Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 >

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

Topic: Tubular Bells The Re recording released end of May< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
liron
Unregistered





Posted: Mar. 07 2003, 16:09

ok ok... lets cool down the atmosphere lads.
first of all i'm happy to see that this actualy means something to anyone, although you may not be on my side most of the times. and so i must make myself clear on the issue, as you guys seem to misunderstand or convert the things i say.

korg:
"It seems that the most precise definition we're ever going to get is that art is what society deems to be art"
i totally agree with you. art is a function of culture which is a function of society. it is also a question of time and place. BUT i think there is one thing that has always been a key parameter in determining what is art and what is an ornament, that is authenticity in the body of work. as you and me play music ourselves, i take it granted that the question considering the degree of authenticity you hold in your music has troubled you, as it does to me. funny as it may sound, authenticity IS detectable. you can hear it immidiatly. what it generaly means in music is the sound that says "fuck you - this is me". this can help you distinguish between, lets say for example, "alice in chains" and the "stone temple pilots", or "genesis" (in their prime) and "marilion". you can hear it, it's there if you keep an objective and not too close aproach. given that, it is easy to say that authenticity is the main element missing in oldfield's works since the late '70s. if people can't recognise authenticity, how do you explain the fact that so many agree that "amarok" was a return to form?

"Many hold Van Gough's sunflowers to be art, yet it's something he painted more than once - does this reduce their value as art"
did he paint the same picture? the analogy is false. the world outside is to a painter, what sound is for a musician. so did van gogh use the same 12 notes? yes he did, but every time he created something different with those 12 basic notes. as opposed to the bell boy.  

"artist is one who creates art"
this is a tautolgical sentance. it doesn't mean nothing, and doesn't say anything about the essence of art. if you say you can't define art you can just as easily say that there isn't such thing. and if that's your point, you are entitled to have it, but i totaly disagree.

"parts which I've felt are not quite how I'd wanted, for one reason or another. Sometimes it's difficult to listen to them again without wishing for the opportunity to do them again in a different way"
fair enough. ever heard of drop-ins? if it bothered him so much, why didn't he fix the problem when he first lay hands on it in 1975's BOXED? he made a quadro version, went as long as adding the original sailors hornpipe but forgot to erase the out of tune guitars and replace them with good ones?
i don't buy it - sorry.

"That's not to say that there aren't other factors involved - let's not forget that, for every three album contract that Mike's had from Warner, one of the three has always been a Tubular Bells album."
yes let's not forget...

"Actually, musicians recording their own work isn't unheard of - Joni Mitchell, for example (...) while other musicians have been involved with more slavish recreations (Jack Bruce re-recording Cream songs)."

what you say is true. but you forget that oldfield is saying this is the definitive version. non of the above including others say "sorry the first was a mistake, this one's the real thing". now look at it in as a philosophical argument and you'll see it's not valid: the fake is the original? makes sense?

"And by the way - I communicate feelings and thoughts through the media of speech and writing quite regularly, does that make me an artist?"
i write "hate" or "love", does that make you feel anything? does that answer answer your question?




toby:

"Surely to fully apreciate a work of art you have to know a bit about it's background and in the case of Mike it's important to know what sort of personal world and background he gets his emotional energy from"
let me ask you this, when you first heard mike's music and didn't know who he was, or that his mother was an alcoholic irish lady, that married a protestant english doctor, thus banished out of her family and suffering from a mental disease as a result, which affected the childhood of introverted mike, who became more and more occupied with playing guitar, and at 15 suffered a mental breakdown left school because he didn't want to cut his hair and so on and so on blah blah blah -when you first heard his music, did it bother you that you don't know nothing about the guy who plays the music? or were just too busy trying to pick up your amazed jaw from the floor? (i certainly was).
to fully apreciate art is THAT experiance mi'lad. what you are talking about when you say "know the circumstance of his life" is the peanuts of gossip, journalism, self created myths and, to a degree, the truth. but who cares? if it works it works! in that sense i don't need to know how many times maurin liston was wearing a strip jacket! and yes, i really don't give a shit! esppecialy when this comes as fan excuse for poor records. what counts to me (as i'm not his friend) is the work - because that's the only place i know him, and the work, my friend, SUCK!  

"All I'm saying is A) Haven't we been here before with TB2 B) It won't win over any detractors who say you can't do anything other than TB albums C) To give it another analogy I would say you don't just repaint the Mona Lisa because some of the brush strokes weren't right and the mood on her face was wrong. People have come to love it the way it is and for what it is and you just don't mess about with that. If you the artist aren't satisfied with a finished piece then you move on and do another better piece (arguably what Ommadawn is in this analogy) You don't spend the rest of your artistic career endlessly repainting the same picture with different colours. Do you get my drift? Thats the main reason I'm not a fan of TB2 or TB3."

