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

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

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: June 20 2008, 10:27 My 21st birthday was yesterday, and tonight I decided to do something I've been wanting to do all year; go into my room, lie down in bed, turn out the light and play Amarok all the way through. Really listen to it in a way I can't do when I'm driving, working or surfing the internet. The album just finished, and I have to say it was the most fantastic Mike Oldfield experience I've ever had. Here are some thoughts I had while I was listening: We had a topic a few weeks ago on Mike's use of the bass guitar. The bass playing on Amarok really struck me this time. It's so interesting all the way through. No matter how many times I listen to it, there's always something new that jumps out at me, like the bass work this time. The level of detail is extraordinary. It's perfect. Well, to me anyway. Everything about it; the sudden changes in melody and mood, the sound effects. It all seems to fit so well. Does anyone else find it astonishing that after not having done any sort of choral music for his entire career, he manages to make the final buildup and climax so wonderful? I know the Thatcher bit ruins the ending for some people here, but nothing could ruin this ending for me. This must be one of the most impressive feats of composing in popular music history. My mind boggles as to how he even imagined all of it, let along put it together. Alan and a few others here have used the metaphor of 'throwing his toys out of the pram' to describe the crazier sections, but that's not the feeling I get. That implies a sense of recklessness, doing something mad in the heat of the moment and not caring what it is, and I don't think that's what has happened here. I feel that everything in this album has been carefully planned and thought through. Even at its most cacophonous it just sits too well together to be anything else. Finally, Amarok has been my favourite album for at least five years. I've heard plenty of truely fantastic music since then, and nothing has even come close to surpassing it. I find it hard to imagine that anything ever will.   -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: June 20 2008, 13:56 Very well said. -------------- Turn up the music... Hi as Fi can go. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 20 2008, 14:43 It's reading this kind of response - thoughtful, utterly genuine, utterly sincere, and deeply felt - that keeps me coming back to Amarok despite my own reservations about it. Thanks Alex - and a belated happy birthday to you. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 20 2008, 21:08 Who is Alex? Obviously one of the previous posters, but I'm not sure which one.... I'm puzzled as to the perceived intellectual challenge of Amarok. It's simply typical pieces of very memorable MO music punctuated by sound effects from his life: cleaning his teeth, getting aggressive phone calls (presumably from RB), sleeping. The record simply says "I am a rock, this is me, and this is my music". That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know! Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 20 2008, 21:31 Too many of the signposts in the piece are non-artistically directed (eg, the coded message to RB, the health warning on the sleeve) for the attempt to find some complex artistic pattern and unity in the work to be justified. He was just having fun, and produced some extremely engaging music along the way. I'm neither particularly fond of nor particularly opposed to the musique concrete sections (or musique concrete in general). Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: June 20 2008, 21:59 Absolutely it's a fun piece, albeit a meticulously well-plotted-out fun piece.  Sure, there may be moments when it seems a bit like an ADHD kid bouncing off the wall, but that can be part of the fun, can't it (provided it's in little doses, of course)? I don't think there is a particular intellectual challenge to "Amarok", although some listeners have expressed a "patience" challenge in getting through it.   Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: June 20 2008, 23:37 I'm Alex, nightspore. I'm not quite sure where you got the 'intellectual challenge' from; my only intellectual response is a sense of wonder that Mike managed to conceive of such a piece in the first place. I have no knowledge of any sort of music theory, so I suppose my response is all emotional. That makes it difficult for me to fully describe what I'm thinking here. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 21 2008, 04:59 Quote (raven4x4x @ June 20 2008, 23:37) I'm Alex, nightspore. I'm not quite sure where you got the 'intellectual challenge' from; Hi Alex. I was commenting more on Alan's response to Amarok. I know that in the past he's tried to come to terms with it, and his use of the word 'thoughtful' this time suggested he was interested in approaching the piece intellectually, rather than on the level of 'like' vs 'dislike'. