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 ]

bee Group: Members Posts: 1227 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: Aug. 22 2006, 17:55 This post was moved by me ( bee ) from the Other artists thread because it was in the wrong place. Really hope this is OK to do this, sorry if I have gone about it in the wrong way, administrators. bee Quote (Alan D @ Aug. 19 2006, 10:42) Oh! Today, they sound so weak and feeble! Was I really so captivated by this, all those years ago? It's so thin and weedy, and so dated. Hugely disappointing..... I know just what you mean, only the other day, after proudly extolling the virtues of David Bowie/Ziggy Stardust I put on my old vinyl copy and my boys fell about laughing! I had to agree with them a bit, but I had this feeling of disappointment that I really wasn't prepared for. It was a sense of loss. I'd kind of expected to share again that wonderful, intoxicating feeling I'd had when I first listened, but the magic was gone. Disconcerting and I wasn't sure why. The music was 'of that time', it lived in it's present and as the years have gone by it has lost something and sounds different. Good, but different. It probably had associations of that time, memories, feelings, new discoveries - all mixed up together and held in the sounds. Time passes, we change, we learn more, understand less, and the music no longer fits our minds or expectations. I still kind of like it, but for nostalgic reasons now and I listen differently. Some songs sum up a feeling of a time so well for me, that I can always remember where I was (& therfore be pretty accurate in recalling dates) when I first heard them ~ especially if I liked the music. I'm sure this is nothing unusual for many people, showing how influential music can be, useful too. This brings me to something often mentioned here, don' want to go over old ground but the music of Mike Oldfield never dates or loses anything with the passing years. It maybe has a hint of the present in the way certain instruments are used or in the production but it's style is timeless. It travels through time in it's own way and can never be captured or labelled & I love it even more for that very reason, to say nothing of the sheer joy it can make me feel. I apologise for what I say next because I always manage to involve art in my rambling, but I find the subjects are very connected. I don't remember where I heard it, but someone said of paintings that they are present tense narratives. Does this mean they are comments or expressions or observations of the time? Marks made to record the feelings, scenes, people, places of now. Would you put music under that same title - a present tense narrative? I feel perhaps not, because music can transcend time, rather like sculpture. It also has more than three dimensions as you listen and for that reason it can remain with you for your entire life. Someone from ages ago could possibly appreciate today's music more easily than a play or a painting for example. You only need your ears and an imagination for music to work. -------------- ....second to the right and straight on till morning.... You heard me before Yet you hear me again Then I die Till I call me again Back to top

Wayfarer Group: Members Posts: 308 Joined: June 2002 Posted: Aug. 22 2006, 19:58 Mmmh I understand you. Don't tell anyone that, before discovering Mike Oldfield, I used to listen to Cliff Richard and M.C. Hammer.... (U can't touch this! -- Wayfarer -------------- My homepage - www.thewayfarer.info My search - www.cannotbefound.com My community - www.taurusiv.net My luthier - www.artluthier.com Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Aug. 23 2006, 04:19 Quote (bee @ Aug. 22 2006, 22:55) someone said of paintings that they are present tense narratives. Does this mean they are comments or expressions or observations of the time? Marks made to record the feelings, scenes, people, places of now. There's such a lot of interesting stuff to respond to here! I'll  start with the business of the 'present tense narrative'. I honestly don't know what the person who said it meant, but I think it might be related to the idea that when we look at a painting we take all of it in at once. The whole image is there; we engage with all of it NOW, this moment ('present tense narrative' ). By comparison, music unfolds through time, as does a novel or a poem. [I ought to say that I think looking at a painting is a lot more complex than this, and in practice the painting does unfold through time, because the artist guides our eye around the picture space in subtle but important ways, and our impressions of the picture change as that happens.] The idea that the picture is a record of 'feelings, people, places, now' would only be true of a very small group of paintings I think - such as an Impressionist picture, which attempts to catch the moment. Most great paintings seem to have an element of the eternal about them: a Cezanne landscape or portrait, for instance, transcends time, and isn't confined just to representing a moment. Quote Would you put music under that same title - a present tense narrative? I feel perhaps not, because music can transcend time, rather like sculpture. I don't think music is unique in this. The greatest poems, pictures, plays, sculptures, buildings etc, all transcend their time - I think all great art does. Quote Someone from ages ago could possibly appreciate today's music more easily than a play or a painting for example. I'm not convinced about this. I think an Ice Age painter of the Lascaux caves of thousands of years ago could probably enjoy modern abstract painting better than most modern people can. Quote You only need your ears and an imagination for music to work. But equally, you only need your eyes and an imagination for paintings to work. I think there are two issues involved in this time idea. One is a sense of nostalgia, which is quite distinct from the other, which is the artistic/aesthetic response. We don't need great art to conjure up fond memories of the past. A photograph, or a poster, or a snatch of music, or even a smell can do it. For Marcel Proust it was the act of dipping a piece of cake into his tea! A few days ago I was suddenly reminded powerfully of my childhood by the taste of watercress. But nostalgia does date, almost by definition. The image of the 'swinging sixties' doesn't transcend its age because it so very much belongs to its age. The Searchers (which my original post referred to) sound utterly mid-sixties! You can pin that sound down to within a couple of years, within moments of hearing it. There are some aspects of Mike's music that do date him - the 80s albums for example, do sound very 80s! But the part of Mike's music that is timeless is the really important part - that's the great art. That's the stuff that will transcend the age in which it was written; and that's why it keeps coming up fresh no matter how many years ago it was made - like that amazing painting by Rubens 'Le Chapeau de Paille', which is so fresh and vibrant that you almost believe he painted it yesterday instead of centuries ago. Back to top

