Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

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

Topic: The ultimate rant, track-by-track breakdown.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 04 2004, 11:51

So, Tubular Bells 2003. On Music Babble (the discussion forum used by almost all music reviewers in the 'Net), people review albums track-by-track, giving ratings to each. I thought I'd do the same, because it's hard to express feelings about this album: it's all about details. So, details are here. I would post this in that "our reviews" thread, but it's annoying to revive such an old thread.

(I swear this review shall not make mention of the copy-protection system. So, here we go...)

Introduction - C : Before I say my comments, I'll say that all these ratings are given in comparison to the original TB. If I were taking the quality of the melodies and the music itself, none of these ratings should go below a B+. But the quality of the melodies is a GIVEN, and I'm only considering the arrangements. And the arrangements here suck. So, the synth bass sounds hideous, the extra synths are completely unnecessary, but... has Mr. Mike Oldfield forgotten the meaning of the word "build-up"? Where is the build-up? These 4 minutes become a bunch of nothing, because the adding of instruments leads to nowhere, and the grand climax sounds totally unsatisfying. The acoustic guitar solo sounds stupid, because Mike is more interested in showing the "perfection" of the playing, ignoring the immaculate beauty of the melody. The same happens with the chimy part afterwards. Awful.

Fast Guitars - C-: More trouble ahead. You know, Tubular Bells was all about raw emotions. Take away the emotional impact, no matter how "perfect" the sound is, Tubular Bells loses ALL its meaning. And here's an example: the psychosis of the fuzz guitar is replaced by GENERIC metal soloing. Plus, it doesn't even rock, because Mike's guitar sound is too "perfect" to rock.

Basses - D: Goodbye growling, monstrous bass, hello GENERIC metal fluff. Is there anything more dorky than that bass drum?

Latin - C: Screw the immaculate flow of the original album: let's FRAGMENT it! Yay! Really nice. Plus, this sounds like lift muzak. No tension at all, just a bunch of "atmosphere" borrowed from Tr3s Lunas. No grand climax, either.

A Minor Tune - C: Awful synth sounds. I miss the Flageolet, too, but I forgive that. It's not like Mike would ever find (or bother trying to find) that instrument again. But those metallic synth sounds! Hideous.

Blues - B-: Well, this one gets a respectful treatment. The murmuring guitars are too loud and gruesome, but that's okay. Sounds less humourous, too. And the double-speed guitar section is transformed into MORE GENERIC metal soloing... and where's the nasal chorus? I LOVE the nasal chorus and the pub piano! Why does Mike dislike so much the best parts of the album?

Trash - D: I HATE that guitar sound. Has Mike forgotten how to rock? Bring in Pete Townshend, please, I wanna HEADBANG. And no headbanging here, no siree. I guess headbanging guitars aren't "perfect".

Jazz - F: Yeah, right. "Jazz". This is probably the only moment in the album that I truly HATE. This is even worse than Lift Muzak.

Ghost Bells - B: I won't dare ask why this part was spilt into another track. At least, it wasn't butchered like "Jazz", anyway. How could it be butchered? I always liked that "blooong, blooong" sound in the original. Shame that this one sounds nowhere as spooky and chill-inducing as the original did. Oh, well.

Russian - A: Well, decent. Great guitar, and all. Of course, infinitely better than "Red Dawn" (what isn't?).

Finale - B-: John Cleese... I love his performance here. Really. He's the best thing about the finale, 'cause the music... well, the "Reed and pipe organ" sounds like ANYTHING but an organ, much less a Reed and pipe organ. Weak build-up, too, and I don't like the Power-Balladisation of the Finale, with the drums and all. It sounded much more grandiose and powerful in the original. I think Mike simply doesn't understand it.

To be continued...


--------------
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 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 04 2004, 12:10

Harmonics - B+: Pretty good. Maybe lost the "magic" of the '73 rendition, but this album lost so much more, already. Maybe the most faithful rendition so far.

