A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Love Expresso on August 17, 2024, 05:06:37 PM
-
Somehow I had not listened to Bob Dylan's Rough And Rowdy Ways from 2020 until this morning, and it made me think about a lot of things which resonated with Mark and ODR. I must say I am totally blown away by everything on this album, every single song is great, many nothing short of a masterpiece, the band sounds outstanding, the lyrics, the songs, Bob's voice, what a powerful piece of art this is. And I must say it overwhelmed me artistically in a way I was hoping ODR would do but didn't. Bob's energy and creativity on this one is one of a kind.
I know it might annoy some people but the vinyl experience with this is really awesome! I wonder how comes that this album sounds SO good and ODR just sucks sonically compared with this. All the British Grove ado obviously is not able to reach this level of perfection. I have 70% of Bob's albums and I might consider this as one of his best!
ODR (on vinyl) sounds somewhat dull compared to Rough And Rowdy Ways. I know posts like these always get the same kind of replys about Bob's grueling voice and walking out the venue back in 2011 etc. But I strongly suggest to give this album a free minded and unprejudiced listen. Both are late in their lifes and careers, both have seen it all and have nothing to prove and both are great songwriters. But the artistic difference is soo big.
Maybe the other thread about Dolly Shop Man and the missed opportunities of a better ODR album was part of these thoughts. I also think that better combinations from the new songs would have been possible. Rough And Rowdy Ways however sounds perfect. Nothing, not the slightest thing, not a single note should be changed. Masterpiece!
LE
-
Rough And Rowdy Ways is a great album. What I like about Dylan is that he is open for trying new things. He involved the wonderful guitarist and producer Blake Mills in this project, and I hear a lot of input from Mills on the sound of the album.
Obviously, Bob is Bob, and he is an extraordinary and strange person, so comparing him to Mark is not really - I don't know - fair. But I really wish Mark would step outside his comfort zone more. At this stage of his life, this will of course not happen.
-
Of course it's a very good album. But after the first listen I didn't have any songs in my head. I have to go back to it to remember anything.
-
Of course it's a very good album. But after the first listen I didn't have any songs in my head. I have to go back to it to remember anything.
Don't mean to be funny or sarcastic but that described exactly what I have with many of the new MK songs. I am totally lost in all those rain and train song titles, cannot relate to any of the new lyrics as I used (to could) and frankly the only song I could instantly hum would be Janine. It all sounds just too similar and has no unique characteristics apart from maybe two or three exceptions. But then again maybe I should listen to it more. Haven't done so for six weeks at least.
LE
-
After the first listen to the One Deep River album, I remembered every song. And that's the difference for me:)
-
Astonishing.
LE
-
I'm listening to Rough And Rowdy Ways right now. I confirm: a very good album. Bob's voice has improved.
-
Very nice! Enjoy!
Ok, so I will ODR give another spin. :wave
LE
-
Very nice! Enjoy!
Ok, so I will ODR give another spin. :wave
LE
Necessarily! :)
-
RaRW deffo not a bad album, but NOTHING will come close to Time out of Mind, except maybe the next one, Love and Theft.
Anyways, as much as i agree with your "give dylan a chance coz he rules" action, i cannot agree with your feelings towards ODR, it is the first mk album in ages that i have kept playing, AND, that does NOT have a skipper.
then again, all of this objective, and therefore, fascinating.
-
Tunnel 13 is far superior to murder most foul. Murder most foul is too long and very self indulgent with an endless pointless list of songs. Tunnel 13 has a better tune with marks beautiful guitar.
..
-
Rough And Rowdy Ways is a great album. What I like about Dylan is that he is open for trying new things. He involved the wonderful guitarist and producer Blake Mills in this project, and I hear a lot of input from Mills on the sound of the album.
Obviously, Bob is Bob, and he is an extraordinary and strange person, so comparing him to Mark is not really - I don't know - fair. But I really wish Mark would step outside his comfort zone more. At this stage of his life, this will of course not happen.
A time ago, i was on a conversation about this with my dear friend Brunno Nunes.
For people like us, there is a lot of changes thru DS/MK discography. Since the rock/reggae/folk/bluesy from the early days until the celtic/train/jazzy recent stuff.
We can isolate MK from the songs andwe analyse his style thru the changes. And we can see that there is a lot of changes thru his career. But this changes are only about what surrounds Mark. The character is always the same.
I often got the question: - How you can listen to an artist that every song sounds the same?
In a certain way, their are right. It's not about the differences of the songs, but about the energy.
All DS/MK songs are soft paced, low pitched, and got a non agressive mix. So, the ambient is "always" the same.
Thinking about the Dylanesque side of MK, in my opinion, th closest that MK got from Bob was the Privateering album. It's cristal clear that Mark was inspired by that tour with Bob and his recent blues albums (Modern Times and Together Through Life)
Well, this subject could generates a ethernal discussion LOL
-
I'm not sure how much the tour influenced Privateering. Would need to check the dates, but they played some songs from the record on the tour and they were recording the day after it finished.
-
It's very interesting that you should praise the production of Rough and Rowdy Ways, and seem to prefer it over that of One Deep River.
In a funny way, I think that Bob Dylan's late albums are superior to Mark's in terms of production, whereas Mark's songwriting, in my opinion, is by far superior to Bob's. That's exactly the opposite of how both artists are commonly seen.
I have no idea why Bob's albums sound so great and what they have (sonically speaking) that Mark's don't have to the same extent. But it's true. There's a sonic depth in them that I love. Maybe it has something to do with the band playing live, and the lack of tinkering. I don't know.
On Mark's plus side, he keeps writing songs that wow me both lyrically and musically. Whereas Bob, as much as I love him, often just recombines what he finds in books or on old records. He gets away (legally) with a song like Beyond the Horizon (which is a 1:1 melodic copy of the classic Red Sails in the Sunset) only because that original was written in 1935. The same is true for his lyrics. He makes them sound fantastic, yes, but they're nowhere nearly as well-crafted as Mark's. The comparison of Murder Most Foul and Tunnel 13 illustrates this quite nicely.
-
I'm not sure how much the tour influenced Privateering. Would need to check the dates, but they played some songs from the record on the tour and they were recording the day after it finished.
My thoughts are that Mark started to write his 'Bob oriented songs' since the tour with him was confirmed. Maybe he listened thru Bob's records (playng along) and learning the songs for the 'jamming' with Bob.
During the 2011 tour (with BD), his stage presence was changed. Mark was very energetic, playing astonishing great and trying new stuff. In my opinion, his stage presence and songwritting on that tour was totally influenced by Dylan.
Well, that is my view about it.
-
Somehow I had not listened to Bob Dylan's Rough And Rowdy Ways from 2020 until this morning, and it made me think about a lot of things which resonated with Mark and ODR. I must say I am totally blown away by everything on this album, every single song is great, many nothing short of a masterpiece, the band sounds outstanding, the lyrics, the songs, Bob's voice, what a powerful piece of art this is. And I must say it overwhelmed me artistically in a way I was hoping ODR would do but didn't. Bob's energy and creativity on this one is one of a kind.
I know it might annoy some people but the vinyl experience with this is really awesome! I wonder how comes that this album sounds SO good and ODR just sucks sonically compared with this. All the British Grove ado obviously is not able to reach this level of perfection. I have 70% of Bob's albums and I might consider this as one of his best!
ODR (on vinyl) sounds somewhat dull compared to Rough And Rowdy Ways. I know posts like these always get the same kind of replys about Bob's grueling voice and walking out the venue back in 2011 etc. But I strongly suggest to give this album a free minded and unprejudiced listen. Both are late in their lifes and careers, both have seen it all and have nothing to prove and both are great songwriters. But the artistic difference is soo big.
Maybe the other thread about Dolly Shop Man and the missed opportunities of a better ODR album was part of these thoughts. I also think that better combinations from the new songs would have been possible. Rough And Rowdy Ways however sounds perfect. Nothing, not the slightest thing, not a single note should be changed. Masterpiece!
LE
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I'd like to take the opportunity anyway. Despite my age (59) and despite the fact that throughout my life and to this day I listen to tons of music (mainly rock in all its facets, blues and a bit of folk) I have never come close to Dylan. I think the only album of his that I have listened to in its entirety is Slow Train Coming. And this is despite what Mark (and certainly not just him) says about Bob. So, since you seem to be a fan, I'll ask you two things:
1. Can one appreciate Dylan without fully understanding the lyrics? I am Italian, I can understand English but understanding Dylan singing is not easy. And since Dylan is mostly talked about for the quality of the songwriting.... Should I listen to him by studying the lyrics first or, more simply, keeping them underneath while listening? And then, brutally: Is Dylan also valuable musically, or are the lyrics his strong point and does the music, in some way, "just" support it?
2. Tough question: two or three albums to start with?
-
1. Can one appreciate Dylan without fully understanding the lyrics?
2. Tough question: two or three albums to start with?
Putting my opinion on your question to LE:
1. I am brazilian. So, YES!
2. If you are a man who like the Blues, as I am, I consider to listen Bob's blues phase (since 1997).
- Love And Theft
- Modern Times
- Together Throght Life
and, of course: Rought And Rowdy Ways
Well, this is one of various Bob's facets.
-
This is maybe a good one to listen if you're not focussing on the lyrics so much, great music production :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgqGUBP3Cx0
-
Somehow I had not listened to Bob Dylan's Rough And Rowdy Ways from 2020 until this morning, and it made me think about a lot of things which resonated with Mark and ODR. I must say I am totally blown away by everything on this album, every single song is great, many nothing short of a masterpiece, the band sounds outstanding, the lyrics, the songs, Bob's voice, what a powerful piece of art this is. And I must say it overwhelmed me artistically in a way I was hoping ODR would do but didn't. Bob's energy and creativity on this one is one of a kind.
I know it might annoy some people but the vinyl experience with this is really awesome! I wonder how comes that this album sounds SO good and ODR just sucks sonically compared with this. All the British Grove ado obviously is not able to reach this level of perfection. I have 70% of Bob's albums and I might consider this as one of his best!
ODR (on vinyl) sounds somewhat dull compared to Rough And Rowdy Ways. I know posts like these always get the same kind of replys about Bob's grueling voice and walking out the venue back in 2011 etc. But I strongly suggest to give this album a free minded and unprejudiced listen. Both are late in their lifes and careers, both have seen it all and have nothing to prove and both are great songwriters. But the artistic difference is soo big.
Maybe the other thread about Dolly Shop Man and the missed opportunities of a better ODR album was part of these thoughts. I also think that better combinations from the new songs would have been possible. Rough And Rowdy Ways however sounds perfect. Nothing, not the slightest thing, not a single note should be changed. Masterpiece!
LE
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I'd like to take the opportunity anyway. Despite my age (59) and despite the fact that throughout my life and to this day I listen to tons of music (mainly rock in all its facets, blues and a bit of folk) I have never come close to Dylan. I think the only album of his that I have listened to in its entirety is Slow Train Coming. And this is despite what Mark (and certainly not just him) says about Bob. So, since you seem to be a fan, I'll ask you two things:
1. Can one appreciate Dylan without fully understanding the lyrics? I am Italian, I can understand English but understanding Dylan singing is not easy. And since Dylan is mostly talked about for the quality of the songwriting.... Should I listen to him by studying the lyrics first or, more simply, keeping them underneath while listening? And then, brutally: Is Dylan also valuable musically, or are the lyrics his strong point and does the music, in some way, "just" support it?
2. Tough question: two or three albums to start with?
1. Of course you can. But it is a real adventure to dive into his lyrics, so it's worth to try to work them out.
2.
