I listened to the 2003 version in a Tower store (remember those?) when it came out. Didn't see any reason to shell out for it. Listening now on YT, I'd say side 1 is inferior to the original. Less excitement. But i really like side 2.
I listened to the 2003 version in a Tower store (remember those?) when it came out. Didn't see any reason to shell out for it. Listening now on YT, I'd say side 1 is inferior to the original. Less excitement. But i really like side 2.
Tubular Bells was the first album I bought with my own money, so naturally I'm a bit protective of it. I had no idea this version existed and I have just listened to Part I using the YouTube link. ME NO LIKE!!! Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about a much-loved artefact from my youth, but I don't see any improvement at all and I actively dislike many of the added ornamentation, especially during the quieter acoustic parts. And as for Cleese's narration - HORRENDOUS!
Musicians sometimes don't get that the public doesn't really care about 'imperfections' on their favourite albums. I picked this up cheaply second hand but of course I've not played it as much as the original! It's too clean and tidy IMHO.
I do remember the publicity when it came out but I don't remember it setting the world alight.
Yes, this is true...on my personal CD player which I use for headphones I recall this album had a few 'freezes' around the middle. Phil Collins' 'Testify' was another and guess what, that had that software as well. 'Testify' plays on my main player though so I guess this does.Originally Posted by Azol
I'm glad that 'copy protect' thing has disappeared.
Man, I must be in the minority of not really getting into either version. This is my one and only excursion into Oldfield territory and I find the music to be kind of boring. Heresy, I know! I barely ever listen to it. I put it a notch above Olias of Sunhillow! Perhaps the record's relationship to "The Exorcist" is what puts me off. I just could never really appreciate Tubular Bells on its own!
Again, it was never Mike Oldfields plan to associate the album with 'The Exorcist'. Kind of an odd pairing as the music is quite pretty. I suppose one generally has to have a love for beauty and prettiness in music to appreciate the album. If one only cares about chops and loudness, they'll likely find the album dull. Hergest Ridge is even prettier, although the unusual chord changes that I love on TB are pretty much absent.
Can anyone compare this to 2009 remixed version of "classic" TB? I do not think I have ever heard the 2009 version, but there is an information that Mike did some improvement to the mix, "fixing" some out-of-tune notes etc.
This copy protection stuff really bothers me and I can see that many CD decks would not be able to play it. In fact, I kind of like both "classic" and 2003 TB versions (Cleese being the notable exception to this rule), but haven't been able to test the actual CD on my system.
"The world will soon be right again,
Innocence and undying love will reign." - Transatlantic
I have to agree with this. And I had the fortune of hearing it in Oldfield's studio, which had a massive surround system. I loved it at the time, but these sort of do-overs often sound great on first listen and then sound stiffer and less "real" over time.
I have to agree with this because I only listened to the dvd-a one time when I first bought it. I did that for a reason so I wouldn't feel the way Echoes felt. lol.
Strong praise indeed
Ommadawn is by far my favorite Oldfield and I think it's equally great sounding
What do you all think of the Hergast Ridge and Ommadawn 5.1's?
BG
"When Yes appeared on stage, it was like, the gods appearing from the heavens, deigning to play in front of the people."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks