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 ]

Guest Unregistered Posted: June 12 2009, 16:08 With TB fresh in mind and talk about Ommadawn mixes and further on, why create a new mix of albums that was made 10-20-30 years ago? I understand why MO felt the need for a clean and proper release - as it was meant to be - of TB in 2003. New digital equipment made is possible to make "the correct version" but I simply don´t understand why new mixes otherwise emerges..(not just MO, but other artists as well) Doesn´t it remove the original intentions of the artist´s reason to make the album that way?? Is remixes only used as a "cash cow" - making new mixes with todays digital equipment, very easy and fast to make and thus the chance to score some extra money?? Why else? Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: June 12 2009, 18:28 Agree with you completely.  Most folks would rather the time be spent creating new music. It seems that one of the inescapable aspects of the artistic soul is the compulsion some of them have to keep returning to the past and repaint, rework, revisit, refine, resurrect, remold/remodel, etc. ad nauseum. When it comes to TB, MO has expressed a lot of regret that, besides the bass hum that was inadvertently recorded, some of the guitars were out of tune.  I took this to mean that if and when the technology became available to repair those errors, he would do so.  He has now eliminated the hum, but I was certain he would leap onto the new DNA software that came out a while back, to fix the tunings.  But now he says he's comfortable with the mistakes.  Well if that's the case, then............ -------------- Turn up the music... Hi as Fi can go. Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: June 12 2009, 18:34 Sometimes remixes of old albums are made because some people (the fans, the artists, the reviewers...) think that the music on the album is still valid, but the sound is old-fashioned, so the producer remixes it to bring it up to date. The results are not always appreciated... this is the case of Alan Parsons' 1987 remix of the first APP album, Tales of Mystery and Imagination, which was hated by many longtime APP fans because it wasn't simply a remix - Alan also added guitars and other stuff that wasn't on the 1975 issue, spoiling it according to many. Then they issued a Deluxe Edition 2 years ago with both mixes, and everyone was happy. On the other hand, it may also be that an album is remixed because the only person who feels that the original album sounds outdated is the artist himself. This is IMHO the case of Mike's 2009 remix of TB - which has no 'excuse' at all for being done right now, other than the fact that TB is being re-released in this super-luxurious Ultimate Edition (which I'm still to get, BTW)... so Mike took the chance to give a fresh hand of transparent paint to a fresco whose colours, according to him [but maybe only according to him - that's the point! ] were starting to fade... and some paintwork is needed to make them bright again. And maybe ... well, I can't really comment about this, because [as I repeat] I've yet to hear the thing... maybe Mike walked a little bit along the road built by Alan Parsons in 1987 and didn't just use transparent paint... maybe he drew one or two brand-new strokes using very thin paintbrushes (read: 1990s 'muted' guitar sounds). To sum it up, I think that remixes of old albums are rarely done just for money, because in many cases the record companies know perfectly that the remixed version of an old album won't sell just because it's a remix of a classic album... to sell, it ought to have a 'plus' - something improved, something fresher, something clearer, something better ... and I'm not talking about a huge box with a 60-page booklet, guitar plecs and a poster!! The music ought to be improved, fresher, clearer, better... otherwise it won't sell, it will be a waste of time (for the people who did it) and of money (for the record companies and for the buyers). And I think that major companies are aware of this. P.S.: I've said this many tiimes here, but to me Tubular Bells, as a piece of music, has always sounded old, still sounds old and will always sound old. Even TB 2003, in spite of its very contemporary sonic landscape, sounds old to my ears. So a remix of Tubular Bells may very well sound much better than the 1973 recording, but there's no denying that it will do nothing to prevent it from sounding old. To me. -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: June 12 2009, 20:21 Quote (Ugo @ June 12 2009, 18:34) P.S.: I've said this many tiimes here, but to me Tubular Bells, as a piece of music, has always sounded old, still sounds old and will always sound old. Even TB 2003, in spite of its very contemporary sonic landscape, sounds old to my ears. So a remix of Tubular Bells may very well sound much better than the 1973 recording, but there's no denying that it will do nothing to prevent it from sounding old. To me. Couldn't agree more. It's hard to imagine some of the other albums (eg Amarok, Tubular Bells II) sounding old, though. Back to top