Blood On The Tracks
Oh, Mercy
Time Out Of Mind
Love And Theft
Modern Times
To 1.
I could never listen to MK without knowing and understanding (at least some of the often many levels) of his lyrics. And that exactly is what let ODR drift away so fast for me. I never said it is a bad album but it has just not any impact, I listened to it the first four weeks on a daily base but it just ... faded away and none of the lyrics are on the same level as let's say Basil, Silver Eagle or So Far From The Clyde. And as it is also all the same musically, I just can't find the same pleasure in it as in earlier MK albums.
And Bob Dylan is a complete other dimension, lyrically, historically, his vision, his energy and his power. Dylan is the master, Knopfer the apprentice.
LE
-
Rough And Rowdy Ways is a great album. What I like about Dylan is that he is open for trying new things. He involved the wonderful guitarist and producer Blake Mills in this project, and I hear a lot of input from Mills on the sound of the album.
Obviously, Bob is Bob, and he is an extraordinary and strange person, so comparing him to Mark is not really - I don't know - fair. But I really wish Mark would step outside his comfort zone more. At this stage of his life, this will of course not happen.
I had a listen to this album yesterday - it's been a while since the last time. I think it has it's moments, but I don't actually think it's a great album. Musically it has a lot of subtleties and interesting chords, which I believe come as a result of having Blake Mills on this album. He's just a genius. Still, too many songs feel very static, musically speaking. It almost feels as if Bob sings, or speaks, poems to a looped backing track. I do like how Bob sings/speaks, though. There's an intensity to him that is very compelling. (Mark had that in the early days, but totally lost it over the years.) Lyrically I get kind of lost. Bob has a lot on his mind, but it's difficult to figure out what the point of many the songs is. Is there a message? Is there a story? It feels like he's rambling, which makes a lot of the songs feel similar lyrically. (Mark's songs are not like that, which I like.) Bob has a unique way with words, though, and the he makes things rhyme is pure genius.
-
This is maybe a good one to listen if you're not focussing on the lyrics so much, great music production :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgqGUBP3Cx0
one of my all time favourite Krusty songs.
-
1. Can one appreciate Dylan without fully understanding the lyrics?
2. Tough question: two or three albums to start with?
Putting my opinion on your question to LE:
1. I am brazilian. So, YES!
2. If you are a man who like the Blues, as I am, I consider to listen Bob's blues phase (since 1997).
- Love And Theft
- Modern Times
- Together Throght Life
and, of course: Rought And Rowdy Ways
Well, this is one of various Bob's facets.
how could you forget Time out of mind!! and Oh Mercy???
-
how could you forget Time out of mind!! and Oh Mercy???
I didn't forget.
I put my 3 blues favs plus 1 ;D
-
Big topic.. although slightly off-topic 🤣
I can relate to the original posting up to a point - Dylan still sounds very energetic on RaRW, as he always has, while ODR is much more polished, produced, finely tuned. Dylan, if you will, is more like a Van Gogh, while MK is more like Dürer or Rembrandt, if that makes any sense.
I guess that's always been one the major differences between the two (which was also the main thing that critics and die-hard Dylan-fans had to say about Infidels, which is imho one of the better records Dylan has ever made!).
But actually I'm not sure if you can actually compare the two in any way, because they're just very different artists with very different personalities, and that shows in their work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it is that Dylan (like Randy Newman) has always been "the man with a message", a political poet with a guitar, and he is still in some way the "angry young man" with a drive to change the world, even at 83. MK (like Leonard Cohen), I think, has always been "a musician with something to say", and over the years the focus has shifted more towards the songwriting, the stories. Of course there are messages in his songs, but very often the topics are more at a personal level, interhuman relationships of all sorts. There aren't many openly political songs, even those are often either ironical (like Industrial Disease, Bacon Roll) or they're just observations (like Iron Hand) without actually stating a clear political message.
So, to put it in a nutshell, MK will often just describe the world we live in and our immediate surroundings and leave it up to you to work out what could be changed, while Dylan often has a clear message about big topics.
I'm not sure, maybe it's partly influenced by their backgrounds (American vs. British), the time and circumstances they grew up in, education or just very different personalities and approaches to life.
I agree that Dylan is a master, no doubt about it. But MK has long stopped being an apprentice, he's a master too, but of something slightly different :-)
-
Great post! Not sure I can agree with MK being a master but I agree with the rest of it. :)
-
Dylan has given up political messages already in the 1960's.. and I wish Mark HAD something to say ..
LE
-
Dylan has given up political messages already in the 1960's.. and I wish Mark HAD something to say ..
LE
Are you sure? There are political or moral messages in most of his songs, apart from lovesongs and the like. Bob doesn't tell you what to think or vote for, of course, but he usually makes it very clear where he stands.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/barack-obama-bob-dylan-election-day-750822/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/barack-obama-bob-dylan-election-day-750822/) is just one example.
As for MK, ODR is a lot about his own biography of course, but he still has a lot to say. "Chess" alone is a masterpiece!
-
Big topic.. although slightly off-topic 🤣
I can relate to the original posting up to a point - Dylan still sounds very energetic on RaRW, as he always has, while ODR is much more polished, produced, finely tuned. Dylan, if you will, is more like a Van Gogh, while MK is more like Dürer or Rembrandt, if that makes any sense.
I guess that's always been one the major differences between the two (which was also the main thing that critics and die-hard Dylan-fans had to say about Infidels, which is imho one of the better records Dylan has ever made!).
But actually I'm not sure if you can actually compare the two in any way, because they're just very different artists with very different personalities, and that shows in their work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it is that Dylan (like Randy Newman) has always been "the man with a message", a political poet with a guitar, and he is still in some way the "angry young man" with a drive to change the world, even at 83. MK (like Leonard Cohen), I think, has always been "a musician with something to say", and over the years the focus has shifted more towards the songwriting, the stories. Of course there are messages in his songs, but very often the topics are more at a personal level, interhuman relationships of all sorts. There aren't many openly political songs, even those are often either ironical (like Industrial Disease, Bacon Roll) or they're just observations (like Iron Hand) without actually stating a clear political message.
So, to put it in a nutshell, MK will often just describe the world we live in and our immediate surroundings and leave it up to you to work out what could be changed, while Dylan often has a clear message about big topics.
I'm not sure, maybe it's partly influenced by their backgrounds (American vs. British), the time and circumstances they grew up in, education or just very different personalities and approaches to life.
I agree that Dylan is a master, no doubt about it. But MK has long stopped being an apprentice, he's a master too, but of something slightly different :-)
Very good post. I agree. To Mark Bob was always the master and to many of us Mark was always the master :)
Ps. I prefer the album "Slow Train Coming" Today is the anniversary of its release.
-
Dylan has given up political messages already in the 1960's.. and I wish Mark HAD something to say ..
LE
1980s rather than 60s but Neighbourhood Bully is pretty damn political...
-
listening to RaRW now, not bad, but deffo not his best, and not the best place to start with Bob imho.
i do not like his crooning songs (e.g. I contain Multitudes, or any of his last three albums full of -often Sinatra- covers)
as said, i think Time out of mind is a superb starting point for newbies.
coming back to RaRW, i like:
Goodbye Jimmy Reed (though not mindblowing)
Murder most Foul (mindblowing, imho)
rest is boring croning shite.
-
start here peeps
https://open.spotify.com/album/0qfFt0ItzdJngdYWWxRkub?si=qsyitCd5QH2qrJ3EiI5SbA
-
my kinda Dylan:
https://open.spotify.com/intl-de/track/6i2wVBUAzmKbUVURpE2RRh?si=b6d598e076824c8b
-
:lol
LE
-
It's funny how we argue about art. (in our case, music)
Each artist has his own language and landscapes.
I cannot imagine MK doing hard politics lyrics or making public statements like Roger Waters do.
Of course, other artists music resonates diferent than MK's music. So, we kind of desire that MK's songs resonates with us like Bob's. But are diferents landscapes.
Bob is an acid artist. So, his songs and pallets sounds like Bob's personality.
Mark, after MM, turned himself a polited and soft-paced musician.
This could turn to be a long discussion.
-
One of reasons for me to open the thread was how RARW can sound SO exceptionally good compared to ODR although there is all this BG hype.
LE
-
One of reasons for me to open the thread was how RARW can sound SO exceptionally good compared to ODR although there is all this BG hype.
LE
I just googled and apparently RARW was recorded at the legendary Sound City Studios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_City_Studios
Also, according to this database, RARW has great dynamics:
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/188722
Compared to ODR:
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/209017
I asked GF about loudness a while back and he said they don't care about it.
-
Thanks, interesting!
I can tell you that I care about it..
To be honest, DTRW and ODR just don't sound good to MY!!!! ears . I have plenty of stuff on vinyl from many other artists that give me the WOW effect all the time, but Mark's latest releases doesn't. And RARW had this Wow effect. Don't want to spoil ODR for anyone or be the Party pooper but that's my opinion..
LE
-
Thanks, interesting!
I can tell you that I care about it..
To be honest, DTRW and ODR just don't sound good to MY!!!! ears . I have plenty of stuff on vinyl from many other artists that give me the WOW effect all the time, but Mark's latest releases doesn't. And RARW had this Wow effect. Don't want to spoil ODR for anyone or be the Party pooper but that's my opinion..
LE
I have the exact same feeling.
Seems that BG is the best and the worse at the same time.
-
Thanks, interesting!
I can tell you that I care about it..
To be honest, DTRW and ODR just don't sound good to MY!!!! ears . I have plenty of stuff on vinyl from many other artists that give me the WOW effect all the time, but Mark's latest releases doesn't. And RARW had this Wow effect. Don't want to spoil ODR for anyone or be the Party pooper but that's my opinion..
LE
I have the exact same feeling.
Seems that BG is the best and the worse at the same time.
Or let's be more specific.. if course it's not BG but Guy's production at BG...
LE
-
Or let's be more specific.. if course it's not BG but Guy's production at BG...
LE
HA!
There is a Frampton tune recorded at BG.
2006 - Fingerprints (one of my fav instrumental rock albums)
https://open.spotify.com/intl-pt/track/1XS9dFFdxd7eE826LLsSI7?si=9e398632b0d041d1
The Who WHO and Clapton's I Still Do albums was recorded. Among others.
Note that the same dull mixing are present in all of them. Since 2006!
They say that BG has the best gear on planet. But, Seems to me that the rooms (Studio A and B) are both dead.
To my ears, there is a lack of punch for BG recordings.
Maybe this was one of the reasons that John Illsley moved to record his lastest album on Real World Studios (or was Scott McKeon's idea)
Sonically, the best MK work is Shangri-la.
Especially the drums. Man, they're alive.
Tracker and ODR are the best sounding BG recordings.
DTRW is a mess.
-
I think KTGC album sounds beautiful too. It has a unique depth.
-
Ps. I prefer the album "Slow Train Coming" Today is the anniversary of its release.
yes indeed.
I come a bit late on the forum but here is my chronicle published on tuesday : https://textes-blog-rock-n-roll.fr/il-y-a-45-ans-bob-dylan-affichait-sa-conversion-au-christianisme/
-
Ps. I prefer the album "Slow Train Coming" Today is the anniversary of its release.
yes indeed.
