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

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 02 2005, 13:59 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 02 2005, 17:41) The case is, if the album wasn't so cruel, snide and wicked with its listeners, then Mike's entire effort would have been a complete failure... If you're right (and perhaps you are, though I think not), then there's nothing left for me to say about such a supposed intention,* except to repeat what I said in my last post but one: "It's not my kind of art." *(intention, please note - not the actual music, most of which is certainly my kind of art: that's the problem.) Back to top

bugular tell Group: Members Posts: 482 Joined: Mar. 2003 Posted: April 02 2005, 15:50 Thanks for replying Raven, good to hear your comments, seems that i have re ignited some interest in this topic, which is good as there are loads of new members, well since i started this thread, and its cool to get them involved, when i started this i really didnt know what the fuss was about, and to some degree i still dont, but having said that i am starting to realise what the majority see in it, i do enjoy it more, and the reason i dont update on this as often as i should is simple.......... i dont want to listen to it very often, because if i start forcing myself to listen i will end up not liking it at all, so i wait untill i think "hmmmm, i'll give Amarok a go tonight!" although tonight is not one of those nights! hehe, but thanks for the comments and view's, its great to read! keep it up guys and gals! regards lee   -------------- Light travels faster than sound, thats why some people appear bright until you hear them speak Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 02 2005, 19:29 Hmm, my problem here is that I disagree with much of what Sir M said, but I don't really know how to reply, so this post might seem a little disorganised. Oh, well, lets see: Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 01:41) Well, I just can't accept that any artist can take a moderately fine musical idea and release it as a smashing 10-minute epic with guitars piled on top of more guitars, bombastic choirs and pianos everywhere, and very loud drumming and playing and pass it off as a powerful, universal statement. One has to have a very good reason to do that. Many artists can make huge music, but it all has to have a point. I would argue that being loud, powerful and emotive is the point of that section of Amarok, at least one of the points. If I was to apply your arguement to the ending of Ommadawn Part 1, I would be saying that it needs funny voices or something coming after it or else it doesn't have a point. But you don't think that, do you? Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 01:41) Those looking for pure, unadultered "power" and "emotion" and whatever should be looking elsewhere, in my frank, brutal opinion. This is where we get into subjective territory. I listened to Amarok very loudly on Friday when I had the house to myself (bliss!!! ), and all I can say to this is that, to me,  Amarok has more power and emotion than any other album I've listened to. Only Jeff Wayne's 'War of the Worlds' gives me a similar quantity of emotional impact, but with totally different emotions. Even if you took out the voices and sound effects, Amarok would still be the most joyous album I know. The huge soaring guitar solos and the choir at the end would definately make sure of that. Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 01:41) The snide humour and self-deprecation is the very point of the album, and what makes it so amazing: it's not every artist that has the guts to write such fantastic melodies and deliver them with that kind of sense of humour. Well, I do agree with you on this one. To me the humour isn't the only point of the album, but it is one of them. However, I still think it's perfectly valid to dislike the album because of that. If someone released 60 minutes of feedback noises as an album and people complained an album, would you refuse to listen and say that annoying people is 'the point'? If you don't get the humour in Amarok, your not going to like it, and being told that the humour is the point of the album isn't going to change that. Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 01:41) The case is, if the album wasn't so cruel, snide and wicked with its listeners, then Mike's entire effort would have been a complete failure... No no no no no. No. I totally disagree. Try telling that to all the people who don't like the album for precisely those reasons. If it wasn't so evil like that, I would still find it an amazing album. By the way bugular tell, it's great to see Blackadder and Red Dwarf quotes in your signature. I'm a big fan of those shows myself. Do you recognise my quote?   -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 03 2005, 13:42 Quote (raven4x4x @ April 02 2005, 19:29) Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 01:41) Well, I just can't accept that any artist can take a moderately fine musical idea and release it as a smashing 10-minute epic with guitars piled on top of more guitars, bombastic choirs and pianos everywhere, and very loud drumming and playing and pass it off as a powerful, universal statement. One has to have a very good reason to do that. Many artists can make huge music, but it all has to have a point. I would argue that being loud, powerful and emotive is the point of that section of Amarok, at least one of the points. If I was to apply your arguement to the ending of Ommadawn Part 1, I would be saying that it needs funny voices or something coming after it or else it doesn't have a point. But you don't think that, do you? Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 01:41) The snide humour and self-deprecation is the very point of the album, and what makes it so amazing: it's not every artist that has the guts to write such fantastic melodies and deliver them with that kind of sense of humour. No, you're not quite hitting the bullseye here. Africa II has a huge meaning, taken in the context in the album, thus it has a point to exist. That's what I was talking about. About Ommadawn, it's a completely different animal! That is an introspective, serious album (i.e. it's not humourous, though it is joyous at points), and there's no space for comedy in there. If I said there should be comedy in there, it would be completely invalid according to my philosophy, so that's why I don't do that. I take the album for what it is. Besides... remember 'On Horseback'? Quote I listened to Amarok very loudly on Friday when I had the house to myself (bliss!!! ), and all I can say to this is that, to me,  Amarok has more power and emotion than any other album I've listened to. Only Jeff Wayne's 'War of the Worlds' gives me a similar quantity of emotional impact, but with totally different emotions. Even if you took out the voices and sound effects, Amarok would still be the most joyous album I know. The huge soaring guitar solos and the choir at the end would definately make sure of that. Right, but if you did enjoy the album all the way through, you weren't expecting a serious, straight-faced album - that's what I tried to say. It is powerful, but in a very oblique way. Quote To me the humour isn't the only point of the album, but it is one of them. However, I still think it's perfectly valid to dislike the album because of that. If someone released 60 minutes of feedback noises as an album and people complained an album, would you refuse to listen and say that annoying people is 'the point'? Would that be Metal Machine Music, by Lou Reed? Well, in fact, it is useless to complain about it, since it was meant EXACTLY to annoy people. You either apprecitate it or you don't, but you don't say the feedback "ruins" the album to you. Quote Try telling that to all the people who don't like the album for precisely those reasons. Like Virgin, at the time of the album's release. Quote If it wasn't so evil like that, I would still find it an amazing album. Yep, but it wouldn't annoy Virgin. -------------- 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

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 03 2005, 20:03 How can we be having a disagreement over an album which we both rank as our favourite of all time? Oh well, we both love it in different ways obviously, and for different reasons. All I can say is that when I listen to Amarok I do enjoy the humour, but I listen mainly for the emotional resonance it gives me. That is why I listen to it. With an album like this I'm sure many people have a diferent interpretation of it (probably including Mike when he wrote it), but this is why I love it so much. That concludes my post number 1000, my meaningless milestone for the day. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: April 04 2005, 06:25 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 03 2005, 13:42) I take the album for what it is. Besides... remember 'On Horseback'? Quote If it wasn't so evil like that, I would still find it an amazing album. Yep, but it wouldn't annoy Virgin. I snipped out what I thought were two very good points by Sir M here - lots of folks did think that On Horseback was a very silly way to end Ommadawn back in 1975.....it actually took me quite a while to accept it on its own terms. And also the 'annoying Virgin' factor is important when considering Amarok.  There's no point us wishing for a different kind of Amarok because the album is what it is because of the factors that contributed to its genesis - and annoying Virgin was indeed one such factor. Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 04 2005, 06:57 I'm not denying that annoying Virgin is a big part of the album, a very important reason why Mike wrote it like he did, and for me quite enjoyable,  but for isn't the most important factor in my enjoyment. Would I still love the album if it wasn't meant to annoy Virgin? Yes, very much. Would I still love the album if it didn't have feeling? Not in the least. Perhaps trying to annoy Virgin could have given the music some of it's feeling, but anger isn't an emotion I really get from Amarok. Overall I get a feeling of joy from the album, which is sort of hard to reconcile with trying to annoy your record company, and which no amout of funny voices and Thatcher imitations can lessen. The mad, annoying aspect of the album isn't as vital to me as it is to some others. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: April 04 2005, 10:57 Quote (familyjules @ April 04 2005, 06:25) very silly way to end Ommadawn back in 1975.....it actually took me quite a while to accept it on its own terms. The silliest part of "On Horseback" is that "Hmph!" of derision toward the very end: as if someone did not like the entire song. -------------- "In the land of the Dacotahs, Where the Falls of Minnehaha Flash and gleam among the oak-trees, Laugh and leap into the valley." - Song of Hiawatha Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 04 2005, 12:44 I think we kind of missed the starting point of the discussion. We weren't discussing the reasons to like the album. I never mentioned that, and in fact, the initial discussion was about the reasons to dislike the album. What I was trying to say is very simple: if you don't like the snide, aggressive mood of the album, you actually dislike the album for what