Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!GAFFA.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request From: Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: AMAROK Message-ID: <9011022219.AA29538@hydra.unm.edu> Date: 2 Nov 90 22:19:29 GMT Sender: Love-Hounds-request@gaffa.MIT.EDU Reply-To: Love-Hounds@gaffa.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 21 Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu Really-From: Lazlo Nibble 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!"