Talk:Ommadawn

?Movements

Don't mean to be picky, especially in Wikipedia, where accuracy frequently seems to take second place to reality or common sense, but the line: As with Hergest Ridge and Tubular Bells, Ommadawn is another two-movement work. is not correct. Tubular Bells has quite a number of movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.68.132 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A whole bunch of things!

To TubularWorld and anyone else watching this page, I notice info about the forthcoming reissue of the album, including the track listing, appears earlier in the article than the original edition's list. I'm partial to having Wikipedia album articles discuss original editions in greater detail, if possible or applicable, and have all editions covered in chronological order. In looking over the article's coverage of vinyl editions, I see there is a lot that could be added, and I find some of the current information questionable. I own several copies of this album (guess that makes me a fanatic), though all are vinyl editions from the 1970s. A lot of information I could provide, probably qualifies as original research. But I figure what the heck, I think I'll dump it all out on this talk page, and invite discussion of what should be included in the article. Here goes.

• Original cover The picture in the infobox is not the original, and may be exclusive to CD editions. Regarding the new edition, the article says, "The artwork has been cleaned up and the text moved to the top and sides of the front cover." Actually this is how the original cover appeared, so the new edition is a restoration, which is not explained in the article as it currently stands.
• Original UK label Early copies can be found on either the earlier "full colour" label design (with dragon and tree), or with the "beige" label with the twins in purple. The "beige" label was Virgin's standard design from summer to fall 1975, at which point it was withdrawn (possibly it was too risque, possibly some Virgin artists didn't like it) and reverted to the earlier "full colour" design until mid 1976, when another new design (well actually 4 variations of it) were brought in. Ommadawn was one of the last albums, perhaps the very last, to use the "beige" label, and was presumably replaced by the "full colour" label almost immediately, although the "beige" label appears to be more common, going by ebay auctions (not just current ones, but auctions I've seen over the years). Amusingly, I saw an ebay auction some years ago where the auctioneer had apparently got into a dispute with a potential buyer over whether his copy, with "full colour" label, was the original. The seller claimed it was, and his proof was in the matrix, which had an A1/B5 combination (or was it A5/B1?). I thought that was not conclusive, and pulled out my "beige" label copy (purchased as an import in 1975) for comparison, and found it to be an A4/B4, one side an earlier cut and one side a later cut than the "full colour" label up for sale. So who can say which was pressed earlier? I do notice that right now, there are ebay auctions for "beige" label copies with A1/B1 and A1/B2 matricies (this is stated right in the auction titles), which seems to add weight to the contention that "beige" copies are originals.
• Horse song On the original UK edition, the only reference to "On Horseback" is: "The words to the horse song on side two by Mike Oldfield and William Murray"; there are no quotes or capitalization to suggest "The Horse Song" is its title. A note at the bottom of the track listing mentions "The Horse Song" in quotes and caps, which is misleading. Speaking of lyrics credits, Murray is explicity co-credited on the single, and on Boxed and presumably other later editions of Ommadawn, but not in the track listing credits in this article. Also, the article for the single for this song states it was released in November, but Ommadawn's article says December; something more to fix.
• USA cover The USA (and Canadian) edition has a different back cover from the UK's. The UK back cover was almost blank (solid blue-green), except for a bit of fine print and company logo. The USA edition's back cover has liner notes, and refers to an album review in The Guardian which suggests the USA edition came out some time later than the UK release date, though still in 1975. The innersleeve of the USA edition is different to the UK's. Both have a group photo of all session musicians in colour on one side, and on the UK edition the innersleeve has an embossing effect to make the picture slightly raised. (This was not done on the other side of the innersleeve.) In the UK, the other side has a black and white picture of Mike in a field, his head turned to one side, and the background is dark, making it appear to have been taken at night. But the USA back cover has another shot from the same photo session, this time in colour, and appearing to be in full daylight, with Mike staring straight at the camera. The other side of the USA innersleeve therefore has a different picture: Mike in front of a gong. The Canadian cover is similar to the USA's, but has no innersleeve. All credits are printed on the back cover. Oh by the way, I notice my Canadian front cover is a little more "zoomed in" than the UK cover, so the print at the top comes closer to the left and right edges.