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 21 2008, 05:08 Quote (nightspore @ June 21 2008, 02:08) It's simply typical pieces of very memorable MO music punctuated by sound effects from his life. Quote Too many of the signposts in the piece are non-artistically directed ... for the attempt to find some complex artistic pattern and unity in the work to be justified. I've struggled with Amarok ever since its release, and this forum is littered with posts that I've written at those times when I've tried to make sense of my own and other people's responses to it. It contains some of what I think are MO's finest musical passages, starkly jammed in between what I think are some of his worst - I might even call them anti-musical passages. Now, that view of mine is constantly challenged by what I read here on Tubular.net, and Alex's experience described in his post above is a classic. Regardless of my own rather confused experience of the music, it's obvious that many people have had epiphanic experiences when listening to it - and these are not people who have just put it on in the background and had a feelgood moment or two. It's obvious from the way they talk about it that they've fully engaged with the piece and been overwhelmed by the process. Alex's description has the hallmarks of a description written by someone who has had a major artistic encounter. So I don't think that Amarok is 'simply' anything. Whatever it is, I think it's a pretty complicated 'something'. And if I were to decide that there's no point in searching for some kind of artistic unity within it, I'd effectively be assuming that I have a perfect knowledge of all methods of achieving artistic unity. I don't. We don't. We never will. That's one of the thrills of being involved in art - that experience of the shock and wonder at a great artist's ability to find new forms of expression that go beyond what we thought we knew already. CS Lewis wrote a brilliant little book called An Experiment in Criticism, which is aimed at literature, but his principle works for any art. He points out that the normal method of criticism is to start with an established idea of what constitutes good art, and judge works of art (and by implication, people's tastes) against that. The difficulty with this is that ideas of what is 'good art' are continually evolving, so often this process fails, and this is why critical opinions are so frequently overturned from generation to generation. Lewis suggests instead that we look at the kind of engagement that the art makes possible. In other words, we shouldn't judge a person's taste by the art he enjoys, according to some preconceived notion of what constitutes good art; rather, we should try to judge the art by the way in which it can be enjoyed - that is, by the type or character of engagement that the art makes possible. This is really at the heart of what I'm getting at with Amarok. It's become obvious to me over the years, listening to people like Alex, that it's capable of offering the kind of deep, enriching engagement that I associate with great art, even if I don't see it myself. I think there's something important going on there that goes outside the usual, but I only see it out of the corner of my eye, as it were. I only get glimpses of it secondhand, by reading the comments of others. Back to top

Matt Group: Admins Posts: 1186 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: June 21 2008, 05:09 Quote (raven4x4x @ June 20 2008, 15:27) This must be one of the most impressive feats of composing in popular music history. My mind boggles as to how he even imagined all of it, let along put it together. Seconding all you said raven but the above comment sort of sums it up for me. Especially with Amarok coming as it did between the relatively flaccid Heavens Open and Earth Moving. -------------- "I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels" Back to top

Guest Unregistered Posted: June 21 2008, 08:23 My English is not that great and I lack the option to express in deeper thoughts what I feel. But what you wrote Alan, is just my words...I have the sense that there is something important going on with Amarok, but I lack the capability to find out what it is.  - Maybe hardcore musicians have a better take on the album. for me too, Amarok is Mike Oldfield as his very best and very worst at the same time. For starters - The M. Thatcher bit I just don´t understand.. Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: June 21 2008, 09:57 I`ve said before on here that I always thought Amarok was a kind of celebration of Mike Oldfield the musician.And all the emtional and psychological implications that went into making him as such if you like.But I also feel it`s a kind of celebration of music itself of every walk and variety.It`s like "don`t you edit me mate because I`m not going to bloody conform. " I think there`s definetly something of that going on throughout the piece to me. Now fair enough some of you may well think that`s hardly the correct way to celebrate something.You know it kind of goes against the grain of artistic integrity and serious thought a little bit.But I feel it`s a bit like a raw release of everything Mike may have felt was being repressed by outside influences.Such as the coded message to RB for instance,or camping out in your back garden as a protest against SAW.What can you say there`s a certain kind of madness to the guy sometimes that almost defies belief.There`s something of that "madness" going on throughout Amarok undoutably to me.He`s not always wholly in touch with himself is I think what I`d like to say here.But then many people are`nt you know.Amarok is almost like a reaction to being in auto-pilot mode for a lot of people I think.The sudden guitar bursts from out of nowhere.The telephone ringing louder than the music itself.Those big loud stabbing chords that forever seem to punctuate the music just in case you felt like nodding off.Or the "bored guy" cleaning his teeth that suddenly smashes the glass.All those things could just be as easily seen as directed at himself and his own frustrations.But as a musical statement going into the 90`s and on the back of his own Earth Moving