it is. Nothing wrong with that, but it just doesn't sound comfortable to hear one say that those things "ruin" the album. Those things are the essence of the album, and as a result, it sounds like one wanted the album to be completely different to suit his tastes. In resume, it would be more correct to say that the album is wretched, but with some great musical spots. As for liking the album, well, you can like whatever you want about the album, just like you can dislike whatever you want. I, personally, deeply enjoy everything about the album. Emotional response is one of those things, definitely, but it's just one of those things. If Amarok wasn't so bold, sarcastic and bitter, I'd probably prefer Tubular Bells over it. -------------- 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: April 07 2005, 12:57 Yes, yes, still thinking about all this. I've been trying to find some kind of parallel example of an artist taking some first rate art and deliberately laughing at it... and the best I can come up with is Marcel Duchamp's picture of the Mona Lisa with a moustache and beard drawn on her face. Duchamp is a complex artist and his works have no single meaning, but at least one purpose of this work, I think, is iconoclastic. He's taking a swipe at the accumulated mystique of the picture and cutting it down to size. It's funny, in a black sort of way, but the schoolboy humour has a serious side-effect. It helps you to look at the original Mona Lisa with the iconolatry stripped away, and see it with fresh eyes. In other words, he's not laughing at the picture - he's laughing at the icon that the picture has become. To use the word Sir M loves to hate, he's cutting at the pomposity of the 'idea' of the Mona Lisa as the archetypal masterpiece to be visited, venerated and worshipped (as opposed to being honestly and sensitively observed for what it is). At first I thought that Amarok might approachable on similar terms, but there are two crucial differences: 1. Duchamp added his joke moustache only to a postcard of the real painting. The real painting remains to be enjoyed in full. Mike didn't do this. Mike added his joke moustache (in the form of Margaret Thatcher) to the real piece of music. It isn't possible to hear the 'real' music without 'hearing' the joke moustache. 2. In the case of the Mona Lisa, there exists real pomposity to be deflated - not in the picture itself, but in the iconolatry surrounding the picture. But in the case of Amarok, I find no pomposity to be deflated. (I know Sir M does, but I think his Pomposity Police fabricated the evidence.) So I'm left as puzzled as I was before. Take the joke moustaches away from Amarok, and you'd be left with what must surely be Mike's greatest work. But Mike saw to it that we can only have it with the joke moustaches included. Sir M thinks they provide the essence of the work. But I still incline to the belief that the desire to have a laugh at Virgin's expense temporarily clouded the Oldfield artistic judgement, so that what we got was a forever broken and defaced masterpiece. Back to top

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: April 07 2005, 13:09 Is it really just Maggie Thatcher, Alan? That chanting and ululating that goes in the very last minutes is sort of silly sounding too even without her voice. I mostly agree with Sir Muu on this, even if I often think that some of those loud TWANK guitar blats in the beginning could be toned down. -------------- "In the land of the Dacotahs, Where the Falls of Minnehaha Flash and gleam among the oak-trees, Laugh and leap into the valley." - Song of Hiawatha Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 07 2005, 13:18 Quote (hiawatha @ April 07 2005, 18:09) Is it really just Maggie Thatcher, Alan? Oh no - I'm just using her as the most obvious (and maybe most unpleasant) joke moustache. There are lots of other little joke moustaches too - yes, of course! Back to top

The Big BellEnd Group: Members Posts: 971 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: April 07 2005, 14:37 it's a bit like trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer this Amarok thing, but I would say that if both Alan and Mustapha were painted and framed as images of the mona lisa, alan would have a joke mustache and mustapha would be wearing a clown suite or worse the emperor's new clothes. -------------- I, ON THE OTHER HAND. AM A VICTIM OF YOUR CARNIVOUROUS LUNAR ACTIVITY. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 07 2005, 14:44 You know, I just think I see Amarok in a different way. To me, those more "jokey" parts were never "tacked on" to the overall picture. They were part of the scenery right from the beginning. Perhaps Maggie's speech is tacked on, but I won't speculate on that. I don't think Mike just stuck the "jokes" there after the album was finished because they provide a crucial balance for the album: the strong and powerful is balanced by the lightweight; the serious and dark is balanced by the humourous and giggly; the loud and bombastic is balanced by irony and self-deprecation. If you remove "irony" and "self-deprecation", the album collapses on the side of "loud" and "bombastic", and that gives that "pompous" thing I've been talking about. And what just is that deflation of pomposity I've been talking about? There may be no pomposity in the album itself, but it was on the actual artist. Just when Mike starts getting a little puffed-up and self-important, he throws it all on the trashbin and starts again. It's like attending the performance of a symphonic orchestra, with all pomp and circunstance, but before each movement is performed, the conductor introduces it with a joke. The most conservative members of the audience will be outraged, but the conductor is just trying to say "we're all supposed to be having fun here". You may not agree with him, but you'll have to, at least, agree that he's being quite bold to be doing that. -------------- 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: April 07 2005, 15:23 Quote (The Big BellEnd @ April 07 2005, 19:37) it's a bit like trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer this Amarok thing, but I would say that if both Alan and Mustapha were painted and framed as images of the mona lisa, alan would have a joke mustache and mustapha would be wearing a clown suite or worse the emperor's new clothes. 1. I think it's more like trying to crack a sledgehammer with a walnut. 2. I always wear a false moustache for that very reason. It stops people from confusing me with the Mona Lisa. Back to top

