Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]


Question: The cover :: Total Votes:21
Poll choices Votes Statistics
I like it. 6  [28.57%]
I love it!! 4  [19.05%]
I don't care about it 5  [23.81%]
I rather dislike it 4  [19.05%]
It's horrible! 2  [9.52%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

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

Topic: The cover, Do you like it or dislike it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
wiga Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sep. 2008
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 08:13

Quote (bee @ Nov. 25 2010, 22:29)
AND I have been listening to the album more just lately, it is a very strong piece of work in my view. I'm hearing and feeling more with each listen. I'd be more than a little bit interested if he ever decided to do anything similar again.  He can easily be considered a classical composer.

I am beginning to feel as protective towards it as I do to Ommadawn. Tubular Bells and Amarok are my other two favourites but they can stand up for themselves I think!  Ommadawn and Music of the Spheres have a little vulnerability about them. Weird, but it's how I feel!

I've also been listening to MoTS more this year, and it's growing on ME with each listen.

Feels like 'classical music'; - it's a long, serious, instrumental piece, with a full orchestra and solo parts. It appeals to the cognitions as well as the senses...

Has anyone else listened to MoTS this year?


--------------
Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Delfín Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 667
Joined: Nov. 2000
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 08:26

Adding up to this debate a bit extra the initial subject, I would say with no doubt I conceive 'Music of the Spheres' as an actual, or at least, a trying-to-be, classical work.


I'm not a classical expert, but to me it sounds as a real conventionally classical exercise. I know some moods aren't conventional at all, but what do you expect about a man who's a contemporary musician with contemporary discography and contemporary influences; having said this, it is not by any terms any form of avant-garde nor even tries to be, as Mike uses really standard tools as classical instruments, choirs that sound really vintage old, and not a single drumkit or synthed sound in all the score, or any kind of modern dissonence or strange thing the way Stockhausen and other more classical composers such as Bartok may have done.


It is as well conformed with a spirit I always believed is common in all, or most of the classical music of the past: the search for pure beauty. Is is with no doubt the aim in this album, which links it to the body of yestarday's classical symphonic music.


So I would dare to say it is genuine contemporary classical music. With no doubt.


--------------
The most precious thing I possess, is knowing the answer's yes
Back to top
Profile PM 
larstangmark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 08:40

Aimed at the brain? Does that mean that classical music has some sort of objective quality that can be perceived through correct understanding?
There might be rules and formal structures and all that in classical music, but do you mean that the correct use of classical music is to understand it? I don't buy that for one second. Music does not have any other quality besides the joy and pleasure it brings the listener. That is especially true for classical music (it might not be true for worker's songs sung in the fields though). Possibly, appreciating the music on some sort of intellectual level (which is joy too!;) ca bring us extra joy by making us feeling special and educated. The thrill of "getting it"...haha  :laugh:


--------------
"There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste"
Mark E Smith
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 09:19

Quote (wiga @ Nov. 27 2010, 14:13)
Has anyone else listened to MoTS this year?

I did. Twice. :)

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
wiga Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sep. 2008
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 12:28

Quote (Ugo @ Nov. 27 2010, 14:19)
Quote (wiga @ Nov. 27 2010, 14:13)
Has anyone else listened to MoTS this year?

I did. Twice. :)

Thanks Ugo.

Hands up anyone else?


--------------
Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon.
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 17:44

Quote (Ugo @ Nov. 27 2010, 07:10)
) By the way, the orchestral score for Ravel's "Bolero", which is most definitely classical, calls for three saxophones.

Oh, you do find the saxophone now and again. Bizet also used it in L'Arlesienne. But Ravel himself considered Bolero "non-music"!
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 17:45

Quote (larstangmark @ Nov. 27 2010, 08:40)
Aimed at the brain? Does that mean that classical music has some sort of objective quality that can be perceived through correct understanding?

Welll, that's the intention, Lars! That's why they teach "music theory" at uni.
Back to top
Profile PM 
larstangmark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 18:11

Quote (nightspore @ Nov. 27 2010, 17:45)
Quote (larstangmark @ Nov. 27 2010, 08:40)
Aimed at the brain? Does that mean that classical music has some sort of objective quality that can be perceived through correct understanding?

Welll, that's the intention, Lars! That's why they teach "music theory" at uni.

If the quality is not perceived by a listener unfamiliar with music theory then is it anything else than an excercise?
Or do you mean that the input of music theory into the composition brings an objective quality to the piece which is then perceived by the listener?

I think it's important to remember that art is not science. It is not engineering. There is no way to verify the quality of a piece of music like you can with for example a bridge contruction.
I'm fully aware the concept of "quality" is something else entirerly when used inside of a self-referential bourgeoise institution. It a concept that makes sense when used between people inside the institution, but to us other it doesn't make any difference.
Whether the institution or the common man has the right to define "quality" is both a poltical and philosophical question, but I definately vote for the latter.


