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

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

knife edge Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: May 2003 Posted: June 03 2003, 07:53 For me is TB like it has to be. The original was written when Mike had the genius but not the experience and thecnology to record it. The new version is magic, it adds emotions on almost every track of the original work, and those real mandolins in tracks 12 and 13... Well done, Mike... now, what about making some new music? Andrea Back to top

mikex Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: July 2005 Posted: Aug. 15 2005, 12:45 I hardly ever listen to TB2003 because it is in the wrapped 'Complete TB Package' and is a bit of a pain to keep getting out. But today I thought I would give it another go. I am currently listening to Part 2. It is a beautiful day here in the South of England and I have a lovely view of the Kent countryside from my window. A perfect setting for this wonderful piece of music. I have it going (rather loud) on my earphones and realise just how much I love this album. I love TB, but this is so much better (no offense to TB fans), all those little creases from the first ironed out, the guitars all up to date and not so harsh. Oh wow, why didn't I bring it out earlier! I was very dubious when I heard Mike was remaking the classic, but now I can hear why. Mike has played it so many times on tour and all those years have really paid off. Simply Marvelous.   -------------- Anthropolologee, upstairs and inside a revelation is blinking well baffling! Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 15 2005, 15:52 Quote (mikex @ Aug. 15 2005, 17:45) I love TB, but this is so much better I entirely agree. TB2003 usually gets such a hammering on this message board that I sometimes find myself longing to read an opinion that's sympathetic to the new version - just to be able to nod, and share the pleasure of it. Thanks. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Aug. 15 2005, 16:03 Interestingly, I often find a lot of venom being spilled over the original Tubular Bells here, on this board; so much, that the "TB2003 is so much better" argument has become commonplace to me. I guess the differing opinions stick out more to our eyes, after all. I'll say: I think the overall roughness of the recording hasn't got to do with the state of technology, or Mike's experience, since the production duties were also being handled by Tom Newman and Simon Heyworth. It probably has to be with the ridiculous inadequate situation for recording that album, and the way it challenged technology back then. Imagine if Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" and 10CC's "I'm Not In Love" had a limit of three or four days to be recorded - they would suffer enormously with the pressure. And just to think that 25 minutes of that music was recorded in one week is insane. The aforementioned "Bohemian Rhapsody" took three weeks, and it's just 6 minutes long! -------------- 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: Aug. 15 2005, 16:26 It seems there's a great opportunity here for a venomous debate over which version gets attacked the most venomously!   Back to top

3Wheeler Group: Members Posts: 828 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Aug. 26 2007, 15:34 I cannt get what all the Fuss is about this recording..  Ok weve all got the Original maybe 2 or 3 Copies in most cases ...Mikes gone back and re recorded this version using 21st Century tech... No Complaints here I Like the Album and welcome the Tk Segmentation as well as its great to skip a few Tks if short on Time or if you wish to target certain areas of the album..  It sounds Fine to me and in no way detracts from the "Original"...  I guess the John Cleese section is the only major change but its not something that bothers me that much..   -------------- We're Flying Aeroflot, We've Got Reservations. Back to top

onion Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: July 2005 Posted: Aug. 26 2007, 16:19 I actually enjoy the 2003 version...it is so crisp and clear and I cant´ explain why, but for me it seems a lot more positive and dynamic than the original from 73. Great remake from MO but sadly I miss some sort of music video or documentary to follow this great version. Mike -------------- Are soft boiled eggs supposed to make a crunchy noise when you eat them? Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Sep. 13 2007, 08:50 Yeah! It would have been really interesting for the fans for a DVD special edition to be accompanied with videos of Mike playing each instrument... thats a great idea   -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

New Incantation Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Dec. 22 2007, 04:31 Played "2003" for the first time yesterday. Still undecided about it. Sometimes I wonder whether I should be measuring it against the original or on its own merits. It certainly sounds crisper, fresher to the ear, although there's also a hint of too much digital synthetics that to me removes some of the rawness that was so evident in the original. I was also quite taken aback by John Cleese's rather whimsical, off-handedness in the finale. Perhaps I was expecting something a tad more in line with Vivian Stanshall's master of ceremonies on the original. Overall though, I enjoyed the album a great deal. But it will take more repeat listenings to fully come to terms with Mike's efforts and whether or not it is anywhere near close in terms of quality to its predecessor Back to top

trcanberra Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: Mar. 09 2008, 01:56 Just listened - love the clarity - bass is great.  Some of the synth wind instruments disappoint, but the overall clarity and "oomph" make up for it for me. Slightly favour this over the orginal. Back to top

