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

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

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 22 2008, 12:56 Quote (nightspore @ June 22 2008, 08:36) That was certainly true once, Alan: art theory, literary theory etc explored many directions in the twentieth century, finally reaching the conclusion, with the poststructuralists, that everything is or can be art. I'm not arguing with this conclusion, but I submit it's not a very useful one, simply because if everything is art the word 'art' becomes meaningless (in the same way that taking riding lessons becomes impossible if the word 'horse' can mean anything). The difference, I believe, is not in one thing being art, but in people seeing the art in it. Art only becomes effective is someone responds to it, so I think it's indeed a bit useless trying to predict what can be art (or rather what can't be), but taking the "art" that's already out there and analysing the art in it (which is basically what Alan is proposing). In the end, it all comes to the difficulty with dealing objectively what is inherently subjective. Quote But how could you know it's the same process, or the same experience? Let's not assume that it's the exact same process, but we're talking about two processes of self-discovery that aren't identical but equivalent. Everyday we learn something about ourselves. It's the same thing, but it happens differently, depending on the person, the moment, why it happened and all; and it's a process that can eventually become merged with everything that's going on around us. I'm not saying that's what happens every time you listen to music, but it can happen. Think of an extreme opposite: if an album like Amarok eventually tipped you over the edge into a fit of rage and violence, I believe it's not because the album is all raging and violent, but maybe you just needed something to drive you there - like a huge brass stab that made you fall off the chair. Someone else may never experience that with Amarok, but he might go through exactly that when sitting next to a guy on a bus who's babbling loudly on his cell phone for 30 minutes straight. Yes, I'm only really making suppositions. Whether you'll use them or not is something else entirely. -------------- 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: June 22 2008, 15:33 Quote (nightspore @ June 22 2008, 13:36) I'm not arguing with this conclusion, but I submit it's not a very useful one, simply because if everything is art the word 'art' becomes meaningless (in the same way that taking riding lessons becomes impossible if the word 'horse' can mean anything). Ah, but that's your conclusion, not mine. I never said (nor do I believe) that everything is art. What I'm claiming, based not on any theory, but simply by observation of the history of art, is that it's impossible at any given time to predict what the next great artist may do, or what means he may use to do it. That's not even an arguable point - it's just an observation about what has been happening during the history of Western art. I see no reason why we would wish to limit what means Mike Oldfield uses to make his music, even if that includes the use of coded messages. After all, once the existence of the coded message has 'leaked out' (presumably not by chance), one's perception of that part of the music will change. In the hands of a great artist, that perception change could be made artistically significant. I'm not saying that it is in the case of Amarok, but that it's at least a matter for debate, and that it would be foolish (and not even necessary) to dismiss the possibility. I think you think I'm arguing from some theory-based postmodern standpoint here, Daniel, but I'm not. I'm just looking back at the great breakthroughs in the history of art, and observing that in many, many cases, the pre-existing rulebook has been found to be wanting. If we don't learn from that - if we don't at least remain open to the possibility of new modes of expression, then art dies. In fact, in periods when academicism steps in and attempts to define what constitutes 'good art' (think, Royal Academy, 1840s, or the French Salon perhaps a little later), that is indeed when art tends to stagnate and, if not die, at least become enfeebled. Quote CS Lewis was a fine theorist, but I see no reason to privilege his views over FR Leavis or Wimsatt and Beardsley or even Derrida. I'm not putting Lewis forward as some kind of authority. I just regard his idea as an interesting one that actually does seem to work pretty well when one is trying to make sense of this minefield. Quote most theorists have backtracked from the extreme relativist view of art, simply because if anything can be art, also anyone can be an art critic Lewis's idea is really only faintly related to what one would normally regard as relativism, and in any case I don't think I need to fix a label on it. I just think it's helpful as a tool of thought. But these other views - that anything can be art, and anyone can be a critic - they are not my views, and neither do they follow from anything I said, so I don't know what to say about them (except to agree with you about their absurdity). Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 22 2008, 15:48 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 22 2008, 17:56) Someone else may never experience that with Amarok, but he might go through exactly that when sitting next to a guy on a bus who's babbling loudly on his cell phone for 30 minutes straight. Yes, I'm only really making suppositions. Whether you'll use them or not is something else entirely. Maybe we can clarify this by introducing something else that Lewis talks about in his book - he talks about the difference between "using" art (where the observer brings his own preconceptions to the art, bounces around within the confines of those preconceptions for a bit of a thrill, and leaves unchanged), and "surrendering" to the art (where the observer tries to clear his preconceptions out of the way in order to try to receive as clearly as possible what the artist is saying). Which process is occurring in any given instance is up to the observer (or listener) - yes, that's surely right. What I would say, though, is that if we encourage the listener to describe his experience, we will likely be able to reach a conclusion about whether he was a "user" (in which case I wouldn't give much weight to his opinion, because really all he saw in the encounter was a reflection of himself) or a "surrenderer" (who may have really seen something of what the artist was trying to express, so I'd be much more interested in what he had to say). There's no hope of it ever becoming a precise science, of course! Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: June 22 2008, 17:49 On the other hand... Hey, Raven!... I think it's a cool album, too!  Cheers, and Happy Belated!  Forgot to say that before. Back to top

