Oldfield.

Just a bit more accessible than Hansson.

Can't really vote as I only know Mike Oldfield

However putting anyone other than maybe Vangelis up against Mike Oldfield is pointless imo. To me this is just an attempt to make the other guy look good by putting him in the same poll. Oldifeld not only redefined instrumental music as we know it but pretty much turned Richard Branson into a multi millionaire. And that was with his 10th best album ( in my estimation anyway)

^that's just like, your opinion, man. In terms of quantity you're correct of course and Vangelis would be a better-or fairer match. I've been listening to Bo Hanssons quartet of relevant albums exclusively since this poll (and documentary). As much as Mike Oldfield turned Richard Branson into a multimillionaire (great argument btw) his music doesn’t have the emotional impact on me like our swedish hermit's 70's discography does. So I'm not voting for the underdog here because he's the underdog.

I also prefer Nick Drake's three albums over everything I've heard by Mike. And altohugh there's really no similarities, I suspect that something similar comes across from their music that just speaks to me (way) more.

yep I was being an arse admittedly and got called out so fair enough.

I have added a couple of Bo Hansson albums to my listening (both from early seventies so those are the good ones I presume) and my only initial thought is that musically they have no common ground with Oldfield. So its a bit Apples and Oranges really and I expect that people are picking on grounds of taste which is the point I guess.

^That's cool! I think most of his music could could be up your alley. Personally I'm as fond of the two next: Mellanväsen/Attic Thoughts and El-Ahrairah/Music Inspired By Watership Down (if you look for the latter, make sure you get a version including the "Migration Suite").

-and btw: I'd highly reccomend the late 70's documentary that Mascodagama shared on the previous page. Less than half an hour long, nicely done and a perfect introduction to his universe.

richardh wrote: but pretty much turned Richard Branson into a multi millionaire.

Maybe if we ask Oldfield himself that may be the achievement that he actually regrets most, and based on this he might give his vote to Hansson?

Good summary. Some of Mike Oldfield's albums don't go anywhere. Maybe they just needed some tidying up which they would have got had he been one member of a band throwing round musical ideas to the others in the band.

Bo Hansson.

They had a lot in common, both musically and otherwise. Perhaps the comparison would be best made concerning only their 70's albums. So... Both multi-instrumentalists, playing mainly instrumental music, experimental and psychedelic to some extent. In some ways similar styles, in some ways not. Unique styles, each hard to label and categorize. The closest comparison to Mike Oldfield is Bo Hansson, imo. And yet they have very different styles.

Hansson generally has a lot more rhythm and groove, coming from a jazz kind of environment. Oldfield has a more rigid composition style, like from an orchestral environment. Each have pros and cons respectively, Oldfield is more demanding to listen to, in part because of the lacking rhythm. His albums, or at least their parts, demand a full listen (or several) to each, to fully appreciate them. Of course, the listener is rewarded, and Oldfield reaches quite some intensity from a long build-up on Ommadawn that Hansson never reached. But it's demanding of the listener. Which could also be said of Hanssons work if you want to fully appreciate it, but his music is more easily accessible at first listen for most people, mainly because of his "flow" and rhythm.

Hansson had already released Sagan Om Ringen and Ur Trollkarlens Hatt when Tubular Bells was released. So, one can only speculate how much, if any, influence these may have had on Oldfield.

I just ignore those. 

OTOH, Return to Ommadawn is good.

Ommadawn is a great album, Oldfields best imo. Amarok was originally intended to be the sequel, but turned out too different. Which is a good thing, and Amarok stands its own ground as one of Oldfields better albums.

Return to Ommadawn, however... just gives me this feeling... like when you're embarrassed on someone elses behalf, when they humiliate themselves and you just want to look away/disappear, out of sympathetic shame.

Kind of like how I feel for this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjHVgWALeqs

Hansson.   Never quite got Oldfield.

kenethlevine wrote: I really liked Tubular Bells 3;  its biggest issue was that it should not have been given the TB name as, other than a few passing segments, it barely references TB.  Instead it's a brilliant world music album with Oldfield grafted on it

 

I totally agree

I actually like TB4 as well. The second was just a weird bloodless version of the original. Also I don't like the re-recorded TB either. 

Mascodagama wrote: Lewian wrote: And I can see what he gets out of it. More album sales than if it didn't say ‘Tubular Bells’ on the cover, presumably.

Probably... not sure how many people prefer to buy Tubular Bells XVI to a genuinely new Oldfield release though.

Anyway, also as a "musical game" there's something in it.

I'm not sure that I should vote on this ... I like Bo, but sometimes, these comparisons are sort of like ...comparing the sisters, or brothers, or the instrument, not the person and his/her work.