BOOsTER Group: Musicians Posts: 1024 Joined: Jan. 2003 Posted: Aug. 23 2006, 08:37 Yes, indeed time changes a lot...I grew up on Mike's music, than i went to disko and the classic top 40 bluff...and then at about 16 my taste evolved to electronic music...mostly trance though...then I started discovering other things...Electronica in general, Aphex Twin, New Order...Brian Eno :-) or JM Jarre...(oh my god I mentioned JMJ on MO board, I'm gonna be in trouble soon!. Now I'm more and more leaning towards progressive and house, because I think there's a lot more in these two and almost every song is innovative in a way...it's not as emotional as 99-2002 trance, but it's still ok...and I still sometimes go back and listen Mike...Aphex Twin...New Order...I dunno :-) Kinda listen everything what's good...:-) Though electronica is my alltime favourite -------------- http://www.djbooster.net Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1548 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: Aug. 23 2006, 09:14 Quote (Alan D @ Aug. 23 2006, 04:19) But nostalgia does date, almost by definition. Very interesting. Yes, I can imagine it happens a lot that you hear stuff back and think 'don't believe that I thought it was so great years ago'. Funnily enough it happens the other way around too: I used to really dislike some music in the past when it was popular, like the mid 90's trance music, but hearing it now it makes me go 'hey, this is actually very cool stuff'. -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

ImAFoolAndImLaughing Group: Members Posts: 536 Joined: Feb. 2006 Posted: Aug. 23 2006, 14:18 Gosh! What a fascinating thread! Lots of interesting theories being bandied around Some particularly interesting points raised by Alan... Quote I honestly don't know what the person who said it meant, but I think it might be related to the idea that when we look at a painting we take all of it in at once. The whole image is there; we engage with all of it NOW, this moment ('present tense narrative' ). By comparison, music unfolds through time, as does a novel or a poem. I think the idea of 'choice' plays a part, too. When looking at a painting or photograph, we can choose where to rest our eyes, where to focus our attention (although, as Alan mentions, the artist will do his best to bring certain features into prominence.) In comparison, with a piece of music, there's almost a feeling of being "swept away" with the melody, of being led wherever the musician wants to take you. This is particularly noticeable, for example, when a musician playing live hits a "bum" note - you've been happily floating along with the melody until you hit something unexpected and shocking and jarring. So listening to a piece of music differs from looking at a painting in that a certain amount of "letting-go" is required, learning to trust that, while good music is going to throw some good and beautiful surprises at you, there won't be anything too nasty waiting for you.  Perhaps it's this letting-go process - allowing yourself to be surprised and dazzled by the twists and turns in the music - that makes listening to a piece of music the first time around such a rewarding experience. Maybe this could also go someway to explaining why subsequent listens - in which you know what you're expecting to hear, and are therefore less receptive to opening-up to the music - sometimes don't seem as stunning as the first? Just me thinking aloud - I'm sure there are tons of holes in this theory, but it's nice to see such an interesting discussion and debate -------------- "I was in this prematurely air conditioned supermarket and there were these bathing caps you could buy that had these kind of Fourth of July plumes on them that were red and yellow and blue and I wasn't tempted to buy one but I was reminded of the fact that I had been avoiding the beach." Back to top

Inkanta Group: Admins Posts: 1453 Joined: Feb. 2000 Posted: Aug. 23 2006, 19:51 Quote (bee @ Aug. 22 2006, 16:55) This post was moved by me ( bee ) from the Other artists thread because it was in the wrong place. Really hope this is OK to do this, sorry if I have gone about it in the wrong way, administrators. bee It's fine, bee, to leave things the way they are. You tried to get my attention in the other thread, and I never saw it until wandering around this evening. Have to admit that the "what are you listening to now?" is one of several that I don't look at on a daily basis. Guess I'll have to. <-: There is never a good way to move a posts between threads, and since I've found it several days later, maybe the best  path is one of least resistance. <-:  Always feel free to pop a PM my way--if I'm anywhere online, I tend to see those within a few hours. -------------- "No such thing as destiny; only choices exist." From:  Moongarden's "Solaris." Back to top

