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 ]

Sweetpea Group: Members Posts: 1476 Joined: April 2007 Posted: July 02 2008, 03:24 Quote (nightspore @ July 02 2008, 01:18) Rossini (a classical composer) used climaxes a great deal, too, to the extent that a particular kind of climax became known as "the Rossini climax". Perhaps we'll soon be able to talk of "the Oldfield climax"! Nightspore, I usually hear it referred to as "The Rossini Crescendo". Not that "crescendo" and "climax" aren't the same thing here but, after Scatterplot's treatise on Mike's libido, last week, I'm still trying to pull my mind out of the gutter. -------------- "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

trcanberra Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: July 02 2008, 03:57 Quote (nightspore @ July 01 2008, 07:55) The album's feel is very aggressive. It's as though Mike wants to say "these are my demons, but I'm going to bury them and get on with my life". And he does so. I hadn't realised what an appealing piece "Top of the Morning" is, in particular. Also, the title "Serpent Dream" seems to fit "The Outcast" better than the piece it currently names: all those angry, fiery guitar sounds fighting one another; it's quite demonic and very effective. I loved this at first listen - but it impresses me more and more every time I listen to it. It is one of the few MO albums where I can find at least one bit to impress just about any listener who wanders into the house. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: July 02 2008, 05:55 Quote (nightspore @ July 02 2008, 01:18) Sir M, there's a branch of mathematics called "Ramsey Theory" that proves that if you have a domain of sufficient complexity it's possible to find in it any pattern of your choosing. This explains the well known phenomenon of "figures in the carpet", and the ability to find any message you like encoded in the Bible. I suggest that if you're finding resemblances to Mike's music in countless TV programmes and pop songs the only conclusion to be drawn is that you're watching too much TV and listening to too many pop songs. Next point: as I've said before,  it's meaningless to say "such and such melody is a cliche", because by the standards of academic music all melody is a cliche; that's why modern classical music tends to sound like the noisy bits from Amarok.     It has been remarked that the melody of "Sunset" from Light and Shade is similar to a melody from Sibelius's second symphony. Well, Sibelius himself was considered rather old-fashioned, way back in the early twentieth century, for writing Romantic-period style melodies. Why do you have a problem with Mike's use of climaxes? I find them enjoyable, just another one of his instantly-recognizable musical signatures. Rossini (a classical composer) used climaxes a great deal, too, to the extent that a particular kind of climax became known as "the Rossini climax". Perhaps we'll soon be able to talk of "the Oldfield climax"! That you can't take TB3 seriously doesn't really come into it. The record is seriously-intentioned, if only because of the obviously autobiographical references it has. Why not just say "I don't like TB3" and leave it at that? I could see how that could be the case, but I don't really think it is. I watch very, very little TV recently - perhaps that's one evidence towards my ignorance of the whole thing - but it's not really hard to see the general mentality that "chord X sounds extra nice next to chord Y", or that those tiny dissonances cause a highly "emotional" effect every time they're used. Maybe a cliché in itself really doesn't mean much, but I think it means something when a cliché is used as a safe spot, a means for surefire success, the guarantee that the bit will work. Everything is potentially a cliché, but the problem arrives when the whole piece converges towards it - which is what I think of The Inner Child, when that whole next chorus sounds like huge, enormous, neon laden arrows pointing at that five note hook. Alas, I shouldn't formally have any problem with Oldfield's climaxes, because he used them often in his career, and in several pieces. 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. Even Taurus 3 had a slight build-up effect towards the choruses, and the extremely loud banging was just a humorous exaggeration, like a caricature. Outcast is like what the caricature looks like when there's little or no humour involved. Ok, I admit talking in detail like this is far, far better than dropping in a rather obscure "joke" rant, and about the final question; I get disappointed when I have an opinion and cannot formalise or justify it, just like if someone said "Amarok sucks BECAUSE!!", and cared not to explain. I think it's fair to just try to say I dislike Tubular Bells III for these, these and these reasons, and like I said somewhere else once - I only bother going to such lengths of justification because I overall like Mike Oldfield so much. -------------- 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