• Quad editions The article currently states that the quad pressing appeared on the Boxed album (released October 1976), implying this was the first release, which is incorrect or misleading. The quad edition was released on its own, probably in 1975, in both the UK and the USA. According to booklet notes in Boxed, "We (Mike and Phil Newell) just finished (recording) in time to deliver the masters within the deadline (album notes state recording finished in September). The quad mix was done at the Manor a few weeks later..." If all these timelines are accurate, the quad mix was made before the stereo edition was even released. I believe the quad mix was issued shortly after the stereo mix, probably not at the same time though. All UK quad copies I have seen (in ebay auctions) have the "full colour" label, which is consistent with a slightly later release date, and keeping in mind that this label was discontinued before Boxed came out. There are actually 2 UK quad editions, the more common in SQ matrix, issued as QV-2043, and a rarer QS matrix edition (an alternate system with a confusingly similar name) as QVQS-2043. The USA edition, distributed by Columbia, uses the SQ matrix. A Goldmine reference book refers to the USA quad edition as a 1975 release (for whatever that's worth!), I can provide a citation for this if it's needed. The UK editions actually uses the word "Quadrophonic" in the title on the label (in deference to the more common spelling, "Quadraphonic); the SQ version is titled "Quadrophonic Ommadawn", while the QS version is even more elaborate: "The QS Quadrophonic Ommadawn". I recall the QS edition being described as an "almost released" edition; I'm not sure what that means, as it definitely exists, and I have seen it up for sale on ebay several times over the years. By the way, there is a currrent ebay auction of a lovely SQ UK quad edition with promo markings on the label, but too high for my budget.
• Quad edition covers Most UK copies have normal stereo covers with a sticker indicating a quad edition, while most USA copies have special covers with notations about quad printed on the cover. However, I believe that in at least one of these countries, both quad and stickered stereo covers were used for quad editions. Right now, I can't find evidence on this from current ebay listings.
• Ommadawn lyrics Regarding the contention Mike gave out some misinformation "as a ruse to enhance the mystery", we might mention a quote which appears on both the USA liner notes and Boxed booklet notes: "I didn't want her (Simonds) to just sing 'Ah,' so she wrote some words. I think they mean something backwards."
• Instrumentation Sorry to say this, but I think most of this section should be removed. It's not supported by liner notes, and appears to be a fan's observations of instruments Oldfield was playing at the time, with no proof he actually used them on the album. It says the piano is "likely" a certain make, with no explanation of where this guess is coming from. The statement, "This makes Ommadawn one of the first successful world music albums in Europe", cries out for citation needed. If anything were to be moved here, it would be the statement in the "Album history" section, about the Northumbrian bagpipes. The current article needs more clarity about this. "Herbie" played his Northumbrian pipes on side two, but Mike thought it could be better, and enisted Paddy Moloney to play Uillean pipes (the name should probably be capitalized) which replaced Herbie's performance. In order to thank Herbie for his efforts, Mike credited both players, causing listeners great confusion as they attempted to find the "other" appearence of bagpipes on the album. It just wasn't there. Years later, Mike clarified the situation in an interview. (Sorry, no citation for the interview.)
• USA promo edition In the USA, the album was distributed by Columbia, and was one of the first after Virgin switched its distribution from Atlantic. When Atlantic had been the distributor, some Virgin albums with long tracks (including Hergest Ridge and The Orchestral Tubular Bells) were issued in promo editions with banding, and gaps of silence inserted in band separation; this was intended to make it easier to play sections on the radio. Columbia issued Ommadawn as a promo edition with banding, but this time without gaps of silence, as stated explicity on the label, which can be seen here at discogs.com.
