reflect advances in one's views on life, experiences accumulated, insights gained... in short, wisdom.  It also had something to do with the context in which the material was presented.  Back in the early 90's RCA finally started to get it right, and the 70's box set was a revelation-it was THAT good.  The material needed to be isolated from the 50's and 60's stuff so it could be judged on it's own merits.  It was perfectly right that his 70's material would reflect a man older, wiser, been through more pain, felt more joy and so on and so on.  One can't sing about blue suede shoes forever.  Indeed, I can rarely listen to his later work without getting tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat.  Sure, a lot of the 70's output is pure cheese (his attempt at "Lady Madonna" must be heard to be believed).  So what?  Cheese is good for you.  Works for me. Bless you Big E, whatever planet you're on. @Arron.  I enjoyed your bee analogy.  It reminds me of sneetches.  Some had stars on their bellies, some didn't. -------------- Turn up the music... Hi as Fi can go. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: July 06 2008, 17:18 Quote (Dirk Star @ July 06 2008, 21:01) I just kind of took offence to the way he compleletly dis-missed it all out of hand like it was gospel fact or something. I think what has happened there, Mick (assuming that he wasn't just posturing for effect, as he might have been) is that your Guardian critic 'sees' something in early Elvis that he doesn't 'see' in later Elvis. If we were to talk to him about it, I expect he'd find all sorts of apparently rational reasons for supporting his claim.  And if he were suddenly to find himself enjoying a bit of late Elvis unexpectedly, he'd find a way of rationalising that, too. People have been putting forward spurious 'rational' arguments for invalid, absurd, and even inhuman, ideas as long as eggs have been eggs. To take the example of 'Man in the Rain'. Many people think this is a pastiche of Moonlight Shadow, and indeed it is; so if you regard it as a song on its own, then of course many people are inclined to declare it to be poor, and a sign of imaginative bankcruptcy. However, if you accept it in the context of this very autobiographically-driven album, and consider that the pastiche may be deliberate, then it becomes a kind of affectionate backwards glance (perhaps with a touch of irony) at a particular moment in the Oldfieldian career, and slots into place like a piece from a jigsaw puzzle. When I listen to TBIII, that's how I 'read' 'Man in the Rain'. In that context, it makes me smile; it makes sense; it adds coherence to the album; I feel as if MO is tipping me a wink and I feel like winking back; and with all that in mind, I enjoy the song - quite a lot, actually. However, to Debbie Doubtful, who's unwilling to be persuaded to listen to it like this, it remains merely a poor pastiche and sticks out unpleasantly like a sore thumb. Is Debbie right? Or am I? Well, it seems to me that she gets a poor pastiche, whereas I get a fascinating integrated component of a near-masterpiece. If Debbie regards hers as the more accurate view, then that's up to her. But when you've been there and seen it yourself, you can't help knowing what you know. Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: July 06 2008, 18:06 Well I`m right with you there on MITR definetly.And also on the autobiographical aspect of the album as well you know it`s all very clear and defined isn`t it.Maybe that`s why I`ve had some problems myself taking this album entirely seriously before?I`ve always really enjoyed listening to it don`t get me wrong.But it`s strange bassman mentioning a maturity thing with Elvis there.You know I think since coming to this forum I`ve started to see that "maturity" if you like with more of Mike`s recent work that I was perhaps missing out on a little before.Or as Pete Townshend once put it..."the simple things you see are all complicated." @ bassman that box-set you mention there recieved a full page 5 star review in Q magazine when it was released I remember.And the reviewer made his point without writing off his 50`s material as well.Although he did use some kind of analagy comparing it to "aurally capturing the excitement and spirit of the time etc". I can`t remember exactly what he said now but I`m sure he talked about maturity himself.And his voice "maturing" as well of course which I`m even inclined to agree with myself I must admit.I think I still have an urge to hear more of his music from that time.Nick Lowe did a cover of an Elvis song "True Love Travels On A Gravel Road" a few years back which I absolutely adored.I still hav`nt heard the original yet though. Back to top

Sweetpea Group: Members Posts: 1476 Joined: April 2007 Posted: July 06 2008, 20:19 Once again, a stimulating discussion gets me to revisit an album that I've either not played in awhile, or that I've only been listening to bits and pieces of. You guys are great. -------------- "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