Inkanta Group: Admins Posts: 1453 Joined: Feb. 2000 Posted: Aug. 23 2006, 19:52 p.s....Great topic! -------------- "No such thing as destiny; only choices exist." From:  Moongarden's "Solaris." Back to top

moonchildhippy Group: Members Posts: 1807 Joined: Dec. 2004 Posted: Aug. 24 2006, 09:30 Quote bee   Posted on Aug. 22 2006, 22:55 Quote (Alan D @ Aug. 19 2006, 10:42) Oh! Today, they sound so weak and feeble! Was I really so captivated by this, all those years ago? It's so thin and weedy, and so dated. Hugely disappointing..... I know just what you mean, only the other day, after proudly extolling the virtues of David Bowie/Ziggy Stardust I put on my old vinyl copy and my boys fell about laughing! I had to agree with them a bit, but I had this feeling of disappointment that I really wasn't prepared for. It was a sense of loss. I'd kind of expected to share again that wonderful, intoxicating feeling I'd had when I first listened, but the magic was gone. Interesting topic  . I don't know quite how to how to reply to this, except to say I guess,it's possible to outgrow music you once thought was great.  I think a classic example of that for me is Guns 'n' Roses' , Appetite For Destruction LP 15/16 years ago I would also be "extolling the virtues" of this album,  I heard it in 1997 after a gap of about 5 years, and I thought "This is terrible", I was somewhat puzzled,over what I did ever see in this album   .   Then again if we outgrow the music we liked in our youth, how is it I've been a Queen fan since 1984/5, or my Dad was a Rolling Stones fan since 1963,until his death last year. The Stones are still filling stadiums, and Queen would be too were it not for the untimely death of Freddie Mercury,  saying that Brian May and Roger Taylor  had re-formed as  Queen and Paul Rodgers, and  can fill stadiums. Incidentally I've just been playing Queen II    and to me it sounds as fresh and exciting as the day I first heard it   , if not more so. Quote Alan D   Posted on Aug. 23 2006, 09:19 There are some aspects of Mike's music that do date him - the 80s albums for example, do sound very 80s! But the part of Mike's music that is timeless is the really important part - that's the great art. That's the stuff that will transcend the age in which it was written; and that's why it keeps coming up fresh no matter how many years ago it was made Agreed,  some  of Mike's more poppy output to me sounds sooo 80's   , and dated,possibly  due to pressure from RB to be more commercial.  If  RB was right and people in the 80's  didn't want to listen to long instrumental pieces ,  then that doesn't explain the  phenominal success of Tubular Bells as the biggest selling instrumental album of all time. BTW I was playing Marillion's "Script For A Jester's Tear" album a few nights back, if I didn't know it was released in 1983 I would find it difficult to put an exact date on it    , a classic, that still sounds fresh and exiting. -------------- I'm going slightly mad, It finally happened, I'm slightly mad , just very slightly mad If you feel a little glum to Hergest Ridge you should come. I'm challenging  taboos surrounding mental health "Part time hippy" I'M SUPPORTING OUR SOLDIERS BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!! Back to top

glasgow_tubular Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: July 2006 Posted: Aug. 28 2006, 09:47 Cool topic. It seems that as time goes on I personally have been listening to older music    When i was 13 it was modern cheesy pop i listened to but now that im older ive been listening to more mike, the corries, electric light orchestra, runrig etc but my mates are all moving with the times. -------------- www.myspace.com/allaroundmyhat Back to top

olracUK Group: Members Posts: 1683 Joined: June 2003 Posted: Aug. 31 2006, 16:02 I read this thread a few days ago and then dug out a few of my compilation tapes from 1978, 1989 and 2004 to try and see how I felt about my choices now. Some of the songs I thought were totally awe-inspring then I still feel the same way about, and others..well..my tatses have changed. Partly through hearing new genres, or better quality work from the same artiste, or just more mature ears hearing different aspects of those tracks. As we move through life, we get a greater bundle of experiences. For me, this discussion would probably be better expressed as "what makes a truly timeless song?". For instance, "Biko" by Peter Gabriel is on my 1989 tape, along with "Mandela Day" by Simple Minds. Both were hits, both cover the same theme - anti-aparthied - and both have strident choruses. Listening in 2006, Biko sounds classic and timeless whereas Mandela Day seems dated and smacks of Bandwagon jumping. Another response would be how I have grown to like music I didn't like originally. Discovery and Millenium Bell are examples of this. Maybe it is just familiarity, listening to them so many times. Or it could be that at the time of original listening, emotional baggage was present and now there is a clearer path for me to appreciate the music. Finally, another thing time adds to music is memories. Associating music with particular emotions/events. And that is a whole topic on it's own. -------------- The answer is 42 - but what is the question? 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