Talk:Incantations (album)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Guilty
[edit]why is guilty listed as single from Incantations? wasn't it from Exposed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.130.96 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Guilty" was released between the two, and the single contained extracts from Incatations, but I have moved it to Exposed anyway. TubularWorld (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Minimalist?
[edit]I would not call an album featuring choir and string section "minimalist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.200.98 (talk • contribs) on 14:16, 29 July 2005 hergest ridge
- It's not entirely minimalist, but the opening in particular sounds very Reich-like to me. The Holy ettlz (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would agree to a certain extent, but "minimal" music normally involves a progression from one point to another. Oldfield has a number of circular formulas (mantras, perhaps?) which repeat on themselves but do not undergo development over a period of time. I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out that the whole piece derives almost completely from the opening chord. The stepwise progression is not only used as the main important themes but the bass line accompt. to many other sections. Even the "Hiawatha" theme is based entirely on the notes of the chord. (This is made clear just before the reprise at the very end). The work may not be strictly "minimal" but it is certainly tightly constructed. Alan Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.181 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
anything but minimalist
[edit]one of the most fiendishly difficult works to memorize! should be taught in music theory (circle of 5ths). on the basis of this album alone oldfield should be included with modern classicists. i just wish he would have taken a few of his other ideas and worked them over as thoroughly as this. 184.148.104.23 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)