album.You know I remember thinking at the time I felt like he was saying "get me the hell away from the 80`s and everything that decade stands for.I don`t want to be a part of it anymore.".So yeah the Thatcher thing kind of fits as well looking at it that way.Kind of a wake up call to the soul if you like.That maybe gets a little bit muddled up with the ego in places.Either way I feel it`s a very honest and probably self liberating reflection of Mike`s own state of mind at the time. As far as some of the album`s maybe more atonal passages go,or the whole way the thing is constructed sometimes.From a completely honest viepoint trying to step outside of myself a little bit here I can fully understand why some people don`t "get" that aspect of it at all.It`s a strange one because I`ve actually sat in rooms with different people sometimes just listening to the album.And then just kind of gauging similar reactions during some of those sections I guess.Just getting off on it you know with a great big broad smile on your face and then seeing that grin reflected back at you.So what the hell is that deep down inside I don`t know really?It`s a shared response yes,but there`s something of the "my team" response to it if you like.I suppose as celebrations go therefore, maybe Amarok is kind of akin to a goal celebration.I honestly feel that part of that celebration is actually knowing that some people are not going to like it at all in fact.Like he`s running towards the opposing fans with his shirt pulled over his head or something.For myself personally I would love to be able to deny that but I can`t.I`m simplifying a little here because I do think it actually runs deeper than that emotionaly.I just don`t want to deny something that I think is intrinsicaly there.For me personaly anyway.Oddly enough I think there`s actually something of a punk ethos going on in Amarok at times.."something better change,..stick my fingers right up your nose.".. Oh yes I`m sure Mike would love to hear that little comparison.           Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 21 2008, 10:30 I'm kinda wondering here, and I think many will disagree with me, but I think the "I can see there's something important going on but I don't see it" attitude can be a final judgement. I think several people do that, matter of fact... and after all, I have seen many "epiphanies" expressed in posts about the likes of Tubular Bells III, for example - and yes, the whole world may have an epiphany on Tubular Bells III, and I will still keep the album in the trash bin. Everything those people take out of the album, they may as well be taking out of themselves - Amarok, for example, can be just a catalyser to a completely personal process to those people. For me, personally, Amarok is one of the greatest achievements in last century's music, and honestly, I gave up trying to see the "artistic" or "emotional" value of it. The possible interpretations are so numerous and so vague that I leave that for the others. For me, the album is a masterpiece of structure, melody and arrangement; the structure defies our usual notions on how a piece should flow, and yet it builds its own, internal logic as it goes and it makes sense; the melodies are plainly godlike, and the way they are combined is ingenious; finally, the music never, ever stops - the instruments are in constant dialogue, exchanging lines, bouncing off each other, completing each other's phrases, arguing and agreeing. There isn't really a single second of redundancy or dullness in the entire album. -------------- 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

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: June 21 2008, 12:38 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 21 2008, 15:30) I'm kinda wondering here, and I think many will disagree with me, but I think the "I can see there's something important going on but I don't see it" attitude can be a final judgement. I think several people do that, matter of fact... and after all, I have seen many "epiphanies" expressed in posts about the likes of Tubular Bells III, for example - and yes, the whole world may have an epiphany on Tubular Bells III, and I will still keep the album in the trash bin. Everything those people take out of the album, they may as well be taking out of themselves - Amarok, for example, can be just a catalyser to a completely personal process to those people. For me, personally, Amarok is one of the greatest achievements in last century's music, and honestly, I gave up trying to see the "artistic" or "emotional" value of it. The possible interpretations are so numerous and so vague that I leave that for the others. For me, the album is a masterpiece of structure, melody and arrangement; the structure defies our usual notions on how a piece should flow, and yet it builds its own, internal logic as it goes and it makes sense; the melodies are plainly godlike, and the way they are combined is ingenious; finally, the music never, ever stops - the instruments are in constant dialogue, exchanging lines, bouncing off each other, completing each other's phrases, arguing and agreeing. There isn't really a single second of redundancy or dullness in the entire album. The strange thing is I find myself agreeing with everything you`ve said there Sir M.Even though to some extent it`s kind of opposed to some of what I was trying to express there myself.I was just trying to get at the heart of what maybe are some of the reasons as to why this album still manages to polarise opinions of it a little bit.Maybe I`m reflecting too much on my own personal perceptions and characteristics a little