--------------
"There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste"
Mark E Smith
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
bee Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1227
Joined: Jan. 2004
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 18:34

@ Wiga : I have listened to it more than twice for sure this year!  And I find, what I think is an important factor, is that I am seeking it out ~ in other words I choose[I][/I] it over other things. And I don't do that with just any music, so it's got to be special. As is Ommadawn, Tubular Bells & Amarok.

@ Ugo : what you said about it being aimed at the brain is spot on. And that's what sets 'classical' music apart from the rest... but I don't think you have to have studied music to any great degree to appreciate it ( though it probably helps you even more if you have )  but as I see it Classical music has weight and substance to it. It is not fluff.  Even a light, delicate piece like Vaughn Williams' Lark Ascending has this unmistakable validity, and what could be more ethereal than that?

@ Nightspore : Classical music is just as available and accessible to people with no musical education, just the same as anyone can look at a 'classical' painting or sculpture and like what they see; they don't necessarily have to know what it is about, who created it or how it was made, just that they like it. Classical anything is not exclusive to intellectuals. To me it means it's important, valuable, significant....and it can cause a change inside you. And isn't that why man makes art of any kind any way? To show what it is to be alive? That, along with what Delfin says about the search for pure beauty, is what it's all about.

Delfin also said,
'So I would dare to say it is genuine contemporary classical music. With no doubt.' which I totally agree with.

I still love the cover, ( which is how this debate started ) I still love the music, and I always will.

I think it is a hugely under-rated album.

P.S One of Karl Jenkins middle names is Pamp - just thought I'd throw that in! I'd never heard it before :)


--------------
....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
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 20:01

Quote (bee @ Nov. 27 2010, 18:34)
@ Nightspore : Classical music is just as available and accessible to people with no musical education, just the same as anyone can look at a 'classical' painting or sculpture and like what they see; they don't necessarily have to know what it is about, who created it or how it was made, just that they like it. Classical anything is not exclusive to intellectuals. To me it means it's important, valuable, significant....and it can cause a change inside you. And isn't that why man makes art of any kind any way? To show what it is to be alive? That, along with what Delfin says about the search for pure beauty, is what it's all about.

Delfin also said,
'So I would dare to say it is genuine contemporary classical music. With no doubt.' which I totally agree with.

I still love the cover, ( which is how this debate started ) I still love the music, and I always will.

I think it is a hugely under-rated album.

P.S One of Karl Jenkins middle names is Pamp - just thought I'd throw that in! I'd never heard it before :)

Bee, I think that's true of those composers who realised that there must be more than an intellectual dimension to music. But if you listen to modern "classical" music and you don't know anything about musical theory you'll get absolutely nothing out of it; it will sound just like noise. Have a listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-1Vmr9xjg4

In the music departments of universities you'll be taught to understand this. Whether you like it or not will be irrelevant.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 21:53

Quote (Syd B @ Nov. 26 2010, 02:32)
The cover is by far the best thing about MOTS...

Not that that's saying much (sorry, don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or anything).

I agree but The Album is growing on me I must admit.

When it comes to musical appreciation/understanding I can only speak for myself.
My musical tastes are always evolving for example growing up I hated the Beatles only developing an appreciation for them later on.
Something I never would of conceived back when I was 10 rocking out to Taurus 2.

When It comes to Classical Music I'm sure an education may  assist in understanding it's complexity's albeit in a clinical way and may provide a head start but I prefer a grass roots approach of live listen and learn . :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Nov. 27 2010, 22:36

Quote (milamber @ Nov. 27 2010, 21:53)
for example growing up I hated the Beatles only developing an appreciation for them later on.

What about the Rolling Stones? I imagine a favourite these days is "Paint it Black".  :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
larstangmark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 05:24

About that Stockhausen clip:

"Whether I like it or not is irrelevant"

Irrelevant to what?


--------------
"There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste"
Mark E Smith
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 06:27

Quote (larstangmark @ Nov. 28 2010, 05:24)
About that Stockhausen clip:

"Whether I like it or not is irrelevant"

Irrelevant to what?

Irrelevant to the assessment of the work's value by the music professors.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 11:58

Like Lars, I refuse the idea that classical music is "for the brain" if it means that non-classical music is not. Any music is for the brain as much as it is to the whole body.

Maybe you could say Bach was extremely cerebral in his process of composition, but what do you say about the likes of Beethoven? Reading the things he said and thought about his works, it's clear that he was so passionate, so corporal about his music that he was, at times, almost irrational.

