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

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Cinos Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 06:36 Now. A lot of people complain about this release. Why? Because it's updated. It's not the original. It has better sound quality, and is exactly the same as the original otherwise. So basically, people hate this just because it's not the original. A rather sad attitude if you ask me. Unless you find bad sound quality atmospheric or charming, there's no way the original is better than this. Arguments are welcome, but I suspect you'll just confirm my theory with them.   Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 07:13 I can't stop to write now, but I'll just warn you to be prepared for a lot of disagreement on this. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Baggiesfaninessex Group: Members Posts: 682 Joined: Mar. 2002 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 07:17 I haven't complained about the release; far from it - I find the comparison fascinating. TB2003 is as clean a sound as one could expect. The production is virtually flawless. It is not however, exactly the same as the original. There are many changes, not to melodies per se but more to structure. For instance, right from the start, I hear additional notes from the piano in particular - this may be something to do with the overall mix - but it is different nonetheless. This is not criticism, merely peronal observation and the way I 'hear it'. What TB2003 loses for me is the rustic charm of the original. There were no synths used on the 1973 original and this makes a huge difference to TB2003 and maybe, negative criticism received for the latter is borne more from the need to over produce rather than reproduce. A 2003 reproduction with just the original instruments and nothing else would have been even more interesting in my opinion - he could still lose bum notes without synthesising the music. I think also, it comes down to when, where, how you heard the original. I listened to TB1973 for many years - got used to it - bum notes, primitive production et al. TB2003 is better production, cleaner and precise. But it isn't the TB I lived and breathed for years. It isn't simply a case of loving one and hating the other. Far from it. Imagine if the Beatles were still around today and they opted to re-record 'The White Album' or 'Abbey Road' - do you think they would be better and gain universal approval too? Led Zep could redo 'Stairway' or Floyd 'Shine On'. Would they be better? Who knows, but they wouldn't be the versions that millions fell in love with and adored for years. Good debate.   -------------- “A dog is not intelligent. Never trust an animal that's surprised by its own farts.” - Frank Skinner Back to top

Sysiyo Group: Members Posts: 245 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 08:58 I haven't actually ever been a big fan of the original Tubular Bells. It is a good album, but I find it inferior to the following three albums, it lacks the flowing, organic complexity of them and sounds more like a bunch of separate musical ideas bashed together to make a long piece. That approach for me doesn't work terribly well. The biggest problem with TB2003 is the changes he made from the original. T4 pointed out additional notes from the very start, then there are also other, more notable changes like the lead/response vocals in the caveman part. The problem is, I find most of the changes made to be disimprovements over the original. There are things I think could and should have been changed from the original to make it better, but instead Mike changed for the most part things about the original that I liked, and made them worse. And, as T4 noted, the rerecording lacks the rustic charm of the original. In comparison it actually sounds almost too clean, too antiseptic. All this is not to say that I wouldn't like Tubular Bells 2003. But for the reasons above I do not like it as much as the original. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 09:31 I don't want to repeat what I've said in other threads about this, but I vastly prefer TB2003 to the original and I'm so pleased he did it, because for me it rescued Tubular Bells from near-oblivion. The kind of faults that spoiled the original version for Mike himself seem to have been, as far as I can tell, the kind of faults that ruined it for me too. I'd always found them troublesome, starting when I first heard it (about 1979) and increasingly thereafter. Now that I have TB2003 I can't really imagine playing the original version again except out of curiosity. Back to top

Cinos Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 09:40 Quote (T4 @ Aug. 29 2005, 07:17) TB2003 is as clean a sound as one could expect. The production is virtually flawless. It is not however, exactly the same as the original. There are many changes, not to melodies per se but more to structure. For instance, right from the start, I hear additional notes from the piano in particular - this may be something to do with the overall mix - but it is different nonetheless. This is not criticism, merely peronal observation and the way I 'hear it'. What TB2003 loses for me is the rustic charm of the original. There were no synths used on the 1973 original and this makes a huge difference to TB2003 and maybe, negative criticism received for the latter is borne more from the need to over produce rather than reproduce. A 2003 reproduction with just the original instruments and nothing else would have been even more interesting in my opinion - he could still lose bum notes without synthesising the music. I think also, it comes down to when, where, how you heard the original. I listened to TB1973 for many years - got used to it - bum notes, primitive production et al. TB2003 is better production, cleaner and precise. But it isn't the TB I lived and breathed for years. It isn't simply a case of loving one and hating the other. Far from it. Okay, it might be slightly different, but the changes are minor, and don't quite justify all the negative attitude. Also, the rustic charm you mentioned, is exactly what I mean. You've listened to the original version for so long that all the imperfections and bum notes have become part of the song for you, thus making it feel less "real" or more empty, when those are weeded away. For good and bad. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 12:41 See it like this: the music per se (melodies, i.e., the stuff that really matters) in TB2003 is the same as in the original. So TB2003 doesn't deserve to be praised for the music, since all the praise will be going indirectly to the original instead (much like with The Orchestral Tubular Bells). So what is the main feature of the re-recording? Production and minor rearrangements, that is. And I hate them. TB2003 is ugly, synthetic, mechanic and industrialised, filled with unnecessary synthesizers, lift muzak arrangements, obvious and unsubtle production and, of course, merciless dynamic squashing. All the good things about TB2003 are all in the original album - that is, except for John Cleese, but in the end, I like Vivian's performance a bit more. -------------- 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