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: Mar. 07 2003, 20:29

Liron I'm affraid to say it does matter to me massively that I know what Mike's emotional state of mind was when he composed whatever album. It's a fundamental part of art apreciation to know the background to the work. There have been times when I've been fairly critical of a piece of music or art, by Mike or anybody, and then I've found out more about it's creation and completely changed my mind about it and started apreciating it for what it is. I can't believe you can be so dismissive of such a fundamental fact, it's fundamental to actualy liking art.

I loved Ommadawn when I first heard it but when I found out more about Mike's state of mind when he wrote it I began to love it from a whole different angle and it became even better, thats the point I'm trying to make. So to fully apriciate art I would say THAT is the experience, THAT is the knowledge that gives you a tantalising glimpse into a great artists mind and why he or she creates. THAT is art.

How can you possibly say that all of that is the 'peanuts of gossip, journalism'. How can you possibly say ' who cares'. Don't you care what was going through Piccaso's mind when he created his masterpieces? Don't you care what all the art in the world was actualy fundamentaly born out of ? I certainaly do. I can't fully apriciate art without knowing it's background, who can? Liron are you saying you take all art at face value. It's a strange attitude to have chap.

If you think most of his music sucks fair enough thats your opinion and I'm sure there are those who would agree but then again there are those who wouldn't. Personaly I feel  there's a lot more OF VALUE than there is OF NOT in the artistic career of Mike Oldfield, a lot more, obviously I do otherwise I wouldn't be here writing this. If
Back to top
Profile PM 
Q! Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: Dec. 2002
Posted: Mar. 07 2003, 21:55

Quote
we ate TB2 although it sounded like a faded version of the original. we ate TB3 although it completely lacked soul, inspiration, and is a blasphemy to what you played in '73. and we ate the MILLENNIUM BELL


Whoa, calm down, it's just a freakin' title. Yes, TB2 was a sequel, but the other bells have absolutely nothing to do with the original TB.

Quote
Mike wants to try and make it better, and he can't rest until he does" is a mere speculation -because how do you know that? are you his therapist or wife? and even if he himself has said so: what guarantees its not publicity intended?

One way or another, we can only assume, and *you* are speculating too. The title of the new album is quite self explaning. Not interested? Don't buy it. I think it may be a good way for Mike to introduce himself to younger audience. After all, what's a better way to start then Tubular Bells?


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




Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: Feb. 2000
Posted: Mar. 07 2003, 22:16

"the album was released in 1973."

I'm talking about the Rerecording of course.  We haven't even heard what he's done to it, and already we're criticizing the concept.


"if he intended them to be seperate albums why call them TB? "

I never said he intended them to be seperate.  I was talking about how I look at them.


"with all due respect, it sounds like TSODE, in style and arrangement it resembles all albums of his since TB3."

I guess it is subjective.  TSODE is progressive.  TL is not; the songs just hang in place, dance around and then close.  It's a refreshing technique...an album full of Top Of The Morning-like tracks.  But for those who hate that track...well, that explains a lot  lol.


"An artist re-recording his own work IS unheard of.  Again, Mike's doing something different...as we've come to expect (and respect)"
"first of all don't turn the downfall to a victorious march. and don't be a demagog and suggest (yet again) that this means he's doing something different. i can simplify it for you into mathematics: X=X.
as to the expectations and respect... this is purely subjective."


Maybe I should've said, 'rare'.  Oh well.  As I said in my last post, I don't take this as a sign that Mike has run out of ideas.  Amazed you didn't quote that part.  I think he's just been dissatisfied with TB all these years, and feels obligated to redo it.

If you're a writer, you know that first drafts are always bad.  You rewrite it several times to fix the mistakes and make it better (I've even edited this post several times  lol).  Perhaps Mike has always felt that TB was like a first draft; something he knew could've been better because he had to rush to get it done.  The work that made him famous is something below his best, and he can't ever seem to top that.  I can understand him wanting to polish the draft to make it the final version he always wanted.  Who knows (to further go out on an unstable limb  haha), maybe that's what TB2 and 3 were supposed to be:  Mike's attempts to make second and third drafts so he can call it finished.

But as was pointed out earlier, you don't repaint a perfectly good painting in different colors just to call it new.  True...but what if that first painting made you famous, and you knew it was a rush job and not your best work?  Furthermore, what if your best work later on couldn't top your rush job?  I think I'd want to go back.

Yes, it is TB again.  But perhaps he just wants to fix all the mistakes he had to leave in the first draft.

So in this case, X = X isn't quite the equation we're looking for.  More like:
TBR = TB - mistakes.

Oh, don't criticize anyone for being subjective.  Isn't everything?