Bassman Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: Feb. 2008 Posted: June 12 2009, 20:28 Well it seems that there are 2 issues here. I have no problem with a remix being done if it's to improve the sonics of an older recording. But I get uneasy when a recording artist, in the process of upgrading the sonics, makes the decision to add or subtract any of the musical content of a piece.  That gets perilously close to an artist telling the world, "Oh, you all know that work I did years ago that you all have loved so much?  Well, that's not exactly what I wanted to present to you.  This new version is."  While it's not a new concept (classical composers have done the same kind of tinkering for hundreds of years), it doesn't sit too comfortably alongside the philosophy that art belongs to the world. Ugo, you say that TB sounds "old" to you.  I, on the other hand, couldn't imagine it sounding that way to me.  I do not believe the "validity" of a piece of music is dependent upon it's age.  To suggest that future generations won't seek it out (or that it "won't sell") because of the vintage of the recording is selling those people short.  Music lovers of any generation will find their way to TB (and buy it), as surely as there will always be a hunger for unique, challenging and original music. Of course, my entire point is moot if MO decides to make the original TB mix unavailable somewhere down the road.  The fact that it's not on a single stand-alone disc in the reissue campaign is an ominous indication that this may happen. -------------- Turn up the music... Hi as Fi can go. Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1981 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: June 12 2009, 21:13 In order, my thinking is: 1. Needs money. 2. Genuinely feels the need to improve/upgrade a product he/she is proud of and at the same time take pride in the new achievement. 3. Burned out/ran out of material but want's to remain active doing something he/she enjoys. 4. Keep his/her loyal fan base from drifting away and also attracting new fans. 5. Just plain bored. -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: June 12 2009, 22:13 Well I hav`nt heard the new mix yet,but after reading some of the comments on here today I`m kind of being put off it now.As soon as The Caveman mentioned the removal of the "bass phaser" in fact,my heart literaly sunk..It`s a strange thing in a way but I can remember hearing TB for the first time around 79/80 and thinking that the phaser effect kind of dated it a little bit.Even though I always loved it I must add.And yet here we are now some 30 years later,and phasers are still being used by people.Guess what they came back into vogue ages ago,who would`ve thunk it?Which kind of gets me wondering just how aware of that Mike Oldfield actualy is,and how it may have influenced his decision in removing it?Just wait till he gets to all the "out moded" synthy stuff.There`ll be practicaly nothing left of QE2.Plus also I`m kind of sat here wondering how that whole transistional section is going to work without it anyway?And you can bet your bottom dollar that when the bells come in on the original TB those needles would`ve been way off into the red somewhere.I guess it was almost a sure fire certainty that something was going to be done about that. Anyway I`ll reserve judgement till I`ve heard it,maybe I`ll be way off base there and I`ll actualy like it after all.Having just watched Mike talking about TB however,saying that "it`s everywhere you hear it all around" etc.I though yeah I hear bits of it all the time,they`ll often come into my head for no apparent reason.The thing is now not only are they going to sound different,some of them are not going to be even there at all. To answer the original question my feelings are that in most cases it`s primarily about the money no doubt about it.But at the same time it`s also a good way of rekindling some interest in whatever artist,without them actualy having to create anything new.Radio appearences, media articles and above all a position in the chart,means that quite a number of people will be getting to hear Tubular Bells for the very first time in their lives someday soon.More fans of Mike Oldfield can only be a good thing imo.Plus it`s often the case that during projects such as these,it can very often rekindle a creative spark in the artist themselves.Through re-visiting and re-investigating their earlier material etc.Imo since The Beatles Anthology project Paul McCartney has recorded his best work since he was actualy in the Beatles.Some people may argue against that fair enough but by the same token I`m by no means alone in thinking it either. The downside to all that as I see it.Is that it is very rare for all of the artists fanbase to actualy like what is finaly presented to them.I would dare to venture in fact that it`s never happened once.The best you can hope for is that it does`nt turn out like some of those early Free remasters that came out a good few years ago.A completely sterilised and "atmosphere" exempt abomination."New lamps for old",I guess you could say.Fortunatly I`ve read enough positive comments on here,and in the media anyway to suggest that is not the case with this new mix of TB.Plus when all`s said and done even for those that don`t like it,we`ve all still got the original mix anyway..for now. Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1981 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: June 12 2009, 22:50 I would not think you will be dissapointed at all. It is very good. I  had a very enjoyable time listening to it, carefully dissecting it with my ears, although I hadn't played the original in about a year. It's TB1 at it's best. Give it a whirl...... -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

