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

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 03:26 Quote (hiawatha @ Mar. 30 2005, 12:57) Would it have been any better if it was just a generic humourous voice, instead of one that is immitating a figure you dislike for political reasons? My reply to this question would be 'no'.  I think that any attempt at scripted humour seriously deflates the majesty of the album and would be ill-judged whatever the contents.  If I want comedy, I'll go put on a comedy album. Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 05:41 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 30 2005, 17:28) To me, that's called "Throwing the pomposity on the ground and smashing it to bits with a coal mallet". This (mis)use of the word 'pomposity' (and also 'pretension' in a previous post) completely baffles me. I feel unhappy about aspects of Amarok for various reasons, but two things that are entirely absent from it are pomposity and pretension (in the sense implied). Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 06:54 Same. I've never found anything in Amarok that I could say was pretentious or pompous. Then again, I can't think of any music at all that I would make that complain about, so I don't suppose I can talk. Still, someone who loves the album so much should hardly be calling it pretentious or pompous. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 07:09 Quote (Alan D @ Mar. 31 2005, 05:41) I feel unhappy about aspects of Amarok for various reasons, but two things that are entirely absent from it are pomposity and pretension. What is 'pretention' in art anyway?  It's often used when a critic feels an artist has over-reached themselves.  One man's 'breaking down barriers' is another man's 'pretention' I guess.  Personally I'm all for artists trying to push the envelope - if the results are pretentious or even if I don't care for them, then I'm still glad that someone is at least trying new things. Next thing you know I'll be defending Prog Rock!  Hmmmm.....well, maybe not.   Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 09:03 Quote (familyjules @ Mar. 31 2005, 12:09) What is 'pretention' in art anyway?  It's often used when a critic feels an artist has over-reached themselves.  One man's 'breaking down barriers' is another man's 'pretention' I guess.  Personally I'm all for artists trying to push the envelope - if the results are pretentious or even if I don't care for them, then I'm still glad that someone is at least trying new things. Oh yes, surely. The risk taken by the artist pushing at his limit is that he may succeed and break entirely new ground; or may fail. And if he does fail, we should still applaud the attempt, if not the achievement. In Ruskin's words: "no great man ever stops working till he has reached his point of failure". Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 12:18 The basic formula is: Pretentious artists: 99% of them. Overly pretentious artists: ELP. Quote I've never found anything in Amarok that I could say was pretentious or pompous. Oh, I have. Not only in Amarok, but in the entire work of Mike Oldfield. The problem is not the pomposity in itself: the problem is what justifies that. A load of pomposity without any solid musical idea will tend to turn into a load of schlock. With Amarok, that's not the case. But there's no doubt that certain moments in Amarok scream "Hey look at me I'm so important" at me, but that's fine, since the music is so well written. It is important. Nevertheless, before Mike can get overly self-important, he goes back to something lightweight, and that's what keeps Amarok balanced all the way through. To put it short: to me, Thatcher's voice at the end says "Hello, everyone. Let's remember that this isn't TBIII yet." -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2005, 14:10 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 31 2005, 17:18) The basic formula is: Pretentious artists: 99% of them. How puzzling! If you have such contempt for artists, then why would you bother paying attention to art at all? Unless of course you're just trying to wind us all up - in which case, er.. yes, nice one..... Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 14:20 No, no, no, you misunderstood me! That's not what I meant! You know, the pretention is a natural part of making art. Making art is pretentious, to some extent! Whether you'll achieve what you're trying to do is something else, but art is pretentious by nature. Nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when an artist is INCREDIBLY pretentious but has nothing special to say. That's why I mentioned ELP. -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2005, 15:38 pretentious 1 : characterized by pretension : a) making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) b) expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature 2 : making demands on one's skill, ability, or means : AMBITIOUS So are you using the word pretentious in this less usual second sense, then, of meaning merely ambitious? But if so, then where does the pomposity arise? Every artist must be ambitious to some degree, or they'd never do anything. But to be ambitious isn't to be pompous. And I still can't see for the life of me how these terms could be applied in any derogatory sense to any part of Amarok. A less pompous work would be hard to imagine, with or without the Thatcher episode. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 16:35 Quote But if so, then where does the pomposity arise? That's open to discussion. Rolling Stone hates the Moody Blues accusing them of being pretentious, but many people love 'em. Who's right? Who can answer? Quote Every artist must be ambitious to some degree, or they'd never do anything. But to be ambitious isn't to be pompous. Precisely. But it isn't too uncommon to see artists being unnecessarily pompous at times. That's why I say the problem isn't with being pompous in itself, but being pompous without having anything to say. Quote And I still can't see for the life of me how these terms could be applied in any derogatory sense to any part of Amarok. Me neither. I never did that. I never accused Amarok of being overly pompous. What I meant is that Africa II, to me, isn't a good closer for the album. That climax is a moment of self-importance and bombast. Africa III destroys that, and turns the feeling into something universal and joyous. Mike sacrifices his own pomposity in the name of something simple and humane, that is the celebration at the very end. -------------- 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

Baggiesfaninessex Group: Members Posts: 682 Joined: Mar. 2002 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 17:38 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 30 2005, 12:28) Quote (T4 @ Mar. 30 2005, 11:33) Why dilute something so emotional and beautiful with something so banal and inane? Madness. To me, that's called "Throwing the pomposity on the ground and smashing it to bits with a coal mallet". I dunno, I love that! That's like the polar opposite of Queen finishing 'A Night At The Opera' with "God Save The Queen", but with the same sense of humour. I don't consider the climax to Africa 2 anything more or less than beautiful. It is, in my opinion, one of the most lovely, uplifting themes he has ever written. A shame then, that it is all too brief. But, it is really not what I would consider pompous or pretentious. Bear in mind, I am a lover of all things Progressive Rock so perhaps pomposity and pretention are all a part of my daily listening experience. Or could that be better described as virtuosity and genius? Just because someone is great at what they do, why should they play it down? -------------- “A dog is not intelligent. Never trust an animal that's surprised by its own farts.” - Frank Skinner Back to top

Baggiesfaninessex Group: Members Posts: 682 Joined: Mar. 2002 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 17:45 Quote (hiawatha @ Mar. 30 2005, 12:55) I agree. The "Africa" climax sections of Amarok would be just too long, and just too overwrought and pompous without Maggie being added. Maggie ruins it. It is not funny, original or clever. Quote Would it have been any better if it was just a generic humourous voice, instead of one that is immitating a figure you dislike for political reasons? No. I feel the same about Altered State on TB2 - those ridiculously squeaky female voices. Are they meant to be funny? Well I never laugh. I don't even smile. In fact, in company, I turn it off as I find it embarrassing, just like Maggie. The original Piltdown Man was different insofar as it was almost like a prehistoric interpretation of a rock vocal (*Pretentious? Moi?) - but Altered State is a complete no-no for me. *The old ones are always the best. -------------- “A dog is not intelligent. Never trust an animal that's surprised by its own farts.” - Frank Skinner Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Mar. 31 2005, 19:24 Describing any piece of music as 'pretentious', 'self important' or anything like that isn't something I would subscribe to, no matter how I feel about the music. Even for something like Tales from Topographic Oceans by Yes, when I listen to it I don't think 'what I load of self important hogwash', I just say 'I don't really like this'. It's true that technically all art is pretentious, as the artist is assuming that what they are creating is meaningful or important in some way. Really, I could accuse any album I don't like of being pretentious, but it's not something I ever think about when I listen to music. As for pompous, I'm really not sure what that means in terms of music. If it's something big, powerful etc then that's about half of the music I listen to. Again, it's not a distinction I would make. I prefer to focus on what I'm feeling when I listen to the music. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: April 01 2005, 03:06 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Mar. 31 2005, 12:18) The basic formula is: Pretentious artists: 99% of them. Overly pretentious artists: ELP. LOL.  Nice one. Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 01 2005, 04:01 This discussion mainly seems to be meaning less and less, with certain words carrying additional personal baggage that clouds the issue. On the face of it, the way that 'pretentious' is being used, here, reduces everything to pointlessness. Used in this weak sense, it becomes pretentious just to get up from your chair. The idea that any dramatic powerful statement has to be followed by sniggering in order to cut it down to size seems so absurd, and would reduce to ridicule so much of the world's greatest artistic achievements, that it's self-refuting, I think. Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 01 2005, 04:11 Quote (Alan D @ April 01 2005, 17:01) The idea that any dramatic powerful statement has to be followed by sniggering in order to cut it down to size seems so absurd, and would reduce to ridicule so much of the world's greatest artistic achievements, that it's self-refuting, I think. I agree, but perhaps that's why he did such a thing. Building up this glorious emotional climax and then bringing people crashing down to earth with the ramblings of a reviled polititian seem very much in the spirit of Amarok don't you think? I think it fits very nicely with the crashing synth chords, chainsaw noices, 'happy' voices, 'F---K you' morse code and the rest. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 01 2005, 06:25 Quote (raven4x4x @ April 01 2005, 09:11) Building up this glorious emotional climax and then bringing people crashing down to earth with the ramblings of a reviled polititian seem very much in the spirit of Amarok don't you think? I think it fits very nicely with the crashing synth chords, chainsaw noices, 'happy' voices, 'F---K you' morse code and the rest. Yes it does - but then, those are the things that ruin Amarok, for me. I can understand the point of view that says Amarok is essentially anarchic, and that in this case the ruination of superb music by the injection of crazy noises, and then sniggering at it, has some kind of artistic validity. It's not my kind of art, but I can see that it might be what Mike was trying to do. But I simply can't accept the idea that without those things the music would be pretentious and pompous. It wouldn't. It would be wonderful. Different of course, and no longer anarchic; but still wonderful. Back to top

