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

Pages: (9) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

ATTMO Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: June 2004 Posted: Aug. 27 2005, 23:26 Quote (Alan D @ Aug. 27 2005, 19:17) So how can such a person possibly know better what Mike should be doing? The only person who can possibly know what Mike should be doing - surely? - is Mike! Well i remember having read an interview when tres lunas was released where he was asked: out of your whole discography, except for tubular bells and the album you have now released, which are your three favorites? and mike answered something like: "ommadawn, amarok and hmm.... tubular bells 2 *laughs*" so obviously the mayority of his fans like his complex works, he likes his complex works.... the question is: who does not? i would have said someone from the record company, but he only just changed it... actually i am pretty convinced, it was not him who found the idea to do a complex long piece "too much 70s", i guess someone else did. obviously he is now having some contact with people like that schiller guy (who i dont know, i only remember they had some chart hit some time which was not exactly inspiring). i do not know whether he still has contact with people like david bedford or simon phillips... ...still from costa rica -------------- "Such is life; and we are but as grass that is cut down, and put into the oven and baked" - Jerome K Jerome Back to top

tamas Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Aug. 27 2005, 23:34 Dear Holger, and Alan D! I see as usually, you are completely blinded again only because you love somebody or something. When I say that Mike "should" do that and that of course I don't think he should write down my wise advises, and complete them in the future step by step - these are only my ideas. And I don't think that the fact I cannot produce music of the quality of Mike means that I cannot criticize him. What you say means that  I cannot criticize any paintings because I cannot paint. I cannot criticize  any films because I am not a filmmaker. I cannot criticize the politics of Bush, because I am not a politician. And if I don't like the way my girfriend, or my friends starts to behave after 10 years of love/friendship the only thing I can do is to forget them, and find another lover/friend. What kind of a nonse is this???? Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 01:24 Quote (tamas @ Aug. 28 2005, 01:01) I think the greatest problem with Mike, that he became completely alienated from the musical world, and overall, from the whole world around him, thats why he lost his sense of reality, and his ability to judge what is good and what is not. My problem with your arguement tamas is that you say that Mike has "lost his touch with reality" purely because he has started making albums you don't like, and that you have some sort of authority over what is 'good' and what is not. This smacks of arrogance, of thinking that your opinion is more important than anyone elses, and it insults all those who do like his recent work. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 05:13 Quote (tamas @ Aug. 28 2005, 04:34) I see as usually, you are completely blinded again only because you love somebody or something. I refute this completely, and also the suggestion of falling into sycophancy, for the simple reason that I don't by any means enjoy everything Mike Oldfield does. I've written many posts here discussing the difficulties I have with Amarok in particular - but there are other albums (eg Voyager) which I mostly dislike also. My argument is not that we should expect to like everything he does. That would be foolish, and a recipe for disillusionment. Nor am I suggesting that everything Mike (or any other artist) does is right and good. He's human, and he makes mistakes. But our mistake would be in thinking that we could possibly know better than he does about what he should be doing. That's not being sycophantic, or blinded. It's just stating the obvious. Quote And I don't think that the fact I cannot produce music of the quality of Mike means that I cannot criticize him. What you say means that  I cannot criticize any paintings because I cannot paint. Actually, I think that a critic does need to have at least attempted these things in order to have some understanding of what the difficulties are. Not, of course, that the critic should be expected to produce work of the quality of the artist - I agree that would be absurd. But I think unless you've tried seriously to compose music, unless you've tried seriously to paint, then there must always be a question about whether you really understand the nature of the problems when you start to talk about how these things should be done. Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 06:38 I do think there is a danger of taking an idea too seriously here. When I or any other fan says what he or she thinks Mike SHOULD be doing all they are doing is putting forward an idea of what they want to hear from Mike and how he should perhaps, in their modest view, go about it. These boards have always been full of comments on what Mike should or should not be doing, that strikes me as being the source of a lot of good debate. However I agree that those sorts of comments should be aimed entirely at Mike's professional artistic output and not at his private life, however closely related they may be from time to time.     Remember the old saying: those who can do those who can't criticise. Ha Ha   Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 08:47 Quote (TOBY @ Aug. 28 2005, 11:38) When I or any other fan says what he or she thinks Mike SHOULD be doing all they are doing is putting forward an idea of what they want to hear from Mike and how he should perhaps, in their modest view, go about it. Very often that 'modest view' doesn't come over as 'modest' at all. What actually happens, as Alex pointed out a few posts ago, is that what the fan prefers is assumed to be 'good'; and Mike's failure to do what the fan wants is automatically assumed to be 'bad'. On the whole (in the last couple of centuries, at least), the greatest art seems to have been produced when the artist follows his own muse and ignores the jibes, complaints, and advice of critics altogether. Of course some of his art won't be very good (no matter who he is), but mostly the bad stuff will tend to fade and die, while the good stuff will tend to survive. I'm reminded of Turner's comment. Turner's later paintings (many of which are regarded as among his greatest works today) were slammed by people who thought he'd completely lost his way. 'They don't understand how difficult it is,' said Turner. For Turner, substitute Mike Oldfield. Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 10:30 I think thats very true and I'm sure for Mike after all these years and all these albums its harder and harder to produce work of any quantity let alone quality. But that still doesn't mean it can't be objectly criticised. I still don't see the problem with fans saying what they think Mike should be doing artistically, whether it seems like what they're saying is the gospel truth or not. Obviously to them they are going to assume their way is the right way if they are criticising Mike's 'wrong approach' or they wouldn't have the view in the first place. I guess then other fans can either agree with their view or not, it is after all someone just giving their opinion, well educated or not. I suppose when fans write IMHO after expressing their views it's there to show a degree of modesty but I always take it as read that that sums up most fans views here. If say I think Mike 'should' write a seventies style long instrumental album its because in my view thats what I think he 'should' do, or I think Mike 'should' start using more hand played intruments. I do have reasons for those views and I AM NOT a musician and never have been (though I have tried). So at the end of the day I don't see whats wrong with saying what Mike should be doing, Mike will after all do as he pleases. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 10:56 Quote (TOBY @ Aug. 28 2005, 15:30) Well I'm sure thats very true and I'm sure for Mike after all these years and all these albums its harder and harder to produce work of any quantity let alone quality. But that still doesn't mean it can't be objectly criticised. Sometimes it's objective criticism, but often it's just personal  taste, presented as objective criticism. Quote Obviously to them they are going to assume their way is the right way if they are criticising Mike's 'wrong approach' or they wouldn't have the view in the first place. I don't see this. The fact that I dislike many passages in Amarok doesn't mean I think he had the wrong approach. It just means I don't like it. It would be arrogant of me to start talking about what Mike ought to have done instead. What he ought to have done was what he did: make Amarok. The fact that I struggle to like it doesn't mean I think he should have done something else. Quote I also don't even begin to understand this idea that if you shouldn't bad mouth Mike's work if you can't create anything better yourself. Well, that's not what I said. I think we probably come to this board for different reasons. I like comparing notes with people and discussing the music etc, but the idea of 'bad mouthing' it isn't something I want to do, even when it's stuff I don't like. Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 11:24 I wasn't trying to put words in your particular mouth Alan, my comments were just aimed at certain views banded about generally. Perhaps 'bad mouth' was a wrong use of words. But I certainly do come here to read everyone's opinions good and bad and I would certainly hope that if someone thinks Voyager is a shit album for example they're free to have that view and explain why. Back to top