I come a bit late on the forum but here is my chronicle published on tuesday : https://textes-blog-rock-n-roll.fr/il-y-a-45-ans-bob-dylan-affichait-sa-conversion-au-christianisme/
:thumbsup
-
If music (and art in general) were just about getting political messages across, both Bob and Mark should have become politicians. I think it's much more about the sharing of feelings, though. By writing a song, you're communicating: This is how I'm feeling about this or that. With any luck, other people will feel the same, and that's rewarding for both the author and the audience. Both realize that they're not alone in how they feel about the world. That,I think, is about the best thing art can achieve.
Oh, and Dusty, you must have been kidding. Of course Mark Knopfler is a master of his craft. Why else would you spend so much time on a forum dedicated to him, and even found the forum in the first place?
-
I’m a fan but I’m also a realist.
Dire Straits are my favourite band but I would never try to argue that they were the greatest band ever.
-
Dire Straits are my favourite band but I would never try to argue that they were the greatest band ever.
You're probably in for trouble for saying this here! :lol
But I think I know what you mean. There are (few) "greater" bands, and they lasted longer, too.
But DS (live) around the time of Alchemy/BIA, with MK in wizard mode, was probably the hottest thing on the planet because they were so different, so tight, so full of energy.
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
-
I was around in the 80s. DS were the biggest band in 85.
But even then they weren’t as big as solo acts like Michael Jackson, Madonna and Bruce Springsteen.
-
I was around in the 80s. DS were the biggest band in 85.
But even then they weren’t as big as solo acts like Michael Jackson, Madonna and Bruce Springsteen.
Yes, I was thinking about 1985:)
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
Agree.
But honestly I can't think of many 80s _bands_ that were in the same league. There were a few superstars, Prince, Madonna, Jackson etc. And then there there were the great bands from the 70s that were still around, but some had split or reformed or whatever. In terms of bands, I think it was mainly Genesis (without Peter Gabriel), Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters) and the Police (split), at that level of success.
DS kept going, they appealed to a wider "pop" audience and to the music enthusiasts and guitar nerds, people of any age and class.
I read somewhere that almost every British household had a copy of BIA at the time. Quite a phenomenon, considering that MK never wanted to be a rock star. :lol
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
Agree.
But honestly I can't think of many 80s _bands_ that were in the same league. There were a few superstars, Prince, Madonna, Jackson etc. And then there there were the great bands from the 70s that were still around, but some had split or reformed or whatever. In terms of bands, I think it was mainly Genesis (without Peter Gabriel), Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters) and the Police (split), at that level of success.
DS kept going, they appealed to a wider "pop" audience and to the music enthusiasts and guitar nerds, people of any age and class.
I read somewhere that almost every British household had a copy of BIA at the time. Quite a phenomenon, considering that MK never wanted to be a rock star. :lol
I know Dusty Springfield will hate me for saying this, but if you crank numbers DS was not the biggest band in the world at any point in time, it wasn't even the biggest band in the UK ;D
-
Sure, there were a lot of acts that were selling a lot more records/tickets!
But financial success alone doesn't make for a "great" band.
Some bands even got too commercial, like Genesis, which made some critics say that they weren't as good as the "old" Genesis. I think that's nonsense, because they were just different.
Sometimes I wish I could go back to the eighties, just because of the music! But then I remember re-winding the tape on my walkman, dealing with recalcitrant VHS tapes and fax machines, seeing neon-coloured clothes and smelling hairspray all over the place... :lol
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
Agree.
But honestly I can't think of many 80s _bands_ that were in the same league. There were a few superstars, Prince, Madonna, Jackson etc. And then there there were the great bands from the 70s that were still around, but some had split or reformed or whatever. In terms of bands, I think it was mainly Genesis (without Peter Gabriel), Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters) and the Police (split), at that level of success.
DS kept going, they appealed to a wider "pop" audience and to the music enthusiasts and guitar nerds, people of any age and class.
I read somewhere that almost every British household had a copy of BIA at the time. Quite a phenomenon, considering that MK never wanted to be a rock star. :lol
I know Dusty Springfield will hate me for saying this, but if you crank numbers DS was not the biggest band in the world at any point in time, it wasn't even the biggest band in the UK ;D
With respect, I was there, BiA was EVERYWHERE.
But please, crank the numbers and tell me which band was bigger than DS in 1985.
-
"seeing neon-coloured clothes"
But Money For Nothing video was and is fantastic :)
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
Agree.
But honestly I can't think of many 80s _bands_ that were in the same league. There were a few superstars, Prince, Madonna, Jackson etc. And then there there were the great bands from the 70s that were still around, but some had split or reformed or whatever. In terms of bands, I think it was mainly Genesis (without Peter Gabriel), Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters) and the Police (split), at that level of success.
DS kept going, they appealed to a wider "pop" audience and to the music enthusiasts and guitar nerds, people of any age and class.
I read somewhere that almost every British household had a copy of BIA at the time. Quite a phenomenon, considering that MK never wanted to be a rock star. :lol
I know Dusty Springfield will hate me for saying this, but if you crank numbers DS was not the biggest band in the world at any point in time, it wasn't even the biggest band in the UK ;D
With respect, I was there, BiA was EVERYWHERE.
But please, crank the numbers and tell me which band was bigger than DS in 1985.
None. Everyone wanted to see them.
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
Agree.
But honestly I can't think of many 80s _bands_ that were in the same league. There were a few superstars, Prince, Madonna, Jackson etc. And then there there were the great bands from the 70s that were still around, but some had split or reformed or whatever. In terms of bands, I think it was mainly Genesis (without Peter Gabriel), Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters) and the Police (split), at that level of success.
DS kept going, they appealed to a wider "pop" audience and to the music enthusiasts and guitar nerds, people of any age and class.
I read somewhere that almost every British household had a copy of BIA at the time. Quite a phenomenon, considering that MK never wanted to be a rock star. :lol
I know Dusty Springfield will hate me for saying this, but if you crank numbers DS was not the biggest band in the world at any point in time, it wasn't even the biggest band in the UK ;D
With respect, I was there, BiA was EVERYWHERE.
But please, crank the numbers and tell me which band was bigger than DS in 1985.
None. Everyone wanted to see them.
Haha! Well, I guess I'm just terribly inclined to diminish everybody's success, whether mine (especially) or someone else's. If you say so, then that's true!
I can imagine Brothers In Arms coming "from every iron" as we say in Russia, though Mark always says they simply got lucky with being at the right place at the right time, the boom of CD, the boom of MTV, technology, having great punchy singles, all that. I think it's at least partly true and they really got lucky there.
Sure the songs were strong and iconic, but again I don't think it's as ubiquitous as many of the bands mentioned here. And speaking of punchy singles, most fans of "Money For Nothing" I encountered in my life listen to the drums intro, then the guitar riff and turn off the song.
-
There are different measures of success. The basic question is: what is success? It's certainly a complex and long topic, but I think history has shown that in the mid-80s, Dire Straits band was big and very successful. It's a fact. There is no dispute between enthusiasts and critics of Dire Straits here.
-
There the original topic goes...
LE
-
By the mid 80's Dire Straits were HUGE which is amazing because they started as a pub rock band, playing to a handful of people. The argument of saying they were the biggest band in the world is that Bob Geldof asked them to headline Live Aid, and they couldn't do that because they were in the middle of one of the biggest ever tours by any band, touring one of the biggest selling albums ever, an album that is still in the top 10 best selling albums ever in the UK ahead of Michael Jackson's Bad and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of The Moon :o and 25th best selling album of all time in the world, quite a feat.
-
While doing some rechearch last night, I was astonished about pretty bad early reviews about Brothers in Arms:
Scource is Wikipedia again:
Initial reviews of Brothers in Arms from the UK music press in 1985 were generally negative. In a scathing review for NME, Mat Snow criticised Knopfler's "mawkish self-pity, his lugubriously mannered appropriation of rockin' Americana, his thumpingly crass attempts at wit". He also accused the album of the "tritest would-be melodies in history, the last word in tranquilising chord changes, the most cloying lonesome playing and ultimate in transparently fake troubador sentiment ever to ooze out of a million-dollar recording studio".[40] Eleanor Levy of Record Mirror dismissed the "West Coast guitars reeking of mega bucks and sell out stadium concerts throughout the globe. Laid back melodies. Dire Straits – summed up... This is like any other Dire Straits album quarried out of the tottering edifice of MOR rock."[37]
The reviews from other UK music papers were less harsh, with Jack Barron of Sounds feeling that "it's only a halfway decent album because it has only halfway decent songs... Knopfler has distilled his sonic essence, via blues, to appeal to billboard romantics with cinemascope insecurities. And he can pull it off well... but not often enough here."[38] Melody Maker's Barry McIlheney observed that Knopfler had recently explored different creative directions with his work on movie soundtracks and on Bob Dylan's Infidels, and bemoaned that "this admirable spirit of adventure fails to materialise... Instead it sounds just a bit too like the last Dire Straits album, which sounded not unlike the last one before that, which sounded suspiciously like the beginning of a hugely successful and very lucrative plan to take over the world known as AOR". He concluded, "the old rockschool restraints and the undeniably attractive smell of the winning formula seem to block out any such experimental work and what you end up with is something very like the same old story".
LE
-
While doing some rechearch last night, I was astonished about pretty bad early reviews about Brothers in Arms:
Scource is Wikipedia again:
Initial reviews of Brothers in Arms from the UK music press in 1985 were generally negative. In a scathing review for NME, Mat Snow criticised Knopfler's "mawkish self-pity, his lugubriously mannered appropriation of rockin' Americana, his thumpingly crass attempts at wit". He also accused the album of the "tritest would-be melodies in history, the last word in tranquilising chord changes, the most cloying lonesome playing and ultimate in transparently fake troubador sentiment ever to ooze out of a million-dollar recording studio".[40] Eleanor Levy of Record Mirror dismissed the "West Coast guitars reeking of mega bucks and sell out stadium concerts throughout the globe. Laid back melodies. Dire Straits – summed up... This is like any other Dire Straits album quarried out of the tottering edifice of MOR rock."[37]
The reviews from other UK music papers were less harsh, with Jack Barron of Sounds feeling that "it's only a halfway decent album because it has only halfway decent songs... Knopfler has distilled his sonic essence, via blues, to appeal to billboard romantics with cinemascope insecurities. And he can pull it off well... but not often enough here."[38] Melody Maker's Barry McIlheney observed that Knopfler had recently explored different creative directions with his work on movie soundtracks and on Bob Dylan's Infidels, and bemoaned that "this admirable spirit of adventure fails to materialise... Instead it sounds just a bit too like the last Dire Straits album, which sounded not unlike the last one before that, which sounded suspiciously like the beginning of a hugely successful and very lucrative plan to take over the world known as AOR". He concluded, "the old rockschool restraints and the undeniably attractive smell of the winning formula seem to block out any such experimental work and what you end up with is something very like the same old story".
LE
A lot of the great classical composers had the same poor reviews at first. ;)
-
:lol :lol
-
There the original topic goes...
LE
Well, that's what happens if you start a Dylan thread in an MK forum! :lol
-
On reviews, DS were always "uncool" in the UK, especially with snobby music writers. The NME review is particularly irrelevant, they were an "indie" paper. They would have been giving 5 star reviews to The Smiths at the time along with lots of bands that never got anywhere.
-
I do however understand how a young person (live Pavel!) could look from today's viewpoint and be unable to comprehend how DS could possibly have been the biggest band in the world.
It goes back to something that I started a thread about a while back, the fact that there has been no attempt to preserve DS's legacy.
So while The Beatles, The Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Queen etc are all kept in the public consciousness, DS is allowed to be forgotten.
But in 85 they were the biggest thing going. As MK said, luck had something to do with it, but more in the sense that they were "lucky" to have some great songs that resonated with people. You could say that others around the same time were similarly "lucky", like Michael Jackson, Prince and Madonna.