"did you hear about peter gabriel's "eve"? or prince's cd rom? or the residents' "freakshow", "gingerbread man" and "bad day on the midway"? or dozen of other ARTIST (!!! which utilize this powerful tool called MULTIMEDIA, and music combined with game plot. and i must add that they do it to a superb level that mike oldfield hasn't reached with his pale and tastless TL."

Sadly, I missed all those, so I can't react to them.  But I like MVR.  I don't understand how anyone can call it pale and tasteless.  Compared to games these days, yes the graphics aren't impressive, but they're not bland either.  It really is a relaxing and intriguing world to explore, and I enjoyed it.  If Mike had liscenced a modern game engine, then everyone would be criticizing MVR for looking like "x" game, and berating him for not giving it its own look and feel.


"five albums i put into the "commited artist" basket: "TB, HR, OM, INC, AMA" - the rest are experimentations with studio and computer technology and/or style and sound. non of which can hold water."

I seem to remember him saying about AM, that he just played the first random tunes that came to mind and in a few months he had enough riffs to make an album.  Mike also said that HR wasn't everything he hoped right off.  He was so burned out from TB that he recorded HR without the usual fire...or words to that effect.  Seems to me that art definately is all in the perception.  We percieve art in places where it wasn't intended to be....now that's a true artist at work :)


I'm willing to believe this re-recording of TB is Mike's attempt to correct the mistakes in the rough draft that made him famous.  It'll be the same music, but the sound will be different, and he's fixing all the mistakes he had to leave in there.
Back to top
Profile PM 
liron
Unregistered





Posted: Mar. 08 2003, 05:36

toby, i do appreciate your point of view, and DO agree that knowing all these details did give me a fair glimpse into what I THINK i know about the man. it is natural that if something deeply affects you, you want to know about the circumstance that gave it birth. you want to know about the man behind it, because you want, in some way, to connect to him - hell, i even came to the point of visiting the "beacon" and climbing hergerst ridge with a CD connected to my vains about 2 years ago (and i live in israel??!;). but that is out of the issue of appreciating the art. the art, when launched into the world, is by definition an autonomous body, which should and does contain itself within itself, and doesn't need anything but itself to show. there were times in human history when listeners and viewers did not have the chance to know about the artist - the world WAS a big place not long ago. did they not appreciate the art to its full extent?
the experience of being deeply affected by art, is a total subjective experience - someone pushes a catalizator into your bubble, and you are left with it to temper with your soul. to fully appreciate art you need nothing but the experience the art work gives. otherwise mike would have had to sell a biography with every album. the fact is, when i first heard ommadawn - the record spoke the mental state of the artist for itself - and that's what i mean when i say "communicate feelings and emotion through the medium". when i first heard hergest ridge, the only thing that was missing was the clutter of sheep bells, because it did convey a scene to me, which was not too far from what the man was seeing.
knowing about the man and appreciating the work in a new light is what i call FANHOOD. after all, a lot of people enjoy his records and don't bother themselves with the details of his life. and believe me - their experience is not incomplete.
Back to top
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: Mar. 08 2003, 08:06

Agreed and I think thats a fair point. What I'm saying ontop of that is that you can then put what you know about an artist, in this case Mike Oldfield, into some sort of context when apreciating there lesser works instead of just rubbishing them out of hand. TB, HG, Ommadawn, Incantations and Amarok I would agree are without question his most powerfull works but I don't think at all that just because some of his lesser albums arn't as good as these they, as you say, suck. Just because some of his other albums don't have the depth and range of those top 5 deosn't mean they don't contain SOME VERY ORIGINAL AND VALUABLE MUSIC. Thats the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.

It's the very fact that Mike is so ecclectic and erratic that actualy marks him out as an artist, It's a great strength not a weakness. I'm not saying this excuses bad decision making or producing bland vacuous music, which he has done in his career admittadly, but at least you can put it in some sort of context.
Back to top
Profile PM 
christopher Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: Mar. 08 2003, 22:23

Liron you Fox and Toby have made some really good points... but... Liron, you stated that an artist re-recording his music IS unheard of... this is not true at all.

There have been many many many many many many many... did I mention MANY artists that have re-recorded again and again and again their own music.

Let's make a list off the top of my head of artists that have continued to re-record their biggest hits

Elton John
Billy Joel
Moody Blues
Pink Floyd
The Monkees
Elvis
The Beatles
Fleetwood Mac

Need I go on...

Yes a few of the names I've listed have gone by the way side these days... but it did at the time boost interest in them again and bring a whole new generation to listen.  A generation that will continue to listen after they are gone... i.e. ELVIS (wish they'd dig a whole and make him disappear for good!!!!! - he made 43 million last year and he's dead)

I rest my case... please play on with what everyone was saying... I've been gone for four days and haven't been round to read.

