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 ]

magenta Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: May 2003 Posted: May 27 2003, 16:53 I have just listened to TB.2003.And i am gutted. I have been a fan of Mikes since i was seven and ,because of Mike,I have been inspired to make music professionaly all my life. But.......I know personally its hard to hit the mark all the time ,when composing and making music .So Ok,I ve got to be fair. TB 2003 is a waste of time.I can see the idea of a note for note  ,better recorded,perhaps 5.1 mix etc.But why ????change some of the chords and add bits and bobs.I though  he done that on TB II?????? There are parts on TB 2003 that are amazing ,....the parts that are true to the original ,( i thought that was the plan). The caveman bit is cringworthy,the sounds used in the "Finale" come out of a cheap Japanese Sound module. Listen to the original ,its from the heart not the pay packet. Mike oldfield is a genius >>>>Tub Bells 1/Ommadawan/First excurtiions,SOADE,these pieces make you cry with emotion. Burn your synths Mike and put your emotions  through real instruments and ,make the magical music we know you can.PLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEASEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to top

MusicallyInspired Group: Musicians Posts: 1445 Joined: June 2001 Posted: May 27 2003, 21:59 TSODE was mainly synths, dear sir. I don't think he should burn his synths. -------------- 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

bevy Group: Members Posts: 295 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: May 27 2003, 22:03 I know what u r saying.. but i think u have gone a bit OTT..yeh? Back to top

Fingers Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: April 2003 Posted: May 28 2003, 04:46 I've listened to the album numerous times now, and I think most of your comments are fair. "Introduction" is IMHO ruined. There is no feeling to it - all the notes are there but the tempo is too fast, and it's pretty emotionless for the first 4 minutes or so. The same goes for the "finale" bells bit, which although it builds nicely never really gets to a climax. I don't put this down to synths. MO's favourite bit, "Ambient Guitars", is, IMHO, ruined by the ridiculous amount of compression used on the guitar watering down the emotive effect. The part is played incredibly, but the effect ruins it for me. All in all, I do like this album, especially the heavier parts where he's used the new effects to create what he was so clearly trying to do first time around. As for your comments about new chords. I think you'll find that the mix of the first one hid the full chords that were being played, and now you're hearing it all. I didn't hear anything new musically this time, apart from substantially better guitar playing, but sadly with all the attitude of a housewife rather than a troubled teenager. Never the less, MO wanted to do this - who the hell are we to argue! Back to top

Q! Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: Dec. 2002 Posted: May 28 2003, 11:00 Quote (Fingers @ May 28 2003, 04:46) I've listened to the album numerous times now, and I think most of your comments are fair. "Introduction" is IMHO ruined. There is no feeling to it I love Introduction (except for the part when the bass comes in, but it sounds better as the song progresses). The feeling is different, it's a little cosmic while the original is not cosmic at all; and the choirs are beautiful. I can see why some of the most hardcore people might not like it but I personally love it.   -------------- http://qisgod.host.sk/ Back to top

magenta Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: May 2003 Posted: May 28 2003, 13:30 I know most of SOADE is synths and I LOVE it,but what I am moaning about is ,that ,with all the " real" instruments at his finger tips ,WHY use synths ,that sound awfull and plastic. i.e. "reed and pipe organ" ,it sounds like Preset no.1 on any dodgy synth. The synth drums on " caveman " section ....Ouch!!!. It makes it all sound like a Midi file that you can down load on any site.There is NO emotion,because anyboby can press start on a computer. ( I know) I put Tbells 1 on directly after TBells 2003 ,and was shocked how bad the orginal sounded technicaly,but ... it has so much more atmosphere!!........ and hiss!!!! there are very few parts on TBells 2003 that could only be M Oldfield.Most of it could have been any kid in a bedroon with a good sequencer and a sound module.Its when Mike is behind real instruments ,that you can feel the emotion he is putting into the music.I know this sounds like a "ohh for the good old days " moan, but compare Ommadawn with Tre Lunus ( the  worst Cd he has ever knocked up). Ommadawn = 90% real intruments,rich melodic structures,emotion Tre Lunus = something that Ive fought against when it comes to M.Oldfields music ,but......I hate to say it .Lift music. Come on Mike blow us away,like only you can!!!!!!! Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: May 28 2003, 14:21 I must admit I agree up to a point. I certainly agree with most of your TB2003 arguement, I don't see any point in using synth textures and other 'artificial' sounds on an album which is seen by many as such a celebration of real instrument playing created and played by a man personified as one of the greatest living musicians. However I think its more than just a slight exageration to say most of TB2003 could be played by any kid in a bedroom with a good sequencer and keyboard, I know its to synthy but its still not that synthy, you could level that arguement at TB2 or 3 but even then... Its the same age old arguement in the world of MO to compare the new to the old, all of us have been there a million times before. Personaly I can think of worse albums than TresLunas to contrast Ommadawn to but I agree with what you're getting at. Like I said it's the same old arguement but if Mike can't be bothered turning off his sequencers and keyboards, or at least know when is a good time to turn them off, then I'm not sure I can be bothered anymore to worry about it. I'm sure lots of people including the likes of Tom Newman have tried to persuade him to change his way's but its all obviously to know avail, he's got his keyboards and sequencers and he's gonna use them. It does seem strange that most of his fans seem to be more in touch with his creation than he is. Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: May 28 2003, 15:02 Quote Most of it could have been any kid in a bedroon with a good sequencer and a sound module.Its when Mike is behind real instruments ,that you can feel the emotion he is putting into the music. I'd disagree with that bit as well. Tubular Bells 2003 is the product of an experienced musician. I do think there'd be some mileage in saying that it would have been possible for another experienced musician to have produced similar results, but I don't think that to say that is to knock Mike's effort. There may be bedroom players who can produce music of a similar quality, but they are few and far between, and those who manage it do so not because it's easy, but because they're good at what they do. There is also (as far as I could tell before I returned the CD  ) a surprising number of 'real' instruments on there - I think there's very little synth on Finale (I suspect that even the reed and pipe organ may be a real electric organ - I've certainly played ones capable of producing such sounds). Ommadawn is also quite heavily underpinned by synthesiser sounds, though I think I'd agree that TB2003 has more (those synth flutes tip the balance). If you've come across cheap japanese sound modules which sound like the sounds on TB2003 (though ok, I admit that some of the older Rolands which Mike uses are now fairly inexpensive), you ought to get yourself a job selling them, as you'll have a huge cue of musicians wanting to buy them. I found the drums on Caveman to be quite well programmed. They do ring those little alarm bells of being something not quite convincing, but I think they're good enough to fool a large number of people (not that fooling the majority of people is necessarily the point, it just proves that they're quite skillfully done) and I didn't find them much more artificial sounding than the massively processed drums on Tubular Bells II. Back to top

Fingers Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: April 2003 Posted: May 28 2003, 19:50 This probably isn't the place to point this out but a synth is a real instrument! There's a big difference between those who use synths properly and those who just plug in a machine and treat it like a piano with different noises - flipping between presets etc. Sadly, MO falls mainly into this catagory and a lot of the sounds from TB2, TB3, and obviously Tres Lunas are nothing more than preset synth fodder sounds. Don't forget, Mike's main guitar sounds have been produced by a Roland VG8 & VG88 for years, which is a midi triggered guitar synth (well, sort of..there's a difference between it and something like a GT-33 but it's subtle!. So don't knock synths - knock the way they are played, and the use they are put to. TSODE uses synths to produce synth sounds - and it's a fantastic work. The chunky distorted part in Outcast is a synth and it's superb... IMHO the place that synths 'cause a problem is when they are used to imitate acoustic instruments. Surely the midi guitar sax sound on Tres Lunas is a prime example of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" - wouldn't a live sax player have helped that album? So really the issue here isn't the use of synths, but the use of synths to imitate acoustic instruments. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think there's a noticable over use of effects too - especially reverb and compression which takes some of the emotion out of the acoustic instruments. (and for this argument I'll call the electric guitar an acoustic instrument...) The emotion in Mikes playing has always been what sets him apart from others, and I think that's been missing for a while now. In the last little while there's been the odd gem - Serpent Dream, Summit Day etc... - but a great deal has been heading down the computer game backing track route, with essence of General Midi file... That said - TB2003 has some wonderful moments on it, and some parts that were barely audible on the original are amazing! I think this albums a winner. Once we get past the "original vs newcomer" sensations I think it'll go down as his best since TSODE. More to the point, hopefully going back to TB will lead him down creative paths back away from the 12 x 4min song style album and into the more developed works with such amazing depth. Back to top