I do however think the CD thing is overstated. Yes, I'm sure BiA played a big role in getting CDs going as a great demonstration tool, but very few people had a CD player in 1985. They were too expensive. I didn't know anyone who had a CD player then.
Apparently CD sales overtook vinyl in 1988 and tapes in 1981. That sounds about right to me.
"Older" AMITers, when did you get your first CD player? It was 1991 for me.
-
It was 1991 for me too - when OES was released.
-
I am 53, I was 14 when I discovered Dire Straits via BiA. I had the vinyl but a friend had borrowed (really!) a CD Player for a weekend at the end of 1985 and I was totally WOWED! from hearing all these longer versions, especially Why Worry and the intro of Your Latest Trick which was of course not on the vinyl.
I bought my first CD Player in 1990 as part of a proper hifi setup after saving the first couple of wages I got when start an apprenticeship after leaving school. As there was always at least one friend who had a CD Player the usual way was lending CDs (which was possible at our local Video Shops with a really broad variety) and copying them to tape. Vinyl was no option anymore although I still bought some for collecting or copying.
I think the important thing was that BIA had longer and better versions of four songs. If it would be just the same recording I guess it would have not have had such an impact. It made the vinyl look old and the CD being the real thing.
LE
-
I loved to go to the video shop with a friend, choosing five or six CDs over the weekend, meet at his place, have a tea or a drink, and listen to the albums WHILE recording on tape and have a deep talk about the music, the band and everything related. Download as a term had not arrived in our world yet. Good times!
TDK-SA 90 anyone? ;D
LE
-
There the original topic goes...
LE
Well, that's what happens if you start a Dylan thread in an MK forum! :lol
Admins could potentially move the discussion to the "biggest band in the world" thread, seems like a pretty interesting topic to me.
I think those "labels" like "King of the High Cs" for Pavarotti, or "King of Pop" for you know who, or "King of Blues" for you know who is simple marketing. Every other band seems to be the biggest band in the world just like every new iPhone is "the best iPhone we ever made" or Guy saying "it's the best album" for any new album.
Every time I hear that DS were the biggest band in the world I say to myself, "Yeah, this band people barely know about". In my school, I was the only one who knew this band. Granted, it was a school in Russia, but ALL the big boys from AC/DC to Genesis, to Queen and Stones, were known and beloved even in this middle of nowhere.
I do however understand how a young person (live Pavel!) could look from today's viewpoint and be unable to comprehend how DS could possibly have been the biggest band in the world.
So yes, Dusty is right, that I seem to appreciate the level of DS's legacy from today's viewpoint, by today I mean from the mid-2000s, and it's obviously anything but the biggest.
-
On reviews, DS were always "uncool" in the UK, especially with snobby music writers. The NME review is particularly irrelevant, they were an "indie" paper. They would have been giving 5 star reviews to The Smiths at the time along with lots of bands that never got anywhere.
Reviews/praise/success/commercial failure is another funny topic. I think when something is "uncool" upon release, receives mixed reviews and then becomes a classic or receives a cult following, I think it's the definition of being ahead of your time.
Brothers in Arms is famously very non-80s, the title track sounds like it could've been released today — no cheezy keyboards, no stupid drum machines or gated reverb, just marvellous, almost classical music and timeless guitar playing.
-
On reviews, DS were always "uncool" in the UK, especially with snobby music writers. The NME review is particularly irrelevant, they were an "indie" paper. They would have been giving 5 star reviews to The Smiths at the time along with lots of bands that never got anywhere.
Reviews/praise/success/commercial failure is another funny topic. I think when something is "uncool" upon release, receives mixed reviews and then becomes a classic or receives a cult following, I think it's the definition of being ahead of your time.
Brothers in Arms is famously very non-80s, the title track sounds like it could've been released today — no cheezy keyboards, no stupid drum machines or gated reverb, just marvellous, almost classical music and timeless guitar playing.
Brothers in Arms is one of the biggest selling albums ever released, it most definitely a cult classic. People bought it despite the poor reviews.
And I disagree in the main about it being non 80s, the title track maybe but the rest of the album sounds very dated now.
-
So yes, Dusty is right, that I seem to appreciate the level of DS's legacy from today's viewpoint, by today I mean from the mid-2000s, and it's obviously anything but the biggest.
Nobody in their right mind would try to claim that Ds are the biggest band in the world today. But for a brief period, 85/86, they were.
-
"Older" AMITers, when did you get your first CD player? It was 1991 for me.
1985. I still have it and it's still working like an old Land Rover. :)
-
"Older" AMITers, when did you get your first CD player? It was 1991 for me.
1985. I still have and it's still working like an old Land Rover. :)
Show off :)
That is impressive, often the lasers go.
-
My horrible step-dad bought a really good Pioneer CD system around 1988 which was great, and he bought 3 albums on CD that changed my musical world, The Dark Side of The Moon, Tubular Bells and Brothers in Arms, they are sounded great on CD and particularly good on a system with great speakers, I bought my own serious system around 1991 when I first started earning a wage, it was also a Pioneer, and it had a 6 CD changer, which meant I could keep my new copy of On Every Street always ready to go on random play with other music. I am one of the dying breed that still own a CD system, and it is fantastic, I always buy CD's and will continue to do so as long as they are available to buy.
-
"...I am one of the dying breed that still own a CD system, and it is fantastic, I always buy CD's and will continue to do so as long as they are available to buy"
:thumbsup
Me too :)
-
"...I am one of the dying breed that still own a CD system, and it is fantastic, I always buy CD's and will continue to do so as long as they are available to buy"
:thumbsup
Me too :)
Same. Just opening the jewel case of a new MK record and holding the booklet in your hands is a special moment. Then press play and listen to the whole album :-)
-
"...I am one of the dying breed that still own a CD system, and it is fantastic, I always buy CD's and will continue to do so as long as they are available to buy"
:thumbsup
Me too :)
Same. Just opening the jewel case of a new MK record and holding the booklet in your hands is a special moment. Then press play and listen to the whole album :-)
Exactly! It's always an exciting moment:)
-
I’m a fan but I’m also a realist.
Dire Straits are my favourite band but I would never try to argue that they were the greatest band ever.
I was wondering why you were reluctant to call MK a "master". I thought you were referring to his abilities as a songwriter and musician. Not about how "big" his band was. I have zero interest in that. Big doesn't equal good, just like some NME-overhyped small band isn't necessarily good.
-
And back to the fantastic sound of Dylan's latest albums. I'm not sure it's really the studio that is to praise or to blame (although I agree that Shangri-La sounds great). I guess Dylan's team could record a fantastic-sounding album in British Grove. I'm not sure what they do differently, but they've definitely been on to something from Oh Mercy onwards. Production geniuses like Blake Mills or Daniel Lanois certainly played a role, but my favourite in terms of sound is Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Mark's albums still sound much better than most other artists, but I agree that they don't sound as great as Dylan's.
-
"...Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Producer: Jack Frost. Dylan's pseudonym:)
-
And back to the fantastic sound of Dylan's latest albums. I'm not sure it's really the studio that is to praise or to blame (although I agree that Shangri-La sounds great). I guess Dylan's team could record a fantastic-sounding album in British Grove. I'm not sure what they do differently, but they've definitely been on to something from Oh Mercy onwards. Production geniuses like Blake Mills or Daniel Lanois certainly played a role, but my favourite in terms of sound is Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Mark's albums still sound much better than most other artists, but I agree that they don't sound as great as Dylan's.
I think there's a certain romanticism to having all these old and historic analogue mixing desks and other bits and bobs, and if that tickles his fancy then good for him. As a layman I don't understand how it brings any benefits to sound quality when other records have sounded so good without such pieces of equipment. I also don't understand why they want recordings to sound like albums recorded in the 1960s. Surely we've come a long way since then in terms of fidelity. They can boast about it all they like but I think BG is just a musos playground and that's why the records take so long to cut in there.
-
I couldn't agree more!
Yes, I can certainly see the need for authentic old instruments and amps, but what's the point of recording on tape and then mixing it digitally, unless you deliberately want the background noise for some 1940s-style jazz recording? And even that can probably be generated "on top" in the mix afterwards.
Maybe it's really just a nostalgia thing, like driving a vintage car. It's just the thrill of having the real thing, even if it's uncomfortable as hell, costs a lot of money and keeps breaking down all the time. 🤣
-
I couldn't agree more!
Yes, I can certainly see the need for authentic old instruments and amps, but what's the point of recording on tape and then mixing it digitally, unless you deliberately want the background noise for some 1940s-style jazz recording? And even that can probably be generated "on top" in the mix afterwards.
Maybe it's really just a nostalgia thing, like driving a vintage car. It's just the thrill of having the real thing, even if it's uncomfortable as hell, costs a lot of money and keeps breaking down all the time. 🤣
Recording on tape is mainly used for bass and drums section to get a recording with more punch. It is certainly not done to get background noises. (However, they achieve that with using GZ Media for pressing their vinyls..)
LE
-
I couldn't agree more!
Yes, I can certainly see the need for authentic old instruments and amps, but what's the point of recording on tape and then mixing it digitally, unless you deliberately want the background noise for some 1940s-style jazz recording? And even that can probably be generated "on top" in the mix afterwards.
Maybe it's really just a nostalgia thing, like driving a vintage car. It's just the thrill of having the real thing, even if it's uncomfortable as hell, costs a lot of money and keeps breaking down all the time. 🤣
Recording on tape is mainly used for bass and drums section to get a recording with more punch. It is certainly not done to get background noises. (However, they achieve that with using GZ Media for pressing their vinyls..)
LE
Hey, they made that one specially for you! :lol
Ok, I didn't know that. Why would you get more punch with a tape?
-
I’m a fan but I’m also a realist.
Dire Straits are my favourite band but I would never try to argue that they were the greatest band ever.
I was wondering why you were reluctant to call MK a "master". I thought you were referring to his abilities as a songwriter and musician. Not about how "big" his band was. I have zero interest in that. Big doesn't equal good, just like some NME-overhyped small band isn't necessarily good.
I was talking about MK as a songwriter, not about record sales.
He is (was) a master of the guitar.
But for songwriting, no. There’s a top tier, Dylan, McCartney, Simon, the guys from ABBA, Bacharach and David. MK’s not on the top tier for me.
Funnily enough, the Nile Rodgers ep of MK’s and BJ was on tv last night. MK called him the funkmeister and Nile said that no, he was still an apprentice. Nile gets it. :)
-
Carole King, Joni Mitchell? But I agree.
LE
-
Carole King, Joni Mitchell? But I agree.
LE
But for songwriting, no. There’s a top tier, Dylan, McCartney, Simon, the guys from ABBA, Bacharach and David. MK’s not on the top tier for me.
Man, I miss the times when songs were written by groups of people and performed by others. I think we need to define what a "songwriter" is first. A songwriter is a person who writes songs, and a song consists of melody, lyrics (poetry) and music (arrangement) for the performing of said song, which in older days was all done by different people.
If we assign points to every "all-inclusive" songwriter, we'll see how Dylan is definitely a better poet than all the rest, McCartney is a better singer and melodist, and ABBA guys are the masters of hooks and arrangement, though you can hardly give them the Nobel prize in literature, just like Dylan is not somebody I'd say is a virtuoso musician.
The strength of Mark is that he's good at literally everything: his lyrics are interesting, full of wit and wisecracks, deep and melodic, and most importantly — memorable. Not Nobel prize worthy, but worthy of analysis by smart people and singing in the shower, which is good enough in my book.