Sweetpea Group: Members Posts: 1476 Joined: April 2007 Posted: June 22 2008, 18:56 Belated birthday greetings to you, raven4x4x. It sounds like you had a memorable experience for your 21st. Quote Alan and a few others here have used the metaphor of 'throwing his toys out of the pram' to describe the crazier sections, but that's not the feeling I get. That implies a sense of recklessness, doing something mad in the heat of the moment and not caring what it is, and I don't think that's what has happened here. I feel that everything in this album has been carefully planned and thought through. I agree with you, raven4x4x. I can see how it could come across as a tantrum, but - like you - I take the view that it's more complex than that - that the noise is there for deliberate effect rather than as impulsive outburst. The question of whether or not it's 'art' is very interesting. I believe this debate is specific to the odd moments rather than the whole, as I assume most would agree that the majority of Amarok is of high musical value? This reminds me of a previous discussion regarding Postmodernism in Mike's work, and this may tie in with my opinion about the validity of noise and messages (and in this case, including morse code) in music, and that is that sometimes the message is the art. I'm thinking of poetry and rap music, and while I have no great love for the latter, I do acknowledge its legitimacy (or at least some of it! ) as art. I'm not saying that Amarok is just one big 'F.O.' directed at the forces that would push and constrain the artist (though I could respect it and still see the art in it, if it were), but sometimes I wonder if those "crazier" moments are given too much importance by listeners? -------------- "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

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 22 2008, 19:05 Quote (Sweetpea @ June 22 2008, 23:56) sometimes I wonder if those "crazier" moments are given too much importance by listeners? Obviously it depends on the listener - but their importance, for me, is that I've never been able to cope with them. Those noises and wacky bits, which for many are perfectly acceptable, for me are ruinous to my enjoyment of the music. I'm willing to admit that they may be an integral part of an artistic whole (which is what I've been discussing with Sir M and nightspore to the edge of tedium and beyond) - but I don't see it myself; they spoil the rest of the (marvellous) music, for me - and that's why they loom so large. Back to top

Sweetpea Group: Members Posts: 1476 Joined: April 2007 Posted: June 22 2008, 19:27 Quote (Alan D @ June 22 2008, 19:05) Obviously it depends on the listener - but their importance, for me, is that I've never been able to cope with them. Those noises and wacky bits, which for many are perfectly acceptable, for me are ruinous to my enjoyment of the music. Yes, Alan, I recall your wonderful description of the ticking watch at the opera, which excellently conveyed the high annoyance factor of Amarok's noisy bits. I suppose it's akin to the loud, frequent, and nerve-grating sniffing next to me when I was at the cinema watching "The Two Towers". I could have strangled my sister. -------------- "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: June 22 2008, 23:47 Quote (Alan D @ June 22 2008, 15:33) What I'm claiming, based not on any theory, but simply by observation of the history of art, is that it's impossible at any given time to predict what the next great artist may do, or what means he may use to do it. That's not even an arguable point - it's just an observation about what has been happening during the history of Western art. I see no reason why we would wish to limit what means Mike Oldfield uses to make his music, even if that includes the use of coded messages. After all, once the existence of the coded message has 'leaked out' (presumably not by chance), one's perception of that part of the music will change. In the hands of a great artist, that perception change could be made artistically significant. I'm not saying that it is in the case of Amarok, but that it's at least a matter for debate, and that it would be foolish (and not even necessary) to dismiss the possibility. I think you think I'm arguing from some theory-based postmodern standpoint here, Daniel, but I'm not. I'm just looking back at the great breakthroughs in the history of art, and observing that in many, many cases, the pre-existing rulebook has been found to be wanting. If we don't learn from that - if we don't at least remain open to the possibility of new modes of expression, then art dies. In fact, in periods when academicism steps in and attempts to define what constitutes 'good art' (think, Royal Academy, 1840s, or the French Salon perhaps a little later), that is indeed when art tends to stagnate and, if not die, at least become enfeebled. Quote CS Lewis was a fine theorist, but I see no reason to privilege his views over FR Leavis or Wimsatt and Beardsley or even Derrida. I'm not putting Lewis forward as some kind of authority. I just regard his idea as an interesting one that actually does seem to work pretty well when one is trying to make sense of this minefield. Quote most theorists have backtracked from the extreme relativist view of art, simply because if anything can be art, also anyone can be an art critic Lewis's idea is really only faintly related to what one would normally regard as relativism, and in any case I don't think I need to fix a label on it. I just think it's helpful as a tool of thought. But these other views - that anything can be art, and anyone can be a critic - they are not my views, and neither do they follow from anything I said, so I don't know what to say about them (except to agree with you about their absurdity). I agree with all this, which leads me to suggest that probably we're using the word 'art' in different ways. When I use the word I'm talking about some aspect that forms an organic part of the work: a theme that gets returned to, or is developed - the way those marvelous motifs are returned to and developed in TB2. The Richard Branson message in Amarok is not in that category: it serves a different purpose (to let the listener know that Mike is annoyed with RB). Others are quite free to use the word 'art' in a freeror different sense, of course. Indeed, the dadaists would probably see Amarok as a perfect work of art, precisely because according to their definition art can have non-organic aspects. You pays your money and you gets your theory. But I think most people  incline towards an organic view of art. Sir M, for example, I think criticised "Four Winds" because its pieces didn't talk to one another enough. Kant believed the organic artistic perception process is 'wired into' us, and I think he's right. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 22 2008, 23:59 The interesting this is that the musical parts of Amarok are organic: think of the way the "so far" theme is constantly explored from different angles, rather like the way a diamond can turned over so that we may enjoy the play of light from different angles. But this organicism throws the "noise" aspects of the piece into sharper relief. I quite enjoy the noise aspects from a chutzpah point of view - but equally I wouldn't mind if they weren't there. It's a pity they spoil the album for Alan. Back to top