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 20:43 Quote (Alan D @ July 06 2008, 12:33) I remember a discussion I had with someone years ago in which he asserted that Mike Oldfield's music couldn't be considered seriously because the electric guitar wasn't a serious musical instrument (because it isn't part of a standard orchestra, I suppose, though I can't remember the details). Alan, your friend was wrong; "serious" composers have used the electric guitar. Sir Michael Tippett is one; he used it in his opera The Knot Garden. (The opera is interesting only to those fairly well versed in musical theory, unfortunately; to others it's well-nigh unlistenable). Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 20:47 Quote (Bassman @ July 06 2008, 12:54) Incidentally, you could be a good one because I find your opinions thoughtful and reasonable and they don't lose sight of the main idea, sort of like a scientist gathering empirical data and presenting them to his collegues for consideration.  Personally, I'm probably too old to be a "critic" because at this stage of my life I won't usually let my brain intrude upon whatever my heart is enjoying. Thanks, Bassman, I do my best! My own critical attitude stems from my experience with precisely the sort of critics you dislike. (My brain is constantly calling on my heart to justify itself! Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 20:54 Quote (Dirk Star @ July 06 2008, 13:45) Take this paragraph from that review linked above for instance.... They seem to be labouring under the impression that Elvis was better after he left Sun. Chaps, he wasn't. He made some bad movies, some crap records, then he died. He stank. Literally, at that point. Dirkstar, the trick is to look for critics who give arguments rather than just assertions. The one you quoted is just saying "x is y", which gives no one any help in working out whether criterion y is applied justly or not to x. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 20:58 Quote (Alan D @ July 06 2008, 17:18) To take the example of 'Man in the Rain'. Many people think this is a pastiche of Moonlight Shadow, and indeed it is; so if you regard it as a song on its own, then of course many people are inclined to declare it to be poor, and a sign of imaginative bankcruptcy. However, if you accept it in the context of this very autobiographically-driven album, and consider that the pastiche may be deliberate, then it becomes a kind of affectionate backwards glance (perhaps with a touch of irony) at a particular moment in the Oldfieldian career, and slots into place like a piece from a jigsaw puzzle. When I listen to TBIII, that's how I 'read' 'Man in the Rain'. In that context, it makes me smile; it makes sense; it adds coherence to the album; I feel as if MO is tipping me a wink and I feel like winking back; Alan, I'm surprised that people can not regard the song the way you describe it; it seems well-nigh undeniable to me. (I wonder if the Blind Man in Maestro is also supposed to be Mike?) I have problems with the song itself, which I've given before and which there's no point in repeating, but yes, it certainly serves a purpose in TB3. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 21:49 Quote (nightspore @ July 06 2008, 20:58) (I wonder if the Blind Man in Maestro is also supposed to be Mike?) The reason I ask this is because of the key inclusion of "Amazing Grace" in "Sunlight Shining through Cloud" on The Millennium Bell; "Amazing Grace" contains, of course, the line "[I] was blind, but now I see". The fact that the portal to the Blind Man's World is just before the entry to Mike's world may well have been a clue to Maestro players seeking entry to the latter. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Aug. 23 2008, 21:00 I've just listened very closely to "Outcast", on a different stereo system. The "Out, demon, out" words are very clear... I also noticed, right at the end, and blending in with the sound of the instruments, the cry of something falling as though from a mountain - far above the clouds. I expect others have noticed this, but it's amazing the difference a different stereo can make. Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1980 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: Aug. 24 2008, 04:25 All I can say is, eliminating the silly techno-pop parts, this was Mike's best reprise of his old climactic sounds and styles. The woman singing like she's crying....the screaming guitar behind that....top of the morning.......some of this is as good as Hergest Ridge. This was Mike's "Art-Rock" comeback after a boring computerized recording era(except TB2 and Voyager), and then after that he returned to it. Great album. Jim -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

HR lover Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Sep. 2010 Posted: Sep. 15 2010, 15:43 For me TBIII sounded cold perhaps even icy, I felt a lack of the warmth I usually hear in MO; It was very aggressive too. I think of the album as not-balanced well. A lot of climaxes out of place to me. That said I can still see the genius of MO in the album, particularly MITR which is great to me. -------------- Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. Back to top

wiga Group: Members Posts: 2113 Joined: Sep. 2008 Posted: Sep. 16 2010, 03:00 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ July 02 2008, 05:55) But during the 90's, especially in that album, he seems to have forgotten that a climax works better when there's something leading up to it. It's not just a little gift at the end of the album, "okay, you've all been such nice, patient kids, now here's the part you've all been waiting for!". As such, Outcast, with that huge swell, sounds very artificial. I'd understand if the layers got thicker and thicker every second, or if the whole song gave you that feeling of "doomsday" approaching (which happens often with Sigur Rós, and their climactic endings almost never sound artificial), but the way it's done, it comes out of nowhere - you're just outta a regular bridge, ready to go back to the chorus, and then "WAKKA-WAKKA-WAKKA-WAKKA-WAKKA-WAKKA" on your head. This is my observation: "The man in the rain picked up his bag of secrets... and nothing was ever heard from him again, except in the sound of Tub-u-lar Bells" -< BANG BANG BANG BANG !!!...> The way I see it is that the *BANG BANG BANG BANG* on the Tubular Bells is a sudden release of emotional energy - most likely grief. When you look at the situation in context - the man  has gone, and nothing was ever heard from him again. That's pretty tough - real abandonment going on, and is bad enough if you're an adult but very distressing if you're a child. So with that kind of emotional response, there usually isn't a gradual build up - it's like an explosion of grief, sorrow, anger, and courage even. -------------- Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon. Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net