He's got plenty of decent melodies that suit his lyrics perfectly. Not to the level of the best melodists out there, not even close, but you gotta love songs like "A Night In Summer Long Ago" and other melodic material from Mark.
His arrangement skills are top-notch because it's hard to come up with covers for his songs and not make it worse. After all, he tried everything to come up with the best arrangement, best instrumentation and singer choices for his songs and there are not a lot of covers because it's really difficult to make it better or even different.
And then he tops it all off with virtuoso chops, the second voice, a secret weapon and language everybody understands — guitar licks and improvisation, tasteful solos and intricate rhythm work. Again, not on the level of the best out there, though enough to worry about (ask me how I know).
Then there's singing, producing, recording, casting musicians, stage presence, commercial success, writer's block, and a plethora of nuances where MK gets high points across the board.
If you combine ALL this, then Mark is not only in the top tier of songwriters, but in my humble opinion, might rightfully be on the very top of it as an ultimate "whole package" musician, which is proven by universal admiration of his work, praise from peers, commercial success and the existence of this very forum.
-
worthy of analysis by smart people
This would be the criteria that would interest me least. Besides, where are these smart people who are analysing his songs? Seems to me it's just us. ;)
-
Vintage gear....
By and large most vintage gear still being used is the cream of what was originally available. To be still used it has stood the test of time.
Vintage instruments have the most impact on the player, not the listener. I have a 1960's Camco drum set. It sounds bigger, warmer than any modern drum set. By the time it's been recorded, mixed, mastered into digital it doesn't sound much different to modern drums, BUT, it impacts the way I play on the original performance and it is quicker to get sounding great, rather than having to tinker with modern drum, add fx etc...
I have recorded drums through an original EMI console (like the one Mark owns). I was gobsmacked. My drums sounded huge, larger than life, without any other fx being added. Again, by the time it's processed during the album making, mastered etc, the differences are hard to hear.
But WHY wouldn't you start with the best ingredients when cooking a meal?
By the way, CDs still sell very well around the globe. More than vinyl. CDs are less popular than streaming, but as far as owning physical product, CDs are still top of the heap.
-
worthy of analysis by smart people
This would be the criteria that would interest me least. Besides, where are these smart people who are analysing his songs? Seems to me it's just us. ;)
I know a lot of fans who are not on this forum, and they are digging deep into Mark's lyrics, learning new words (being native English speakers themselves), finding easter eggs and references all the time, and can recite entire paragraphs from memory. Heck, I learned the lyrics of "Mr Solomons Said" just by ear because the word choice by Mark is so great and memorable. And that's a brand new song that just came out, after 50 years of continuous songwriting. Call me a fanboy, but boy, this Knopfler guy doesn't mess around.
-
Vintage gear....
By and large most vintage gear still being used is the cream of what was originally available. To be still used it has stood the test of time.
Vintage instruments have the most impact on the player, not the listener. I have a 1960's Camco drum set. It sounds bigger, warmer than any modern drum set. By the time it's been recorded, mixed, mastered into digital it doesn't sound much different to modern drums, BUT, it impacts the way I play on the original performance and it is quicker to get sounding great, rather than having to tinker with modern drum, add fx etc...
I often wondered why MK would cart his 1958 Les Paul (that he could probably sell for £1 million) around the world, and I guess this is the reason.
-
Vintage gear....
By and large most vintage gear still being used is the cream of what was originally available. To be still used it has stood the test of time.
Vintage instruments have the most impact on the player, not the listener. I have a 1960's Camco drum set. It sounds bigger, warmer than any modern drum set. By the time it's been recorded, mixed, mastered into digital it doesn't sound much different to modern drums, BUT, it impacts the way I play on the original performance and it is quicker to get sounding great, rather than having to tinker with modern drum, add fx etc...
I often wondered why MK would cart his 1958 Les Paul (that he could probably sell for £1 million) around the world, and I guess this is the reason.
"Vintage instruments have the most impact on the player, not the listener", — that's very well said, Chris. All over YouTube one can find comparisons between vintage gear and new gear, and you need to pretend or be a some kind of a genius to tell the difference. I would also argue how well-played instrument is also crucial. You can have Vintage Old Stock guitar that's been sitting on the shelf for decades, or a well-played modern guitar and guess what I would prefer. A vintage guitar that's never been played is one of the saddest pictures you can see, almost insulting.
-
"Vintage Old Stock" lol, I'm sorry for the poor choice of words, but I think you know what I mean. That's why everybody hates collectors if what they are collecting is something that's supposed to be used, whether it's cars or musical instruments it doesn't matter.
-
worthy of analysis by smart people
This would be the criteria that would interest me least. Besides, where are these smart people who are analysing his songs? Seems to me it's just us. ;)
I know a lot of fans who are not on this forum, and they are digging deep into Mark's lyrics, learning new words (being native English speakers themselves), finding easter eggs and references all the time, and can recite entire paragraphs from memory. Heck, I learned the lyrics of "Mr Solomons Said" just by ear because the word choice by Mark is so great and memorable. And that's a brand new song that just came out, after 50 years of continuous songwriting. Call me a fanboy, but boy, this Knopfler guy doesn't mess around.
Mr Solomons Said - amazing. Is this your favorite song?
-
worthy of analysis by smart people
This would be the criteria that would interest me least. Besides, where are these smart people who are analysing his songs? Seems to me it's just us. ;)
I know a lot of fans who are not on this forum, and they are digging deep into Mark's lyrics, learning new words (being native English speakers themselves), finding easter eggs and references all the time, and can recite entire paragraphs from memory. Heck, I learned the lyrics of "Mr Solomons Said" just by ear because the word choice by Mark is so great and memorable. And that's a brand new song that just came out, after 50 years of continuous songwriting. Call me a fanboy, but boy, this Knopfler guy doesn't mess around.
Mr Solomons Said - amazing. Is this your favorite song?
Yes, it's my favourite from 24 newly released songs and it's a pity it's not on the main album as it's going to be underappreciated by default. It also happens to be the biggest, longest and most experimental new song too. With so many words and so many changes, it reminds me of the fact that's the same guy who wrote "Telegraph Road" and "Private Investigations".
I probably like the "Bonus Tracks" album more than the main album anyway. Crazy release strategy is not Mark's strong point that's for sure ;D
-
The Boy EP should be released on CD.
"I probably like the "Bonus Tracks" album more than the main album anyway. Crazy release strategy is not Mark's strong point that's for sure"
Do you mean the 5 bonus songs from the CD set or the 4 bonus songs from the vinyl version?
-
"...Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Producer: Jack Frost. Dylan's pseudonym:)
I know, of course. But Dylan himself has no idea about how to make an album sound good. He must have genius engineers on board.
-
"...Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Producer: Jack Frost. Dylan's pseudonym:)
I know, of course. But Dylan himself has no idea about how to make an album sound good. He must have genius engineers on board.
That seems like an odd assumption to make. He's been making very good sounding albums for a long time now.
-
"...Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Producer: Jack Frost. Dylan's pseudonym:)
I know, of course. But Dylan himself has no idea about how to make an album sound good. He must have genius engineers on board.
That seems like an odd assumption to make. He's been making very good sounding albums for a long time now.
I don't want to be unfair (and I admire Bob Dylan), but I think it's fair to say that he's made quite a number of sub-standard records in terms of sound. My assumption is that he just can't be bothered with the technical aspects of production. That used to be a problem occasionally, when he worked with the wrong people or followed the wrong trends. (Under the Red Sky, for instance, is such a disappointment after the brilliant Oh Mercy). But he seems to have found a team, certainly from Time out of Mind onwards, that has a knack for making his unique voice and the low-tech music sound gorgeous.
Oh, and while I often agree with you, Dusty, I SO disagree about Mark's songwriting skills that I won't even begin to argue. The people you mention are (or were, in cases like McCartney) great, of course, but Mark's mix of talents (as listed by Quizzy) and what results from it is almost peerless, in my opinion.
-
Compared to the names Dusty listed, MK as a songwriter is irrelevant, sorry to say and speaking as a long time fan.
You can see it by the ratio of men and women at concert audiences by the way. Men don't go to concerts because of good songwriting. If you would ask the people at the shows, I would assume that 90% would say stuff like "Dire Straits (not MK) were just great, great times in our youth, great guitarist, they love the weed aspect of DS 70's music and the cool times. No one apart from first row amiters would say stuff like Quizzy about song structure, meaning of lyrics ("... yeeeeah, Romeo and Juliet, Ding da-ding, la la la") . Ask random song titles (Madame Geneva anyone? Sucker Row?) and you will see shrugged shoulders.
Freddie Mecury and even John Deacon are more relevant as songwriters than MK. It's a total niche musician and it is exactly that's what he wanted. It's only hard for fans to accept.
LE
-
Note that all around always stress out how "prolific" he is
That's mainly about the numbers of songs, not the quality. It's not enough to write about anything that crosses your path or cranks your traktor like books, overheard remarks and stuff. It has to be applicable for the audience in one way or the other.
LE
-
Take the lyrics from One Song At The Time. How much knowledge about MK's personal life, his career and the historical background do you need to understand it? Is that really good songwriting? It might be well crafted and eloquent, but is it really relevant or applicable to most of the listeners?
LE
-
Compared to the names Dusty listed, MK as a songwriter is irrelevant, sorry to say and speaking as a long time fan.
You can see it by the ratio of men and women at concert audiences by the way. Men don't go to concerts because of good songwriting. If you would ask the people at the shows, I would assume that 90% would say stuff like "Dire Straits were just great, great times in our youth, great guitarist, they love the weed aspect of DS 70's music and the cool times. No one apart from first row amiters would say stuff like Quizzy about song structure, meaning of lyrics ("... yeeeeah, Romeo and Juliet, Ding da-ding, la la la") . Ask random song titles (Madame Geneva anyone? Sucker Row?) and you will see shrugged shoulders.
Freddie Mecury and even John Deacon are more relevant as songwriters than MK. It's a total niche musician and it is exactly that's what he wanted. It's only hard for fans to accept.
LE
HA!
Well said.
I remember when MK has just released Shangri-la or KTGC, innumerous critiques about MK's recent songwritting popped on Guy's forum.
People said things like:
Next MK album already have the song titles such as "Squeeze the Lemon", "Hit your brakes" and "I Forgot the Car Keys"
Most of the "rock" public are interested in great vocals, intense drumming, guitar solos and simple lyrics.
Just one sentence can turn a simple song into a novel.
It's a total niche musician and it is exactly that's what he wanted. It's only hard for fans to accept.
100% agreed.
Take the lyrics from One Song At The Time. How much knowledge about MK's personal life, his career and the historical background do you need to understand it? Is that really good songwriting? It might be well crafted and eloquent, but is it really relevant or applicable to most of the listeners?
LE
You nailed it
-
Well, relevant to whom, and for what? The music, the lyrics, the guitar, the emotions, the performances? There are so many aspects to songwriting, and you cannot separate it from the records and performances in this case.
Not sure about "niche music". That's not how you sell millions of records and 10,000-seats venues, as he did on virtually every tour since STP.
His name (not only DS!) is well known even to non-music fans, casual radio audiences. And that's certainly not doen to excessive marketing ;-)
Re "men don't listen to lyrics" - I know many men who do, and some women who don't. It's maybe more a question of formal education, language skills or personal interest.
As far his relevance as a songwriter is concerned, that's difficult. We all agree that Dylan is probably the most relevant songwriter in history, but how many titles (or even songs) do people actually know? Blowin' In the Wind, and most people won't even know it's a Bob song. Same goes for Cohen, Springsteen, Lennon/McCartney, Queen and all the others.
