nightspore
Group: Members
Posts: 4761
Joined: Mar. 2008 |
 |
Posted: Jan. 26 2011, 04:01 |
 |
| Quote (bob the screamer @ Jan. 26 2011, 03:48) | Thank you for the welcome and the black adder reference  . Well, I feel that in all the work after the 90's, he has not put the same amount of attention to details in the music. This is of course just another way of making music, but I don't feel the same complexity, dynamic and variation have been present in the last 20 years or so, and these are the characteristics I really like in Mike's music. I don't want to be provocative, this is just my personal opinion  |
I like you, young Bob, you've got *****
Seriously, it could be that you're equating quality with the length of the works, and observing that because Mr O hasn't produced any long pieces for a while he's on the decline. But that would be like saying that because late period Beethoven didn't produce much orchestral work (except for the 9th symphony and the Missa Solemnis) he too was on the decline. But it's generally accepted now (although it wasn't then) that Beethoven's third period works are his best. In my opinion - and to give just one example - Mike Oldfield has seldom produced anything as original and exquisitely constructed as the recent little piece "Firefly".
|
) Why should Mr O have "peaked"? The usual trend for composers is for their music to get better and better (with a few bumps along the way) as they learn more and more about their art. I can think of only one composer who is considered not to fall into that pattern, and that's Mendelssohn.