Customer Reviews

Tubular Bells 2003

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

Well it is very hard to judge TB 2003. I must say after comparing TB from 1973 with a new version that i prefer Older one. Why? it was spontanic. It was romantic, Melancholic and full of heart. Mike was using only few guitars (for those who do not know it was Fender telecaster, Fender precision bass and one acoustic and classical guitar) and not so many instruments as you may though. Mandolins and some of other sounds were created using Electric guitar mixed and changed in studio to sound like, let's say, bagpipes. In 1973 mike was not a superstar and a well known genius player. He was just lucky guy with a huge talent who had an opportunity to record in a professional Studio his own ideas and melodies. It was all very spontanic...In seventies his music was full of passion and very personal ("ommadawn", "Hergest ridge"), while when he joined more mainstream style of music ("Moonlight shadow") he became a superstar with a lot of money, but with no really original concepts for his new records. yes i agree, "Five miles out" or "Islands" are a brilliant works too, but looking back to seventies it was nothing compared to emotional bombs that "Ommadawn" and other albums were. The music slowly was loosing it's soul. With "Amarok" he proved that he can still compose such a genius music like TB, but later he mostly made mechanic (in real sense - all of his new works were made with computers and synths) works and he lost many of his splendor and talet that he had before.

I am afraid about Mike's.future "guitars" and "millenium bell" were simply some wierd mistakes and they contained only a small shadow of some of his older works. Ok, even compare it to "songs of thr Distant earth" (his best from new period) and see how piontless he had gone. "tres lunas" was not his real studio album. It contained a music to a computer game - to computer game it was originaly composed, and in a computer game it sounds the best. those cyberspace stuff just don't work now.

TB 2003 is Very good album.Very good! But only if you forgot that he recorded the same thirty years ago.
i felt satisfied when i heard the BASS along with main piano motive in first miute.in 1973 it sounded thiny and quiet, now it blows of your subwoofer. the sound is crystal clear and without any noises. But with those changes, the magic of original Tubular bells had vanished. In some parts you could heard Mike's fingers sliding on his guitar, now it is all so crystal-clear perfect, without any sound flaws.
I heard that he is planing to Re-record "OMMADAWN" and "HErgest ridge. for music - 4 STARS
for idea - 2 STARS

for all - 3,5 STARS...

Yes, we're all aware that there are several versions of TBI out there, however I strongly feel that if there could only be one other than the original, THIS IS IT!

I consider myself a diehard fan, owning 21 of MO's records. To me all of them have a very special musical "moment" that make him the genious his is. I first knew about MO though Voyager. I was so excited about the feeling it brought up in me that I got the best of and from there I got all his CDs as my tast for his music grew stronger, to the point where I can say that he is my all time favorite musician.

I have to confess that when I finally made it to the original TBI I liked it but not nearly as much as I like many of his other records. Even though I found many out-of-this-world "moments" there was something that kept it from being one of my favorites. On the other hand TBII has been the TOP CD for me almost from the beginning.

WHY IT IS WORTH IT in my opinion: for those of you that love TBII, TBIII as well as AMK, OMD and IncanT, the RE-RECORDING of TBI brings on the classic MO SOUND of, particularlly, his GUITARS. Hearing TBI with such a clear difference in quality of sound is AWESOME and immediately makes you appreciate many more "moments" in this classic CD. Secondly, the fact that the CD is DIVIDED in tracks is much more significant than it seems. The original one is just two very long pieces and if you are not willing to just HUNT for a particular moment that cought your attention and scroll for a good while with the FWD button, you usually have to hear the entire piece from the beginning. NOW you can very easily adv or rev through tracks and FOCUS more on specifica parts. You might no have much time to sit down and go through the whole piece, so now you just jump to track 7 or 8 for example and start enjoing.

SUMMARY: specially for those of you that have a strong love for TBII, AMK, INC, OMD, this is the perfect version of TBI that will put this CD on top of your own charts!!!!