Peace - B: Like I said, I'm not considering the quality of the music itself, because if I was, this track would get an A+++, anyway, and that's not fair. This is my favourite part of Tubular Bells ever, and NOTHING can spoil that melody. Still, I don't like it being played by the guitar, and the ridiculous "organ" following it is laughable. I prefer the Farfisa organ, myself. At least, the mandolin at the end is kept intact - it didn't suffer the same fate of "Sunset Door" - Now THAT one sucks.

Bagpipe Guitars - B-: Decent, but not very good. I prefer the insistent guitars playing all three stanzas on a row. Plus, those extra synths... Okay, enough ranting about the synths. This is JUST decent. Much less spooky, of course. And, of course, no buildup.

Caveman - C: Nah, sorry. The "caveman" vocals sound too exaggerated and gruesome. I prefer the Piltdown guy, myself. The drum machine is annoying, too. And what's up with removing the "Bootleg chorus"? That was one of the funniest things about the original Piltdown man!

Ambient Guitars - C: "Ambient". Are you sure, Mike? I don't understand all the gushing about this track. If the solo was brand new, I think it would be much, much better. As it is, it's just a pale shadow of a former glory. The 19-year-old Mike had the energy, the spark, the instinct... The 49-year-old Mike just boredly plays away, worried that everything will sound "perfect". Screw perfection. I want an emotional masterpiece, not an audiophile's paradise.

The Sailor's Hornpipe - B: What a thin sound! Aside from that, everything is pretty much intact.

Okay, it's over. I just felt like writing this huge rant because I felt there were some points that had to be cleared up. Music doesn't boil down to perfect sounds and technology. And it's also not ALL due to the lack of emotions. There is something else in music, and this something else is present in Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge, Ommadawn, Incantations, and so on. And this something else is completely absent in Tubular Bells 2003. And it's not about Mike using computers or synthesizers... it's about understanding music. I know Mike doesn't like the idea of Tubular Bells being associated with horror movies, but there's nothing to be done about that. The Exorcist happened, and it's useless to try and wipe that from our memory. Tubular Bells is only one, and there's no point in trying to make it into something that it isn't.

And don't give me that talk about this being the way Mike always wanted Tubular Bells to be. It's nonsense. In 1989, Mike wanted to make Tubular Bells II with the same spirit and the same instrumentation. Look at what TBII became! Mike is completely different now. I'm sure that if Mike had re-recorded the album in, say, 1990, it would have been much different, and maybe it would have been better than the original. As it is, there isn't a single second in TB2003 that improves on the original.

Rant over. Flame away. :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
Profile PM WEB 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 04 2004, 14:48

Well...

All in all, I'm not sure quite what I think of Tubular Bells 2003. Its smoothness in performance seems to at times be an asset and at others, a drawback. I enjoyed listening to it, and still do (though my current favourite is the 4 channel Boxed mix, which to me feels less rough and of course more spacious than the original stereo mix, while still having the same feel), but it's not without flaws.

I don't totally object to the bass in Introduction, I think it fits reasonably well with the feel of the rest of the track, which is generally more 'processed' and forceful than the original. The forceful aspect is what I'm least sure about - whereas the original was very quiet and crept slowly up on you, Tubular Bells 2003 is loud, and jumps right out of the speakers. While the original built up in volume, the re-recording is almost at full from the outset. WHILE LOUDNESS MIGHT ATTRACT ATTENTION AT FIRST IT QUICKLY BECOMES BORING IF THE MUSIC STAYS AT THAT LEVEL THE WHOLE TIME AND CAN BEGIN TO FEEL TIRING A BIT LIKE READING A SENTENCE WHICH IS WRITTEN ALL IN CAPITALS WITHOUT PUNCTUATION. If you see what I mean...
I still like Introduction, with the smooth feel quite befitting of the '2003' tag, but it would be nice to see some more dynamic range in it.