Christopher
Back to top
Profile PM 
MusicallyInspired Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 1445
Joined: June 2001
Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 08:50

The band 'Delirious?' put re-recordings of one past song from the previous album on every album. They're rather cool, actually.

--------------
BrandonBlume.com
"The beauty in life is in the embracing of the variety of things. If all the world was blue there would be no colour blue."
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
liron
Unregistered





Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 11:40

christopher:

what i have said is deeply connected to the way the west culture has been manifesting itself through art since 1945 (i.e. the time of the great fall of modernism into post-modernism). what mike oldfield is doing here, and this is really a philosophy of art debate, and not, as some here suggested, a pure question of taste - what he is doing is not unheard of, that is true, but not in the manner you proposed. it is true that a lot of artist rerecord their own music, and suggest new interpertation to it, others are recording cover versions to music they feel they can add their point of view to. but this is not the case here.

A. oldfield is not suggesting a new interpertation. and he states that - he say that this is the original piece and he does not want to change it in any way.

B. as you can understand this is neither a cover version (which needs a new interpertation), or a new point of view. this (and that has been the ground thesis for the making of this album) is the SAME thing.

so you tell me my friend, what does it resembles more:

- a cover version?
or
- a new advertisment by coca cola?

and here is why i think  its not unheard of:
coca cola (and nike, and the car industry, and the fashion industry, AND the popular music industry) is selling you the smae product for years and years. the only thing that changes are the people and the way coca cola introduce their product to them. coca cola is about 150 years old, yet whenever it is advertised, you see it as the NEW, HIP thing that young people drink. same thing with nike. if you have shoes, and they work alright, why go and buy another pair? or the 80s fashion of ripped off teared down jeans: you get an OLD product in the disguise of NEW AND HIP. what was uncool in the 80s? ripping your own jeans!
the authentic act (jeans that was torn by you) was considered unauthentic, and the unauthentic (jeans torn by machines in a factory) was considered the authentic.

this is a debate that goes a little beyond your average "don't like it - don't buy it" dicussion. this is, as i said, an act that could only accure and be accepted as normative in a society which is used to these kind of things. and i say again, what mike oldfield does here is declaring the authentic as unauthentic, only to sell you the unauthentic as the authentic! get it?
it is heard of - but until now it was heard of in the circles of advertisment and coorporate busyness. this is (unless it is ment to be a self aware post-modern act by mike, and i doubt it!;) a cinycal use of piece of art and art consumers emotions. you may say that he ONLY wanted to fix the bugs in the masterpiece, but:
1. why so long? as i said he first had the chance to do it in 1975.
2. why so much TB versions AND the use of the word BELL in so many albums?
3. why declare THIS version as the DEFINITIVE version, when the definitive was made in 1973?

after asking yourself these questions and pondering seriously and objectivly (as one can) about the answer, you can come to what ever conclusions you think is right. but this act is not to be taken lightly, for it bears serious philosophic questions about the nature of what you precieve.
Back to top
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 11:42

Quote
i take it granted that the question considering the degree of authenticity you hold in your music has troubled you

Hmm...interesting thought (and as I consider it, I begin straying off topic - it might be better to move over to the discussion forum in the fan music section if we're going to take this further). I can't say I ever worried myself over such things as authenticity, just over whether I like what I've created or not. If I do like it, then I'll be enjoying myself too much to be concerned with how authentic it might seem to others, and if I don't like it, it'll have been consigned to the scrapheap, or altered, long before any more complex thoughts over it have come to mind.

On artists being those who create art...
Quote
this is a tautolgical sentance. it doesn't mean nothing, and doesn't say anything about the essence of art. if you say you can't define art you can just as easily say that there isn't such thing.

The sentence means what it says (and was, incidentally, there to add logical conclusion to the point I was making...not really what I'd call tautological) - that the person creating the art is the artist. It wasn't meant to say anything about the essence of art...I'm saying that if art is hard to define, then the role of the artist becomes equally hard to define as a consequence.

On Van Gough...
Quote
did he paint the same picture?

Yes, he did - take a look at these:

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0457.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0454.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0458.htm

Three separate paintings, and they're in my view far more similar to each other than the three Tubular Bells albums - I'd go as far to say as they're as close to each other as the re-recorded Tubular Bells is to the original. Van Gough created even more paintings on a very similar theme, and like with Mike and Tubular Bells, the image of sunflowers in a vase is the one which first comes to mind for a lot of people when Van Gough is mentioned.

Quote
ever heard of drop-ins? if it bothered him so much, why didn't he fix the problem when he first lay hands on it in 1975's BOXED? he made a quadro version, went as long as adding the original sailors hornpipe but forgot to erase the out of tune guitars and replace them with good ones?

