TOBY
Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002 |
 |
Posted: June 27 2003, 14:24 |
 |
I think the answer to the original question lies within each of the posts given above. Whats memorable to you may not be memorable to me and visa-versa. Generaly speaking I think when someone talks about a piece of art or music being memorable they're talking about it being of a high quality, above average, standing out from the rest. Lots of Mike's output may be memorable to one person but utterly forgetable to another.
What will Mike be remembered for in years to come? Well we'll have to wait and see. Tubular Bells obviously and probably his own fixation with TB will be very high on the list. I'm sure he'll be remembered as one of Britains greatest musicians and composers by those who care but also as a very eratic one, someone who tried to be to many things and quite often not focusing on what he was really good at. But all this is a 30th aniversary re-cap, from my point of view. I do truely hope he begins to do what he does best.
Has Mike lost it? I think he's lost his way in recent years and partly lost his abiltiy to make the correct desicions regarding both his own musical output and also at the end of the day doing things that would help his career. I don't think for a second he's lost his ability to write amazingly beautifull instrumental music but judging from those recent interviews he does seem unsure about where music in general is going, including his own. Which brings us back round to his need to focus and perhaps re-evaluate what fundamentaly he's trying to say as an artist/musician.
On the subject of Jarre/Vangelis/Oldfield. For me the fact that they all write instrumental music is the beginning and end of all comparison (at an artistic level). My love of Mike's stuff is much more born out of the fact that fundamentaly he's a folk musician born out of the strongly warm and atmospheric world that the best folk music inhabits. For me TB, HR, Ommadawn Incantations, Amarok are all at their core folk albums with a few extra magic ingredients. Thats why albums like TSODE, TB2, and the best of his 80's albums, although good and certainly with some beautifull moments don't have as many of those magical ingredients and are certainly quite far removed from Mike's folk origins. Of course the other side of the argument is that a lot of these other albums are a celebration of Mike's diversity as a composer and musician. There is the problem however that when you diverse to strongly, as Mike has on occation, you loose track of what you were originaly about.
So for me Jarre and Vangelis are quite different to Mike in terms of background and output. I'm much more familiar with Jarre's career than I am with Vangelis's. I agree with what Korgscrew say's above in that I find a lot of his music really quite forgetable. I've got a few of his albums sitting here, China, Albedo.39, Heaven and Hell and a best of compilation and they contain some nice music, I rate China the best, but I find most of his stuff very, very unexciting, he has his obvious style and character of playing but there's something about it which is curiously lacking in any engagement. It's a bit cruel to say it's merely musak but it's heading down that road.
Jean-Michel Jarre is a real craftsman in his field. He's composed some superb music and that coupled with a genius ability to make synth's sound like nothing on earth has rightfully given him his place in the musical world. I think he became a real victim of that 'big is better' 80's (when he was at the peak of his popularity) mentality with regards to his intresting though slightly silly concerts. He has had trouble playing down that perception that he's only known as that Frenchman with his laser harp image, but like Mike with TB he's the only one to blame.
Unlike Mike Jarre has never been that prolific, he released only 3 albums in the 90's whereas Mike released 8 (including MB) I sign that Jarre may well be out of ideas.
|