bit there?Rather than standing back and just accepting it for what it is.You know it`s absolutely bloody mesmerising in fact start to finish.Because the one thing that always strikes me about Amarok,and did so from my very first time of listening in fact.Is that despite it`s many mood changes/numerous musical references etc.It`s actually a very easy album to listen to for me.It`s easy listening in the strictest sense of the term because I feel like I want to hang onto every second of it.But I neither feel like I`m being forced or forcing myself into doing that I suppose.So yeah "it builds it`s own internal logic,and it makes sense" and there isn`t a single second of redundancy on the album I completely agree.In all honesty it actually strikes me as Mike Oldfield`s most honest and personal musical statement in fact.It`s like the whole thing was devised from some higher form of thinking within himself somehow.It`s diffcult to explain I agree because what can sound at odds or unatural to some people,just does`nt sound that way at all to me.Everything is there by intention and design without question.Every thought process and compositional reaction to that was there for some greater good to the piece as Mike percieved it is what I feel about it.But he was somehow tuned in to what he really wanted here for me.He was`nt just checking the tick boxes if you like for a kind of requisite movement from the motivation.He was firing on all cylinders with every avenue open to him.And it`s more than an epiphany you`re right.And it`s more than that whole "us and them" kind of perception on it as well.So it`s an over used addage I have to admit,but I think "genius" just about does it for me as well. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 21 2008, 18:54 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 21 2008, 15:30) the whole world may have an epiphany on Tubular Bells III, and I will still keep the album in the trash bin. Everything those people take out of the album, they may as well be taking out of themselves - Amarok, for example, can be just a catalyser to a completely personal process to those people. Not sure what you're saying here, Sir M - I don't know whether you're including yourself among 'those people'. Let's say that I epiphanise while listening to TB III, and you epiphanise while listening to Amarok. Are you saying there's something different going on in your case, compared to mine? In other words, are you claiming that there's something genuinely 'real' about a perception of greatness in Amarok, but that a perception of greatness in TBIII is an internal illusion? Or are you suggesting that we are both getting our epiphanies 'out of ourselves', with the music merely acting as some sort of catalyst for that in each case? Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 21 2008, 19:15 Quote (Alan D @ June 21 2008, 18:54) Let's say that I epiphanise while listening to TB III, and you epiphanise while listening to Amarok. Are you saying there's something different going on in your case, compared to mine? In other words, are you claiming that there's something genuinely 'real' about a perception of greatness in Amarok, but that a perception of greatness in TBIII is an internal illusion? Or are you suggesting that we are both getting our epiphanies 'out of ourselves', with the music merely acting as some sort of catalyst for that in each case? I was saying the latter; in no way I think one thing is "right" while other thing is "illusory", and that's not what I meant when I brought TBIII into my example. What I mean is that both of us could get almost exactly the same experience from two completely different things; it's the same process, but triggered by different objects, and that can eventually lead to one not seeing what the other object is all about. But what I'm saying here is what could potentially happen, not necessarily what always happens. It all depends on how one approaches music, and that's all very personal. -------------- 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

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 21 2008, 20:32 Quote (Alan D @ June 21 2008, 05:08) Quote (nightspore @ June 21 2008, 02:08) It's simply typical pieces of very memorable MO music punctuated by sound effects from his life. Quote Too many of the signposts in the piece are non-artistically directed ... for the attempt to find some complex artistic pattern and unity in the work to be justified. I've struggled with Amarok ever since its release, and this forum is littered with posts that I've written at those times when I've tried to make sense of my own and other people's responses to it. It contains some of what I think are MO's finest musical passages, starkly jammed in between what I think are some of his worst - I might even call them anti-musical passages. Now, that view of mine is constantly challenged by what I read here on Tubular.net, and Alex's experience described in his post above is a classic. Regardless of my own rather confused experience of the music, it's obvious that many people have had epiphanic experiences when listening to it - and these are not people who have just put it on in the background and had a feelgood moment or two. It's obvious from the way they talk about it that they've fully engaged with the piece and been overwhelmed by the process. Alex's description has the hallmarks of a description written by someone who has had a major artistic encounter. So I don't think that Amarok is 'simply' anything. Whatever it is, I think it's a pretty complicated 'something'. And if I were to decide that there's no point in searching for some kind of artistic unity within it, I'd effectively be assuming that I have a perfect knowledge of all methods of achieving artistic unity. I think many people are sufficiently unfamiliar with the idea of musique concrete that they are blown away the first time they hear it, especially if they have - as you say - some of Mike's finest musical moments to help them along. I agree with what you say about 'art', but again there are far too many non-artistic signposts in the piece for any attempt at finding artistic unity to be justified. (I'm prepared to take this last statement back if anyone ever finds, in Mozart's Cosi fan Tutte an encoded statement saying "F*ck off Salieri"! Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 21 2008, 20:49 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 22 2008, 00:15) What I mean is that both of us could get almost exactly the same experience from two completely different things; it's the same process, but triggered by different objects, But how could you know it's the same process, or the same experience? I may have described them both as 'epiphanies' - which broadly gives an impression of the kind (and depth) of experience I'm talking about - but a broad description of that kind is very loose and vague. In fact, what I experience from different pieces of music, is always different according to the particular piece of music. It's never the same. So what I experience varies according to the art I'm being exposed to (and gosh it would be awfully boring if it didn't). An important part of the enjoyment of art is experiencing its uniqueness - the quiddity of it. I think that makes it extremely unlikely (and completely untestable, actually) that I'm having the same experience as someone else listening to a different piece of music. The remarkable thing, I think, is that a general consensus about works of art is possible at all, yet often it is. Although we can never actually know what someone else is experiencing, if we compare notes carefully enough we can surprisingly often understand each other's responses. The art is far more potent than a mere catalyst. What you're suggesting is a bit like the idea of telling jokes by numbers - you know, where you have a list of jokes, each one numbered, and you say 'number 8', and we're supposed to laugh. But we don't, because we need more than the mere trigger of 'number 8'. We need the joke itself. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 21 2008, 20:57 Quote (nightspore @ June 22 2008, 01:32) there are far too many non-artistic signposts in the piece for any attempt at finding artistic unity to be justified. That's the very limitation I was talking about, though. To make a predefined statement about what's acceptable as an 'artistic signpost', and about what is allowable as constituting 'artistic unity' - is to follow in the footsteps of the critics of the Impressionists, and of Cezanne, etc etc. It means, inevitably, that new forms of expression, and new ways of establishing artistic unity, will be missed. You might be right of course in the case of Amarok. But to set against that, we have the reports of all these people who find a deep and satisfying unity within it. In CS Lewis's critical model (and in my view), their evidence is crucial to the debate. Afterthought The comparison between MO and Mozart doesn't help us resolve the issue. The parallel with this would be to consider (say) the use of 'found' collage elements in a work of art - like Picasso's use of bits of newspaper, or Schwitter's use of bus tickets,  and so on. Now, obviously you can point to a Watteau or a Rembrandt and say 'Look, you see, no bus tickets in that', but that doesn't invalidate the use of 'found' collage fragments here and now, centuries later. Indeed, today they're fully accepted as viable 'artistic signposts' and as a potent contributor to artistic unity. The fact that it wasn't anticipated by Rembrandt has nothing to do with it. Similarly, the fact that Mozart didn't include hidden messages in Cosi Fan Tutte also has no bearing on the artistic potential that hidden messages might (conceivably) possess for a composer today. Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 22 2008, 08:36 Quote (Alan D @ June 21 2008, 20:57) That's the very limitation I was talking about, though. To make a predefined statement about what's acceptable as an 'artistic signpost', and about what is allowable as constituting 'artistic unity' - is to follow in the footsteps of the critics of the Impressionists, and of Cezanne, etc etc. It means, inevitably, that new forms of expression, and new ways of establishing artistic unity, will be missed. That was certainly true once, Alan: art theory, literary theory etc explored many directions in the twentieth century, finally reaching the conclusion, with the poststructuralists, that everything is or can be art. I'm not arguing with this conclusion, but I submit it's not a very useful one, simply because if everything is art the word 'art' becomes meaningless (in the same way that taking riding lessons becomes impossible if the word 'horse' can mean anything). CS Lewis was a fine theorist, but I see no reason to privilege his views over FR Leavis or Wimsatt and Beardsley or even Derrida. Actually, this position you're espousing is quite Derridean. In any case, most theorists have backtracked from the extreme relativist view of art, simply because if anything can be art, also anyone can be an art critic,and that means a lot of academics hate the thought of the dole queue! Back to top

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

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net