Cinos Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 13:04 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Aug. 29 2005, 12:41) TB2003 is ugly, synthetic, mechanic and industrialised Why, exactly? Because there are synths in it? Synths can be very organic. Because it's better produced? More perfectly than the first? Or because it doesn't have all the minor faults you've grown used to? Back to top

MusicallyInspired Group: Musicians Posts: 1445 Joined: June 2001 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 13:23 I've never liked Tubular Bells that much and never listened to it (always went to TB2 instead) until I got a hold of TB2003. Now I listen to it more regularly because of it. It made me appreciate TB2003 more. While it is timeless music, the 1979 version has too much of a 70s feel for me...and while I like 70s music, I don't like TB79 for some reason. Maybe it's the flaws and overall sound. I like the music...just not the recording of the time. -------------- 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

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 13:53 Quote (MusicallyInspired @ Aug. 29 2005, 18:23) I like the music...just not the recording of the time. Thanks - that's much more concisely and accurately put than I managed to say it. Yes, that's precisely how I feel about it. I no longer have to try to like TB despite the recording. (I'm afraid Brandon that I may have led you into the path of error by mentioning that I first heard it in '79. It was of course released 6 years earlier.) Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 14:14 Quote (Cinos @ Aug. 29 2005, 13:04) Why, exactly? Because there are synths in it? Synths can be very organic. Because it's better produced? More perfectly than the first? Or because it doesn't have all the minor faults you've grown used to? That's very accurate - synths CAN be very organic. I'm a fan of Brian Eno and Jarre for good reasons. But only like Mike's work with synthesizers when HE was in control. When Mike allowed his synthesizers to write the music for him (The Songs Of Distant Earth, Tr3s Lunas), he does nothing to me. And in TB2003, the synths plainly take up a lot of space when they just didn't need at all to be there. Please, give me a rational explanation for why "Jazz" ("Jazz"?? Pff! needs to be choked by a muzak rhythm track. That is, no kidding, one of the ugliest things I've ever heard. I'm in firm belief that TB2003 is a recording of its time, even more than the original. In 10 years, the synthesizers going "ooooooh" and "wheeeeee" will make this album much more dated than the original TB will ever be. Also, having first heard Tubular Bells in 2002 or so, that's very little time for me to "grow used" to the TB'73 sound. Actually, everything in the album is part of the music, and it's not a question of getting "used" to it. Wiping those elements out is denying the very essence of the music. While that's not a bad thing per se, just because Mike did it means that I'm obliged to like it. I don't like the final result. I don't mind people questioning my opinions, but not in such a judgemental way. -------------- 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: Aug. 29 2005, 14:33 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Aug. 29 2005, 19:14) Wiping those elements out is denying the very essence of the music. Clearly this is true, for you. It most certainly isn't true, for me - indeed the opposite is true - in the new treatment it feels as if the music is at last released. The conclusion seems to be something I've suspected for a while - that when we listen to the same piece of music (eg TB original) we are not experiencing the same thing. I presume your brain filters out a certain batch of musical information and says 'I like this'. My brain filters out a whole different set of stuff and says 'I don't like this'. If the doors of perception were cleansed (said Blake) everything would appear as it is, infinite. Certainly varying degrees of perception, in this case as in many others, seem to have a lot to answer for. There's no right answer here. Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 16:00 If TB2003 has got fans into the album who didn't like it before that I think thats a good thing, I'm sure Mike would be happy too. For me there the only section that gave me an insight into the supposed failings of the original and that was the finale, hearing all the instruments in time really was amazing, its a shame he had John Cleese utterly ruining it. Generally throughout it I think he added as much as he lost. By that I mean there were some lovely little details here and there that were really rather special but there were other new bits, some of the synth sounds, some guitar sounds, which equally detracted for me. I was hugely opposed to the idea before he did it, but if it made him happy and made some fans happy then I'm glad. I can't say I listen to it but its great everybody has a version of TB they're happy with. Back to top