Making successful drop-ins relies on a number of factors, the first of which is having everything set up in exactly the same way as when the original recording was made, if the sound's going to match at all (though this of course depends whether the aim is to just replace a few notes in a passage, or replace the part entirely - for the latter, exact matching is less critical). Three years and a change of mixing desk at The Manor could have been enough to make that more difficult.
The other big factor is having all the parts on their own discrete tracks, otherwise replacing one part is going to write over others as well. This would be the case with Tubular Bells, as in some sections, tracks have been bounced down on top of each other in order to overcome the 16 track limit, making replacing some individual parts a rather tricky business.
A couple parts did get replaced, though - namely the reed and pipe organ in the Viv Stanshall section (which had somehow disappeared), and the Tubular Bells (replaced because they were distorted on the original...which I don't think was anywhere near as bad as the fact that the new bells are out of tune...). It would of course have been possible to have gone on and replaced other bits, even replacing sections where heavy bouncing down had gone on...and after a while in those situations, a sensible musician ought to look at it and realise that it might actually be easier to start again from scratch. I think that re-recording Tubular Bells in 1976 would have been an even worse career move than doing it in 2003...
The Quadrophonic version wasn't Mike's doing, though - it was mostly Phil Newell's work, with Mike apparently being quite uninterested in it (it seems he was more concerned with perfecting Hergest Ridge, removing the parts which jarred with him to create the definitive version which quickly replaced the original version on shop shelves the world over).

Quote
i write "hate" or "love", does that make you feel anything? does that answer answer your question?

To take the joke more seriously...
The words on their own carry only a hint of their full meaning - good communication would place them in a sentence, usually together with a subject and an object. Say 'hate' and people might make a few associations in their mind as to what hate means to them, but it's referring to nobody, and so loses any kind of real personal element. Say 'I hate you' and you've communicated how you feel towards someone, and it's likely to have made them feel something too (at a guess, not very happy ;)). But no, it's not 'art', though it could be said that communication is an art, with art being a skill (with the word art coming from the latin 'ars', meaning skill)...unless, of course, somebody finds this expression of dislike to be of some kind of value...

What I'd say about the re-recording of Tubular Bells, is that if it's being done as a kind of business move, then it's not a terribly good one - Mike gets enough stick for releasing bells albums every few years as it is. I think he'd do far better if he celebrated the 30th anniversary by an album as 'Tubular Bells parts 3 and 4', something intended to be reminiscent of the original, but continuing where the other left off, rather than following the formula of Tubular Bells 1, 2 and 3.
That's not his chosen path though, and so we just have to sit back and either ignore what he's doing, or make the most of it.
I do still find worth in his music, even if it's not on such an epic scale as the likes of Amarok (an album which I suspect is a once in a lifetime kind of thing - the amount of creative energy involved there is huge). If Mike had stopped recording albums when he felt he didn't have anything left in him, he'd never have recorded Hergest Ridge...and Ommadawn might not have followed either, and so on (speculation, of course - no doubt the ideas would have surfaced when he really felt ready to record them, though they may have taken a less favourable form).

By the way, liron, seeing as you appear to be posting here quite a bit, you might like to take advantage of the benefits you'd get by registering...
Back to top
Profile PM 
christopher Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 13:08

Liron... again you have made some really good points.  But, those artists haven't done new interpretations(sp?)  of those songs... just updated the sound and technology.  

Take for instance Moody Blues... Elton John... The Monkees... and some others...

Moody Blues re-recorded all their top hits for a greatest hits collection.  Those new versions weren't any different the originals.  Only change was the quality and technology used... that's all.  Elton John has re-recorded 'Your Song' (his very first hit - like Oldfield's 'Tubular Bells';) - so many times... you begin to wonder if he remembers any of his other hits.  And the only difference in each version is... band or solo piano... that's all.  Tubular Bells would be nothing if you just played a single guitar bit and that's all.

As I've said so many times already... yes Mike may have had a chance to clean up TB earlier on... but that would not be a good marketing move at the time.  Nor was he in any good state-of-mind in the 70's - rebirthing himself - hiding from the press - being a recluse.  Naturally you would want to follow up your biggest hit with atleast a number 2.  However, in my opinion that's where he should have stopped!  Waited until 2003 and then released the re-recording.  His biggest marketing mistakes were to call TB3 - TB3... calling TMB - TMB.  Granted he wanted to ring in the millennium with the sound of a Bell... his trademark... this was still a bad move by any marketing standards!  

Back to my 'I've said this already' statement... Mike just has to get this out of his system.  This is something he wants to do for himself... not us... himself!!  I really believe that once he gets this out of his system and released... he'll move on from the Tubular Bells - McDonalds - franchise operation.  

