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

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

liron Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: May 30 2001, 17:19 mike... the next PRS you buy, won't be bought on MY record buyin' money. get a life [censored] call me up when they invent a time machine, so i can beat the hell out of you as a child. THAT will teach you to stay in your room and play the guitar more often, instead of [censored] and practicing stupid new age tai-chi, while trying to "chill me out" with this new "relaxed" game pod yer buildin'. when i want to relax i go shit in the toilet - i don't sell it as a groundbraking new kind of shit, with a joystick attached to it. [censored] yours truely liron I had to censor parts of this message. Sorry. - Olivier Back to top

gvcobb Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: Jan. 2000 Posted: May 31 2001, 15:18 Liron How dare you insult probably the best musician and musical genius in the world. How can you judge a programme you have not seen yet! After such as offence comment both to mike and his fans I think the administrator should ban you from this site. Back to top

Dervish_D Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: Feb. 2001 Posted: June 01 2001, 06:58 Mike is not a genius. But no one should insult him, liron's post is no criticsm - it is trash. Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: June 01 2001, 18:42 Do you think maybe Mike would like to come here and post what he thinks of Liron? I'm sure he knows plenty of swear words... Mike's not asking anyone to support him, to buy his albums, go to his concerts and take interest in his VR project - we choose to. At the end of the day, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I suspect the problem goes deeper than that though. Back to top

Dervish_D Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: Feb. 2001 Posted: June 02 2001, 07:32 What we often forget, when we critize artists is that they have feelings and human dignity. Never should anyone go beyond one's dignity. And why do you have to offend him? You don't know him - the person, the human. It's disappointing that anyone makes such an immature judge about Mike. More over, musical/artistic criticsm is such a dangerous thing because it COMPLETELY depends on one's taste and on the purpose for what it was made. Art is very personal and insulting criticsm means an offending attitude for the person himself. But no matter if one thinks the VR project is good or not, Mike still might be a kind, friendly, imaginative, interesting and creative person. Objective criticsm in art is almost impossible, and I, who does not enjoy the recent works either, have to accept that too. Objective criticsm: People often critizise pop music for barely being commercial and electronic "muzak" for being boring and uncreative, e.g. However if pop music was only made to make dollars with it and it succeeds - isn't that "good" music because it achieves its purpose? Most meditative music bores me to death, but anyways it was made to be like that. Shouldn't we say:"Well, it's good because it does what it was made for!" Think like this. The VR project is an experiment for Mike like the long instrumentals proved to be in the 70s. Perhaps Mike draws conclusions out of this experiment. And he even did this in the past after he flopped with "Earth Moving". It was "Amarok" that was born out of the "pop song-desert"... Back to top

Stuart Breed Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: April 2001 Posted: June 05 2001, 18:45 Dear Liviron: The thing to remember about any commercial product, is that you have a choice. It's always upto the consumer if they buy into it or not. I and a majority of people who check out this site, do so because we choose to. I find that the discussions within these forums are very helpful and friendly. I must say that I find the opening letter on this page VERY offensive and not at all written in what I believe is the spirit of this Website. I shudder to think what Olivier had to edit out. Truth is, if something is bugging you about Mike Oldfield related projects then chat about it with fellow fans, I'm sure you'll find you're not alone. If you want to rant and swear like you did, then I suggest you go to one of those trashy websites. They're the sort of places where your comments will STIL be ignored. -------------- Stu Back to top