wiga Group: Members Posts: 2113 Joined: Sep. 2008 Posted: June 13 2009, 01:43 Quote (Bassman @ June 12 2009, 18:28) It seems that one of the inescapable aspects of the artistic soul is the compulsion some of them have to keep returning to the past and repaint, rework, revisit, refine, resurrect, remold/remodel, etc. ad nauseum. Well in Mike's case, after hearing TB 2009 yesterday, I came to a similar conclusion, in terms of psychological reparation. I think the demons expressed in TB 1973 are gone - and in it's place a lighter and happier perspective. -------------- Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon. Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1981 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: June 13 2009, 02:10 I don't agree old friend. The "intent(s)" of the original album are all intact, good and evil, happy or angry, calm or having an anxiety attack. It's simply a better quality recording(to a small degree). It's not a HUGE difference from my Virgin CD bought circa 1998. A 780% difference from my 2 1973 petroleum deprived USA LP's. Jesus, I returned so many copies of that LP in 73-74. 6 out of 7 were warped. I bet I contributed a lot to vinyl recycling back then. Jim -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

wiga Group: Members Posts: 2113 Joined: Sep. 2008 Posted: June 13 2009, 02:59 It's definately a better quality recording, and TB hasn't turned into some new happy clappy tune   thank God, but this lively vitality aspect that I hear in the 2009 version, I don't hear in the original. The moods and emotions of TB 1973 are still there but they appear to be contained and normalised - like a parent perspective rather than an angst ridden or depressive position. IMO the 'intent' evolves and changes over time, much like people do - like it's not a rigid and static dynamic. -------------- Barn's burnt down - now I can see the moon. Back to top

Matt Group: Admins Posts: 1186 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: June 13 2009, 04:27 In the case of TB, another reason/excuse could be the difficulty they had doing the original mix. It has been described many times, including in the book that comes with the ultimate edition re-release, how difficult it was for them to produce the mix, involving many people trying to manually control different bits of the mixing desk. While I think the "mixing performance" they achieved then was a superb achievement, maybe Mike had in mind something a little different that just couldn't be achieved at the time without a more modern mixing desk? -------------- "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

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 13 2009, 10:57 I really want to hear this new mix. According to what I've read (including that interview posted here), I believe I'll be able to enjoy the new mix as a different approach to the album, which is not more and not less valid than the 1973 approach, and just pretend the 2003 rerecording never happened... -------------- 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

ian Group: Members Posts: 473 Joined: Nov. 1999 Posted: June 13 2009, 12:40 I think Mike Oldfield will dining out on Tubular Bells for the rest of his career. He has got it down to a fine Art. Good luck to him if he makes the cash but for me he hasn't done anything amazing since Amarok. If you read some of the reviews of the new remixes on Amazon they are not all good. I am only interested in hearing the demo early mixes as well as the hoover demo. Back to top