Re quality: same problem. All of the above artists have produced absolute gems at some point in their careers, but that doesn't mean they only produced top-notch poetry all the way through. "Obladi-oblada", "I'll be your baby tonight", "We will, we will rock you"...
It's an endless story. I think the question at the end of the day is what will people (men, women and smally furry creatures from Alpha Centauri) be listening to, what songs will be remembered, in 50 or a 100 years' time? We may not be here to see it, but my guess is that there will be a few MK/DS songs, and a few songs by all the other big names. That's my hope, anyway.
-
As an afterthought, there is another indicator for relevance (apart from the praise of your peers, which he has got in abundance), and that is whether people will cover your songs.
This hasn't happened a lot yet, and many times he was involved in the recordings, so they're collaborations rather than covers.
My theory on why it's not happening a lot is not because the songs are bad or irrelevant, but simply because the guitar work is so out of this world that you can't possibly interpret it, make it your own in some way. BIA by Sinead O'Connor was maybe an exception, and there are 2 or 3 others, but in many songs it's the combination of the guitar and the vocals that is simply unique.
Same problem with Pink Floyd, Santana and the Eagles: you may copy the songs, and it might sound good, but you can't turn them into your own artistic creation, because the original just sits there like Mt Everest in the background.
-
BIA by Sinead O'Connor? I haven't heard.
-
BIA by Sinead O'Connor? I haven't heard.
Probably he meant Joan Baez. Her version of "Brothers In Arms" is surreal since it completely lacks any guitar solos. It just doesn't make sense to me, it's like covering a song that's famous for harmonies and taking one voice out. It does sound fresh and people who couldn't care less about guitar love it, I'm obviously not a fan though. Gotta have at least some solos in Brothers.
-
...but in many songs it's the combination of the guitar and the vocals that is simply unique.
Yes.
Funny because "feels wrong" when I see a band playing DS with a vocalist aparted to a guitar player.
Innovations or interpretations on covering DS song is dangerous.
The character of MK is the main reason that i fell that DS will almost desappear in 20 years. Just because is so unique.
-
Note that all around always stress out how "prolific" he is
That's mainly about the numbers of songs, not the quality. It's not enough to write about anything that crosses your path or cranks your traktor like books, overheard remarks and stuff. It has to be applicable for the audience in one way or the other.
LE
I really don't know, man. I remember Bob Dylan coming to Russia with a show and it was some kind of a disaster... The majority of people here simply don't speak English and don't understand the lyrics that much, and without lyrics Bob is absolutely irrelevant I'm afraid. It's like watching a dubbed movie in a foreign country and trying to understand what's happening.
On the other hand, Mark toured Russia in 2001, 2005, and 2008 and cancelled his shows in 2013 (I'm sure he'd play there more if politics allowed) and had a success. His music is more universal, besides, as I've said he's a guitar player which brings another dimension to the audience. In fact, I first came to his show to hear a guitar player, not a songwriter.
What about these legendary artists with "first album of original material" in 10, 20 years? I usually listen to them once and say "meh". Mark, on the other hand, will always produce a song that you will love, doesn't matter if it's about goulash, a quality shoe or a crime, and it will be original. What about Sir Van Morrison? I don't know what happened to him, but he seems to produce 5 records a year and they are full of covers.
-
...but in many songs it's the combination of the guitar and the vocals that is simply unique.
Yes.
Funny because "feels wrong" when I see a band playing DS with a vocalist aparted to a guitar player.
Innovations or interpretations on covering DS song is dangerous.
The character of MK is the main reason that i fell that DS will almost desappear in 20 years. Just because is so unique.
I like how you said it's dangerous to cover a DS song. That's exactly a testament to the quality of the songs. Whenever you hear a cover of Mark's song, it is almost destined to have at least something that's out, especially something that doesn't have anything to do with singing and guitar playing, as people will concentrate on that. But what fails is all the rest, which requires unworldly attention to detail and an astronomical amount of taste.
I think uniqueness beats uniqueness in this case and the only chance to cover Mark's song properly is to be a unique and established artist yourself and do it in a completely different style than Mark's, or else it's way easier just to ((((attempt)))) to repeat what he's already done. And tribute bands have a hell of a bar trying to achieve, gotta respect those guys.
Speaking of disappearing, it's safe to say Mark has composed many songs that will never die, and as long as these songs are alive, there will always be a new audience discovering deep cuts as well, so I can't see DS fading into obscurity any time soon. Less popular, yes, like anything, but this band's legacy is written in stone like "Tunnel Of Love" lyrics in Newcastle.
-
In the 80s, it was often said that Dire Straits was the biggest band in the world. I know, it's a journalistic slogan. But I buy it and I always liked these words. :)
Agree.
But honestly I can't think of many 80s _bands_ that were in the same league. There were a few superstars, Prince, Madonna, Jackson etc. And then there there were the great bands from the 70s that were still around, but some had split or reformed or whatever. In terms of bands, I think it was mainly Genesis (without Peter Gabriel), Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters) and the Police (split), at that level of success.
DS kept going, they appealed to a wider "pop" audience and to the music enthusiasts and guitar nerds, people of any age and class.
I read somewhere that almost every British household had a copy of BIA at the time. Quite a phenomenon, considering that MK never wanted to be a rock star. :lol
I know Dusty Springfield will hate me for saying this, but if you crank numbers DS was not the biggest band in the world at any point in time, it wasn't even the biggest band in the UK ;D
With respect, I was there, BiA was EVERYWHERE.
But please, crank the numbers and tell me which band was bigger than DS in 1985.
same here.
-
And back to the fantastic sound of Dylan's latest albums. I'm not sure it's really the studio that is to praise or to blame (although I agree that Shangri-La sounds great). I guess Dylan's team could record a fantastic-sounding album in British Grove. I'm not sure what they do differently, but they've definitely been on to something from Oh Mercy onwards. Production geniuses like Blake Mills or Daniel Lanois certainly played a role, but my favourite in terms of sound is Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Mark's albums still sound much better than most other artists, but I agree that they don't sound as great as Dylan's.
after his last (AWESOME) collab with Lanois he produced ALL his albums himself, ..as JAck Frost
-
And back to the fantastic sound of Dylan's latest albums. I'm not sure it's really the studio that is to praise or to blame (although I agree that Shangri-La sounds great). I guess Dylan's team could record a fantastic-sounding album in British Grove. I'm not sure what they do differently, but they've definitely been on to something from Oh Mercy onwards. Production geniuses like Blake Mills or Daniel Lanois certainly played a role, but my favourite in terms of sound is Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Mark's albums still sound much better than most other artists, but I agree that they don't sound as great as Dylan's.
after his last (AWESOME) collab with Lanois he produced ALL his albums himself, ..as JAck Frost
Why pseudonym? I can of course google it, but interesting to hear a fan's viewpoint.
-
https://talkinbobdylan.blogspot.com/2020/11/producing-bob-dylan.html?m=1
This is a great read.
LE
-
BIA by Sinead O'Connor? I haven't heard.
Probably he meant Joan Baez. Her version of "Brothers In Arms" is surreal since it completely lacks any guitar solos. It just doesn't make sense to me, it's like covering a song that's famous for harmonies and taking one voice out. It does sound fresh and people who couldn't care less about guitar love it, I'm obviously not a fan though. Gotta have at least some solos in Brothers.
Of course it's Joan Baez! Sorry. There's a song called "up in arms" by Sinead O'Connor, but that's got nothing to do with.
I heard it when it came out, and I was shocked and somehow angry. I felt that she had no right to do that to the song ;-) Obviously, I was a stupid teenager, and had no clue who Joan Baez was either! :lol
It's just as Robson said: it's a whole different song without the guitar solos, so the artist created something new and unique. The same thing has happened with many Dylan songs, where the cover versions are far more famous than the more "boring" original (Mighty Quinn, Knocking On Heaven's Door...). A truly great song will stand the test, and become even better, until one day maybe it will turn into a traditional.
-
"It's just as Robson said..."
quizzaciously ;)
And he was probably more critical :)
-
"It's just as Robson said..."
quizzaciously ;)
And he was probably more critical :)
Sorry!
In fact, I don't much like the Baez version either. But she's a great singer, of course.
And she dated Bob Dylan for while, which brings us back to the original topic! ;D
-
"It's just as Robson said..."
quizzaciously ;)
And he was probably more critical :)
Sorry!
In fact, I don't much like the Baez version either. But she's a great singer, of course.
And she dated Bob Dylan for while, which brings us back to the original topic! ;D
A clever combination :thumbsup
-
https://youtu.be/KLO3_ggRnoU?si=fEzUwgqFe4Owa7WX
-
What about these legendary artists with "first album of original material" in 10, 20 years? I usually listen to them once and say "meh". Mark, on the other hand, will always produce a song that you will love, doesn't matter if it's about goulash, a quality shoe or a crime, and it will be original.
Yes, but you, like the rest of us here, are one of an ever dwindling band of MK superfans. For whatever reason, MK‘s music has touched us in a profound way.
People who feel the same way about The Who or whatever will find stuff on their new albums that does the same. The rest of us will just shrug our shoulders. Just as 99% of the population would if you played them Mr Solomon Said.
-
"...Love and Theft, with no famous producer on board. It's a mistery to me ...
Producer: Jack Frost. Dylan's pseudonym:)
I know, of course. But Dylan himself has no idea about how to make an album sound good. He must have genius engineers on board.
That seems like an odd assumption to make. He's been making very good sounding albums for a long time now.
I don't want to be unfair (and I admire Bob Dylan), but I think it's fair to say that he's made quite a number of sub-standard records in terms of sound. My assumption is that he just can't be bothered with the technical aspects of production. That used to be a problem occasionally, when he worked with the wrong people or followed the wrong trends. (Under the Red Sky, for instance, is such a disappointment after the brilliant Oh Mercy). But he seems to have found a team, certainly from Time out of Mind onwards, that has a knack for making his unique voice and the low-tech music sound gorgeous.
Oh, and while I often agree with you, Dusty, I SO disagree about Mark's songwriting skills that I won't even begin to argue. The people you mention are (or were, in cases like McCartney) great, of course, but Mark's mix of talents (as listed by Quizzy) and what results from it is almost peerless, in my opinion.
The fact that Dylan has produced good sounding records for the last 25 years would suggest at some point he was indeed bothered.
-
What about these legendary artists with "first album of original material" in 10, 20 years? I usually listen to them once and say "meh". Mark, on the other hand, will always produce a song that you will love, doesn't matter if it's about goulash, a quality shoe or a crime, and it will be original.
Yes, but you, like the rest of us here, are one of an ever dwindling band of MK superfans. For whatever reason, MK‘s music has touched us in a profound way.
People who feel the same way about The Who or whatever will find stuff on their new albums that does the same. The rest of us will just shrug our shoulders. Just as 99% of the population would if you played them Mr Solomon Said.
Yeah, I would agree should I only listen to Mark's music and nothing else. But I listen to and learn thousands of songs in different languages and still, if say, "Scaffolder's Wife" would appear in my Spotify Weekly playlist and I had no idea it's a song by the guy from Dire Straits, I would add it to my collection instantly. I'm not talking about how enjoyable it is to play and to sing! It's a good song. If people can't find the beauty in this music, it's their problem, not mine.
-
And I miss the flute a bit on the last albums. It sounds great in Scaffolders Wife.