Fast Guitars...I'm not sure I'd call it generic in the playing, but I don't go for the sound much myself. The rhythm guitars sound suspiciously like they've been played through the 'metal stack' preset of an amp simulator - the slightly mushy lack of presence and body is the exact reason I don't use those things...the lead guitar fares a little better, but I could do without the Peavey-style spring reverb which it seems to acquire.
That's not to say that the original had a 'nice' guitar sound...it was fuzzy and harsh, but somehow it worked. Also note that the section didn't have the rhythm guitars on the original, just an edgy bass sound - something which has been replaced on Tubular Bells 2003 by something which sounds suspiciously like another synthesiser...now, I know Mike has a nice 5 string Wal bass, and seeing as he was aiming for a heavy feel here, my favourite treatment of this section is to play the C#-D-E-D# section down on the 5th string instead of going up on the 3rd for it - heavy indeed :O But that's me and not Mike...

Somehow Basses is missing something...hmm...could it be the basses? I'm talking string basses here - I loved that growly bowing sound in the way it filled out the midrange. As it is, the track somehow sounds like a synth bass that's overloading...which could well be what it is...

I'd agree that Latin does seem to stand out as a separate section and it's definitely very smooth sounding, as opposed to the rather angular feel of the original...but hang on...what's this? There are some out of tune notes in the solo which were in tune on the original (which I reckoned to be about 8 bars into the acoustic solo at the end when I gave a reference on another forum)...wasn't the idea to get rid of out of tune bits and not put them in? It sounds like the guitar's intonation is out up the top end there - that can be compensated for by bending up a little on those notes, or there's the Trevor Horn method of pitch shifting them to the right value.

To skip a few...Russian, nicely played, but quite a synthetic sound on the guitar. Fits with the rest of the album though, so Mike's choice, but it's not the more naturalistic sound I'd have aimed for were it my decision. Differing opinions again...

With Finale we come back to the old issue of build up...Viv Stanshall was very clever in this section and subtly varied the way he introduced the instruments as he progressed, starting with the very low key 'Grand Piano' building to the tense 'Spanish Guitar and introducing Acoustic Guitar'. I can't believe that John Cleese is incapable of doing the same, but it seems like he wasn't asked to here...instead we get...well...John Cleese. Wind him up and let him go, it's always the same thing really...but perhaps yet another reprise of Basil Fawlty is just what yet another reprise of Tubular Bells was calling for. As he announces 'Tubular Bells' he almost squeezes it out - insert schoolboy comments here.
I think the girlie chorus misses Mundy Ellis - the sound of two voices blended together is quite different to one that's been doubled up...Sally on her own, especially with the multiple performances conforming so precisely to each other, gives very much a 'one voice harmonised' rather than a 'chorus' effect...it's a minor point, but I prefer the less precise and more blended effect which the original has at that point. As for the drums, the less said the better, I think! I don't mind the tambourine so much as the drum machine snare that's in there. The secret to that part of Finale is in the things which are lacking, though - the increase in volume when the bells arrive, and the big sound of the blended voices. The piece really opens out at that point, and has such a towering feel that it doesn't need any percussion...but of course, if the bells are barely any louder than the piano at the beginning of the album, it's not going to seem so exciting at that point without something drastic...like percussion.
The organ is a real one, by the way...just a slightly suspicious choice of sound.

Now, Part Two...the Peace section was always a favourite of mine too, with Mike's breathing, the wobbly timing and feeble, crackly organ sound lending a vulnerable quality to it which was quite lovely. Knowing that he'd remove those attributes in the rerecording, I was worried that I'd find the new version to be a minor abomination, but I quite like the new version, in the context of the album. The organ sound is a Farfisa again, just with a slow attack - he uses a similar sound in the 1971 demo at one point.

Caveman though...the precision of the track doesn't really work for me. The drums...if they were programmed from scratch then they're quite well programmed, if the data was derived from a recorded performance then I guess it worked, if they're really live drums then they don't sound much like it. However they were done, they seem to stand out a bit. There are a few tricks which can be done to help synthetic drum sounds sit a bit more comfortably in a mix, but it doesn't seem like any of them were used...
The cavepeople did make me laugh, I have to say, but I still have to say I prefer the original Piltdown Man - the roughness and aggression was part of the feel of the section.