I'll agree that Mike has turned himself - well always has been - but since his obsession with computers in the last 5 years - has turned himself into a good sound engineer and technician and forgotten the music in the process.  

Let's take a quick look at Dave Matthews Band.  Every year they put out a LIVE album from a different city.  The same songs... done pretty much the same way each time.  And yet you don't hear his fan base complaining about him re-hashing and re-hashing the same material... they just run to the record store and buy it- no questions asked!  

Granted I'll really give you this... America is the capital of re-hashed and re-used and laundered music - amongst many many many other things!  We in the west have such a good nack for overdoing everything and squeezing the last MONEY drop possible out of the public - over a 'once original' idea!!!!  Hince why we have so many fucking reality TV shows now... GOD TAKE THEM AWAY!!!!!!!  We have stollen SO SO MANY idea's from the UK and Europe it's gone way beyond sad!!!!  

You know... I don't think America has really ever been a leader in the music industry!!  From the days of the Baroque right through to modern times.  We usually import everything and then try to make it our own!!!!  Our music industry proves my point by simply searching for music talent in Canada - Russia - Spain - and a bunch of other countries.  Remember the British invation... who did we listen to... the Brits... not American's... HELLO... a pattern continued... we don't use our own - we just copy cat everybody else.  So... Mike is being rather western minded and so is Warner - big surprise by Warner - NOT!  

Anyhoo that's enough on this subject... I'm just going to wait like everyone else and see what happens.  At best it will re-launch Mike's career... maybe even in America.  At worst... it will completely kill his career and destroy his credibility as a real musician.  Hopefully it will be the best case scenorio... relaunch his career - BIG!! :)

Christopher

PS Has anyone heard if Mike and Warner are going to release this in the US??????
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 13:22

Korgscrew I think your Van Gough analogy is an interesting one, Van Gough once said (when talking about the sunflower paintings) that if he were a carpenter he'd alway's be trying to remake the same table and trying to perfect it. And the same could obviously be said for Mike with TB, but that isn't to say Van Gough didn't have his detractors who critisised him for for his over indulgence with the one theme and Mike will recieve the same crtisism come May 25th. Still the sunflowers are now seen as masterpieces much like TB is.

I still think part of the problem people have with the new TB, inculding myself, is that its simply a case of one (or 3) TB albums to many. As I said before If TB2 didn't exist he would be in a far stronger position artisticaly to do this.  

Interestingly enough I've just read that George Lucas is going to re-do StarWars yet again for its DVD release. What is it about all these artists that they can't simply leave things as they are.
Back to top
Profile PM 
liron
Unregistered





Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 15:40

korg:
first of all i thank you vary much for your invitation to join and be a member. as a matter of fact i was a member here since '99 (i was the stupid asshole who launched the "mike oldfield died in 1979 replaced by a car mechanic named ricky nelson" debate :)). i don't know what happened to my user name though, guess olivier trashed it...

"Three separate paintings, and they're in my view far more similar to each other than the three Tubular Bells albums - I'd go as far to say as they're as close to each other as the re-recorded Tubular Bells is to the original. Van Gough created even more paintings on a very similar theme, and like with Mike and Tubular Bells, the image of sunflowers in a vase is the one which first comes to mind for a lot of people when Van Gough is mentioned."

A. these are paintings (as i am an art student, i guess i should know...:)), painting is different to music lad. especially when it comes to magnum opus works as oldfields. paintings convey (at least as most major artists in western history thought) a need to conect to the world outside, to be one with it, and through it to come to a state of mind of unity with the subject they see. music on the other hand is an art form that (usually) seeks it's drive from the inside out, even when the trigger is an outside trigger (like hergest ridge for example). painting is a medium that manipulate and built on space, music is a medium that manipulates and is built on time. as such they are both fed from different aspects of reality. although time may be manifested in a painting (and vise versa in music), the main streangth of each medium is those i've stated above.

B. the context of both cases (van gogh's and oldfield's) are different, not only by the means by which they create. they are different also by the fact that they were made in different times, and with different intentions and different considerations to take.