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 02 2008, 07:45 Korgscrew, you've made some marvelous points here - what a pity you've explored them fully, rather than teased the group with them, in order to prolong the discussion! The point you raise about the resemblance between the Sibelius melody and "Sunset" is also thought-provoking, in that it invites the question: at what point does a melody become a copy of another: two notes? Surely not. Three... Four? What if they're played with wildly different timing? This is where the point I raised with regard to Ramsey Theory becomes interesting, because if there are no absolute objective criteria to say that melody x is a copy of melody y,then the percipient must also be factored into the assessment. There are occasions when I've been sure that a melody I've heard is a copy of another, only to be told I'm hearing things.... I'd argue that it doesn't matter if someone copies a melody (assuming that it is meaningful even to say this); what counts is what is done with it. To take a parallel example, all Shakespeare's plays are reworkings of other people's plots. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 02 2008, 07:48 Quote (Sweetpea @ July 02 2008, 03:24) I usually hear it referred to as "The Rossini Crescendo". Not that "crescendo" and "climax" aren't the same thing here but, after Scatterplot's treatise on Mike's libido, last week, I'm still trying to pull my mind out of the gutter. Whoops, you're right. Maybe my mind is in the gutter as well. Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: July 02 2008, 08:10 Quote (nightspore @ July 02 2008, 13:45) The point you raise about the resemblance between the Sibelius melody and "Sunset" is also thought-provoking, in that it invites the question: at what point does a melody become a copy of another: two notes? Surely not. Three... Four? What if they're played with wildly different timing? [...] I'd argue that it doesn't matter if someone copies a melody (assuming that it is meaningful even to say this); what counts is what is done with it. To take a parallel example, all Shakespeare's plays are reworkings of other people's plots. I totally agree here, and I think I've talked about this before somewhere on this forum. The way I see it, a similar, even identical, melody means very little; it's all in the arrangement, feel, and certain other elements that make up the overall appearance of the piece... I'd say if someone copies someone elses sound exactly but puts a different melody to it, that's probably more of a "rip-off" than if someone, even intentionally, takes someone else's melody, but does something different with it (though I wouldn't use that exact word even there - I'd perhaps call it a "pastiche" or something similar instead). A truely original, unique melody is a rare thing anyway (at least if we are talking about tonal music in even meter); most of them are variations on ones that have existed before in one form or another. Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: July 05 2008, 21:38 In agreement here on the "rip-off" point.  And even if someone doesn't have a completely original idea (like that's even possible anymore), then I will still appreciate a piece if it's at least arranged and presented in a halfway original way-with enthusiasm and sincerity.  Oft-mentioned case in point... Bolan. TBIII is a good solid work, an evolution and update for a new time.  Sometimes it takes a while to work it's charms on people.  And this is from a guy that first heard MITR in the local HMV and thought it was a parody!  It's great, for all the reasons the other members here have posted. To all you TBIII detractors... you can do better?  Not bloody likely. -------------- Turn up the music... Hi as Fi can go. Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: July 06 2008, 05:07 I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentiments there, Bassman. There are very few here (or elsewhere, for that matter) that could come to the level of MO in any way (you know who you are   ) and I have seen many posts here that seem to just say "this is crud, I could do better! So yeah, I've said "go on then!" plenty of times before. The thing we all have to remember that appreciation is an entirely subjective entity. 