Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >

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

Topic: www.mikeoldfield-tubularbells.com< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Blue Dolphin Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1232
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: April 12 2003, 19:13

Original Tubular Bells length:

Part 1

1. Introduction 05:53
2. Fast guitars 01:02
3. Basses 00:45
4. Latin 02:21
5. A minor tune 01:25
6. Blues 02:36
7. Trash 00:45
8. Jazz 00:50
9. Ghost Bells 00:31
10. Russian 00:45
11. Finale 08:32

Total Part 1 play time: 25:35

Part 2

12. Harmonics 05:26
13. Peace 03:22
14. Bagpipe guitars 02:51
15. Caveman 04:47
16. Ambient guitars 05:15
17. Hornpipe 01:36

Total Part 2 play time: 23:22

Total Play Time: 48:57

Tubular Bells 2003

Part 1

1. Introduction 05:51
2. Fast Guitars 01:04
3. Basses 00:46
4. Latin 02:18
5. A Minor Tune 01:21
6. Blues 02:40
7. Thrash 00:44
8. Jazz 00:48
9. Ghost Bells 00:30
10. Russian 00:44
11. Finale 08:36

Part 2

12. Harmonics 05:21
13. Peace 03:22
14. Bagpipe Guitars 03:07
15. Caveman 04:33
16. Ambient Guitars 05:09
17. Hornpipe 01:39

Total Play Time: 48:33


Looking at this you see that Tubular Bells 2003 is a bit shorter than the original one. What notices me is that most pieces are a few seconds shorter than the original, but on Part 2 about 10 seconds. But this can be because I counted the bagpipe section too late. ;)

Now, would it be a suprise if the MC on TB2003 is not John Cleese but Mike instead? And that the caveman is done by John Cleese!  :p


--------------
-The mark of a good musician is to play one note and mean it-

Mike Oldfield - 1980
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 12 2003, 19:46

It's interesting you've gone and done that because it's put my mind at rest slightly. My fav part of TB, from the peeling 'ghost bell' through the MC part to the end of part 1, was shortened horribly on TB2 and I was worried he may do something similar again. That reptative bass bit is just so hypnoticaly lovely, I love the way it just goes on and on before 'Grand Piano' (hopefully said with some dignity by Cleese). I really, really , really hope he hasn't used a syth bass sound here aswell.
Back to top
Profile PM 
sphinx
Unregistered





Posted: April 13 2003, 12:02

IMO everybody in here who has a negative feeling of the new tubular bells is viewing it as something that it isn't supposed to be.. Mike has evolved as an artist and felt that the original did not do him justice.

Why would he go through all the trouble to make it the same, that's the whole point of the re-recording is to make himself happy, this is as much for him as it is for us.

If you're looking at the 2003 recording as being the exact same as the original then you've lost the reason for it, it's been made to enhance the original recording according to Mike's evolved style and technology, technology is allowing Mike to add things and do things with tubular bells that were not possible in the 70's.

Please people take the re-recording for what it is an enhancement of the original.

This is however my opinion and can be taken whichever way you chose.
Back to top
James
Unregistered





Posted: April 13 2003, 15:05

There is a similar Bass sound in Tres Lunas the track.Perhaps slightly higher register so it may represent a low down guitar.

I believe it's played from a real electric bass and converted into midi data.

This bass part in the original has always made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up really wonderful Ive always found it amazing-magical wow.

Oh Mike why did you not resist technology here and just use that expensive fender precision you have and some sophisticated state of the art compression.

Im not usually swayed by davce music but I really like the dance excerpt I must say!!!! :cool:
Back to top
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 13 2003, 15:30

At least the dance version keeps the essence of the original, which is more than can be said for The Orb's version of Sentinal. Does anybody know who did it? Personaly I think it would interesting for Mike to get Orbital or somebody similar to remix it. It's strange because that synth bass sound doesn't sound out of place in the dance remix like it does on the (new)original. A bit telling that.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Daisy
Unregistered





Posted: April 13 2003, 19:43

Sphinx, MO's music is always for him : )
Back to top
sphinx
Unregistered





Posted: April 14 2003, 01:01

Daisy

I agree totally...
Back to top
geinoh
Unregistered





Posted: April 14 2003, 10:40

I tired to always listen Tubular Bells. Where's Oldifield's inspiration. I would like a really news album.