• Canadian labels The Canadian edition, also distributed by Columbia, does not use the "full colour" Virgin label used in the USA. Instead, it has the regular Columbia red label, with company name and CBS "eye" logo printed mulitple times around the edge, and the twins / dragon / tree design added in black in reduced size as part of the label copy (the overprinting which includes the track listing). This edition has the same banding separation and track break-downs on the label, as were used in the USA promo edition, but it is not a promo; all Canadian copies on Columbia, as distributed to the public, were banded this way. A year or so later, Columbia switched the label for this album to their standard orange Epic Records label, and again added the Virgin logo in black, but this time a different logo, comprised of 3 parts: the twins picture from the "beige" label design, the word "Virgin", and the heart-shaped patch that appeared over the centre hole of the "full colour" design. It's the same logo that appeared on the bottom left back corner on the cover of Hergest Ridge, if that's any help. It is banded the same way on record and label, has an identical cover to the Columbia edition (and still says Columbia on the cover), and was pressed from the same plates as the Columbia label edition. I have copies of both editions for comparison. Call me crazy, but I couldn't resist when I found a used copy of the Epic label edition for a dollar (and there was nothing wrong with it, aside from a worn cover). Canadian reissues of Tubular Bells by Columbia also appeared on these two labels; both variations of both albums are documented by the Rainer Münz discography. The same may be true of The Orchestral Tubular Bells; Münz is a little vague about that one.
• Drums at the end of side one Here's where some original research comes in. Ready for this? The first copy of Ommadawn I owned was a UK copy with "beige" label and A4 matrix on side one. The ending seemed to be a long fade-out to gradual silence, with no actual end point. A year later, I heard the quad version on Boxed which ends differently; more about that in a moment. Still later, I heard a Canadian LP copy (presumably the same as USA copies) with a stereo mix sounding like my UK copy, except it didn't seem to fade out so much at the end, and seemed to come to a complete stop. This made me think the UK edition was faded out early, and might be shorter. I checked it again, with the volume turned way up, and now for the first time I could hear that the music did seem to come to a stop at one very quiet point. So I assumed it was the same length as the Canadian version after all, just faded early, possibly by the disc cutting engineer and not like that on the master tape. More about this in a moment, but now on to the quad mix as heard on Boxed. The drums seem to play considerably longer, and at the end, they stop, pause, and then come back for another second. It almost sounds like a mastering error. This could be caused by transferring from one master tape to another twice, one over top of the other, and when the second transfer ended, recording stopped, and a tiny bit of the first transfer failed to be erased. Yes, that explanation for it is a guess, and original research. But anyway, I decided to get out a stopwatch and compare these various versions once and for all. I timed from the downbeat at the start of the solo drums section, and also took note of the beat where the music ends, dividing the repeating pattern into 8 beats. Here's the results:
  • UK matrix A4: 47 seconds, ending on beat 7.5 (i.e. ends on a high drum sound between beats, instead of the bass thump of the whole-count beats, which is where the other versions below will end).
  • Canadian album: 37 seconds, ending on beat 1 (what do you know, the UK copy was longer after all! - and I realize it looks suspicious that both timings end in a 7, so I rechecked both).
  • UK Boxed quad mix, matrix E2: A whopping 1 minute and 29 seconds, coming to a stop on beat 8, then 3 seconds of silence, then 1 second of reprise drumming, ending on beat 1 at 1 minute and 33 seconds. This elongation of the drums appears to be artificial (or fake, if you will), as there appears to be an edit at 49 seconds, where the drums suddenly become louder, and a beat seems to come in too early. There may also be an edit at 45 seconds, where a downbeat appears to be doubled, but this may have just been how it was played, if some of the drummers got out of sync with the others.