TubularBelle Group: Members Posts: 1487 Joined: April 2004 Posted: June 23 2008, 00:27 God how I wish I could express intelligently how I feel about AMAROK, maybe I can't simply because it is purely an emotional experience or maybe I can't simply because I am too lazy to try and come up with a series of words that would describe how I feel about this album in a way that would clearly define HOW MUCH I love it, but it has always been my favourite and it always will be and I love to read others descriptions of it, most of which I agree with indubetibly (sorry, was trying to think of that word the little chipmunks use to say to each other). All I can say is that people who truly LOVE Amarok, truly LOVE Life. -------------- I hate getting up early. I didn't even realise there were two 6 o'clocks in one day! Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 23 2008, 04:00 Quote (nightspore @ June 23 2008, 04:47) Kant believed the organic artistic perception process is 'wired into' us, and I think he's right. Oh yes, so do I, most certainly. A few years ago I curated an exhibition designed to illustrate precisely that principle, and yes that is indeed at the root of my difficulties with Amarok - that the Amarok sapling is trying to grow like a tree, but keeps getting hacked down. Even so, and even though I would argue passionately in favour of the power of organicism, I'm aware that art is bigger than any single theory of it. (There's no point in telling someone who is having an exhilarating and enriching encounter with a work of art that he's mistaken because it isn't organic. The experience of art must always have precedence over any theory about it.) For example, I think everything I've contributed in this thread is relatively worthless compared with Alex's original post. He was reporting from the front line, where the action is. I'm just watching from an observation balloon. What I discovered during the year or so that I was preparing my exhibition, was that organicism can extend almost as far as one wants to take it, even into some very surprising places. And that's why I retain an open mind about Amarok, and continue to pay attention to what people say about it - particularly when they're talking about a quality of unity that I can't (yet) perceive myself. Back to top

