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

Pages: (16) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 08 2005, 21:01 After reading these posts and listening to the album again, I find myself wondering if I have changed my mind, at least a little. I'm now feeling, although the bells climax is simply wonderful, that the choral one is perhaps an even better way to end the album, in my mind at least. However, if wanted to get rid of the Maggie section entirely and keep the choral climax, you would have two huge endings right next to each other, which wouldn't make sense musically.  I would need somthing in between them to give a respite, and Mike chose the speech to do this. Perhaps a light-hearted piece of music would have done just as well? It could easily have kept the African choirs and drums, but without the speech. It would serve the same purpose as the speech, but without being silly and stupid to a lot of people. I've also just realised how strange it is that I've been taking the side of the 'don't like the speech' people. I do like it, and I don't think it ruins anything, but a piece of music like I suggested above would do the job for me just as well. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 09 2005, 13:28 Quote (raven4x4x @ April 08 2005, 21:01) I'm now feeling, although the bells climax is simply wonderful, that the choral one is perhaps an even better way to end the album, in my mind at least. However, if wanted to get rid of the Maggie section entirely and keep the choral climax, you would have two huge endings right next to each other, which wouldn't make sense musically. You nailed it there. At least, that's the same feeling I have about that ending. Maybe some people wouldn't mind two huge, Earth-shattering climaxes in a row (or three, or four), but I know I would. The transition represented by Maggie's speech is of utmost importance. Now, I'm quite intrigued with that suggestion of replacing the speech. Completely wiping it out just wouldn't work: just like Hiawatha said, it would give an empty feeling, like there was supposed to be [/i]something[/i] there that just isn't. But, through the album, there are numerous examples of a "lightweight" musical piece making a transition - like the blusey send-up of TV-AM, the first "Mad Bit", the cowboy mandolins with the fake fireworks exploding, and all. It would work. I feel Maggie's speech is completely unexpected and "out-of-place", and that's why Mike put it there, in first place. -------------- 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: April 12 2005, 11:52 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 08 2005, 12:37) Quote (Alan D @ April 08 2005, 06:32) I agree with Jules that the Thatcher passage was just a bit of artistic misjudgement. It seems nonsense to suggest that such a silly thing is crucial to an understanding of an album that contains so much stunningly good music. That's no nonsense to me. Yep, the climax of Africa II is definitely stunning (and I already said somewhere that's among my favourite parts of Amarok), but... you know, being left stunned after an album ends is really annoying. Something needs to put me on my feet again. Thatcher's speech does just that. It's a wake up call, and changes the focus from Mike Oldfield himself to the entire ensemble of African drummers, singers and Janet Brown. sense. If you isolate the ending and the ending alone, it may sound inadequate. But why do you think Amarok was indexed as one sole track? And that is where what many have said already, including youself, is spot on. It all comes down to personal taste. I want to be left stunned after an album. No way on this earth do I want to be out back on my feet again straight away. No way. I want to be left stunned; in tears; an emotional wreck; laughing out loud; goosebumps running up and down my body; unable to speak. All of those feelings and wanting to experience them, have been the main reason why I have such a huge music collection. I don't want or need humour, satire or any nonsense to dilute a beautiful piece of music or to detract from artistic genius. If that is pompous or pretentious then tell me please, where can I hear some more? Africa III is not as beautiful a climax as Africa II - whether Maggie was involved or not; I would still prefer Amarok to end with the Africa II climax. It is, for me, one of the finest pieces of music Mike has ever composed. Funnily enough, I have now found the time to burn myself a second copy of Amarok for the car and have edited it to ensure it ends at the climax of Africa II. It simply save reaching for the stop/pause/skip button each time and plays for me, more like the complete album it should have always been; a paradox considering I have chopped a chunk off the end!   PS If I want humour, I tend to find Monty Python do the trick very nicely thank you!   -------------- “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 12 2005, 15:22 Quote (T4 @ April 12 2005, 16:52) I want to be left stunned after an album. No way on this earth do I want to be out back on my feet again straight away. No way. I want to be left stunned; in tears; an emotional wreck; laughing out loud; goosebumps running up and down my body; unable to speak. I've more or less dropped out of this discussion, having said my piece several times over. But I can still cheer from the sidelines. Hoorah to this! Quote I don't want or need humour, satire or any nonsense to dilute a beautiful piece of music or to detract from artistic genius. If that is pompous or pretentious then tell me please, where can I hear some more? And hoorah to this! Quote Africa III is not as beautiful a climax as Africa II - whether Maggie was involved or not; I would still prefer Amarok to end with the Africa II climax. It is, for me, one of the finest pieces of music Mike has ever composed. And hoorah to this! Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 13 2005, 06:55 Quote (T4 @ April 13 2005, 04:22) I want to be left stunned after an album. No way on this earth do I want to be out back on my feet again straight away. No way. I want to be left stunned; in tears; an emotional wreck; laughing out loud; goosebumps running up and down my body; unable to speak. I agree, and for me the choral Africa III climax does just that, perhaps even more than Africa II. No other piece of music I know gives me that same feeling of absolute joy, except perhaps Heaven's Open. Even with the maggie bit there, by the end of the album I am well and truely stunned. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 13 2005, 12:34 Quote (T4 @ April 12 2005, 11:52) I want to be left stunned after an album. No way on this earth do I want to be out back on my feet again straight away. No way. I want to be left stunned; in tears; an emotional wreck; laughing out loud; goosebumps running up and down my body; unable to speak. I might sound a little rude here, but I don't understand this reasoning at all. Isn't music supposed to be fun? I don't want music to give me a bad mental situation, I listen to music to exactly reverse that situation. -------------- 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 13 2005, 15:54 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 13 2005, 17:34) I might sound a little rude here, but I don't understand this reasoning at all. Isn't music supposed to be fun? I don't want music to give me a bad mental situation, I listen to music to exactly reverse that situation. He isn't describing a piece of 'reasoning' Sir M. He's trying to describe the indescribable - an overwhelming experience close to ecstasy - the kind of experience you might have (in music)listening to the closing minutes of Gotterdammerung, or Sibelius's second symphony; or (in painting) looking at a late Rembrandt self-portrait; or (in life) watching the dawn from a mountain top. It's notoriously hard to describe - C.S. Lewis called it 'Joy' but that's too potentially misleading for most people I think. The curious thing about the experience is that it seems infinitely desirable, even though an essential part of it is a kind of deep yearning for something unknown which is almost painful. Indeed, I've spent all my life seeking it wherever I thought I might find it. But it isn't a 'bad mental situation', though I can see it might sound like that. In truth, it's a transforming, transcendent experience that he's trying to describe. I don't think the 'fun' issue comes into it, really. He's talking about something quite different. Back to top

The Big BellEnd Group: Members Posts: 971 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: April 13 2005, 16:47 to T4, excuse me is, this the right room for an arguement... -------------- 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 13 2005, 16:50 Well, I probably understand what you mean there. You know, music is an extremely simple thing to me. Sounds, vibrations, notes, instruments, people, very tangible things. Of course there are those moments when music seems to be acting on my subcounscious or in the essence of my being, but most of the time, music is all about the fun of having a loud, energetic rock 'n' roll piece pumping down my ears, or hearing a serene, beautiful piece when I most need it, or just bopping along to "Computer World" like it was a ride in an amusement park. Nothing more than that. Extremely simple, yes, but I just think that, many times, our attempts to put them in words end up making them look far more complicated than they are, and they mistify us. The truth is that I don't like being diminished by a musical piece. Yes, many times an artist has amazed me, doing something that seemed to be impossible, or with an idea that was never thought of before. But my deal with music is to become one with it, and not being smashed to pieces with a divine statement of grandeur and majesty that's much bigger than me and that I'll never comprehend. Music is made by people, and there's nothing grand about people. Even Beethoven, Bach or Sibellius were just people. I don't want to be mistified by music, and that's why I never let my music become too serious. Amarok was a revelation to me exactly because I was jokey and friendly (in its own, snide way). I thought that wasn't possible. -------------- 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

The Big BellEnd Group: Members Posts: 971 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: April 13 2005, 16:54 eeeee, well that's that then. -------------- I, ON THE OTHER HAND. AM A VICTIM OF YOUR CARNIVOUROUS LUNAR ACTIVITY. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 13 2005, 18:09 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 13 2005, 21:50) most of the time, music is all about the fun of having a loud, energetic rock 'n' roll piece pumping down my ears, or hearing a serene, beautiful piece when I most need it, or just bopping along to "Computer World" like it was a ride in an amusement park. Nothing more than that. Well there's nothing at all wrong with that as far as it goes. I enjoy that myself, and I'm pretty sure T4 does too - and maybe he'll tell us?. But if that were all that music gives me, it would be like only being allowed to drink weak beer and never allowed to taste single malt whisky. It would never have become as important in my life as it is. Quote I just think that, many times, our attempts to put them in words end up making them look far more complicated than they are, and they mistify us. Here we part company. I think you only arrive at the idea that it's a simple matter by leaving a lot out. Quote The truth is that I don't like being diminished by a musical piece. Neither would I. I don't think I ever have been. In the kind of experiences I'm talking about, we transcend our limitations. As CS Lewis once elegantly put it about reading great literature (I quote inaccurately but the gist is right): 'we see with the eyes of a thousand men, and yet remain ourselves'. The same is true of any transcendent artistic experience. We expand. Windows slam open that once were closed. We see (and at some level understand) things we didn't see or understand before. This isn't a diminishment. It's the exact opposite. Quote But my