C. painting the same picture is not so rare in western history, as the art form is an art that takes it's vitality from observation. artists such as van gogh are constantly seeking to catch the essence of of the thing before them. let me just guess (and this is far from a wild guess) that van gogh didn't paint the same subject just to make it more beautiful the second and third time! if you'll be serious enough and think about it you'll see that the reason he did it is not for the persuit after perfection, rather the presuit after the ESSENCE! being a musician yourself i'm inclined to think that maybe you know a thing or two about the issue (and if not... well.. you must have a really good time practicing as mike has done for the last 25 years). the essence the essence the essence - ESSENCE! not ornament, not more gloss, special effects, double mirrors and sorround systems - essence! and the essence, whether mr. oldfield likes it or not WAS cought in '73.
you talk about technical problems of track bouncing? well what about THE technical problem:

25 years of plastic making and a complete change in temperament, maybe even in personality! how the hell can he bring the DRIVE that made him do it back! does he have a specially designed automated desk that does it! or maybe regressive hypnosis?
Back to top
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 16:18

Liron I think you've taken this painting analogy to far remember it is just that 'an analogy', I agree completely with the latter part of your arguement however.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Olivier Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 1865
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: Mar. 09 2003, 17:41

Quote (liron @ Mar. 09 2003, 15:40)
i don't know what happened to my user name though, guess olivier trashed it...

liron, I didn't trash anything, your username is liron, but the email seems wrong (it's a usa.net account), so if you forgot your password, feel free to contact me and we can change it.
Back to top
Profile PM 
SCprogfan
Unregistered





Posted: Mar. 10 2003, 11:18

Well, I have been quoted twice now as saying "Mike wants to try and make it better..." which seemed to stir some emotion.

What I wrote was "If Mike wants to try and make it better..."
The ommission of the word "If" possibly caused some confusion about my comments.

I don't think that it's up to us to say that the 1973 version is the definitive one.  Isn't that decision up to the creator of the work?  I guess maybe we would all pick the definitive one for ourselves, though.  I'm sure that I have done that with plenty of musical works before.  It is kind of an interesting question though.  I remember reading a quote from a modern orchestral composer who said that a certain new recording of one of his symphonies could be regarded as the definitive version.  That recording was made under a different conducter, and I remember thinking...what about that older recording you conducted yourself?  Why isn't that the definitive version?  Strange.

All of this talk about Mike wanting to fix things makes me wonder about the packaging and liner notes to the latest HDCD remasters.  That is something that I think an artist would want to have a lot of control over, and I realize that a lot of times they don't.  I have wondered for a long time about how that CD got labeled all over with "Crisis" instead of "Crises".
Back to top
Thomas Höögh Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: Mar. 2001
Posted: Mar. 10 2003, 15:22

First of all, how old are you people? Why I am wondering is because I do not understand your point of views here. So I figured out that you must be quite much older than me and certenly have been around since Mikes career started. I am 25 years old and the first MO-ablum that came to my ears was Tubular Bells 2 live (Broadcasted by Swedish Television) A few years after that i heard TSODE and it was here I started to relly like the music and started to by albums. 1998 Tubular Bells ||| was released and I was completly sold. How could one do such a good thing was my thougt then. I listen to it even now, five years later, a couple of times a day just do enjoy the heat,  the variation, the speed, the intence and of course THE BELL!

When you guys have decided which of MO's albums are the best you list  TB, HG, Ommadawn, Incantations and Amarok. All of them released before I even knew who Mike Oldfield was. Is this, and my age, the reason that i do not agree whith anyone of you, especially not with liron who started this discussion. Untill you started it was quite peaceful here :) No hard feelings. My list of Mike Oldfield's top five album looks like this. Tubular Bells ||| (without a doubpt), TSODE, Tubular Bells 2, Amarok and maybe Ommadawn. Many albums could be listed at the fifth place. As you can se, none of his albums released after TB3 is on my top list either, even though I think they are really good.

Over to Tublar Bells The Re Recording now. Well what can I say, first of all I am glad that I can go to a store and by me a Mike Oldfield CD this year and dont kill me now, I am glad he doing this re recording. Percenly I dont like Tubular Bells :O .  I have, as many of you, every version of the album, original vinyl, orignal cd, remastered HDCD, SACD version, boxed version and so on and so forth. And I like none of them. Its to hard and poor sound quality. The melodies and composition are good, but the quality of the sound makes my ears pain. Thats why I looking forward to this top of the art sound qulity product. But I do not expect to like it more than I already does, maybe I just listen to it a little bit more casue of the new version. And whats more exciting, a 5.1-version to. Though its only exciting for those of us who have the equipment to listen to it fully.

liron, you said:
Quote
first he made a take off on the original and called it TB2, than he made a record that hardly resembles TB and dubbed it TB3, and now it's the SAME album


I don't call TB 2 a take off from the original. They do have their simularities, but they far from the same. Then you go on and argu about how different TB3 is from the TB concept??? I do not understand that. I see these three albums as a triology and they all develop the concept in a story that spans over 25 years and finnishes off with FATC in TB3. I think you can stop dreaming about Tubular Bells part 3 and 4. The TB saga is over except from the re recordings of the first episode. The Orchestral Tubular Bells is a rip off according to me.