Major Gowen Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: June 2008 Posted: July 19 2008, 11:50 When it was released many people I knew said "what's the point of that, it sounds like a re-hash of the original". And whilst that may be true, I have to admit I really like TB2003. To me the original is out there on it own but there are parts of the 2003 version which don't improve upon it per se, but get a different reaction from me when listening to it. For instance in the 'fast guitars' section the guitars seem more desperate and edgy, whilst the acoustic bit which follows is more upfront and therefore works better as a 'calm after the storm'. And Cleese making the announcements, I just think his pompous schoolmaster voice works perfectly. Back to top

moonchildhippy Group: Members Posts: 1807 Joined: Dec. 2004 Posted: July 19 2008, 18:06 Quote (New Incantation @ Dec. 22 2007, 08:31) Played "2003" for the first time yesterday. Still undecided about it. Sometimes I wonder whether I should be measuring it against the original or on its own merits. It certainly sounds crisper, fresher to the ear, although there's also a hint of too much digital synthetics that to me removes some of the rawness that was so evident in the original. I was also quite taken aback by John Cleese's rather whimsical, off-handedness in the finale. Perhaps I was expecting something a tad more in line with Vivian Stanshall's master of ceremonies on the original. Overall though, I enjoyed the album a great deal. But it will take more repeat listenings to fully come to terms with Mike's efforts and whether or not it is anywhere near close in terms of quality to its predecessor I pretty much agree with you New Incantation.  I don't know whether to regard TB 2003 as a remake of the 1973 original, or as a competely separate piece of music. I mean the original of a classic is the best version, and the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" springs to mind.  I'm not sure what to make of TB2003, there's bits I like  the Caveman Opera but parts I hate, John Cleese, he wasn't Monty Python enough for me, overall I prefer TB 1973, I feel my ears are so accustomed to it       -------------- I'm going slightly mad, It finally happened, I'm slightly mad , just very slightly mad If you feel a little glum to Hergest Ridge you should come. I'm challenging  taboos surrounding mental health "Part time hippy" I'M SUPPORTING OUR SOLDIERS BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!! Back to top

The Caveman Group: Members Posts: 2178 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: July 30 2008, 14:42 I think the point here is that Mike wanted to do this since TB came out.He hears all these inperfections as being really awful while we,that is the fans,hear them as nice little quirks that make the original what it is.  I do really like bits of 2003 but i always miss the duff notes like the double bass dropping out in the bit straight after the first big guitar solo or the fluffed on guitar in the build up to the introduction of the insruments.  I don't hear the breathing on the acoustic guitar parts like i do on the original that make it seem more human or organic.  It's akin to building a copy of a great cathedral using modern materials.It may look like a really clean tidy building with nice crisp edges (as the original would have looked on completion) but it lacks the charm of the original and the imperfections.It's still great but it's not as great as the original. See i told you i have an obsession with cathedrals. -------------- THE COMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHEIF IS NIGH. Back to top

smillsoid Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Dec. 2008 Posted: April 14 2009, 14:32 I adore TB2003.  I believe it's how the piece always sounded in Mike's head.  If you 'miss' the mistakes, why not just play the original straight afterwards? -------------- http://www.reverbnation.com/simonjmills Back to top

InsideOfYou Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: July 2010 Posted: July 26 2010, 05:45 I like it!! and that's coming from Mr. Analogue himself (see my other posts). A valid and unpretentious re-recording, actually a great introduction to Mike's music for a young person checking out his stuff for the first time. I listen to it in 192 kbps MP3s, sounds cool!! Back to top

wendybunny Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: Sep. 2010 Posted: Sep. 12 2010, 18:16 I really like it and can completely understand the decision to go back and rework it.  There have been many artistic projects of my own that I've had the urge to redo because I know that I can do better now. I imagine that feeling must be greatly amplified when it's something that you're famous for. To have one work that most people know you for and to have a certainty that you could do it better, I can't fault anyone for redoing it. I also like the fact that it's not a completely straight, that we now get a pair of neanderthals and that John Cleese treats the master of ceremonies role differently. That said, I will still probably listen to the original more, because I grew up with that album. It could quite easily be one of the first records I ever heard. Back to top

dreamland Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: Dec. 2010 Posted: Dec. 30 2010, 19:57 In many ways, I do prefer the 2003 recording - particularly the 5.1 surround mix. The acoustic guitars are so beautifully recorded, you can hear every string being picked and every fret noise: really gorgeous, like Mike is there in the room. Back to top

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

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net