5 years ago, I would have emphatically hated anything that had a dance beat to it. Now, as I have grown as an individual, and have found new ways to relate to different styles of music, there is a place for that style within me. I feel that with my musical appreciation I lag behind more than others - it takes me ages to "get" a new musical concept sometimes. On the other hand, I've always advocated "each to their own" and so if someone wants to listen to something I wouldn't personally choose to, good luck to them. -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: July 06 2008, 06:32 Quote (arron11196 @ July 06 2008, 10:07) The thing we all have to remember that appreciation is an entirely subjective entity. Not only subjective, but also multidimensional.... Do you remember the little discussion we had a few days ago, Arron, about the effect of an equipment upgrade? I had just changed my amplifier (to a NAD C355BEE, driving LS3/5A speakers), and was totally unprepared for the transformation of sound quality when I slipped Tr3s Lunas in, just to test that I'd set everything up correctly. The effect of this transformed system when I put TBIII into the player was quite shattering. The sheer scrumptious sensual impact of the sounds in the introduction was astonishing. The thunderclap made me want to look out of the window to see the lightning. Each instrument came in with a delicacy and precision that I'd certainly never heard before, taking up positions in the stereo sound stage that were so solid and securely defined as to seem almost tangible. The music didn't just play: it seemed to inhabit the air in the room, like something living. My daughter commented that it was like having Mike Oldfield performing a concert in the room. I feel as if I've never really heard TBIII before - or rather, as if I've been listening to it down a telephone line -  and this new articulation of the sound will certainly change the way I listen to it in future. The purely physical, sensual, voluptuous element of it seems entirely new, and must surely play a part in understanding and appreciating it. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 08:01 Quote (Bassman @ July 05 2008, 21:38) To all you TBIII detractors... you can do better?  Not bloody likely. Playing devil's advocate here for a moment, Bassman, if it were necessary for a critic to be able "to do the job" better than the artist no one would ever be able to criticize Shakespeare or Mozart (and we need to be able criticize Shakespeare, for example, otherwise we'd find ourselves just as likely to be sitting through Titus Andronicus as King Lear! Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 08:03 Quote (Alan D @ July 06 2008, 06:32) Quote (arron11196 @ July 06 2008, 10:07) The thing we all have to remember that appreciation is an entirely subjective entity. Partly subjective, but not completely. If it were completely subjective, no one would be able to reach any kind of agreement at all about the arts, because everyone would be seeing completely different things. As Kant argued, there's a bit of the subjective and a bit of the objective involved. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: July 06 2008, 11:46 I agree that many people may reach a consensus about a piece of art, but could you possibly make the whole world reach the same consensus? And breaking the constraint of populational limit, could you get infinite people to reach a consensus (man, this computer science stuff is really getting into my head)? What I mean is, okay, maybe it's not entirely subjective, but the objective factor isn't all too reliable, I believe. Anyway, as for "doing it better", it really depends on who's judging what is better, I guess. So, if you really have to "do better" in the opinion of a diehard Tubular Bells III fan, you're really in for a lose-lose situation, aren't you? -------------- 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

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: July 06 2008, 12:33 I think what Arron is really saying is that when all the discussions are done, ultimately the whole business comes down to this person, engaged with this piece of music, here and now. And although, yes, it's true (even remarkably so) that we can compare our responses and find them, often, to be similar, there's no escaping the fact that for this individual, listening with rapt attention and deep satisfaction to Tubular Bells III, all the arguments in the world about whether it's good or bad are not only worthless but irrelevant. That act of attending and engaging, and our consequent transportation beyond the confines of our 'normal' selves through the fascinating power and mystery of art, is the reason why art exists at all. It's at this point (and I think this is what Arron meant) where the process becomes purely subjective, even if our listening has been affected by something we've read or talked about before hand. There might be a better way of expressing that, but I can't think of one at present. Sir Mustapha said: Quote the objective factor isn't all too reliable, I believe. I agree. People will only agree about these 'objective' values in art provided they're working from the same rulebook.  But great artists do have a way of rewriting the rule book, and if we stick with the old one, we just won't get it. 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). As long as he clung to that view, to that particular rulebook, it would be impossible for him ever to understand about MO. That's a rather superficial example, but those kind of prejudices (often unstated and hidden) can make it difficult to proceed with a sensible discussion. Best, at such times, to just switch on the hifi and listen (subjectively, of course) ..... Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: July 06 2008, 12:54 @ Nightspore.  Your comment on critics is interesting.  For myself, I couldn't care less what critics say, because I learned a long time ago that very few of them are capable of the kind of objectivity required to be of any use to me.  They, as a species, continually try to insert their own agendas into the issues to the point where they haven't really told me anything about the work in question, just their personal feelings about it.  And while there's often nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't do anything for me.  I want a critic to describe a work in as broad terms as possible, leaving me to make up my own mind about it after I've explored it.  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.  I will either like something, or not like it, or feel so-so about it.  When my brain starts trying to get too analytical about it, that's when the buzzkill can set in.  This is all probably a bit too far removed from the point you were making, so my apologies for rambling. I care even less what the whole world says, particularly as it applies to one Mr. Oldfield.  I am a devoted fan and student of his work because I love his music, not because the rest of the world loves his music.  If I didn't like it, then a MO forum would be a weird place for me to be, wouldn't it?  If I could do better, then the name of this place might be "Bassman Forums".  But I can't, and it's not, and that suits me just fine. -------------- Turn up the music... Hi as Fi can go. Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: July 06 2008, 13:45 It`s a strange thing but sometimes I can read a completely negative review of an album and then find something in that review to make me think.."Hey that sounds like a good album, I might like that." I recently read  this review in the Guardian which prompted me to seek out the band (Vincent And The Villains) on youtube.Bassman talks about personal agendas there or basicaly just reviewers ego tripping for me.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. What the hell is that supposed to be man in this bloody day and age.I`m not the biggest Elvis Presley fan in the world I`ll admit.And in all honesty I probably do prefer a lot of his early Sun recordings to most of his later albums.But I know of numerous die hard Elvis fans,many of them reviewers themselves in fact who will tell you that Elvis Presley did`nt start to record his "best" work until the early 1970`s.You would think somebody reviewing a rock n` roll "style" album in a supposed "broadsheet" newspaper would be at least aware of that would`nt you?You know surely they would`nt just do that sort of thing in an attempt to wind these people up a little bit?       Equally pathetic and perverse is their rehabilitation of all those genres that should remain six feet under, like skiffle, rockabilly, doo wop and barbershop harmony pop. That`s a whole lot of genres he`s just chucking out the window with complete and utter contempt imo.If you don`t like it fine,but pathetic and perverse?? Come on man.You know Johnny Kidd & The Pirates never got to record an album throughout their entire seven year career.And if there had been reviewers like this guy around in the 60`s,I dare say they would`nt have made too many singles either. Anyway on an entirely different note reading Alan D`s post about his new amp here has reminded me I definetly need to upgrade my own hi-fi system some time soon.There are many musical swells on TB 3 for instance that my own speakers just kind of give up the ghost on unfortunatly.You know I`m just kind of guessing what it`s supposed to sound like when I play it at a certain volume I suppose.Ah one day soon..one day soon... Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: July 06 2008, 14:13 Quote (nightspore @ July 06 2008, 13:03) Quote (Alan D @ July 06 2008, 06:32) Quote (arron11196 @ July 06 2008, 10:07) The thing we all have to remember that appreciation is an entirely subjective entity. Partly subjective, but not completely. If it were completely subjective, no one would be able to reach any kind of agreement at all about the arts, because everyone would be seeing completely different things. As Kant argued, there's a bit of the subjective and a bit of the objective involved. I disagree with Kant's sentiments then. Let me paraphrase. This is quoted from a book I can't remember, but it helped me clarify: "There are several bees sitting on a stained glass window. Each can see in and view the heavenly Christ straddled upon his cross. One bee is sitting on a yellow piece of glass. "Ooh, Christ is yellow. Golden like the sun that gives us life." Another is on a green piece of glass "Ah no, he is green - like the trees, the grasses, nature. He is our world around us." Another is on a red piece of glass. "Ah no, he is red - the colour of beautiful serene roses and the lifeblood of all animals. He