It saddens me since there are many outstanding keyboard workers that deserve a mention ... how about LARRY FAST? JEAN MICHEL JARRE? RYUICHI SAKAMOTO (mostly in the early years)? People that have done some outstanding work ... and still can not get the credit they deserve, for their amazing output and total amount of work, not just one piece. YES, I agree that doing one thing so many times is boring ... but I think it says more about his boring this and that ... I find he has not done anything great since the time of ... FIVE MILES OUT or so ... and then, here comes the album with singles so I can think that MO is not the composer I thought he was!

And that is just a start ... the folks in ANGE are great, as were the folks in BANCO. But comparing these to KEITH is like saying that we're think that spoons and forks are the same thing! 

(Well, at least Vangelis plays spoons in all of his albums!)

^This.......can't say I'm a big fan of either but I always found Oldfield's music to be a bit boring.

An interesting note is that Bo Hansson has stated that he felt there was some "rivalry" between the two, in a good way. Kind of like Brian Wilson perceived the Beatles vs the Beach Boys.

Another thing, Bo Hansson never sold out.

Sorry I should have put the Millenium Bell which is often referred to as 'TB4' . Yes I do like it!

The original had a feeling that is impossible to replicate imo. Also give me dear ole late departed Viv Stanshall over John Cleese any day. I should mention that the 'Boxed' version of TB also has a brilliantly funny version of The Sailors Hornpipe with a whole ad lib section from Viv. This was omitted from the original release.

yes I think that's "Far above the clouds" which is great.  The album also has middle eastern influenced music and a well known singer in that realm, a gorgeous piano dominated instrumental (I know, atypical!), and a beautiful song in the vein of "Moonlight Shadow".

I was born into a house with a lot of literature ... like 40K plus (you can visit most of it in Lisbon now, btw!) ... and my issue has always been ... that going for or against "human nature" is something that has been around for many years, and quite visible in literature. However, as is the case here, the 20th century has turned all of this historical material into trash, for the sake of the "popularity" and the "preference" ... and for me, that is sad, and disrespectful to the history and the art form itself ... the popular and the preferred, is not exactly the story at all ... and you can go back to Shakespeare for great examples, of comedy bits in the middle of everything to keep his audience entertained of they would walk out, drunk and not having fun ... thus seeing Falstaff making fun of the would be king because he is not getting laid, is fun ... and we support it.

But, while that is acceptable for me, in the end, the main issue is that we miss out on the rest of the story and the humanity behind it ... "popularity" and "preference" do NOT, necessarily, mean that the piece of music is better or more this or that ... simply because you love the melody in this place, that makes it a nice "song" ... this was a problem with a lot of Italian operas, where the arias became famous, and no one has ever heard the rest of the opera ... so there is a precedence to what is happening now.

My main concert, is that many of the folks, might not have heard many other things to make a good recommendation, and simply choosing the "preference" because they have not heard the others, distorts these results really bad. 

And I am not a fan of that. It makes Bo come off as not a good/great composer compared to the others and he deserves the credit and the mention among the greats, although not all of these have an OSCAR in their closet like some of them do ... they can tell the "progressive" fans to shove it!

MO, and BH deserve to be listed as some of the great composers of the century ... however, we know that MO, RS, Vangelis and Jarre, will get that appreciation because they also expanded to film, and made some of their material come alive like a lot of us and everyone else dreams of. BH never got that chance, so his ability to stand up in this group is a bit behind ... but yes, it is magnificent material and we played it senseless and my roomie got other folks at the station to play some of it, even ... if you can believe it on a Number 1 FM station ... something that you will likely never hear, and the internet shows are not capable of playing music, past their favorites.

And this is where I draw a definition line ... not all that literature was poop. The same for all the music. And thinking that one is better, because of preference or popularity, is a terrible waste of the human psyche and its creative desires and endeavors, and I do my best to make sure that everyone understands this, even if some folks like to take their lack of knowledge and make it look like I am being condescending ... learning and studying has nothing to do with condescending ... thus the attitude is the problem, not me. I'm offering a sidebar ... as it were ... not a criticism.

This, is, to me, the most important point of "progressive" ... and I'm "progressive" through and through, and while I can enjoy some pop crap, it does not take away from my knowledge and appreciation of 1000 years of music ... something that most folks here think never existed, and couldn't possibly tell them anything about the music itself ... and that hurts inside ... you can not be a creative person, with so much of that lack of respect for your own inner spirit ... it's your choice of course, but the depth defines the work ... not anything else!

GOSH ... I do so love that whole CD ... it's just such a fun listen, and its a real shame that folks don't always select it because it lacks melody, it lacks the veeman singing, and it does not have chord progressions like you learned when you were a kid studying the instrument!

In my mind, it is by far one of the best MO albums!