How good is Tubular Bells 2003?

[Schizoid Man]

Apparently it's a brand new recording and not just a remastering.

[Lionel]

Schizoid Man a écrit :
> Apparently it's a brand new recording and not just a remastering.

Really ?
So much more tremolo. :-)

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently it's a brand new recording and not just a remastering.

Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then critics
are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music. I have Tubular Bells and
Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not heard
there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear something
from the new record before passing judgment.

I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or hate it.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Paul Dormer > wrote:

> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
> >Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then critics
> >are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music.
>
> Popular = lowest common denominator?
>
> >I have Tubular Bells and
> >Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not heard
> >there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear something
> >from the new record before passing judgment.
> >
> >I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or hate it.
>
> Tubular Bells isn't really music per se. It's a musical exercise.. an
> extravaganza.. a novelty record. Mike's various attempts to rehash
> this piece with orchestral versions, sequels, re-recordings, box sets
> etc have varied in popularity, but admirably succeed in reinforcing
> the notion that Mike is a one trick pony.

I enjoyed Water Bearer by Sally Oldfield.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Paul Dormer > wrote:

> "MINe 109" emitted :
>
> >> >Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then
> >> >critics
> >> >are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music.
> >>
> >> Popular = lowest common denominator?
> >>
> >> >I have Tubular Bells and
> >> >Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not heard
> >> >there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear
> >> >something
> >> >from the new record before passing judgment.
> >> >
> >> >I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or hate
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> Tubular Bells isn't really music per se. It's a musical exercise.. an
> >> extravaganza.. a novelty record. Mike's various attempts to rehash
> >> this piece with orchestral versions, sequels, re-recordings, box sets
> >> etc have varied in popularity, but admirably succeed in reinforcing
> >> the notion that Mike is a one trick pony.
> >
> >I enjoyed Water Bearer by Sally Oldfield.
>
> That could be comforting, for Mike.

I guess both of them are comfortable redoing or referring to old work.
And isn't Mike a two-trick pony? Wasn't there a movie theme hit single?

Stephen

[tcassette]

I agree with several published reviews that while the sound quality is much
better, some of the "soul" of the original recording is absent. TB 2003 is
pretty much a note for note remake of the original TB, although some of the
individual instruments are processed differently. And John Cleese is no Viv
Stanshall. Comparing the DVD-Audio surround mix of TB 2003 with the SACD
surround mix of the original TB is entertaining; both are very well done and
sound very good. But, I'm an Oldfield fan and happen to like that
particular pony.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently it's a brand new recording and not just a remastering.
>

[Michael McKelvy]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then critics
>>are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music.
>
> Popular = lowest common denominator?
>
>>I have Tubular Bells and
>>Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not heard
>>there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear something
>>from the new record before passing judgment.
>>
>>I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or hate
>>it.
>
> Tubular Bells isn't really music per se. It's a musical exercise.. an
> extravaganza.. a novelty record. Mike's various attempts to rehash
> this piece with orchestral versions, sequels, re-recordings, box sets
> etc have varied in popularity, but admirably succeed in reinforcing
> the notion that Mike is a one trick pony.
>
>
Agreed. A shame though.