liron Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: June 07 2001, 15:12 dear stuart breast I really had don't give about what does or does not shudder your fregile spirit. all the same I reserve myself the right to say what I want, when ever i want, WHERE ever i want. the real bothering fact is that you can't take any kind of critisism. what i wrote was the way I really FEEL about the issue! it does not concern mike oldfield the person - whom you or i don't KNOW (mind you)! it concerns mike oldfield the presumable ARTIST! for known reasons i really doubt the fact that he even botheres to stop by this place, and read what we all say (unless he has some kind of rare ego problem, then he would be glad to read all this "mike your great" bannanas). and you know what?! i dont really care if he does read this! and if he does - well, i ment every word. the title "Artist" is givven off too easily to people who ill treats it. and you are one of them. under the title of "art" you release stuff that even YOU know is'nt worth the piece of plastic it's printed on! all in the name of progress and innovation! well mike - progress and innovation doesn't only mean messing around with poorly visualised 3D concepts, OR the extra new drumm sequance you add to a track to make it sound "in touch with the 21th century". look at "afro-celt sound system" and the wonderful FRESH music they do, while corporating irish and african motifs with state of the art machinery! and you know what? they also leave a space for EMOTION - a spice you forget to use so often! don't you dare mock me mr. stuard breath or whatever your name is - in the name of your so precious politicaly correct ethics! the thing you forget in all this PC blizzard is that there are some things that aren't that acceptible to some people! and that they may say stuff that doesn't read as your usuall lutheran preyer! get a hold of your self and you may as well see the grinn beneath mr. oldfield's nose, that says - "I just fooled you again - sucker". Back to top

Dervish_D Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: Feb. 2001 Posted: June 07 2001, 17:30 Why are you always getting personal, liron? I mean, what do you expect from us when you use this forum to unload your appalling criticsm. Things you state are just untrue from my point of view. Such a definition like an "artist" is e.g. what I believe to be a person who tries to create something from his imagination. Every computer scientist who is able to construct new technology or a young child who tries to express its emotions in a little poem is an artist for me. More over, I don't understand what the purpose of your outbursts are. If you wanted to change something, this would not be the best way because this way is merely destructive and does not help anyone except from you, who might perhaps feel satisfied. Why should Mike try to fool us? Basically he creates things for his own sake. And many times we all do this... Looking at the recent interview I became aware that Mike is a lot more sympathetic as I thought. In many ways he still behaves like a child which tries to find new things he can play with. What you should not forget either: It seems Mike is still an inspiration for you, obviously in a negative way. But can't you make use of it for your own ideas? You know what can be done differently. Think positive and constructive. P.S. Please don't flame me for what I wrote! Okay? Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: June 07 2001, 20:49 I see that not all of Mike Oldfield's work is perfect. There are things that, had I been sat in the producer's chair, would not have happened. I wouldn't call those things worthless though, partly because, had I been left to create that work instead of Mike, things would have been little different. Certainly the things wrong with my work would not be the same things that may be wrong with his, but there would be enough to keep Allah happy...It's down to your own opinions, what is of artistic value and what isn't - what 'imperfections' you like and which you don't like. It's easy to run out of ideas as an 'artist' (I leave that in inverted commas to keep everyone happy...). I certainly wouldn't expect Mike to have amazing musical ideas all the time. I wonder what Afro celt sound system will be doing in 30 years time (and as a sideline, combining Irish and African themes with state of the art technology sounds like a rather familiar concept)... People do all sorts of things to get a break from their usual activities, like go for walks, go on an exotic holiday, or whatever. Mike's done his fair share of those things already - so he's creating Music VR instead. It seems he doesn't even expect people to pay for it. With the amount of work that's gone in, I think that's a pretty good deal, even if it isn't the absolute best example of virtual reality. I'm sure Mike has learned a lot from its creation, and maybe he'll have new musical inspiration once he's finished it. If you don't like it, that's not Mike's problem - he's no slave to any of us, and isn't a machine that blindly churns out 'ideal' creations all the time. Back to top