Geinoh
so disapointed...
Back to top
Tieò_mesaèného_svitu Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: May 2002
Posted: April 14 2003, 13:33

:zzz:
So there are Tubular Bells, The Orchestral Tubular Bells, Tubular Bells 2, Tubular Bells 3... The Millennium Bell isn't a real tubular album so only 4 ones are Tubular Bells. Mike has released 22 albums (except compilations). 22-4= Let me think for a moment... It makes 18 Tubular Bells not related albums and 81.8 % of his work.
I do understand you, Geinoh, but don't worry. I think TB2003 will be the last tubular album.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Chris-Llawen
Unregistered





Posted: April 14 2003, 13:41

I dunno -

in another 10 years he'll look back and think
'why the hell did i put that synth bass in??'

and then he'll make Tubular Bells Infinity or something

quite a fitting name...
Back to top
Mark 1 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: June 2001
Posted: April 14 2003, 19:15

As much as I do like the synth bass - that's actually very funny! :D
Back to top
Profile PM 
gregrobson Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: Aug. 2002
Posted: April 15 2003, 07:22

My 2 cents...

I love it (like many others) :)

Regarding the extra strong bass...
IMHO MO is not just recording with new technology but fixing the mistakes of the original - some things were out of time, so the length may be different, the recording technology wasn't too hot, so some things may not be as loud as he intended.

One thing we can be sure of... this is what MO imagined TB to be, and it was the equipment's fault we couldn't here it as he intended. This is what TB 2003 is intended to fix. :D
Back to top
Profile PM 
asma
Unregistered





Posted: April 15 2003, 08:19

:(  I don´t know wath´s happen with this man and his bass guitar.... he don´t like it now. In TSOD there is bass guitar in a few of songs, very slighty, in voyager?????mmmm, in TB3 there is a bass, yes, but... IS A SAMPLE FROM HIMSELF!!!!, and "guitars"???? The music of this album is played like a 15 years old boy. The bass is always in the same note (puaggghhh) "Millenium Bell",... some good moments (not of bass surely)but guitar play... 0 "patatero". More samples of AMAROK. And tr3s lunas??? how can be more comercial with a shit of music. "I want the simply for this album...", yes mike now and in the last 10 years you are a very SIMPLY musician. Ok I preffer 10.000 Earth Movings before this boring music. And tb2003????  oh my god.......
Back to top
Chris-Llawen
Unregistered





Posted: April 15 2003, 08:32

actually, does anybody else remember MO saying how he'd wanted to have string sections and stuff on Bells when he was first making it?

i wonder if he got around to that...
Back to top
Q! Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: Dec. 2002
Posted: April 15 2003, 18:44

Well I gotta say that I hated that synth bass at first but now it doesn't seem that bad. I'll wait until I hear the whole thing before judging it.  :)

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




Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 15 2003, 19:34

This sounds awesome to my ears, I normally can't listen to much synth-related music, but mike somehow makes me love it :) Looking forward to buying the album soon...ish! :zzz:
Back to top
Profile PM 
MusicallyInspired Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 1445
Joined: June 2001
Posted: April 16 2003, 19:16

Quote
does anybody else remember MO saying how he'd wanted to have string sections and stuff on Bells when he was first making it?

I remember. I hope he did. I can't stand those organs.


--------------
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 
Dave
Unregistered





Posted: April 17 2003, 06:00

I don't like the new bass sound at all. Mike has played great sounding basses since he was in the Whole World, and has given us some memorable bass lines over the last 30 years. A shame because for the first part of the excerpt I was really impressed! This bass texture would have sounded dated on TBII for goodness sake.

I have a very bad feeling about this.
Back to top
gregrobson Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: Aug. 2002
Posted: April 17 2003, 06:10

I've just been listening to the original. It is the same sound, just louder (IMHO). It's barely audible in the original (despite my subwoofer). I reckon it was meant to be louder - the new version seems more balanced (for lack of a better word). The number of resamples in the original must of left some things imbalanced.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Chris-Llawen
Unregistered





Posted: April 17 2003, 06:15

yeh, i certainly agree the mix never seemed quite right (esp in some parts where its far too loud), so it'll be nice to have that ironed out

but when i compare the two beginnings, the original 'sings' more - you know?
Back to top
133 replies since April 11 2003, 07:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

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

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >






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