I think Classical music being considered "cerebral" nowadays is just a form people thought to put themselves above the rest. Lots and lots of elitist groups do that -- people will call themselves "smarter" just for watching Animé, for chrissakes!

Yes, there is musical theory, people study classical music in universities, but what does that mean? It just means that we have a lot of intellectuals trying to give themselves more importance than they have, that's what! People can study Beethoven as much as they can study Robert Smith or Wayne Coyne -- they are just human beings, aren't they?


--------------
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
Profile PM WEB 
wiga Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sep. 2008
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 15:22

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Nov. 28 2010, 16:58)
I think Classical music being considered "cerebral" nowadays is just a form people thought to put themselves above the rest. Lots and lots of elitist groups do that -- people will call themselves "smarter" just for watching Animé, for chrissakes!

Come on Mustapha - say what you REALLY feel.  :D

You know, the way I see it - this very narrow definition that 'classical music'  only existed between 1750-1870 is a load of rubbish, put about by those who idealized Bach, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. Mike Oldfield's instrumentals were not around then - and the way I see it Mike's music beats them by MILES, absolute miles - intellectually, emotionally and spiritually.

He reaches EVERY part - like Heineken.  ;)


--------------
Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon.
Back to top
Profile PM 
wiga Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sep. 2008
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 16:37

And another thing - I don't mind a bit of joking around  -  that the cover is better than the MoTS music, but on the other hand if that's your position, - Syd, Nightspore and Milamber, you can't mix your messages and throw in some intellectual argument to back it up, and expect to be taken seriously, especially if you've not even given MoTS a listen this year.

--------------
Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon.
Back to top
Profile PM 
larstangmark Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mar. 2005
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 18:11

Quote (nightspore @ Nov. 28 2010, 06:27)
Quote (larstangmark @ Nov. 28 2010, 05:24)
About that Stockhausen clip:

"Whether I like it or not is irrelevant"

Irrelevant to what?

Irrelevant to the assessment of the work's value by the music professors.

But Stockhausen didn't write music just for internal use at the conservaroty. Even though there was a lot of theoretical thinking behind his works he considered his own works beautiful (even though you don't apparently!;). I for one enjoy the music in the clip you linked, and I think Gesang der Junglinge is an interesting (but quite eerie) piece of music, and I say that without having read the booklet.
The idea that modern classical music is "just noise" without theoretical knowledge must come of out a belief that traditionally melodic music is somehow naturally superior and that non-melodic music only can be accepted as proper music if it shows damn good reason why it is non-melodic. I've always been attracted to non-melodic music as well as non-figurative art. To me lots of "noise" is enjoyable at face value. First time I hear it with no background info! Is this strange?
I don't think the stockhausen clip you linked to would sound so alien to kids who grew up on death metal and dubstep.


--------------
"There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste"
Mark E Smith
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 19:03

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Nov. 28 2010, 11:58)
Like Lars, I refuse the idea that classical music is "for the brain" if it means that non-classical music is not. Any music is for the brain as much as it is to the whole body.

Maybe you could say Bach was extremely cerebral in his process of composition, but what do you say about the likes of Beethoven? Reading the things he said and thought about his works, it's clear that he was so passionate, so corporal about his music that he was, at times, almost irrational.

I think Classical music being considered "cerebral" nowadays is just a form people thought to put themselves above the rest. Lots and lots of elitist groups do that -- people will call themselves "smarter" just for watching Animé, for chrissakes!

Yes, there is musical theory, people study classical music in universities, but what does that mean? It just means that we have a lot of intellectuals trying to give themselves more importance than they have, that's what! People can study Beethoven as much as they can study Robert Smith or Wayne Coyne -- they are just human beings, aren't they?

I actually agree with you, Sir M. I don't think you can underestimate the power of the music professors, though: they ultimately control the future's perception of what "serious" music is: what will survive and what will be forgotten. Moreover, they create students in their own image (by failing students who don't tow the theoretical line). The fact that the general music-enjoying public doesn't care about their opinions doesn't matter to them, because the academic papers and theory that they produce will outlive a given generation of the music-enjoying public. Does all this matter? Probably not!
:laugh:
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: Nov. 29 2010, 01:01

Quote (wiga @ Nov. 29 2010, 06:37)
And another thing - I don't mind a bit of joking around  -  that the cover is better than the MoTS music, but on the other hand if that's your position, - Syd, Nightspore and Milamber, you can't mix your messages and throw in some intellectual argument, and expect to be taken seriously, especially if you've not even given MoTS a listen this year.

Whats wrong with a bit of Light & Shade :laugh:
No thats a fair cop.
Why not list a few favorite tracks to expediate my journey ;)

People take me seriously ...News to me :laugh:
Back to top
Profile PM 
58 replies since Nov. 24 2010, 18:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ 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
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net