Ambient Guitars I don't mind. Tom Newman once mentioned Mike's Telecaster having farty pickups, and they do fart in some places on the original, which Mike thankfully doesn't repeat via synthetic means for the rerecorded version! Not that it ever really mattered, it was a nice section anyway...the new version is smoother and more considered than the original and I think perhaps in a contest, the original would win in the feel stakes, but I don't object to either. The transition into The Sailor's Hornpipe is smoother too, the original had Mike continuing to play a note sequence which didn't fit over the ending chords, which I never liked much.

But yes...the Pornhipe (remember that word anyone? :D)...
The best way to get a good sound out of a mandolin over fast passages is to approach it gently, and not to bash the living daylights out of it with the picking hand...sadly, it seems Mike hasn't yet discovered that. Gear freaks will note that Mike plays an F style mandolin by Mike Vanden, the same model favoured by British mandolinist extraordinaire Simon Mayor. He shows that Mike Vanden's mandolins can have a beautiful delicate sound (take a listen to 'The Wasp Reel' from his album 'New Celtic Mandolin' - jaw dropping stuff) and indeed, Mike coaxes some nice sounds out of his elsewhere on the album, but sadly, not here. Still, he gets the speed, though only after some cheating (Mike admitted that at a press conference...who knows what he did, it sounds almost like he sampled the mandolin and played the notes back off a sequencer...).

Ok, now I've said all that, can I say again that I really quite enjoyed Tubular Bells 2003...just...well...all of that up there!
Could I have done it better? No, of course not...Would I have done it differently? Yes...but then, the point of it was Mike doing it to satisfy himself, and he's satisfied with this. 'Nuff said.
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 04 2004, 16:47

It's odd this review section appearing today because I was listening to TB2003 this afternoon for the first time in ages. I agree pretty much with Sir Mustapha's observations and also Korgscrews detailed analysis. TB in any guise is an amazing piece of music well deserving of all its comercial success.

Sir Mustapha clearly labeled all the negative points I agree with however there are a few parts of TB2003 I would defend or point out the benefit of a make-over.

THRASH. I do actualy prefer this version. I like the presicion of the playing and the quick little bass line played over the initial few chords.

FINALE. Korgscrew's observation about Cleese is quite right however I do love Mike's playing here. He makes all the instruments sing with all their heart. I love the little echo on the first note of 'Double Speed Guitar' completley beautiful. Also the 'Two Slightly Distorted Guitars' bit is sublime, great playing. But yes shame about those drums, It's just TB2 all over again.

Ambient Guitars. I would defend this. Yes the original obviously had more atmosphere but Mike's playing here on the 2003 version is again what makes it. The notes just role beautifully off his guitar.

To sum up I would say that if TB2003 proves anything it proves that Mike really needs to work with Tom Newman more often. The original TB WAS a collaborative effort, even if Mike sometimes plays down the fact. This may seem a strange thing to say but Mike is not the best judge of his own music. Many artists realise they need a good producer to bounce ideas off and generaly help sculpt their sound and Mike is no different. With the exception of Ommadawn all of Mike's best work has been a collaborative effort in the producers chair, with Tom Newman in the main but also Simon Phillips.

Unfortunately for us lovers of Mike's greatest works I just increasingly can't see us returning there anytime soon. He's to stuck in his ways and seemingly at odds with what made his music great in the first place. Soul, warmth, originality, vast emotional landscapes, wonderfull eclectisism and ideosyncrasy, and thats not to mention his great technical playing which underlines it all. All these things are just gone in varying degrees from every album from TB2 to now. Thats not to say he hasn't writen some great tunes between then and now but his own ability to do anything truly original with those tunes or to arrange them without compromise seems to have frankly just vanished in last decade.