is what we live and breathe. He is life.". My point is that anyone can take anything away from an album. I'm not considering how "good" an album is - that "objectiveness" is besides what I'm trying to say here. Each of the bees can have their own view on Christ, and every person can hear a slightly different entity within any recording, because it literally reflects off of the soul - the listeners' individuality - and so can never be objective. I stick by my ground. I believe that no one person can ever be objective about a subjective process. When a DJ or an article writer decides to publish his opinions, it can be mostly agreed with. But that's still relying on most of the people reading that article to actually agree... There is no objective element. What your paying for is someone's objective analysis of a subjective creature - which is impossible as far as I'm concerned. I respect your right to an opinion. I just don't agree with it. -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

Inkanta Group: Admins Posts: 1453 Joined: Feb. 2000 Posted: July 06 2008, 14:35 Interesting discussion, all! Of course, the thing I love about TBIII, all subjectivity, objectivity, compression, Sibelius, etc. aside, is that it is sooooooo much fun to dance! I haven't ever had more fun choreographing anything than that in my entire life! Lots of different styles! MITR comes at a perfect point, dance-wise, because physically you need something less intense. Thanks, Mike!  Actually, many, many years ago, my kids & a few others worked on the choreography with me for MITR and did a good job of it. It's been awhile since I danced to the CD and the steps are slipping away, yikes! I don't have it written down. @Bassman re: the Bassman Forums. Hahaha! Actually, you'd probably either attract a bunch of bass players or bass fishermen. Hmm....why is bass guitar pronounced "base" but bass as in "bass" fish rhymes with "grass?"  Too much for my tired brain to contemplate. Guess I'm off to dance to TBIII before it's too late. -------------- "No such thing as destiny; only choices exist." From:  Moongarden's "Solaris." Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: July 06 2008, 15:26 Quote (Dirk Star @ July 06 2008, 18:45) I know of numerous die hard Elvis fans,many of them reviewers themselves in fact who will tell you that Elvis Presley did`nt start to record his "best" work until the early 1970`s. I could argue a long and highly detailed case for the idea that the central moment in the history of rock music occurred during the '68 Comeback TV Special, when Elvis was wearing that leather suit, y'know? - and while he was singing the most transcendent version of 'Tryin' To Get To You' ever performed, in a sudden intuitive movement the music drove him upwards, trying to get out of his chair, but his guitar had no strap, so he could only rise a short distance before sitting down again, ... and in that fleeting moment of anguished indecision, rock 'n roll teetered on the brink..... I say I could argue such a case, and I could, and I'd love doing it, but it would be neither more nor less objectively 'true' than your Guardian critic's rant about the post-Sun Elvis, Mick. Some people (those who felt the poignant, tremulous power of that moment) would read it, nodding all the way through and sighing 'if only'; but those for whom the moment meant nothing would simply wonder what all the fuss was about. As Solzhenitsyn says in Ivan Denisovitch: 'How can a man who's warm understand a man who's cold?' He meant something different, but it comes down to this in the end. The impulse that makes Inkanta dance to TBIII is a complete mystery to anyone who doesn't feel it, and no attempt at rationalisation will ever make it otherwise. But if we could be there and watch Inkanta dance (and maybe even join in) ... well, that might make all the difference, where a thousand critics would fail. (Put the kettle on, Mary-Carol - several dozen Tubular.netters are on their way...) Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: July 06 2008, 16:01 Fair comment Alan.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`m not that fond of Presley`s 70`s material myself from what I`ve heard.But I`m not going to sit here and say it "stank" just so I can lead in to a sub-par "Elvis is dead" gag.Does that make me more objective in some way?You know I take your point,maybe it does`nt.I`d like to think it leaves me curious still though,even now.And even without some of my own limited knowledge on the subject.And as for dancing about to MITR,well I`ve always been something of an air guitar man myself.Two left feet and all that.I dare say that`s a middle aged admission to put anyone off.     Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: July 06 2008, 16:06 Oh I'm right with you there Dirk Star. Most people need a team of specialists in HASMATs after I attempt to move to music.   -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) 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