Joined: April 2007
||Posted: June 15 2008, 19:41
|Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 15 2008, 16:40)|
|It is a beautiful album, no doubt about it, but I'm not wise enough to tell if it's just an artificial, "pretend" beauty or if it's the real thing.|
I'm not wise enough, either, Sir M. That's not important, for me, though. Perhaps, when Jesse describes Voyager as an "anti-intellectual album", he means it not as an inherent quality in the music, but as the most suitable approach from a listener's standpoint? There are times when I appreciate something more when I tackle it from a different angle, whether intellectual or emotional, objective or subjective. I think it's a testament to MO's talent that his works are often rich enough to reward deeper study. I feel that Voyager, however, may not be one of them. And I don't mean that as a criticism. I've said before that sometimes all I require is beauty. And listening to "Mont St Michel", at this moment, I'm perfectly satisfied with what it is.
|If this were to be a "Mike Oldfield Celtic" album, then I would expect him to put his own, personal, unique twist into the music; and frankly, I don't hear it.|
Sir M, you've made me realize that I hadn't really thought of that. And now I'm wondering if that is good or bad. Good, because it's a lovely album regardless of stylistic expectations. Bad, because - darnitall - we want Mike to be Mike, since it's the Mikeness that makes the music so special, after all. Errr.. and now I've totally lost my train of thought.
"I'm no physicist, but technically couldn't Mike both be with the horse and be flying through space at the same time? (On account of the earth's orbit around the Sun and all that). So it seems he never had to make the choice after all. I bet he's kicking himself now." - clotty