With this 2003 re-recording of Tubular Bells, Oldfield stays totally faithful to the original arrangements, not changing anything (except for the use of John Cleese at the end). Listening to this, it's sort of akin to listening to a performer doing a live performance of an old classic when they remain faithful to the original recording but everything sounds better due to newer recording technology, and this, of course is a new studio re-working, not a live performance so it's really immaculate-sounding. As for the 5.1 mix on the DVD-A, it is wonderful: you'll hear this work in an entirely new light. Highly recommended as a fine new companion piece to the original.

I'm like the majority of reviewers here: I listened to the original Tubular Bells over and over as a teenager in the 1970s. You can't expect someone who imprinted so deeply on the original to hear this one with fresh ears. I bought Tubular Bells 2003 because Oldfield has said it is how he had always intended the piece to sound. I think he deserves respect and so anyone for whom the original was formative ought to give this one a listen.

How many times is a master allowed to conduct, or revise, one of his own works? Think of classical composers before recording technology. Think of rock bands on tour. People here have complained that there were at least five versions in thirty years. That's once every six years. Why is it annoying? Yes, it's unusual for a "rock album." Tubular Bells is an unusual piece. How many recordings of the Grateful Dead's "Truckin'" are there? How many times the price of the original vinyl you bought did the value of TB turn out to be? Back then I was poor, now I'm...less poor. I really don't mind buying this CD just to check it out. I don't even mind if Richard Branson gets a cut.

I would be most interested in the views of teenagers who heard and fell in love with this version, and then finally went back and compared the original.

But...I admit TB 2003 is just too shiny and voluptuous for me. The bass is very basey. The guitars are more like guitars. All those...instruments! There's often a lot of high fizzy sound-- the original had a lot of Farfisa organ, but this one sort of brings it out for you to, er, appreciate and keep appreciating. Oldfield uses a lot of constant sounds to create atmosphere. Here they seem less subliminal. The old piece is like a banquet of Indian curry dishes. This one is like a meal at a fancy restaurant where every dish is carefully presented on a big plate, in a puddle of purple sauce, decorated with parsely and sculptured bits of carrot.

One minor thing--it can be very disturbing to have this in your iPod on shuffle-all-my-music, and have one of the sections of Tubular Bells play and then suddenly end before the first note of the next section!

It may be that the piece that everyone loved in 1974 was not the piece Oldfield intended, but more of an accident of tape hiss, fatigue, distortion, lack of money and lack of time. Or maybe most music shouldn't sound exactly the way the composer intended, and modern tech tempts musicians down a garden path of control and perfectionism. My TB-ROM was burnt long ago. But it would be interesting to hear Tubular Bells 2003 get a fair trial.

This album sounds good. Do I care if this is the only thing he ever did 5 and 6 times? NO! If you are troubled by that, don't listen to it, but that does not make THIS rendition a bad one. It sounds GREAT, just as powerful, but I guess nothing is more powerful than nostalgia is it? If you like tubular bells, if you wish to hear a different take on the same music of lo those many years ago, then you will LOVE this album. If you are hoping for a comeback of high-heel shoes for men with goldfish in the sole, then better stick with 1973..

I've been a fan of Mike Oldfield's work since the release of "Tubular Bells" in the 1970's. Unfortunately, I think this 2003 re-recording lacks much of the spontaneity and exhuberance that made the original recording so wonderful.

All the way from the excessively fuzzy sound of the rock guitars to John Clease using his best "Fawlty Towers" voice to call out the various instruments in the Part One Finale. This version of "Tubular Bells" is just too studied; too aware of itself; too cute; too over-produced.

I'm going to continue listening to the original recording - warts and all. It's alive in a way that "Tubular Bells 2003" is not.

When I had bought this I had ordered the original version and received this version. When I saw that it was 2003 I thought about returning it, but decided to keep it. When I first put it on I immediately noticed a difference even though I had not heard this in years. I still have the vinyl LP from the '70s! I really like this version of Tubular Bells, but I am not sure if I like it as much as the original version. The original version was done with less instruments which lends to its uniqueness. The sound quality of this version is by far better than the original due to the limitations from the source tape of the original. All in all, I am glad I kept this version, but will buy the original version also.