TOBY Group: Members Posts: 1562 Joined: May 2002 Posted: May 28 2003, 20:01 I think the general thread of the arguement is more or less along the lines of what you're saying. No one's denying you can be incerdibly creative with a synth, obviously lots of people are and Mike has been in the past. The problems arise, as you say, from needlessly using them to copy other instruments like on TresLunas with the sax and now on TB2003 with the flutes and basses. Back to top

Fingers Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: April 2003 Posted: May 29 2003, 09:04 I do like the high pitched guitar part playing what was the flute part on Introduction. Shame it's so far down in the mix! Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: May 29 2003, 14:26 I think the reason synths so often aren't seen as real instruments is because they're so often used to create simulations of other things - therefore you can have either a synth flute or a real flute, and one is the real instrument, the other isn't... But you're totally right, and there's no reason at all why the synthesiser should be seen as the poor relation of acoustic instruments. This is why in my own post, I put the word real in inverted commas... I suppose it could be debated exactly what the VG-8 is, as you hint...it's using the vibration of a guitar string as a synth oscillator, is it a synth or a processor?    Let's not debate that, though - it could get silly! I'm not always so keen on the sounds which Mike gets from it actually, though I certainly like the more synthy ones he used on Voyager. Back to top

Fingers Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: April 2003 Posted: May 30 2003, 06:01 VG-8 vs GT-33 is a choice I will be making soon as my Chapman Stick has a midi pickup on the melody side. Any opinions would be well received! chudson@webleicester.co.uk Back to top

bevy Group: Members Posts: 295 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: May 31 2003, 16:13 keep it short. i loved it . cant see your probs?? good bit of music midi midi midi....   theres music here ffs bet yer half the noobs here aint even been near a piano or guit,, just a comp... Back to top

MO fan Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: May 31 2003, 17:48 Quote (bevy @ May 31 2003, 16:13) i loved it . cant see your probs??good bit of music Unfortunatly I am not impressed one way or the other. Also the copy protection has lead to the CD having flaws on it causing it to stop on some tracks, number 7 and 9 were mentioned elsewhere on the forum. At least now with this album out the way we can hopefully get some new unique & inspirational works in the years to come. Cheers MO fan   Back to top

bevy Group: Members Posts: 295 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: May 31 2003, 18:49 Quote (MO fan @ May 31 2003, 17:48) Quote (bevy @ May 31 2003, 16:13) i loved it . cant see your probs??good bit of music Unfortunatly I am not impressed one way or the other. Also the copy protection has lead to the CD having flaws on it causing it to stop on some tracks, number 7 and 9 were mentioned elsewhere on the forum. At least now with this album out the way we can hopefully get some new unique & inspirational works in the years to come. Cheers MO fan   yeh and??? just had another listen..great?????? Back to top

bevy Group: Members Posts: 295 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: May 31 2003, 18:57 i think its a great bit of music,some of you's wana try doin some...yer c#nts then slag mike off yerr noobs   Back to top

Chic Unregistered Posted: May 31 2003, 19:02 Tubular Bells 2003 is a masterpiece.  Mike Oldfield is not a waste of a genius, he is simply a genius.  I cant believe u guys, nitpickers.  Tubular Bells 2003 is Mike Oldfield at his best.  Mike Oldfield is God.  Yaaassss!!!! Back to top

bevy Group: Members Posts: 295 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: May 31 2003, 19:08 know ..makes me angry... Back to top

Duncan Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 01 2003, 14:27 Personally I think that TB 2003 is superb, and of course it gives Warners what they have always wanted - the Original Tubular Bells. Having listened to it 8-9 times by now I am really impressed by it.  My thoughts now however turn to Mike's next project. The lack of a premier concert suggests either that he's too busy working on something else, or that ultimately the record company dont consider it worthwhile backing financially. If its the latter then I fear that his third album for Warners Spain will be his last, and that it will be Tres Lunas 2 rather than something more inspiring. If this happens - then what next?  Maybe Mike will try to go down the route of releasing his music independently of the main labels - a brave move but one which I believe that Chris De Burgh is doing.  Then again, CdB regularly tours and has a very enthusiastic live following - if only Mike would do the same. 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