Sysiyo Group: Members Posts: 245 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 11:33 Quote (ATTMO @ Aug. 28 2005, 06:26) so obviously the mayority of his fans like his complex works, he likes his complex works.... the question is: who does not? i would have said someone from the record company, but he only just changed it... actually i am pretty convinced, it was not him who found the idea to do a complex long piece "too much 70s", i guess someone else did. I certainly find it highly unlikely it was anyone at the record company. Mike is most famous for his long instrumentals, and should he make another one it would probably outsell anything else he might do. This is not to say I'd think he nescessarily should have done a long instrumental instead of Light + Shade, only that from a record company's point of view it would have made very little sense stop him from making one. And yes, I also realise you didn't say that Mercury would have done so. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 12:08 Quote (TOBY @ Aug. 28 2005, 16:24) I would certainly hope that if someone thinks Voyager is a shit album for example they're free to have that view and explain why. Well, many people do have that view, Toby, and no one stops them saying it even if they disagree, so I think all is well. Perhaps what is a big difference to me is an insignificant one to you. The statement 'Voyager is a shit album' seems to be a statement about Voyager. But usually it really means 'I don't like Voyager'; in other words, it's actually a statement about the chap who's saying it. Similarly 'Mike Oldfield should have made another piece like Amarok' sounds like a statement about Mike; but it usually means 'I wish he'd made another piece like Amarok', and again it's really telling us about the complainant. I often feel the impulse to do it myself - if the music doesn't bring me pleasure then I want to say 'this is bad music'. It's as if I want to blame the music, or the composer - blame anything but not myself. But more often than not I know the insensitivity lies in me and my own limitations; and it seems more honest, or more valid, to try to recognise that. (Not that I always succeed, I'm afraid! ) Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 12:36 Quote (tamas @ Aug. 28 2005, 05:34) I see as usually, you are completely blinded again only because you love somebody or something. If that's what you'd like to believe... you don't know me well enough to make such a statement though. Back to top