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Paul Dormer > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" emitted :
>>
>> >> >Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then
>> >> >critics
>> >> >are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music.
>> >>
>> >> Popular = lowest common denominator?
>> >>
>> >> >I have Tubular Bells and
>> >> >Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not
>> >> >heard
>> >> >there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear
>> >> >something
>> >> >from the new record before passing judgment.
>> >> >
>> >> >I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or
>> >> >hate
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> Tubular Bells isn't really music per se. It's a musical exercise.. an
>> >> extravaganza.. a novelty record. Mike's various attempts to rehash
>> >> this piece with orchestral versions, sequels, re-recordings, box sets
>> >> etc have varied in popularity, but admirably succeed in reinforcing
>> >> the notion that Mike is a one trick pony.
>> >
>> >I enjoyed Water Bearer by Sally Oldfield.
>>
>> That could be comforting, for Mike.
>
> I guess both of them are comfortable redoing or referring to old work.
> And isn't Mike a two-trick pony? Wasn't there a movie theme hit single?
>
The theme for the Exorcist.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:02:42 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Paul Dormer > wrote:
>>
>>> "MINe 109" emitted :
>>>
>>> >> >Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then
>>> >> >critics
>>> >> >are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music.
>>> >>
>>> >> Popular = lowest common denominator?
>>> >>
>>> >> >I have Tubular Bells and
>>> >> >Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not
>>> >> >heard
>>> >> >there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear
>>> >> >something
>>> >> >from the new record before passing judgment.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or
>>> >> >hate
>>> >> >it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Tubular Bells isn't really music per se. It's a musical exercise.. an
>>> >> extravaganza.. a novelty record. Mike's various attempts to rehash
>>> >> this piece with orchestral versions, sequels, re-recordings, box sets
>>> >> etc have varied in popularity, but admirably succeed in reinforcing
>>> >> the notion that Mike is a one trick pony.
>>> >
>>> >I enjoyed Water Bearer by Sally Oldfield.
>>>
>>> That could be comforting, for Mike.
>>
>> I guess both of them are comfortable redoing or referring to old work.
>> And isn't Mike a two-trick pony? Wasn't there a movie theme hit single?
>>
>The theme for the Exorcist.

Ahem - that's the same thing. It's the beginning of Tubular Bells.

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:02:42 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> Paul Dormer > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" emitted :
>>>>
>>>> >> >Tubular Bells 2 was not well received by critics in 1992, but then
>>>> >> >critics
>>>> >> >are seldom reflective of popular opinion in music.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Popular = lowest common denominator?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >I have Tubular Bells and
>>>> >> >Tubular Bells 2 and enjoy them both from time to time. I have not
>>>> >> >heard
>>>> >> >there was a new Tubular Bells, so I think I'll wait until I hear
>>>> >> >something
>>>> >> >from the new record before passing judgment.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I suspect, it will be the same as the others, you either love it or
>>>> >> >hate
>>>> >> >it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Tubular Bells isn't really music per se. It's a musical exercise..
>>>> >> an
>>>> >> extravaganza.. a novelty record. Mike's various attempts to rehash
>>>> >> this piece with orchestral versions, sequels, re-recordings, box
>>>> >> sets
>>>> >> etc have varied in popularity, but admirably succeed in reinforcing
>>>> >> the notion that Mike is a one trick pony.
>>>> >
>>>> >I enjoyed Water Bearer by Sally Oldfield.
>>>>
>>>> That could be comforting, for Mike.
>>>
>>> I guess both of them are comfortable redoing or referring to old work.
>>> And isn't Mike a two-trick pony? Wasn't there a movie theme hit single?
>>>
>>The theme for the Exorcist.
>
> Ahem - that's the same thing. It's the beginning of Tubular Bells.

Ahem yourself. It's the answer to the question.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:02:42 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Paul Dormer > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "MINe 109" emitted :

<Michael and Sally Oldfield>

> >> I guess both of them are comfortable redoing or referring to old work.
> >> And isn't Mike a two-trick pony? Wasn't there a movie theme hit single?
> >>
> >The theme for the Exorcist.
>
> Ahem - that's the same thing. It's the beginning of Tubular Bells.

Here it is: Etude (Theme From The Killing Fields) 1984

Stephen

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:02:42 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> Paul Dormer > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "MINe 109" emitted :
>
> <Michael and Sally Oldfield>
>
>> >> I guess both of them are comfortable redoing or referring to old work.
>> >> And isn't Mike a two-trick pony? Wasn't there a movie theme hit
>> >> single?
>> >>
>> >The theme for the Exorcist.
>>
>> Ahem - that's the same thing. It's the beginning of Tubular Bells.
>
> Here it is: Etude (Theme From The Killing Fields) 1984
>
> Stephen

I saw the Killing Fields, but missed that credit.