deal with music is to become one with it, and not being smashed to pieces with a divine statement of grandeur and majesty that's much bigger than me and that I'll never comprehend. Well, think of it like amazingly good sex. Afterwards, you might be entirely exhausted. To a casual observer you might seem completely wiped out. You might even say so. But you know you had a wonderful time, and by golly you'll very soon want more ..... Quote Music is made by people, and there's nothing grand about people. Not sure what you mean by grand. But I know some people who are pretty wonderful. Quote Even Beethoven, Bach or Sibellius were just people. I look forward to comparing your 2nd symphony with Sibelius's. That's daft. It's like saying that General Relativity is just another theory, or that Newton was just a good mathematician. Quote I don't want to be mistified by music, and that's why I never let my music become too serious. Amarok was a revelation to me exactly because I was jokey and friendly (in its own, snide way). I thought that wasn't possible. This explains exactly why we have our two very different attitudes to Amarok. Blimey. I don't know about music wiping me out - writing THIS wiped me out! Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: April 14 2005, 04:44 I agree with T4 and Alan.  My favourite music makes me laugh out loud, and cry buckets, jump up and down, and sit still and spellbound, and leaves me exhausted with my mouth hanging agape thinking "how can I follow THAT?!?!" If music doesn't get inside you like that and turn you upside down like a rollercoaster ride, you just may be...uh...doing it wrong!  LOL Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: April 14 2005, 07:07 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 14 2005, 01:34) I might sound a little rude here, but I don't understand this reasoning at all. Isn't music supposed to be fun? I don't want music to give me a bad mental situation, I listen to music to exactly reverse that situation. That is logical, isn't it, but so much of how people react to music is totally illogical. Take my second favourite album of all time; Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds. Quite of a bit of that album genuinely unsettles me: the middle of the second disk quite frankly freaks me out, Forever Autumn is one of the saddest songs I know, and I think you can work out what feelings Dead London inspires: complete and utter loneliness and desolation. This makes it sound like an album that would be my least favourite, but I love every minute of it. This may not make sense, but it's how I feel, and how many others feel. If music had to be fun all the time then you would never have any songs about sadness, loneliness, anger or all of those other 'negative' feelings, but they certainly are there.   Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 14 2005, 05:50) Of course there are those moments when music seems to be acting on my subcounscious or in the essence of my being, but most of the time, music is all about the fun of having a loud, energetic rock 'n' roll piece pumping down my ears, or hearing a serene, beautiful piece when I most need it, or just bopping along to "Computer World" like it was a ride in an amusement park. This is what I've been seeking for quite a while: the fundamental difference between us in the way we listen to music. I enjoy the energy of rock bands, but a piece that really hits me emotionally will beat one that is merely upbeat any day. Then there are bands like The Who, where it is the energy itself that hits me emotionally, and they are definately comperable to a more emotionally sensitive piece. I know that probably didn't make sense, but like I said earlier there aren't many of my reasons that do. Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 14 2005, 05:50) But my deal with music is to become one with it, and not being smashed to pieces with a divine statement of grandeur and majesty that's much bigger than me and that I'll never comprehend. Music is made by people, and there's nothing grand about people. First statement: in my mind being moved by a piece is becoming one with it. It's the feeling that the music is happening around and through you, rather than just happening and totally avoiding you. As for the second sentance there, the people themselves may not be grand but they have a fantastic and wonderful gift of being able to put their feelings into music. That's about all really, except to say that we are (of course) different types of listeners, and it's quite interesting and enlightening for me to read about the different ways that other people enjoy the same music. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: April 14 2005, 07:34 Quote (raven4x4x @ April 14 2005, 07:07) Then there are bands like The Who, where it is the energy itself that hits me emotionally, and they are definately comperable to a more emotionally sensitive piece. I know that probably didn't make sense, but like I said earlier there aren't many of my reasons that do. in my mind being moved by a piece is becoming one with it. Your Who quote makes complete sense to me because that is how I feel about their music too. Your statement about being at one with the music is bang on! My God, but you're good at this nailing what I want to say business, Raven! Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: April 14 2005, 12:45 Quote (raven4x4x @ April 14 2005, 07:07) If music had to be fun all the time then you would never have any songs about sadness, loneliness, anger or all of those other 'negative' feelings, but they certainly are there. Well, you know how I like Joy Division. It isn't really about "fun" in its pure sense, but different kinds of music activate different parts of my brain, which is a very necessary activity for me. But at the end of the day, any kind of music is nothing more but 'fun' to me. I'm closed in my bedroom listening to music, when instead I could be outside feeding the hungry, working to help my family, saving someone's life, planting a tree or protesting against the destruction of the environment. There's nothing too revelatory, important and/or religious about that. It's just music, music made by humans, and that provokes human feelings in me. It's not turning me into a better person. What kind of "experience" is that, that can be so easily ruined by a silly joke? -------------- 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 14 2005, 13:11 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 14 2005, 17:45) It's not turning me into a better person. Well, you said that, not me. I make no moral claims for the act of listening to music. Of course we could be feeding the hungry instead of listening to music, having sex, watching movies, going for walks, or posting on this forum, or anything else you care to name. But that has nothing to do with this discussion, which seems to have become primarily concerned with the difference between the ways in which we listen, and what it is we hope to get from music. And I now see that all the problems are arising because we aren't talking about the same thing. Whether one way of experiencing music is 'better' than another, I wouldn't want to say. Mine is 'better' for me, as I'm sure yours is for you. And certainly it isn't a moral issue. But the key point is that this is why we disagree so much about Amarok, and why we can't understand each other. It's because what we're experiencing simply isn't the same thing. We blunder ahead as if we're talking about the same thing, but we aren't. Quote What kind of "experience" is that, that can be so easily ruined by a silly joke? Again, this is a red herring. The fragility of an experience has nothing to do with its value. A Chinese Sung dynasty vase is more fragile than a plastic bucket, but I know which is of the greatest value to me. Back to top

The Big BellEnd Group: Members Posts: 971 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: April 14 2005, 13:39 To Alan, is it ok if I don't go for walk before I have sex, and then after sex can I watch a film with the volume turned down so I can listen to music and then I'll do the kid's some dinner. -------------- 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 14 2005, 13:48 Quote But the key point is that this is why we disagree so much about Amarok, and why we can't understand each other. It's because what we're experiencing simply isn't the same thing. We blunder ahead as if we're talking about the same thing, but we aren't. I guess that's the case, alright. Some people here can see an enlightening, religious, larger-than-life experience in music, and I'll never see that. To me, listening to music is as selfish and time-consuming as playing computer games and writing fanfiction. There's nothing "moral" about what I said. I just don't think of music as something "mind-expanding" and enlightening because it isn't. I just can't see why music should be so serious - is music leading humanity towards a kind of "ascension" into a new plane of existance?... Hey, that's a cool thought!... but it probably isn't true. It if is, then I'll have a reason to be more serious about music. But otherwise, music is fun and nothing else. At least now, this seems to be getting somewhere. -------------- 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 14 2005, 15:52 Quote (The Big BellEnd @ April 14 2005, 18:39) To Alan, is it ok if I don't go for walk before I have sex, and then after sex can I watch a film with the volume turned down so I can listen to music and then I'll do the kid's some dinner. I'm looking up your interesting case in the 'Musical Moral Code Guidebook', and I see there are 5,672 entries that may be relevant. So just keep having sex until I can find you a definitive answer. OK? Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: April 14 2005, 16:28 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 14 2005, 18:48) Some people here can see an enlightening, religious, larger-than-life experience in music, and I'll never see that. There's too much muddled up together here. I didn't use any of those words myself, and wouldn't (except perhaps, subject to careful explanation, 'enlightening' ). I would say that listening to great music, like attending to any great art, is potentially a perception-changing, life-enhancing experience which permits a communication of feeling that goes beyond other forms of communication. It isn't 'larger than life' - it extends the experience of life. Quote To me, listening to music is as selfish and time-consuming as playing computer games and writing fanfiction. There's nothing "moral" about what I said. Of course there is. You were making a moral judgement about the act of listening to music - and again you're doing it here - you say it's 'selfish'. What I say is that none of this has any bearing on the matter. The question of whether it's selfish or not is a completely different issue, and not relevant to this one. Quote I just don't think of music as something "mind-expanding" and enlightening because it isn't. Well, certainly not for you, it seems, and fair enough. But for me (although I'm uneasy about the words you're using and would prefer to be talking about perception) I have to insist that it equally certainly is. Quote I just can't see why music should be so serious - is music leading humanity towards a kind of "ascension" into a new plane of existance? Well, its success as an art form, surely, depends on its capability of communicating the full range of human feeling? Some of those feelings are deeply serious, so surely there should be a place for expressing them through music? And no - it isn't leading us towards a new plane of existence; it's enhancing and enriching and extending the existence that we already have. Quote But otherwise, music is fun and nothing else. Well, again, it seems to be so for you and some others, and that's your choice. I think you're missing out on a lot, but of course you'll think you aren't - so I'm not sure there's much more to be said, really. (Do I hear sighs of relief?) Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (16) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net