Have I made you curious enough to get out a CD copy, or whatever copies you may have, and a stopwatch, and compare? And I wonder how the new forthcoming edition will compare.

Well, that's enough for now. I should stop before I think of more things to say. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing all of that out. I've corrected a few of the obvious/important bits on the article; the section ordering, single date, horse song reference, artwork. Hopefully in the next few weeks I'll get some time to work on Wiki articles properly again. TubularWorld (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"On Horseback" as an EXTRA track?

Quote from article: Though the actual work Ommadawn is a two-part piece, there is a third track on the album, a short vocal song by Mike Oldfield and William Murray called "On Horseback".

I can only speak from the two CD versions of the album I have owned. On both of them there ARE only 2 parts to Ommadawn listed, and part 2 is said to run at 17m17s. However, track 2 on the CD runs at 13m54s, and "Horseback" (track 3 on the CD) is 3m23s. This would seem to indicate that Ommadawn part 2 actually comprises of track 2 AND 3 on the CD, and thus "Horseback" isn't an extra track. Is it possible the publisher just inserted a track break just to aid in getting to the "Horseback" section of part 2. MrZoolook (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I just spotted that this is all referenced in the article anyway, but I will leave this here as an elongated question as to WHY they didn't just keep the part 2 track length in the inlay as it was, and thus make "Horsey" an actual extra. Was it included in earlier versions ie: tape and vinyl? If so, I would be inclined to agree with my assumption above that Horsey is a part of part 2, basing it on the fact that track skipping wasn't an option on tape or vinyl, and that an extra track included from the first print run of an album seems frankly stupid. Thoughts? MrZoolook (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Oldfield didn't have so much "creative control" over some releases as he did on others? I put it down to the whims of the people who design these things, which I rarely attempt to understand. In this case, it seems almost like a random decision each time.

All the same, I think that the single release, the UK Boxed quad version and its blurb, and a Japanese SACD remix release of 2012 all point to it being a separate track... unlike Tubular Bells' drunken "Sailor's Hornpipe" with Viv Stanshall, which appeared on Boxed etc. Twistlethrop (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Origin of title "Ommadawn"

The article mentions Oldfield's reported suggestion about the origin of the album title ("The word "idiot" translated into [the Irish Gaelic word] amadán"). Other suggestions include misinformation. But none of them, IMHO, come close to satisfactory understanding of the true meaning of the title. The word "amadán" better translates into "fool", which is not at all the same thing as "idiot", and is a lot more plausible. This is supported by my 1920 edition (British) English dictionary, as well as the less reliable Google Translate.

Anyway, none of my comments in this section are in any way necessary or relevant to the music itself. Twistlethrop (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

-- it is probably worth cleaning up the orthography in order to make the translation actually legible as Irish. No I'm not really qualified to do this, which is why I'm dropping the comment here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.0.225.154 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The last line in the lyrics on Side 1 is "Ta mé an amadan ag cheol" - which is the Irish for "I am the idiot singing". Amazed it took thirty years for me to realize that's what being sung. Don't know about the rest of the lyrics in that part of side 1 - they're not Irish as I recognize it, and is have a "ya" sound you don' hear much in Irish. Maybe Welsh or Old English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.52.146 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Tá mé an amadán" is what is being sung but is actually grammatically incorrect even though the individual words mean something which is what Mike wanted. The correct Irish would be "Is amadán mé" Many learners of Irish make this mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.82 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

tape worn out, mike starts again story

anyone shed any light on this? I've read oldfield's book & seen a few interviews, but if the tape was worn out & useless, where did this spring from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2lVBEI4RAA

duncanrmi (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I was equally surprised to see that (the 1975 'lost version') pop up on the 2010 Universal Music Deluxe Edition reissue. Oldfield's autobiography, Changeling, and the reissue liner notes mention that Virgin sent him a copying machine to copy the defective tape - I'm hypothesising, but perhaps this is one of those copies? TubularWorld (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Release date

The current source for release date is this which states just "November 1975". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Virgin official books say Ommadawn was released in October 28th 1975. And tons of magazines from that day had a Virgin advertisement that said Ommadawn is published October 28th. You can check in NME, Melody Maker and lots of magazines. 83.49.10.218 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.mike-oldfield.es/verfoto.asp?id=4347&idioma=gl 83.49.10.218 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but why should that book be wrong? It doesn't matter how many magazines from 1975 I might like to check, the article needs some kind of reliable source. If you have the full details of that "Virgin official book", you might like to put them here. Is the source also available online? That image looks quite convincing, but it doesn't seem to have any context details. Is that a Spanish fan site? An actual book source is preferred, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

But if the source you say it's just your book that we didn't know the source, I don't find it fair. 83.49.10.218 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You quote "Virgin official books". Is that also a book source? If so, please could you provide the details. You may be right, and the existing book may be wrong. I have not searched myself for any other sources, but I'd strongly advise against using just that advert image as a source. Occasionally adverts are wrong, for all sorts or reasons. In this particular case, press adverts may have promised Tuesday 28th October but the actual record releases may have been delayed by four days until Saturday 1st November, of the following week? Seems quite possible. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)