Stuart Breed Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: April 2001 Posted: June 08 2001, 08:55 Dear Liron: It's obvious that you do a great job of mocking yourself. If anyone could benefit from Music VR, it would be you my friend. -------------- Stu Back to top

liron Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: June 08 2001, 16:59 mmmmmm... it seems i should apologize for my misbehaviour. maybe i'll take it slowly this time and let you see what i mean properly. as dervish said, mike is an inspiration to me. he certainly was my big one idol when i was growing up. more than that - he inspired me to take on the guitar, and start playing myself. if you could go to the school i went to (hopping tat they still keep the same chairs and tables, and don't ever paint the walls) you would see engraved on various noticable locations the writing "OLDFIELD IS GOD!". well at least he used to be. you know last summer i even went to see that old country side house of his - "the beacon", and even had a nice chat with mrs. griffiths (who is currently selling the house for 300,000 pounds). it was an old dream come true (well the real plans were to visit mike himself, though i never could imagine what i possibly had to say to him in that occasion). we were there, and it came to me that, mike doesn't really interests me as a human being this days, and that it would have been much more intriguing to meet him about 25 years ago. maybe it's just nostalgya and all - but it seems to me that he was more a REAL human than his post-therapuitic personality. never mind that, the thing i am trying to say is that mike's music ment a lot to me. ok? the way that he turned out to be is somewhat repulsive to me. and i must admit that there is an element of feeling betraied in all this. too personaly i know. whatever. dervish - an artist is not your everyday child writing a poem about the sand box, or your everage scientist programming his machine. an artist (and i won't appologize by adding the infamos "IMHO"), is a man that can communicate his feelings, or thoughts of this earthly world, by the sublime and intricate art form he uses. and he is capable of doing it in such a way that for a brief moment, you are lifted up (or taken down), to see this world from a different view, or one that is parallel to your seeing. this process demands great abilities that are more than technical. which is leading to one mr. oldfield... you see, i know that people change, and the way that they express themselves can change to (it HAS to change, because you can't repeat yourself forever expecting the resolt to be the same). YOU change and so does your music. that is fine. you experiment with new kinds ways to do the (basically) same thing. that is fine also. but an "artist", must remember the thin thread that devids a piece of art: "technique" and "expression". giving too much emphasys on one is the wrong way to communicate yourself. too much enhancment on expression and you are left with a work that doesn't mean shit to anybody beside the man that created it (an extatic smirred painting/ a bunch of screams on tape, and so on). too much emphasys on technique will lead to a castrated, emotionally devoided - though very aesthetic, work. mike, in my opinion, is paying too much attention to the WAY he is creating (and that's an understatment - as you can see from previously written letters by me), he is not paying much attention (IF ANY) to WHAT he is saying. and so you are left with works that, are reduced to a mere proficiancy show. very nicely crafted jewls, that just sit there, and express nothing but the ability of the artist to craft very nice jewls. very nice jewls dervish (and i am not going down on you, the only reason i went down on stuart was that he, for some reason, decided to address me as "Liviron", whatever that means), very nice jewls, you can find them anywhere. very nice jewls like brittany spears, or "five", that sings perfect, but tell you nothing. and so i hate (harsh words) mike oldfield for being that. if you experiment - bind that to the real essence of the thing you are doing - which is EXPRESSING SOMETHING. and don't you come back to me saying that he is doing his best, or that for HIM that is art, or some other postmodern thought. ART is NOT anything you so graciously call ART. like in real life - ART has certain definitions, it is not an amorphic concept floating in space, otherwise why call it "art"? you can call everything whatever you want, if it doesn't mean anything. you can call a dog a "cat", if you say that "the dog has "catish" personality", you can call one kids poem art, if you can say "the kid has CREATED". both the dog and the poem stay, a dog and (in the good case) a nice bunch of rhymes. ok? and another thing - you can't come up to me and say, mike is "trying new things, and new ways of expression", cos' from what I hear the next "AMBITIOUS" project he is gonna do is (guess what?) "TUBULAR BELLS IV - 'the way i always wanted it to sound in the first place'". it really makes me lough histerically. and yes - I won't buy that record too (just cos' i already HAVE 4). Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: June 08 2001, 19:43 Your point of view becomes much clearer when expressed like that, liron A discussion like this comes up every time people exhibit concrete blocks, or unmade beds in art galleries. It boils down to one question, which is, of course "What is art?". It seems that art, just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder...For example, you may not find much of merit in Mike's new work. I find that pieces like Muse, for example, are very pleasing in their condensed form. On the subject of emotion, there certainly aren't the same strong emotions being released in Mike's music as there once were. It seems, from what he says, that emotions such as those are released through meditation and tai chi instead. I guess we could debate that if we really wanted, and in the end the only conclusion we'd get to is that sometimes it's not entirely possible to know what people are really feeling inside. I certainly disagree that a child's poem could never be seen as art. Certainly the poems of some (though not all) children show great expression. I guess we can question technique, but then just because they may not adhere to any formal technique doesn't mean to say that their technique is wrong. If it suits the piece in hand, and creates something that is pleasing to its audience, which conveys some form of emotion (I would say conveys the artists emotion, but I don't think that all audiences feel the same emotions that the artist put into the work) then I would say it's successful as an art form...But like I said before, art is in the eye of the beholder... Back to top