Matt Group: Admins Posts: 1186 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: June 23 2008, 04:46 Quote (Alan D @ June 23 2008, 00:05) Those noises and wacky bits, which for many are perfectly acceptable, for me are ruinous to my enjoyment of the music. I always think of Amarok as a story so these wacky bits of noise just become a part of the story for me. Even the most unpleasant wacky noises work for me because I have matched them to unpleasant aspects of my story! Works for me   -------------- "I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels" Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: June 23 2008, 07:55 Not really an answer to some of the debate here I suppose but I always really liked that "morse code" section of Amarok even before I knew what it meant.I think I was always pretty sure that it meant something.Partly because Mike was by no means the first artist to use morse code in that manner within a musical piece.The Stranglers did a similar thing on their Black & White album released in 1978 which I was later informed by a former radio op in the Royal Navy translated as.."This is planet earth..we are f***ed please advise!" I`m kind of wondering would some people still feel something had been maybe comprimised during this section if he`d used a tape loop of a backwards vocal?Or if it had been sung in a language we were unfamiliar with?A language of Mike`s own making perhaps?..     I don`t know? I can see the arguements from both sides of the discussion here.I`d just like to add that I`ve always quite liked the sound and rhythem of morse code myself.It`s kind of in the box there along with steam trains,old fashioned typewriters,and foghorns! Incidentaly my favourite hidden message of all time appears on the Girlschool album Hit & Run in the form of a backwards vocal towards the end of the last song.So of course out of pure curiosity you put your finger on the record and turn that thing into reverse.And there it is as clear as a bell..."Ere don`t yer know you`re ruining your needle!" Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4761 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 23 2008, 08:15 Quote (Alan D @ June 23 2008, 04:00) I'm aware that art is bigger than any single theory of it. (There's no point in telling someone who is having an exhilarating and enriching encounter with a work of art that he's mistaken because it isn't organic. The experience of art must always have precedence over any theory about it.) It's possible that two different sources of pleasure are in operation at the same time, and the fact that we're engaging with one piece makes us think the experience is similarly unified. Personally, I get a different kind of pleasure from the "noise" in Amarok from what I get when I listen to the musical parts. When the noises are on you get a kind of admiration for Mike's personality, that he's willing to risk all - even the music itself - just for the hell of it. It's the kind of pleasure we get when we see someone doing some brave stunt. But the emotion that emanates from some of the musical passages is far higher, far more transcendent - almost as if the deity itself were looking over Mike's shoulder when he was composing. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 23 2008, 13:17 I think I see what you mean now, Nightspore, and especially with that last post, I think we're on the same thing but expressing it differently. I can't say I enjoy the whole album the same way, which is different from seeing it as an unified whole. Perhaps it's true that the Morse code section is something "external" injected into the music, almost like an advert break in the middle of a film, or something. But defining whether it "fits in" artistically in the album is a personal affair, isn't it? After all, we could see the "message" as just another of those literal expressions of Mike's "self" inside the album. It is a form of expression, and the variable is how we personally interpret it. The annoying thing here is that, even though I think I see the source of Alan's conflict, and I can see exactly the picture I have of the album in my head, I don't think it's nice to keep shooting interpretations and allegories at him like mad; it sounds even a bit impolite, like those guys shoving pamphlets on you on the street or something; but, goshdarnit, I can see it perfectly! I mean, the sapling being hacked down is a good imagery, because it suggests a tree growing upwards; I think the best vision of Amarok is of a tree growing downwards, from all the different leaves and branches slowly getting unified into one big, solid trunk, firm on the ground. Another allegory is that of one of those fractal animations, but instead of zooming into the details of the fractal, we're zooming out, with those details and intricacies flying to all sides at first, but then becoming more solid and unified, until it all makes sense. Of course, a tree has a very fractal shape, so both allegories are equivalent - I could make a lengthy mathematical proof here, but I'll shut my mouth and just say Q.E.D.. -------------- 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: June 23 2008, 16:02 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 23 2008, 18:17) even though I think I see the source of Alan's conflict, and I can see exactly the picture I have of the album in my head, I don't think it's nice to keep shooting interpretations and allegories at him like mad; It's what I want, actually, Sir M. The more clearly you can articulate the nature of your own experience, the more I can understand the kind of experience you're having, and the more likely I am (perhaps) to gain some extra insight myself the next time I listen to it. No bad idea, that one of turning my tree on its head - it's a graphic bit of imagery, at any rate, and overall I'd say this post of yours may well be as good a description as I can hope for. Certainly I do recognise, at the end of the whole piece, that there is some kind of resolution - a feeling that we've been high enough to get glimpses of heaven, and deep enough to get a thorough scaring from hell, and we're still alive to tell the tale, so let's celebrate and wrap it all up. In that sense, I can see the unity of the piece - not so much a musical unity, as a narrative unity. Maybe that's at least part of the insight I'm looking for. It relates, too, to Matt's comment about approaching Amarok as if it were a kind of story. Looked at in that light, all the wacky stuff certainly can be seen as part of the conscious (and subconscious) art-creating process. Quite a thought: Amarok as abstract music-drama/collage! I suppose my grumblings are really all about the fact that while I was still on the journey, I wasn't always having a very nice time, even though everything turned out right in the end. Back to top

smillsoid Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Dec. 2008 Posted: April 10 2009, 14:44 Best instrumental album ever.  That's all that needs to be said, and I am NOT a man of few words. -------------- http://www.reverbnation.com/simonjmills Back to top

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

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net