When will we see the Mike we all used to love again?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Q! Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: Dec. 2002
Posted: April 04 2004, 18:38

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 04 2004, 11:51)
Blues - B-... and where's the nasal chorus? I LOVE the nasal chorus and the pub piano! Why does Mike dislike so much the best parts of the album?

i agree completely. i absolutely hate that part in 2k3 version. the first time i heard it i was like 'wtf is that?' the only thing that is more annoying then this are the drums at the end of the finale. man, those really suck.

anyways, despite its flaws, i generally like tb2003. it obviously wont replace the original but i do enjoy listening to it. especially the 5.1 mix (which except for the introduction is great imo).


--------------
http://qisgod.host.sk/
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Ben Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: Mar. 2004
Posted: April 04 2004, 19:31

One of the major things that i loved about the original was the fact that it wasn't perfect in so many ways... timing was a little out... guitars not tuned correctly... i loved that lol. I'm sure i said this somewhere before that when listening to the original, when i close my eyes i could imagine a young Mike sitting cross legged on the floor playing the melodies with his guitar (the guitar melodies anyway :-P). With TB2003 i just see a computer playing it to me which isn't so great :-(.

That said, i really think that Basses, even though its short, was the best improvement made from the original. I think the original was too.... mashed together for my liking.

Shame Harmonics sucked compared to the Original :-(

Oh yeah, and i agree with Russian getting A. I got a guitar about a month ago and its the first thing i was able to start learning (i didn't mean to though heh... it just.. came). kick ass! w00


--------------
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
~ Ben
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: April 05 2004, 06:57

Even though with some of the parts I wonder what he was thinking (Finale for example, those drums are just dreadful... and John Cleese, well, a matter of taste I guess, I like him but not here), all in all I like TB2003 and there are quite a few things in it which give an interesting new perspective on the piece.
I think I'd be perfectly at ease with TB2003 if it wasn't for two annyoing factors. Firstly, if Mike didn't go on about how this was the ultimate version of Tubular Bells and therefore the original had lost its validity (well, I don't think he actually said that but that's how it comes across), but instead treated the album like what it is, an alternative version to the original.
Secondly, if it wasn't the sixth album with a bell in cover and title, and the fourth in just over ten years. The Bell thing is going way over the top IMO, and if he doesn't stop it immediately it will become really, really ridiculous. By now it's doing more to confuse people than to help sales along anyway.
So if he'd done just TBII and this, and had given TBIII and TMB different covers and titles, and didn't dismiss the original TB as he does, than all would be fine by me. As it is, it's a very nice album with a few extra-musical factors that really tend to spoil the fun with it.
Back to top
Profile PM 
theweightless Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 604
Joined: April 2001
Posted: April 05 2004, 10:00

Quote (Holger @ April 05 2004, 06:57)
So if he'd done just TBII and this, and had given TBIII and TMB different covers and titles, and didn't dismiss the original TB as he does, than all would be fine by me.

my thoughts exactly

--------------
ASMK
Back to top
Profile PM 
MAN IN CRISES Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Mar. 2004
Posted: April 05 2004, 10:29

Well....? Im not sure.. But I Im a huuuge fan of ambient guitars and I love the 2003 version.
I agree that Tub 2003 dont have that (Hergest ridge, incantations, tubular bell sound)
But! One thing is good. I feel that horror feelings is gone no. I HATE EXORSISTEN!!!!
When I listen to tubular orginal it sometimes difficult. Icant forget that idiotic demon movie. I hade tubular bells for a long time ago on a synthalbum. And I watch a movie in a cinema.  They advertise Exor movie and played tubular. After beeing on cinema I throw the cd.
I do not like that music.
Then and now. Today I have all the tubular albums and love them. Im finish with this horror feeling!
I didnt know that Mike hate it. But he does. And thats enough for me. He is a good boy!
I think Mike have the same feeling about this new Tubular 2003. He is finish with Virgin. This is the new tubular without this movie shit!   :(
Thats why I like Tubular 2003 better than the orginal.
From one thing to another! The orginal version is perfect!
:cool:
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 05 2004, 10:50

(In reply to Holger's quote above)  To be frank he was pushing his luck even with TB2. Whatever you think of the actual music on TB2 it can only really be seen from pretty much every angle as a cash in on the original. Almost all the critics and indeed some of Mike's peers in the music buisness slagged him off for doing it. To give an analogy, I'm sure we're all cynical of Hollywood blockbuster sequals that re-hash the same formula and plot line of the original but with much less style, interest and originality. Well I'm affraid Mike scores massively negative points for being the first artist to do the same within mainstream rock music. And this coming from the same man who a few years before slept in a tent in his garden as a protest about the increasing commercialisation of the music industry. It don't add up Mike!!!!

