Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/25/90)
Really-From: think!ames!decwrl!decvax!zinn.MV.COM!mem@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Mark E. Mallett) > Robert C. Sinkovic sez: > Has anyone heard the new AMAROK CD by Mike Oldfield? If so, > what are your impressions (i.e. inrelation to his other works, such > as Ommadawn, Hergest Ridge, etc.)? Yes, I have heard it. It's long been my practice to buy Oldfield albums simply because they are Oldfield albums, without having to hear them ahead of time. They've been getting progressively worse, progressively pop. "Islands" (which I bought) convinced me to be more cautious, so I listened to a borrowed copy of Amarok. My friend, from whom I borrowed it, and also a die-hard Oldfield fan, told me I could keep it. I agree with his judgement of it. It's simply awful. Here's hoping he goes back to trying to make good, instead of pop, music. I'm only responding because I've seen only one other reply to your question, and that reply was positive (i.e., the person liked the album). Go figure.. -mm- --- Mark E. Mallett Zinn Computer Co/ PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM ( ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!zinn!mem ) Northern MA and Southern NH consultants: Ask (in mail!) about MV.COM
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/30/90)
Really-From: Dewhurst N E J <neil@essex.ac.uk> Mark E. Mallett writes: >Really-From: think!ames!decwrl!decvax!zinn.MV.COM!mem@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Mark E. Mallett) >> Robert C. Sinkovic sez: >> Has anyone heard the new AMAROK CD by Mike Oldfield? >...I listened to a borrowed copy of Amarok. My friend, from >whom I borrowed it, and also a die-hard Oldfield fan, told me I could >keep it. I agree with his judgement of it. It's simply awful. >Here's hoping he goes back to trying to make good, instead of pop, >music. >I'm only responding because I've seen only one other reply to your >question, and that reply was positive (i.e., the person liked the >album). That was me. I suspect you're confusing "Amarok" with the album before it, "Earth Moving", which fits your description exactly. In fact, you flatter it. "Earth Moving" is a collection of piss-poor pop songs, a la "Islands", but if anything actually worse: "Amarok" is a long instrumental piece, a la "Ommadawn", and IMHO in the same league, though less coherent. I think the record you heard was the former. Feel free to roundly abuse me if I'm wrong :-]. -- N e i l D e w h u r s t | ARPA neil%essex.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu neil@uk.ac.essex | UUCP ...!mcvax!ukc!uk.ac.essex!neil --
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (11/03/90)
Really-From: Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@hydra.unm.edu> Mark E. Mallett writes: > "Islands" (which I bought) convinced me to be more cautious, so I > listened to a borrowed copy of Amarok. My friend, from whom I borrowed > it, and also a die-hard Oldfield fan, told me I could keep it. I agree > with his judgement of it. It's simply awful. Here's hoping he goes > back to trying to make good, instead of pop, music. Are you sure you listened to AMAROK and not EARTHMOVING? That's a really snotty question I know, but AMAROK is about as un-Pop as Oldfield gets. Dislike it you might, but you'll have to come up with a better reason than the poppiness you imply it has, when it's actually a return to his TUBULAR BELLS-through-INCANTATIONS era in both sound and structure . . . and in my opinion, is the best thing he's done in fifteen years. Lazlo (lazlo@hydra.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "At last! A cure for loud Hawaiian shirts!"
kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil T. Homme) (11/09/90)
In article <9911.9010301350@dylan.essex.ac.uk> Dewhurst N E J <neil@essex.ac.uk> writes: Mark E. Mallett writes: >> Robert C. Sinkovic sez: >> Has anyone heard the new AMAROK CD by Mike Oldfield? >...I listened to a borrowed copy of Amarok. My friend, from >whom I borrowed it, and also a die-hard Oldfield fan, told me I could >keep it. I agree with his judgement of it. It's simply awful. >Here's hoping he goes back to trying to make good, instead of pop, >music. >I'm only responding because I've seen only one other reply to your >question, and that reply was positive (i.e., the person liked the >album). That was me. I suspect you're confusing "Amarok" with the album before it, "Earth Moving", which fits your description exactly. In fact, you flatter it. "Earth Moving" is a collection of piss-poor pop songs, a la "Islands", but if anything actually worse: "Amarok" is a long instrumental piece, a la "Ommadawn", and IMHO in the same league, though less coherent. I think the record you heard was the former. Feel free to roundly abuse me if I'm wrong :-]. I agree with you on 'Earth Moving', it *is* dismal. But I have to say that Amarok is even worse... He seems to think that no theme should last any longer than 30 seconds. Most of it is just noise, interspersed with some whining guitar themes which hardly can be rated very original. On the other hand, there are people who actually enjoy listening to Celtic Frost or Laibach, so why not Amarok? "oooh, he's here again..." -- <*_*> // Kjetil T. Homme "I always read between the lies" /|\ // kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Goodman Ace) _|_ // Disclaimer: I am but a student, and will probably remain that way...