tamas Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Aug. 28 2005, 21:00 Holger, and Alan D, my apologies, probably I was a little bit too harsh!  But the thing I don't like in the attitude of many fans, is that Mike is considered to be of a demi-god like figure, a person who is above any level of criticism, and even if we cricize him we always have to be very careful, and polite. I think strong criticism, even provocation can be often much more useful than sentences like "in my opinion, probably some parts of his otherwise amazing music, etc, etc..." Beeing an art historian I often write critics about paintings and films, altough I don't practice these arts. I compeltely disagree that the judging of the aesthetic level of an art form should come hand in hand with practicing it. I also have to point out that Turner is a bad example. He started as a conventional, academic artist, and in the 1860s ended up as a revoultionary painter, a forerunner of the impressionist movement - that why his early work was laudated, and later work was criticised so much in his time. However Mike seems to move just in the opposite way: starting with revolutionary ideas, and moving, especially since TSODE, towards musical commercialism. Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 03:43 Quote (tamas @ Aug. 29 2005, 03:00) Holger, and Alan D, my apologies, probably I was a little bit too harsh! Don't worry, I'm not offended. However, the attitude you describe is certainly not mine. I just think it's a bit pointless to criticize Mike (or any artist for that matter) - he does what he does, regardless of what we think about it. And in my mind, that is a good thing. I mean it's not as if we're solely dependent on Mike to produce great music. I'm always interested in hearing what other people think about Mike's work, however when they start saying he ought to do things differently than he does, that's where I think they're going wrong, because that just means that Mike is not the right artist for them (any more), and they should go looking for something else, or create something more appealing themselves. The comparison to a relationship is a bit off the mark because in that case it goes both ways, however with Mike, or other artists, we cannot seriously expect them to take our opinions into consideration - we can just choose to take or leave what he has to offer. If you think that opinion is nonsense, then that is your good right, I have no problem with that. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 04:00 Quote (tamas @ Aug. 29 2005, 02:00) even if we cricize him we always have to be very careful, and polite. I think if I were criticising anyone's work, I would at least try to be careful and polite. Why be careless or uncivil? Quote I think strong criticism, even provocation can be often much more useful But useful to whom? I've never read any fiercely derogatory and negative criticism that was useful either to me or the artist, or anyone else  - except maybe it allowed the critic to vent some bad temper. Quote Beeing an art historian I often write critics about paintings and films, altough I don't practice these arts. I compeltely disagree that the judging of the aesthetic level of an art form should come hand in hand with practicing it. Then on this point we must agree to disagree. If a critic has no experience of the technical difficulties faced by the artist, then I personally would have significant reservations about his judgement if he begins to make assertions about what the artist should be doing. Quote that Turner is a bad example. He started as a conventional, academic artist, and in the 1860s ended up as a revoultionary painter, a forerunner of the impressionist movement - that why his early work was laudated, and later work was criticised so much in his time. That's a misleading and over-simplified description of the situation with Turner, but to discuss it in this thread would bring down the wrath of the moderators upon us. I mentioned Turner merely as an example of an artist who was frequently criticised adversely in his time, and who knew perfectly well that he was being criticised through ignorance. I didn't intend the parallel to be extended beyond that. Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 04:33 Quote (tamas @ Aug. 29 2005, 02:00) But the thing I don't like in the attitude of many fans, is that Mike is considered to be of a demi-god like figure, a person who is above any level of criticism, and even if we cricize him we always have to be very careful, and polite. I think strong criticism, even provocation can be often much more useful than sentences like "in my opinion, probably some parts of his otherwise amazing music, etc, etc..." You mix up two issues here. Criticism is fine. Objectivity is especially good, and balance, that's the crucial thing. Go all sycophantic and people get fed up, just as they will get fed up with hard negativity. Find the balance and it becomes interesting... So, criticism is good by me. Provocation...hmm...I don't see any problem with expressing an opinion which may not be popular, but if it gets to the stage of saying things solely for the purpose of getting people wound up, whoever's saying those things will find him or herself suddenly rather unpopular with me and the rest of the admin team (we keep straitjackets and gaffer tape on hand at all times). Politeness is a definite requirement - not because Mike's a demigod, but because it's what stops this forum turning into a scene rather like the monkey enclosure at the zoo when feeding time's overdue (pesky Oldfield fans, always going for the windscreen wipers...trying to bend them into the shape of the number 4, I just don't understand what it all means!). We'd ask the same of Mike, should he ever have any interaction with users here... Back to top