If Mike had done things very differently I'm sure he wouldn't be winning 'bore of the year' awards and be the general whipping boy of the UK music establishment. Had he waited until 1993 and for the 20th aniversary released TB parts 3 and 4 using the same instruments as the original, something which he originaly talked a lot about doing, he would have done so much better I'm sure. TB parts 3+4 has to be the one great project Mike never did, though I hope to god he doesn't decide to do it now.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 05 2004, 12:31

Toby lifted a good point. I was reading the transcript of the TV-AM interview, where he talks about his TB parts 3 and 4 project using the same instrumentation as the original and his bare hands. I can only wonder what happened in 1992 to cause such a drastic change of mind. Mike was never the same after TBII. Did he start taking some kind of drug, or whatever?

Second thing: Maybe I'm standing on dangerous ground here, but I love The Exorcist. I started reading about it after I listened to Tubular Bells (I swear, I had NEVER heard the piano riff before I heard the album for the first time, 2 years ago), and got curious and decided to watch it. I loved it, and it's easily one of my favourite movies of all time. I remember getting a huge grin on my face when I heard the music, and I was quite glad to see that the music was used wisely: actually, there's hardly any music going on, and it only appears in strategic spots. Tubular Bells comes in way before the tense parts begin. Being in absolute love with the album since the very beginning, and loving the movie just as well, you can imagine why I got so frustrated with the new edition. But come to think of it... it could have been the other way around. ;)


--------------
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 
Ben Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: Mar. 2004
Posted: April 05 2004, 13:10

I think its a good movie as well (unlike the Exorcist 3 which was ment to be good as well, but sucked :-(... still used Tubular Bells for the theme though w00), and it was because of the film that i found out about Tubular Bells and ended up buying the album (which is the case for many people i'm sure).

--------------
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
~ Ben
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Back to top
Profile PM 
MAN IN CRISES Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Mar. 2004
Posted: April 05 2004, 16:49

:)  We are different people!
When I listen to tubular bells.... Well its a sad story, and for me it tells about my memorys. I had a turbulence life last year, at that time I bye Tub orginal album. Its a foto album for me. Its not a happy album but hopeful!
But not demonic!!!!
I get scared about thinking of that!  :O

Its funny...    But Im not good in english! I though that Tubular means turbulence before. That was for two years ago! After I get internett my english have grown a lot!!
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: April 05 2004, 17:22

Quote (TOBY @ April 05 2004, 10:50)
(In reply to Holger's quote above)  To be frank he was pushing his luck even with TB2. Whatever you think of the actual music on TB2 it can only really be seen from pretty much every angle as a cash in on the original.

Yes, really. I'm not a huge fan of TBII either. I think I just got so used to him turning out one bell sequel after another that I ended up thinking that one sequel would really have been enough! I agree that the TB part 3+4 would have been a much better idea, but on the other hand, I really wonder how it would have turned out if he had decided to go that way!
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 05 2004, 17:46

I really don't know where (or when) the conceptual change of heart came from for the direction of TB2. It certainly pre-dates Trevor Horn's involvment becuase the 'Early Stages' snippets we've all heard were made before Trevor was on the scene and point much more towards the final feel of the album, although much less synthy.

What I had in my imagination before the album came out was a genuine continuation of the TB experience. New themes instead of the rehash of old ones but all within the same sort of TB atmosphere. Jean-Michel Jarre had the right idea with his Oxygene 7-13 sequal although that album lacked any really memorable tunes or basic ideas.