EeToN Group: Members Posts: 845 Joined: Sep. 2001 Posted: Aug. 29 2005, 20:21 Quote (TOBY @ Aug. 29 2005, 22:00) I can't say I listen to it but its great everybody has a version of TB they're happy with. Now Mike should do a rockier album version of it to make also me happy. Just kidding, I enjoy and prefer TB2003 more than the original TB - it's only slightly too equally reverby for a diverse album like that one. I'd probably be absolutely satisfied with it if I hadn't heard the Exposed and other live versions. Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Aug. 29 2005, 18:41) Please, give me a rational explanation for why "Jazz" ("Jazz"?? Pff! needs to be choked by a muzak rhythm track. I don't feel much difference between the two regarding the rhythm track, it's only more in the foreground maybe... In this section I can imagine that Mike wanted a somehow similar effect back in 1973 but the mixing went not so right... -------------- If I were music, I would be Enigmatism. Back to top

Wayfarer Group: Members Posts: 308 Joined: June 2002 Posted: Aug. 30 2005, 17:36 Mmmmh... Maybe it's just that the original TB is just a record played by musicians, while TB2003 is just a MIDI file played with an expensive synthesizer with some bits of real playing here and there. (Oh, my God... that awful synth bass on Introduction... Sigh! Original TB has emotion, feelings. TB2003 is as cold as a midifile can be. Is just that. -- Wayfarer -------------- My homepage - www.thewayfarer.info My search - www.cannotbefound.com My community - www.taurusiv.net My luthier - www.artluthier.com Back to top

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: Aug. 30 2005, 18:10 I misplaced my TB2003 shortly after I got it, but I do remember hating the Soundblaster MIDI synth bass in "Introduction". I do not recall strongly disliking the rest, and found the Klingon opera version of "Caveman" interesting. -------------- "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

MyCoalField Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: June 2005 Posted: Aug. 30 2005, 18:21 Agree Wayfarer, Given the fact that Mike must have limitless resources available (I just have a Korg M1) he surely could have found / created a more organic bass sound. I actually see TB73 and TB2003 as two separate albums and enjoy both in their own right. TB73 is mysterious and slightly haunting and has soul (errors / tuning imperfections make the album very human). TB2003 is more lively, clean and upbeat, but does not provide the listener with a true insight into the creator's soul because it is rather mechanical. To me the whole debate is rather like seeing a beautiful woman across a smoke filled room, clearing away the smoke only to discover that she was actually better looking through the fog. Back to top

TubularBelle Group: Members Posts: 1487 Joined: April 2004 Posted: Aug. 31 2005, 02:34 Quote (MyCoalField @ Aug. 30 2005, 18:21) To me the whole debate is rather like seeing a beautiful woman across a smoke filled room, clearing away the smoke only to discover that she was actually better looking through the fog. Beautifully said, but who wants to be told they are better looking through fog! -------------- I hate getting up early. I didn't even realise there were two 6 o'clocks in one day! Back to top

Cinos Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Aug. 31 2005, 08:08 Quote (MyCoalField @ Aug. 30 2005, 18:21) TB2003 is more lively, clean and upbeat, but does not provide the listener with a true insight into the creator's soul because it is rather mechanical. I disagree. You do get a view into the creator's soul, but it's a different view than the first gives. After all, he put a lot of effort into both. Though I can understand you can't "get" the view if you haven't listened to a lot of electronic music before.   Back to top

Baggiesfaninessex Group: Members Posts: 682 Joined: Mar. 2002 Posted: Aug. 31 2005, 08:28 Quote (Cinos @ Aug. 31 2005, 08:08) Quote (MyCoalField @ Aug. 30 2005, 18:21) TB2003 is more lively, clean and upbeat, but does not provide the listener with a true insight into the creator's soul because it is rather mechanical. I disagree. You do get a view into the creator's soul, but it's a different view than the first gives. After all, he put a lot of effort into both. Though I can understand you can't "get" the view if you haven't listened to a lot of electronic music before.   Funnily enough, I think this is a totally different debate. I am a huge fan of electronic music. Mike Oldfield, however much a favourite artist he is of mine, would not make the top ten of my favourite electronic artists. I don't think he does it as well as those who rely solely (or very largely) on synths. Jarre, Vangelis, Kitaro, Tangerine Dream and Tomita are perhaps the obvious; Andy Pickford, John Dyson, Ian Boddy, Mark Shreeve, Bekki Williams, Arcane, Otarion, Otaku and Tranceive are less obvious, but nonetheless, better at electronic music in my pinion, than Mike. Mike though, is a far better multi-instrumentalist than all of the aforementioned! -------------- “A dog is not intelligent. Never trust an animal that's surprised by its own farts.” - Frank Skinner Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net