Tubular Bells... A seminal record, arguably the one that spawned the New Age genre. The soundtrack of many mind-expanding late-night listening sessions, with candle light and the warm, full sound of legendary turntables by companies such as Thorens and Linn. Loved by millions of listeners worldwide and with millions of sales behind...

Then, perfectionist Mike Oldfield comes back in 2003 to re-record it, as he was not satisfied by his playing on the original recording. The new recording is technically pristine and has given new breath to sections of the original composition that we didn't pay that much attention to. For instance, check out "Russian" and "Harmonics".

Is there anything I don't like about this record? Yes.

First of all, I simply detest Mike Oldfield's distorted guitar tone. He uses far too much preamplifier gain (and, what's worse, he goes for - gasp - DIGITAL distortion), with too little power stage gain, meaning that the tone is not full-bodied, as it should, but, instead, it's fizzy and mushy, with absolutely no note definition in the distorted chords. And no, I do NOT listen to the music I've painstakingly bought through "old tin boxes".

Second, I do not approve of his choice for a Wal bass over the original recording's Fender (if I remember well, it was a Jazz Bass). The Wal sounds too dark, brooding and uncontrollable.

Third, I prefer natural violins over synthesized ones. The same goes for all the real instruments that were replaced by synths and computers. No matter how perfect and "life-like" the emulations are, there's just something missing from them. Getting back to the violins, would you ever imagine City's "Am Fenster" played on a computer? I think not.

Fourth, the "copy protection" system, which is what ultimately made me give this record only ONE star (and also made millions of music lovers turn their backs on mr. Oldfield, outraged by the multitude of CD and DVD players that were damaged by this disc). The "CD" version is simply NOT a Compact Disc, it is incompatible and non-compliant to Philips' Red Book standard and might not play properly on your machine; in fact, it might even damage it. And Mike Oldfield's attitude was annoying, as he dismissed the complaints of the legitimate buyers, teaming with WEA. Sorry mr. Oldfield, I am NOT on your side here. If you really want the re-recorded and reworked Tubular Bells, order the DVD-Audio or SACD version (provided your player is up to it), which really let the recording shine.

So...

Music: 4 stars

Usability: 0

Artist's attitude towards his fans: 0

There you have it.

(...)

People read these reviews because they are not sure about an artist or one of their works, and are just getting interested. Let me assure anyone reading this (if you are recently interested in Mike Oldfield) that this is a beautiful CD.

The reviewers here leave a confusing picture: some haven't heard this but reviewed it anyway, others are getting it mixed up with Tubular Bells 3, which has different music on it.

I bought this CD after reading reviews here, and was not put off by the supposed fans, crying about remakes (how many times???) etc. I first got interested in MO from Tubular Bells 2, which has some striking, highly original and beautiful compositions. They ARE NOT the same as the Tubular Bells original. In fact, all of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells works are enough different, that you could own all of them and enjoy each separately for what it is.

Except for TB 2003, which is the grownup modern version of Mike's ideas from 1973. If this CD had no predecessor, it would be an above-par ambient-rock fusion work that would attract some notice. If Mike Oldfield decides to redo it to make it better, more power to him. Don't believe any of the tripe here that it is without soul, etc. Electronic instruments are used by everybody nowadays, from the pure guys like Ulrich Schnauss, to the major players like Alan Parsons. (Well,except for Tingstadt and Rumbel, and the Chieftains, --both of whom I like a lot--and other acoustically-committed musicians.)

To belittle the guy for wanting to make a version fit for the generations unborn, is to quarrel over territory that doesn't belong to you. That's what I think, anyway.

This is a 4.5 stars effort, rounded to 5.

I had lost my original copy of TB, so when I saw this, I figured, "Why not?" I was not disappointed. I popped it in the CD player and it immediately made me smile, because it wasn't a "remake," "remix," or "rehash." It was like hearing the original the way I wished I could have heard it, in full audio glory. The most significant difference, which I don't mind because it also makes me smile, is the use of John Cleese to narrate the "roll call" section... sweet! :o) All of the quirky guitar, bass, and synth sounds you remember are here... you just hear *more* of them. The original was sonically groundbreaking in its time... but thank God for modern recording technology! Nicely done, Mike!