-
People will disagree and fight endlessly over what's good and what's not. I think this is the reason:
What we commonly call "quality" is the product of two factors: Mastery x Appeal.
By "mastery" I mean how hard it is to create something similar without just copying it. Like: How hard is it to write a song like Brothers in Arms or Old Pigweed (one of my favorites). How hard is it to come up with such an idea, the chord sequence, the lyrics, the melody, and to play it that way? How many people would be capable of creating something similar? If the answer is: very hard/not many, then you're dealing with a high level of mastery.
By "appeal" I mean whether people will actually want to consume a work of art. Something can be created with a level of mastery, but most people still don't dig it. Arnold Schönberg's twelve-tone music would be an example. Terribly hard to compose, for sure, but not many will want to listen to it.
The problem of individuals discussing "quality" is that mastery is a rather hard factor (we'll all agree that creating Telegraph Road is harder than creating All My Little Ducklings) – but appeal is not. What appeals to you may not appeal to me, and vice-versa. What appeals to a few die-hard fans may not appeal to the masses, and vice-versa. As soon as you include the appeal factor in your formula, you'll automatically have people disagreeing.
At the same time, you can't just disregard the appeal factor. No one will call Arnold Schönberg the greatest composer of all time. He's just not appealing enough. Nor can you disregard the mastery factor and go by appeal (popularity) alone. If you would, Taylor Swift would be the greatest songwriter.
Most artists we will call "great" score high on both mastery and appeal. If you ask the whole world who the greatest songwriters in pop are, the answer will be Lennon/McCartney. That's the logical result if you combine both their outstanding mastery and outstanding appeal. Taylor Swift will score lower (not enough mastery), Mark Knopfler will score lower, too (not enough appeal). That DOESN'T automatically mean, however, that Knopfler is less of a master. Whether he is depends on his mastery score alone. And that is, in my humble opinion, just as high as Lennon's or McCartney's. I don't think it's easier to come up with a song like Sultans of Swing than it is to come up with She Loves You.
*End of Essay* ;)
-
Very nice essay :) I agree with your opinion.
-
Brilliant! Agree all the way.
There is maybe a third factor, and that is "fame or enigma". It's the result of the media/the press or other influential institutions "endorsing" the artist, which can happen during his or her lifetime, or sometimes a century later, so that people will want to consume their works of art. There are many examples of great artists who died forgotten and in abject poverty (like Mozart), until suddenly someone rediscovers them and starts a big hype around them. Then the appeal factor sets in, and mastery is the basis for it all, of course.
Many rock stars, like Dylan, Elvis and the Beatles, have cultivated this fame/ enigma factor, while MK deliberately chose to step away from it, and just what he's best at. Good on him!
-
I think Robert Plant is in the same category as Mark.
-
Wonderful. So now you have yourself defined an official theory why MK is relevant and everybody's happy :lol :lol
I doubt that Dylan has cultivated anything in terms of fame deliberately, I think it's more the opposite.
And MK just chose to stop rehearse and play guitar as serious as he did the first 25 years of his career somewhere around 2005, so he had to find another "label" instead of guitar hero and he chose the category "songwriter".
LE
-
Wonderful. So now you have yourself defined an official theory why MK is relevant and everybody's happy :lol :lol
I doubt that Dylan has cultivated anything in terms of fame deliberately, I think it's more the opposite.
And MK just chose to stop rehearse and play guitar as serious as he did the first 25 years of his career somewhere around 2005, so he had to find another "label" instead of guitar hero and he chose the category "songwriter".
LE
I don't know if your comment is a response to mine:) I was thinking about something else. Robert Plant also disbanded the band and big money did not change that. He "ran away" withdrew to record other music.
-
Wonderful. So now you have yourself defined an official theory why MK is relevant and everybody's happy :lol :lol
I doubt that Dylan has cultivated anything in terms of fame deliberately, I think it's more the opposite.
And MK just chose to stop rehearse and play guitar as serious as he did the first 25 years of his career somewhere around 2005, so he had to find another "label" instead of guitar hero and he chose the category "songwriter".
LE
Actually I think it explains why he seems less relevant than others of the same format (mastery+appeal).
Dylan, on the other hand, is and will remain relevant mostly because of his early work. Those early songs are set in stone, and they influenced a generation or two.
What you say is right: Dylan does not cultivate fame, but has always tried to escape it. And by doing that, at the height of his success, he created a persona, an enigmatic character that people find fascinating. So, in a way, trying not to be famous made him even more famous.
I'm not sure how many people will actually listen to a new Dylan record - I suspect it's also a tight community of die-hard fans, and some more casual listeners who simply like good rock music. Sure, the Dylan community is rather large, but if you ask a kid if they know Bob Dylan, they'll say: "Bob Who?"
About MK: I meant the end of DS, the megastar-turned-singer/songwriter change that happened in the mid-90s.
-
I don't think it's easier to come up with a song like Sultans of Swing than it is to come up with She Loves You.
yes because you chose these particular examples.
but if you choose Walk of life and a A day in the life.... ::)
or who's your baby now and Penny Lane...
etc....
And I think that there are more "complex" examples of songs in Beatles 'catalog than in Mark's one... :-\
-
The whole debate is more subjective than anything else.
In the end, there is room in culture for multiple 'masters' of popular music.
The acid test is the 'test of time'.
How many of Mark's records will be listened to in 50 years time? In the case of The Beatles, we know it's A LOT.
-
The whole debate is more subjective than anything else.
In the end, there is room in culture for multiple 'masters' of popular music.
The acid test is the 'test of time'.
How many of Mark's records will be listened to in 50 years time? In the case of The Beatles, we know it's A LOT.
Absolutely, it’s all subjective but at the end of the day all any of us can do is express our opinion so it’s fun to discuss.
Sultans of Swing is coming up for 50 years and it still gets played a LOT.
-
The whole debate is more subjective than anything else.
In the end, there is room in culture for multiple 'masters' of popular music.
The acid test is the 'test of time'.
How many of Mark's records will be listened to in 50 years time? In the case of The Beatles, we know it's A LOT.
Absolutely, it’s all subjective but at the end of the day all any of us can do is express our opinion so it’s fun to discuss.
Sultans of Swing is coming up for 50 years and it still gets played a LOT.
The test of time is the ultimate gauge of everything, yes. I'm very positive about my predictions on that as Mark has something I call the "Wait a minute!" factor. It happens when you watch a film, read a book, look at a painting, play a game, whatever it is, and go "Wait a minute!". As in it's so amazing you can't understand how it was made and stop to appreciate the beauty. Not every musician, poet, painter or filmmaker has this quality, but Mark certainly has it in spades. That's the definition of talent to me.
Sultans of Swing regularly (for this kind of song) appear in movies, covers, viral videos, guitar hero games, etc, but that's probably the only Mark's song to receive such acclaim. Mark sometimes genuinely seems like a one-hit wonder as Sultans trumps anything he ever produced or will produce. If I were him, I'd hate this song. You work all your life to never achieve anything bigger than your very first single, it sucks. And Money For Nothing is technically not Mark's song but is "co-written" by Gordon Sumner which is ridiculous.
I liked how it was stated in this thread Bob Dylan is mostly famous for his groundbreaking first efforts too. That's so true. Take this away, and poor Bob would be less famous than even Knopfler.
-
I don't think it's easier to come up with a song like Sultans of Swing than it is to come up with She Loves You.
yes because you chose these particular examples.
but if you choose Walk of life and a A day in the life.... ::)
or who's your baby now and Penny Lane...
etc....
And I think that there are more "complex" examples of songs in Beatles 'catalog than in Mark's one... :-\
I personally think his songwriting took a big dip after the first four albums. From BIA on truly great songs are not in any great supply.
Let's not forget The Beatles had George Martin and will be listened to for more than just their music. They have had so much spoken about them and a controversial member killed which gave them cult-like status. DS didn't even trash hotel bedrooms!
-
The whole debate is more subjective than anything else.
In the end, there is room in culture for multiple 'masters' of popular music.
The acid test is the 'test of time'.
How many of Mark's records will be listened to in 50 years time? In the case of The Beatles, we know it's A LOT.
Absolutely, it’s all subjective but at the end of the day all any of us can do is express our opinion so it’s fun to discuss.
Sultans of Swing is coming up for 50 years and it still gets played a LOT.
The test of time is the ultimate gauge of everything, yes. I'm very positive about my predictions on that as Mark has something I call the "Wait a minute!" factor. It happens when you watch a film, read a book, look at a painting, play a game, whatever it is, and go "Wait a minute!". As in it's so amazing you can't understand how it was made and stop to appreciate the beauty. Not every musician, poet, painter or filmmaker has this quality, but Mark certainly has it in spades. That's the definition of talent to me.
Sultans of Swing regularly (for this kind of song) appear in movies, covers, viral videos, guitar hero games, etc, but that's probably the only Mark's song to receive such acclaim. Mark sometimes genuinely seems like a one-hit wonder as Sultans trumps anything he ever produced or will produce. If I were him, I'd hate this song. You work all your life to never achieve anything bigger than your very first single, it sucks. And Money For Nothing is technically not Mark's song but is "co-written" by Gordon Sumner which is ridiculous.
I liked how it was stated in this thread Bob Dylan is mostly famous for his groundbreaking first efforts too. That's so true. Take this away, and poor Bob would be less famous than even Knopfler.
And Knopfler is mostly famous for Sultans and Money for Nothing. Take these away and poor Mark would be less famous than even John Oates.
As the saying goes, if my aunty had balls, she’d be my uncle.
-
The test of time is the ultimate gauge of everything, yes. I'm very positive about my predictions on that as Mark has something I call the "Wait a minute!" factor. It happens when you watch a film, read a book, look at a painting, play a game, whatever it is, and go "Wait a minute!". As in it's so amazing you can't understand how it was made and stop to appreciate the beauty. Not every musician, poet, painter or filmmaker has this quality, but Mark certainly has it in spades. That's the definition of talent to me.
Sultans of Swing regularly (for this kind of song) appear in movies, covers, viral videos, guitar hero games, etc, but that's probably the only Mark's song to receive such acclaim. Mark sometimes genuinely seems like a one-hit wonder as Sultans trumps anything he ever produced or will produce. If I were him, I'd hate this song. You work all your life to never achieve anything bigger than your very first single, it sucks. And Money For Nothing is technically not Mark's song but is "co-written" by Gordon Sumner which is ridiculous.
I liked how it was stated in this thread Bob Dylan is mostly famous for his groundbreaking first efforts too. That's so true. Take this away, and poor Bob would be less famous than even Knopfler.
I agree that it's probably these 2 songs, and maybe BIA.
One thing that strikes me, though, is how often MK/DS instrumental parts are used in all sorts of tv documentaries, whether it's something about a steam train in India or some village in the Alps.
-
Mark sometimes genuinely seems like a one-hit wonder as Sultans trumps anything he ever produced or will produce.
'Private Dancer' is one of his biggest hits.
'Twisting By The Pool' was a huge hit, which Mark has apparently disowned
-
Let's not forget The Beatles had George Martin and will be listened to for more than just their music. They have had so much spoken about them and a controversial member killed which gave them cult-like status.
I always say The Beatles wrote the book we're all still reading. They were an absolutely remarkable band that transcend just about every body since, including Dire Straits. Two genius song writers in a singe band, and Harrison was no slouch, good enough for most bands.
John and especially Paul came up with a lot of the innovative ideas, George Martin just helped them realise them. In the 60's Paul was hanging out with the movers and shakers in the art scene, so he came up with adding orchestral instruments and using tape loops etc.