Instead Mike played the safe card, under who's inflence we know not, and gave us the shiney 90's make-over that is TB2. Incidently if you read any of the TB2 interviews in the articles section here it's amazing how mercilessly Mike slags off the original album, downplaying it like it's almost an embaressment to him. How wrong could he be? Mike's not a great decision maker when it comes to his own music.
Back to top
Profile PM 
EeToN Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 845
Joined: Sep. 2001
Posted: April 05 2004, 18:49

My two favourite albums are Mike's TBII and Jarre's Oxygene 7-13. And I love TB2003, too. :D

Anyway, Amarok could be accounted Ommadawn Part Three, so he tried also that way.

Interesting indeed how Mike changed his opinion about TB:

1985: "Part of its charm is that its all played by hand as it were. Whereas most music these days is played by machines and so its got a very human feel to it rather than a mechanical feel."

1988: "When I listen to Tubular Bells now, it sounds as if it was made on sequencers, because there's a lot of repetition in the individual parts. So it is a temptation to do a complete new version; the only trouble is if it didn't come out very successful, it would spoil the whole thing. I think it's nicer to leave it as it is; it's a minor classic in its way, so I'd like to leave it like that."

1989: "Well the first part was 1 and 2. I'm starting work in a couple of weeks' time on Parts 3 and 4. It's going to be identical instrumentation. The music's going to be different but as I say, there's going to be no synthesizers, no computers, just these." <his hands>

1991: "I am going to do a 'Tubular Bells II'. 'Amarok' was originally going to be 'Ommadawn II', but it went off a little in its own direction. But " 'Tubular Bells II' will use the same instruments, it'll use the same producer, Tom Newman, and I'm busy going around finding all the old instruments I used to have like the old Farfisa organ and the Vox Continental. No-one makes the proper tubular bells anymore, so we're going to have a set made that sound right, and it's all going to be hand played like the original."

1991: His next album after Heaven's Open will be Tubular Bells II, and he also remarks that he still has the original demos of the original album, which he might be persuaded to release, but for the sequel, not only is he working with his original collaborator, Tom Newman (who had returned to work on both Amarok and Heaven's Open), but work is underway to recreate the studio they used at The Manor in Oldfield's Buckinghamshire home so that the atmosphere of the original album can be captured.

1992: "I learnt so much about computers from Trevor, but then I'd say 'let's use the old 12 string through the compressor effect' or, 'I think I'll try the old 9 ambient hand claps effect'. And he'd be baffled."

But personally I don't mind... Guitars is my second favourite...


--------------
If I were music, I would be Enigmatism.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Nacho Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 230
Joined: Feb. 2000
Posted: April 06 2004, 10:15

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 05 2004, 12:31)
Toby lifted a good point. I was reading the transcript of the TV-AM interview, where he talks about his TB parts 3 and 4 project using the same instrumentation as the original and his bare hands. I can only wonder what happened in 1992

Those part 3 & 4 turned to be "Amarok" !!!!  :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 06 2004, 11:40

No I don't think they did. Amarok was a sort of trial run hand played album using Ommadawn as a point of reference. It could be said that Amarok is Ommadawn part 3.  

Anyway many of Mike's quotes regarding doing TB 3+4 were made post Amarok, mainly around the release of Heavens Open.
Back to top
Profile PM 
EeToN Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 845
Joined: Sep. 2001
Posted: April 06 2004, 18:10

TOBY: What are those quotes?

Oh and I forgot to say: I think the best Tubular Bells is neither the original nor the 2003 version and not either the Exposed but the fantastic concert version in 1982-1983.


--------------
If I were music, I would be Enigmatism.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Ben Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: Mar. 2004
Posted: April 06 2004, 18:19

The "parts 3 and 4" thing was about Tubular Bells II and was mentioned in an interview about Heavens Open i think. You can find it on the site somewhere.

--------------
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
~ Ben
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Back to top
Profile PM 
42 replies since April 04 2004, 11:51 < 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