Stuart Breed Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: April 2001 Posted: June 09 2001, 03:36 Dear Liron: Welcome back, we all thought we had lost you there for a minute. I grew up in the East End of London and for years saw the only way out, was to rant and rave and beat up on all the things I disagreed with. Then I heard Tubular Bells in 1973, it changed my life, BIG TIME. I also get Pi**ed Off with some of my heros decisions, but Mike Oldfield does have an uncanny knack of coming through when it counts for me. There is no denying that SODE is an Oldfield classic. We are not only talking about the music but also about the guitar sounds and techniques as well as the overall engineering and production of such a piece. I truely believe that Music VR will be a very rewarding project,both to Mike and you and I, because that's where Mike's head is at right now and he won't let it go untill it is right, that's the whole beauty of MO. I find it hard to believe that MO fans don't pick up on facts such as, he had Family Man covered by two great songwriters such as Hall and Oates. That in it's self is quite an achievement. Think about it? You do an album (TB), It goes to number one, stays there untill you release your second album (HR), which knocks TB off the number one slot. Not even the Beatles did that as solo artists, I don't know of anyone else that has. You start to try your hand at songwriting and Hall and Oates have a hit with one of your songs. We all need to be inspired by all this. I certainly was, and it has taken me a long way so far. Lots of love. Stuart Breed -------------- Stu Back to top

Dervish_D Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: Feb. 2001 Posted: June 09 2001, 13:18 Dear liron, You showed, that we actually have the same opinion. Your feeling about Mike's todays music fits perfectly to mine: The essence, the purpose, life, the reason to make music at all, is often missing! Somewhere I already said that I think that there's still this "old" magnificence hidden under a lot of music which "I don't understand" (well, I don't claim to UNDERSTAND Mike's works, With "understand" I mean, that I just can cope with the music.), Korgscrew gave a good example with "Muse", IMO. As a conclusion, I share many points of your view. However, I must admit for myself, that I MUST try to evaluate Mike's latest "attempts" differently. I often feel dishearted when I listen to them. But that should not be the reason why I buy CDs from him - to feel dishearted. Actually I don't know yet... Perhaps, it comes to be that I have to learn from it, I noticed, that my resignation is often a result from the feeling that Mike's and mine views of music totally divert. And that was not the case in the 70s (I wasn't born in the 70s - but when listening to the 70s music). Since I'm an admirer of his music and since I can identify with it, it turns to be such a big disappointment to see that this isn't anymore. Perhaps, it is just because he grow older and became more experienced... And I - I just try to gain experiences (so he did in the 70s) and I try to slowly make my own views of the world and what is important for me. Naturally, things differ, I have to accept that. I must find my own way. By seeing that Mike's music is lacking something which was important for us, we become aware that merely we, for ourselves, have the opportunity to create "art" which expresses OUR personality. Back to top

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

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net