Baggiesfaninessex Group: Members Posts: 682 Joined: Mar. 2002 Posted: April 07 2005, 15:28 To continue this theme, I feel the joke was as much on the consumer (us) as it was on Virgin. If Mike had created a masterpiece then compromised the flawless product with idiosyncrasies designed to undermine his best work, then it was as much a two fingered salute to his fans as it was to Branson and Co. You see, Mike is well aware of his die-hard fan-base who will buy and try anything he releases. Amarok was hardly the sort of music, which would be aired on radio, so one bought the album blind. Working on the assumption that Amarok would be his greatest work without the jolly japes, then Mike decided to ruin a great piece of work, therefore denying his fan-base (who are the reason he is where he is) of an essential piece of music and the nearest his older fans came to hearing something close to the delights of his first four albums. That thought sickens me. There is much to enjoy in Amarok, but there is much to exasperate too. I remain unconvinced by the total product yet in awe of sub-sections of it. -------------- “A dog is not intelligent. Never trust an animal that's surprised by its own farts.” - Frank Skinner Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 07 2005, 15:41 Quote (The Big BellEnd @ April 07 2005, 14:37) it's a bit like trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer this Amarok thing Fortunately, we can always call Peter Gabriel's name so he can be our sledgehammer, so that's not a problem. To T4, well, the notion that Mike "added" those "jokes" to "ruin" his "greatest work ever" is completely against my view. Maybe that's because I like it the way it is, or maybe that's the reason why I like it the way it is? A little enigma for ya. Yes, I'm good at making things very complicated. Besides, I remember reading an interview with Mike where he said he loved many things in Amarok, and also hated many things in it. Perhaps the joke ended backfiring on him? To me, that only reflects what a completely different musician he became at the time of "The Songs Of Distant Earth". I mean, he was unable to get his own sense of humour? -------------- 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: April 07 2005, 15:42 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 07 2005, 19:44) It's like attending the performance of a symphonic orchestra, with all pomp and circunstance, but before each movement is performed, the conductor introduces it with a joke. The most conservative members of the audience will be outraged, but the conductor is just trying to say "we're all supposed to be having fun here". You may not agree with him, but you'll have to, at least, agree that he's being quite bold to be doing that. Well, it all depends. Sometimes jokes are simply inappropriate and there would be times when they'd negate the music. One or two of Elgar's Enigma Variations would go down very nicely with a funny story; but to crack a joke just before or just after the finale of Gotterdammerung would be an act of crass insensitivity. And that's really where we differ perhaps. To me, the Thatcher monologue, for instance, isn't even slightly funny, and is painfully inappropriate - almost the very last thing I want to hear at that moment (though I suppose a pneumatic drill might be worse). I've just been (musically) soaring among the clouds, and suddenly I'm wrenched down out of them to .... well, the equivalent of a custard pie in the face. Bold? Well yes. But boldness can be folly too. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 07 2005, 15:52 Quote (Alan D @ April 07 2005, 15:42) I've just been (musically) soaring among the clouds, and suddenly I'm wrenched down out of them to .... well, the equivalent of a custard pie in the face. Yeah, well, you're not obliged to like it, but that's just the very purpose of the thing. I know I like Amarok's custard pie much better than the [rude word] pie of "Far Above The Clouds" (okay, okay, let's keep away from that). -------------- 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: April 07 2005, 16:09 Aha! Now I see. It's the nature of the custard pie that's the issue. For us to understand each other, we have to consider this scenario: Suppose that Mike prepared a new version of Amarok in which the Thatcher monologue were removed, and replaced by.. yes... 'Far above the clouds'. What a joke!! It would be no use how many explanations were offered in the name of humour, Sir M - you'd still hate it, wouldn't you? Now - how you would feel in those circumstances is how I actually do feel when the Thatcher passage begins. What for you is a custard pie that makes you lick your lips and chortle merrily, is for me a pie made of ingredients to which I'm allergic..... Should we start a cookery thread? Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net