Jools Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Sep. 03 2005, 08:40 A couple of things. There is a body of opinion on here that shys away from expressing opinion on the the "quality" of music, preferring instead to say it's all about personal taste. However (without going into detail) I think it is possible to define or at least come up broad criteria for what is "good" and "bad" music, and what makes one piece of music "better" than another. Ditto with literature and indeed all the arts  Despite the fact that for many years I have preferred to listen to Mike's music than Beethoven's String Quartets, Bach's Preludes and Fuges, or Mahler's Symphonies, I can also recognise that these are "greater" works, yes, probably even than Ommadawn (which moves me beyond comprehension). In the same way I think we can differentiate between music within the Oldfield canon and can say objectively that (regardless of personal preference) Ommadawn is a "greater" work than Tres Lunas (which I happen to think is a decent album). I also feel that some of Mike's former collaborators are well-positioned to advise and assist and could help him achive a standards of musical composition and presentation that he is unable to achieve on his own. Tom Newman, David Bedford, even Trevor Horn to name but three. In the past Mike has said something to the effect that his "innermost feelings are important" to him and in the same article (around the time of Heaven's Open when I think they last worked together) credited Tom Newman's contribution in enabling these feelings to be translated into music. It's all very well saying Mike is best positioned to decide what he wants to do but artists in particular (like all of us) do unfortunately have "blind spots". Although there is probably no way we can influence this situation it is rather frustrating. This said, I can't wait for the new album and I'm sure I will enjoy. Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Sep. 03 2005, 08:58 Quote (Jools @ Sep. 03 2005, 21:40) There is a body of opinion on here that shys away from expressing opinion on the the "quality" of music, preferring instead to say it's all about personal taste. However (without going into detail) I think it is possible to define or at least come up broad criteria for what is "good" and "bad" music, and what makes one piece of music "better" than another. Ditto with literature and indeed all the arts  Despite the fact that for many years I have preferred to listen to Mike's music than Beethoven's String Quartets, Bach's Preludes and Fuges, or Mahler's Symphonies, I can also recognise that these are "greater" works, yes, probably even than Ommadawn (which moves me beyond comprehension). In the same way I think we can differentiate between music within the Oldfield canon and can say objectively that (regardless of personal preference) Ommadawn is a "greater" work than Tres Lunas (which I happen to think is a decent album). I stand by my views that there is no objective way to measure how 'good' a piece of music may be. Yes, Ommadawn may be bigger, more complex, more popular than Tres Lunas, and the works of Beethoven of Mozart may be more famous, more acclaimed than Ommadawn, but that does not been they are better. You say that you prefer Ommadawn to Bach, well then I would say that for you Ommadawn is a better piece of music for you than the ones you mentioned. Any objective standards of greatness you could care to define will not include how it makes the individual listener feel. Personal preference is to me what judging art is all about: do I like this or not? That is what is important to me. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

tamas Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Sep. 03 2005, 11:19 Raven, what you say means that there is no objective values in the field of arts at all. I think this kind of relativism is to much. There cannot be doubt that "War and Peace" is a better novel than "Hot Kisses on the Beach", and Pink Floyd is deeper then Britney Spears. Of course, one can still like more the later one, but it says more about him, or about his particular mood. Although I admit, that it is difficult to measure a good piece of art, there should be some objective parameters,like  complexity, depth, originality, musical virtuosity, variatons of themes, the replay value of the music. Simlicity of course doesnt neccessarly means that the music is worse. But I realised that I can listen Oldfield's older music almost eternally, while these new tracks, no matter how much they grow on you, just get boring after a few days time. Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: Sep. 03 2005, 13:14 Yeah those a are a lot of good points Tamas and Jules. Personally I'd rather listen to Oasis rather than Pink Floyd but do I think Oasis are better than Pink Floyd? You must be joking. A lot of Pink Floyd is genius but do I like it? Not really. So that's how you admire something for its artistic greatness without much liking it. I mean there is a whole load of utterly definable reasons why Ommadawn is a better piece of artistic work than the Millennium Bell. Jools's points are quite good to and should have been discussed earlier. Sometimes the artist, under certain circumstances, is the least person able to judge their own work. Thats why most if not all of the worlds top musical acts know the benefit of bringing in a producer to collaborate with. The spectator sees more of the game, so to speak. I would certainly say Mike desperately needs to collaborate with someone to bring freshness to his sound, which by the sounds of things is still stuck in that mid nineties new age electro rut. Mike said in that Elements interview that he liked working with Trevor Horn because he sat there like a judge in a court room saying 'like it' or ' don't like it'. So I guess thats what we all do here on these boards. Maybe Mike should get Korgscrew or somebody to produce his next album, I'm suer they'd do a pretty good job. Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (9) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 >

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net