Then there is the talk about artisitc suicide, how can it be possible when the man hardly is interesting for the media now a days??? Honestly, do you ever read about MO anywhere else than fan sites on the internet? I dont, no one cares about him. My guess is that it is as usually only we, the hardcore fans that knows about, and will by this album. At least in Sweden the media dont care about Mike Oldfield, hardly the CD stores does. When he toured here with Then and Now a daily newspaper wrote a only little column (5 cm wide) about the concert and they all turned it down as crap. That was all!

I have most certain missed a lot here, but I dont remember all the replyes in this thread. The main thing that I wanted to say is that I think that our different opinions regarding TB RR is about our age. But thats just my speculation and doesnt have to go for all of you.

In peace

Thomas


--------------
Crazy, terrible, wonderful, perfect!!!!

I just love Tubular Bells |||
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
liron
Unregistered





Posted: Mar. 10 2003, 16:06

thomas:

A. im 25

B. the discussion has nothing to do with age, and as i mentioned before, though you probably missed the 12 times i did it, it is not about musical taste either.

C. sorry for disturbing your peace and tranquility. i gather you can hear TB3 yet again to restore the feeling.

D. the "list" as you call it, is not of "best" albums (see 'B';), and i'm not going to begin a futile and a bit childish discussion about what albums every mike oldfield fan in the world likes or dislikes. obviously, i can't and don't find it entertaining to try and convince you, and you can't convince me.

E. "Then there is the talk about artisitc suicide, how can it be possible when the man hardly is interesting for the media now a days"
what's the logic of this sentence?
an artist only appears in newspapers? to be an artist you need to be popular? if the media is not interested in you than what you create is art? or vise versa - if they don't, than you're obliged to create art?
let me make it clear:
art and media has nothing to do with each other. at best one feeds on the other. that is not to say that artist don't concern themselves with the issue of "fame" and "money". only that idealy they try to keep as much distance from such influaces, as they disturb the working process.

F. have a nice day.
Back to top
Thomas Höögh Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: Mar. 2001
Posted: Mar. 10 2003, 16:53

No liron, I didn't miss what the thread is about. Maybe though I didn't right much about it in my reply. I totaly forgot though I had to made my self clear on many other stages that this discussion has gone through.

The age thing liron, was just i theroy of mine and beacause most of you who have wrote here highlights Mikes earlier albums and lower the later ones I thought every one here was about twice my age. Thats what I based my theory on. Thats also why I took up my top five list, cuase I thought it might have something to do with my age if I were younger than everybody else here. Not to convince other people to agree with my personal top five list.

Regarding the TB RR I agree with what someone said earlier (mayby it was you liron) its not couse Mike needs money, he has plenty of those and they keep roling in constantly. And the request for this album can hardly be anything else than low. All of us who is going to buy it buys it only because we are MO fans, nothing else from MO comes out this year and we want it in our collection cause we do want to have everything the man gives us to buy. The only reason I look forward to this album is, as I mentioned before, the top of the art sound quality and of course the changes from the version from 73 (missed that part in my other post) But I would a thousands times more have something that is not recycled.

There has been a lot of Tubular Bells album lately and I too getting bored of them. I would most certain have a brand new album, not based on any earlier work than a RR of Tubular Bells. But when the discussion went in the direction of accusationing TB2 and TB3 to be easy rip offs of the original I felt I had to stand up a little. Its the number of re-released TB that is the problem, not that TB2 and TB3 excists.

By the way liron. Really thin answers you came up with. Mostly empty words you wrote.

A. Ok we are the same age

B. Think I made that clear

C. O no, you ruin my day :O

D. Made that point out too

E. If nowone judges his latest work, then no one knows about it and no one cares, just as it is now. At least in my country which I thought I made clear in my last posting.

F. Good Night


--------------
Crazy, terrible, wonderful, perfect!!!!

I just love Tubular Bells |||
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: Mar. 10 2003, 17:42

Thomas please don't feel that Liron's disturbed the pease in anyway as this has easily been one of the most interesting discussions in ages reading back on it. People should alway's feel free to voice their opinions no matter how contraversial they may be and so much the better if they can back up their arguement constructively, which Liron definately did.

The problem that arises with these sometimes quite intellectual discussions is that they quite often inevetably deteriorate down to never ending debates over what albums are good and what are not, fine if that was what the debate was about in the first place, but in this case it wasn't and I thought things were getting interesting. I must admit that I'm trying to steer clear of the 'polls and opinions' section if this site because it just seems to be a never ending debate going round in circles of people trying to get one up on each other and people getting offended beacause their favourite album is getting slagged off. I much prefer general discussions about Mike's career like this one which tend to be more contructive and actualy interesting and educational.

So cheers Liron I for one have apreciated your opinions and input. :cool:
Back to top
Profile PM 
95 replies since Feb. 10 2003, 13:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

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

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 >






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