New Incantation Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: June 13 2009, 17:47 For myself I will not be indulging the TB 2009 remix. I am quite satisfied with the original. And I know if I should listen to the more contemporary version I will forever lose that particular unique charm, sound, essence ... whatever you want to call it, I just adore the "old school" sound of TB and that is all. If people want to contrast & compare, then fair enough. Die hard fans may even prefer the new sound, and again good luck to them also. But I also fear a thin end of the wedge creeping into MO's library if he should decide to do other updated remixes of old classics, such as Incantations, heavens forbid! Mike, is perfectly entitled to do what he wants with his own works; if he ultimately feels the new TB2009 is the sound he was always striving for, then fine. Fans will always be divided, but then life would be so much boring if conformity ruled our lives     Back to top

ex member 419 Group: Members Posts: 1177 Joined: April 2008 Posted: June 13 2009, 20:19 fans will like some, not others, comes down to personal choice, pick your faves and enjoy! deb Back to top

ian Group: Members Posts: 473 Joined: Nov. 1999 Posted: June 14 2009, 14:19 Listening to the extract that was played on BBC Radio 2 this afternoon I am not convinced it was 100% the original recording. The girl vocals at the end of side one were fake to my ears. Like a synth choir patch. Also, the acoustic guitar at the end is dubbed with a clean, semi acoustic. Sorry Mike, it's not as good as the original.  Please leave it alone and do something else Back to top

Bell Boy Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: June 2009 Posted: June 16 2009, 16:13 Hi All, Well ive just recieved my SE signed box...10 days late !!!! Lovely packaging and goodies.... Just a quick one re the 2009 remix...Mostly sounds great.... BUT !!!!!   BLOODY REVERB !!!!!!!!! The beauty of the original was that it sounded like you we're in the room with Mike..... The phase Bass part about 7 mins in LOADS of reverb ( ambience) and the the worst ...The Twin blues guitar in the middle... The original was DRY as a bone...now its like they are in a aircraft hanger......This is not improving the sound quality but completely changing the mood.....HE just cant leave it alone.... Shame, cos the idea of a HI FI mix of the original would be good...but keep to the feel of the original..... 2nd Moan ( sorry).... why isn't the original version of THE MIKE OLDFIELD SINGLE on the 2nd CD...what we have is a complete remix/added to, version...... there you are.....Ill get back to listening to it now... BUT wouldnt it great if we we're all unwrapping a NEW 50min instrumental album ( NO LOOPS & all real instruments) from  MIKE OLDFIELD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .........He must have one last one in him,javascript:emoticon('' Back to top

The Caveman Group: Members Posts: 2178 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: June 19 2009, 12:58 I reckon there must be a new album coming at some point.Someone amongst us says she knows he's doing something (you know who you are Southern Hemisphere dweller)but is being very cagey  I would love to see a completely new peice from Mike with electric guitars and all the bells (sorry couldn't resist) and whistles.But with the success of MOTS is he going to pursue that avenue? Regarding the remix/remaster debate my answer would be "Why Not?".It could be viewed as a cynical marketing ploy and you'd be partly right IMHO BUT we've all bought it and debated the hell out of it!  I don't think that's all it is or the man himself would be that bothered and probably wouldn'r have bothtered to remix it.He had nothing to do with the earlier Virgin effort after all.And my god did it show in the essays.Bloody useless things they were.Did you know that Incantations included Guilty or that Taurus took up a whole side of QE2?Well my vinyl copies and were all wrong then! -------------- THE COMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHEIF IS NIGH. Back to top

Olivier Group: Super Admins Posts: 1868 Joined: Nov. 1999 Posted: June 19 2009, 13:12 Quote (Ugo @ June 12 2009, 18:34) P.S.: I've said this many tiimes here, but to me Tubular Bells, as a piece of music, has always sounded old, still sounds old and will always sound old. Even TB 2003, in spite of its very contemporary sonic landscape, sounds old to my ears. So a remix of Tubular Bells may very well sound much better than the 1973 recording, but there's no denying that it will do nothing to prevent it from sounding old. To me. Same here. Not only it sounds old to me too, it sounds like it was made by an old wise guy, while Light + Shade or Music Of The Spheres sound like it's his young apprentice who did it and he put his name on it. 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