Korgscrew
Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999 |
 |
Posted: Aug. 28 2002, 15:59 |
 |
Firstly, I should say where I'm coming from. I'm not a fan of Mike's because of his complex compositional style. That's not to say that I don't like it, far from it in fact, but what attracted me to his music was something a bit deeper - the fact that he was producing music that I felt I could connect to in some way.
Now, some of his recent work I would certainly say has been without the certain something that his earlier works had, but for me it's not because of any lack of complexity, but rather the sentiments behind the music. Tubular Bells II, for example, I find rather calculated and less intriguing than the original, which was filled with odd sounds and themes. But at the same time, I can like Tubular Bells II for half of the reasons I find it less appealing.
In Tres Lunas, I find a little more trace of that elusive spark than in The Millennium Bell...it may not be much, and it's certainly not an album that's going to set the world alight, but I hear a little something there which suggests that all is not over yet...
I think that it all depends on Mike's creative energy levels, and as he gets older, they may well start to drop (not necessarily because of age, but because inspiration starts to get thinner on the ground the more albums he releases).
I do marvel at the attention to detail in Amarok, for example, but at the same time, when I listen to that album, I realise the amount of energy that it must have taken to produce it - I think that's what makes it special, the fact that it's probably the sort of thing you only see once in a lifetime...
I don't personally feel that the music has to be complex. If it's good music, it's good music, and good music can be found at all levels, from works played on a single instrument comprising just one or two parts (like some of the music that Bach wrote for solo cello - there aren't hundreds of different melodies in there, but I think it's good music. Some of Fransicso Tárrega's works for solo guitar as well...and much more...) to huge intricate works orchestrated on ridiculous numbers of instruments.
What Mike presents on Tres Lunas is simple music - he's said himself that he enjoys making simple tracks. I'm certain that if Mike wanted to put more parts in there, he could (I could sit down and knock out a counter melody to those pieces without giving much thought to it, for example, and I'm sure that Mike could do the same, especially seeing as he'd have a better feel for the pieces, being the one who wrote them)...but it would detract from the simplicity, whch he doesn't want to do for one reason or another (perhaps a desire to keep things minimal, or perhaps just because it takes less effort, as many would believe).
But, does complexity make art? I'd say art was more about making a statement - the way that statement is put across, and the quality of the execution, is what separates the good art from bad. How about comparing the geometric forms that Piet Mondrian is famous for, to the more intricately detailed work of, say, Leonardo da Vinci. Does the fact that Leonardo painted more detail make him more of an artist (though it should be borne in mind that not all of Mondrian's work was of the coloured rectangle variety)?
|