Baggiesfaninessex Group: Members Posts: 682 Joined: Mar. 2002 Posted: April 02 2005, 04:34 Alan - thank you. You have summed up in few words, what I have been trying to say for years. You have done a far better and more reasoned job of it than I could ever do. -------------- “A dog is not intelligent. Never trust an animal that's surprised by its own farts.” - Frank Skinner Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 02 2005, 05:06 Quote (T4 @ April 02 2005, 09:34) Alan - thank you. What a kind chap. Let me buy you a pint. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 02 2005, 12:41 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. If it doesn't, then it becomes overly-pompous and... well, pretentious. It all depends on the artist's intentious and style, and how it's handled. Has anyone here heard King Crimson's "Epitaph"? You should know that it's a really pompous, puffed-up excuse to deliver pseudo-philosophical lyrics and all. Yet, the song is made worthwhile by great singing and great playing, so it's not overbearing. Has anyone heard "Firth Of Fifth", by Genesis? You know, it's ridiculous how Tony Banks could deliver those incredibly puffed-up NONSENSE lyrics with a perfectly straight face. If that's not pomposity, then someone changed its name. Yet, the music is superb, and Peter Gabriel is able to deliver the lyrics and melody with verve. The song isn't rotten, but Banks' pretention is. In Mike's case, it would be pretty pointless for him to think-up a 60 minute album with dead-serious, grandiose, bombastic themes being performed as loudly as possible. He did that before, and better. 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. Those looking for pure, unadultered "power" and "emotion" and whatever should be looking elsewhere, in my frank, brutal opinion. If one can't admire the essence of the album, it can't complain about it being "ruined". It's like listening to The Residents' "The Third Rehcn & Roll", and then saying: "I really like the songs they are covering, but the album is ruined by all those noises, bad playing and bad singing ruin the album to me." You know... Mind you, my opinions aren't that radical, I just felt like delivering them that way. I know it can be an incredible frustration hearing music that's fantastic to you, not being delivered the way you'd like. But with Amarok, the only solution is giving in and learning to enjoy it. Difficult? Surely, but not impossible, IMHO. 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... -------------- 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

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

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net