The first to embrace commercial merchandising, the first to play large outdoor stadiums.
-
Chris, talking about the Beatles and you being a drummer, please tell us your thoughts about Ringo as a drummer.
Thank you!
LE
-
Let's not forget The Beatles had George Martin and will be listened to for more than just their music. They have had so much spoken about them and a controversial member killed which gave them cult-like status.
I always say The Beatles wrote the book we're all still reading. They were an absolutely remarkable band that transcend just about every body since, including Dire Straits. Two genius song writers in a singe band, and Harrison was no slouch, good enough for most bands.
John and especially Paul came up with a lot of the innovative ideas, George Martin just helped them realise them. In the 60's Paul was hanging out with the movers and shakers in the art scene, so he came up with adding orchestral instruments and using tape loops etc.
The first to embrace commercial merchandising, the first to play large outdoor stadiums.
exactly :thumbsup
-
Sultans of Swing is interesting as it raises the question: What Dire Straits have made it (so quickly) without that song? who knows, it certainly got them noticed and opened many doors, has it been a noose around Mark's neck for his whole career? who knows, does he even still like the song? It makes me think about when Mike Oldfield released Tubular Bells, it catapulted him from an almost obscure session man to huge fame almost overnight, and being so introverted he hated it, he was getting calls from everyone in the music industry for interviews, live appearances etc and it deeply, and negatively affected him. So, take that album away what did he have? he still had the talent, like Mark without Sultans, but, his appeal would have been less with his 2nd album. I think talent mostly wins in the end, and certainly back in the day it was what appealed to record companies more that the artist, to day it is completely the other way around with the amount of self promotion that is available to anyone.
-
Sultans of Swing is interesting as it raises the question: What Dire Straits have made it (so quickly) without that song? who knows, it certainly got them noticed and opened many doors, has it been a noose around Mark's neck for his whole career? who knows, does he even still like the song? It makes me think about when Mike Oldfield released Tubular Bells, it catapulted him from an almost obscure session man to huge fame almost overnight, and being so introverted he hated it, he was getting calls from everyone in the music industry for interviews, live appearances etc and it deeply, and negatively affected him. So, take that album away what did he have? he still had the talent, like Mark without Sultans, but, his appeal would have been less with his 2nd album. I think talent mostly wins in the end, and certainly back in the day it was what appealed to record companies more that the artist, to day it is completely the other way around with the amount of self promotion that is available to anyone.
This last sentence sums it up pretty well. I still remember the story when a (crazy?) (french?) fan approached Mark trying to show him the video of his cover of Sultans (so yes, apparently he was crazy) and was personally and rudely sent off by Mark IN FRENCH. And in the viral video where some kid is playing "twiddly bits" to Brian Johnson and Mark you can feel the latter's cringe even through sunglasses 8)
You don't need to be a genius or an oracle to know it sucks to have a hit of this magnitude that like an eclipse obscures your whole work, but you also don't need to be a genius to realise without this hit there'd be no crazy fans approaching you, no Brian Johnson and kids playing twiddly bits to you, let alone this hit paying the bills for you. So every coin always has two sides, and that side is not bad :lol
-
I mean, he was still playing it for as long as he physically could so I guess he didn't hate it.
I took a friend to the 2013 tour, causal fan but loved Sultans. On that tour MK was alternating Sultans with Gator Blood.
He played gator Blood that night, my friend was gutted, lol.
-
JF, I don't think it's about complexity vs. simplicity. I think it's terribly hard to write a song as simple and as memorable as Walk of Life. The prime example would be Blowin' in the Wind -- a very simple song, but arguably one of the greatest of all time. (I do agree, though, that Who's Your Baby Now is not quite as brilliant as Walk of Life. But neither is Wigwam by Bob Dylan. :lol)
Also, I'm not so sure about the "test of time". Something can be truly wonderful, but if it doesn't get any attention early on or if it's forgotten shortly after, for whatever reason, it will never have a chance of being rediscovered, simply because no one knows that it ever existed. I'm sure there are thousands of songs (and books, films, paintings ...) that I would ADORE if I knew them. The better-known something is, the higher its chances of being remembered. But being well-known is the result of many variables, quality being just one of them. It's important to remember that both Bob and Mark, as great as they are, must have had an immense amount of luck to end up where they are today. I'm sure they'd be the first to admit it.
-
Sultans of Swing is interesting as it raises the question: What Dire Straits have made it (so quickly) without that song? who knows, it certainly got them noticed and opened many doors, has it been a noose around Mark's neck for his whole career? who knows, does he even still like the song? It makes me think about when Mike Oldfield released Tubular Bells, it catapulted him from an almost obscure session man to huge fame almost overnight, and being so introverted he hated it, he was getting calls from everyone in the music industry for interviews, live appearances etc and it deeply, and negatively affected him. So, take that album away what did he have? he still had the talent, like Mark without Sultans, but, his appeal would have been less with his 2nd album. I think talent mostly wins in the end, and certainly back in the day it was what appealed to record companies more that the artist, to day it is completely the other way around with the amount of self promotion that is available to anyone.
This last sentence sums it up pretty well. I still remember the story when a (crazy?) (french?) fan approached Mark trying to show him the video of his cover of Sultans (so yes, apparently he was crazy) and was personally and rudely sent off by Mark IN FRENCH. And in the viral video where some kid is playing "twiddly bits" to Brian Johnson and Mark you can feel the latter's cringe even through sunglasses 8)
Great story about the French fan, never heard it before.
Is there a link for the BJ/MK twiddly bits video?
-
I mean, he was still playing it for as long as he physically could so I guess he didn't hate it.
I took a friend to the 2013 tour, causal fan but loved Sultans. On that tour MK was alternating Sultans with Gator Blood.
He played gator Blood that night, my friend was gutted, lol.
Haha! I mean the term "twiddly bits" became infamous for Mark ruining people's lives by not playing a simple 16-note repeating line, I can imagine the disappointment of not hearing The Song at all. Love it or hate it, but if you have a bigger-than-life creation like this, you'd better perform it. Everybody expects it, so you either switch on your inner Bob Dylan (wink-wink) or oblige the fans. I'm pretty sure he kept it in the set to use it as a good gymnastic tool for fingers, it's one of his fastest songs after all.
-
Sultans of Swing is interesting as it raises the question: What Dire Straits have made it (so quickly) without that song? who knows, it certainly got them noticed and opened many doors, has it been a noose around Mark's neck for his whole career? who knows, does he even still like the song? It makes me think about when Mike Oldfield released Tubular Bells, it catapulted him from an almost obscure session man to huge fame almost overnight, and being so introverted he hated it, he was getting calls from everyone in the music industry for interviews, live appearances etc and it deeply, and negatively affected him. So, take that album away what did he have? he still had the talent, like Mark without Sultans, but, his appeal would have been less with his 2nd album. I think talent mostly wins in the end, and certainly back in the day it was what appealed to record companies more that the artist, to day it is completely the other way around with the amount of self promotion that is available to anyone.
This last sentence sums it up pretty well. I still remember the story when a (crazy?) (french?) fan approached Mark trying to show him the video of his cover of Sultans (so yes, apparently he was crazy) and was personally and rudely sent off by Mark IN FRENCH. And in the viral video where some kid is playing "twiddly bits" to Brian Johnson and Mark you can feel the latter's cringe even through sunglasses 8)
Great story about the French fan, never heard it before.
Is there a link for the BJ/MK twiddly bits video?
It's an ancient story and I'm sure I saw it here on AMIT years, if not decades ago. I have an excellent memory though :lol
It was probably some guy trying to show Mark a video of a tribute band playing Sultans on one of the meet-and-greets or something. At any rate, trying to show Mark Knopfler a video he doesn't want to see is a 10/10 cringe experience and the worst idea you can think of in front of the man, so the reaction is well-deserved.
The YouTube Short with Johnson/Knopfler/Kid is this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5yw3GAGiYhU
This one has almost 2 million views, but it became viral all over the net, on Instagram, TikTok, and everywhere.
-
Is there a link for the BJ/MK twiddly bits video?
can't find the video anymore but here is an article :
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/young-guitarist-meets-mark-knopfler-14815230
-
The whole debate is more subjective than anything else.
In the end, there is room in culture for multiple 'masters' of popular music.
The acid test is the 'test of time'.
How many of Mark's records will be listened to in 50 years time? In the case of The Beatles, we know it's A LOT.
Absolutely, it’s all subjective but at the end of the day all any of us can do is express our opinion so it’s fun to discuss.
Sultans of Swing is coming up for 50 years and it still gets played a LOT.
SOS definitely stands the test of time.
Look at this: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-dEOibM1Uu/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
-
The whole debate is more subjective than anything else.
In the end, there is room in culture for multiple 'masters' of popular music.
The acid test is the 'test of time'.
How many of Mark's records will be listened to in 50 years time? In the case of The Beatles, we know it's A LOT.
Absolutely, it’s all subjective but at the end of the day all any of us can do is express our opinion so it’s fun to discuss.
Sultans of Swing is coming up for 50 years and it still gets played a LOT.
SOS definitely stands the test of time.
Look at this: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-dEOibM1Uu/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
that lady though, classy...
-
Note that all around always stress out how "prolific" he is
That's mainly about the numbers of songs, not the quality. It's not enough to write about anything that crosses your path or cranks your traktor like books, overheard remarks and stuff. It has to be applicable for the audience in one way or the other.
LE
I really don't know, man. I remember Bob Dylan coming to Russia with a show and it was some kind of a disaster... The majority of people here simply don't speak English and don't understand the lyrics that much, and without lyrics Bob is absolutely irrelevant I'm afraid. It's like watching a dubbed movie in a foreign country and trying to understand what's happening.
On the other hand, Mark toured Russia in 2001, 2005, and 2008 and cancelled his shows in 2013 (I'm sure he'd play there more if politics allowed) and had a success. His music is more universal, besides, as I've said he's a guitar player which brings another dimension to the audience. In fact, I first came to his show to hear a guitar player, not a songwriter.
What about these legendary artists with "first album of original material" in 10, 20 years? I usually listen to them once and say "meh". Mark, on the other hand, will always produce a song that you will love, doesn't matter if it's about goulash, a quality shoe or a crime, and it will be original. What about Sir Van Morrison? I don't know what happened to him, but he seems to produce 5 records a year and they are full of covers.
do you mean the time he was invited to russia to perform at a poetry event, sometime in the 80ies? just read an interesting blog post on that...
-
Thank you! BJ and MK seem to be enjoying it :-)
-
Note that all around always stress out how "prolific" he is
That's mainly about the numbers of songs, not the quality. It's not enough to write about anything that crosses your path or cranks your traktor like books, overheard remarks and stuff. It has to be applicable for the audience in one way or the other.
LE
I really don't know, man. I remember Bob Dylan coming to Russia with a show and it was some kind of a disaster... The majority of people here simply don't speak English and don't understand the lyrics that much, and without lyrics Bob is absolutely irrelevant I'm afraid. It's like watching a dubbed movie in a foreign country and trying to understand what's happening.
On the other hand, Mark toured Russia in 2001, 2005, and 2008 and cancelled his shows in 2013 (I'm sure he'd play there more if politics allowed) and had a success. His music is more universal, besides, as I've said he's a guitar player which brings another dimension to the audience. In fact, I first came to his show to hear a guitar player, not a songwriter.
What about these legendary artists with "first album of original material" in 10, 20 years? I usually listen to them once and say "meh". Mark, on the other hand, will always produce a song that you will love, doesn't matter if it's about goulash, a quality shoe or a crime, and it will be original. What about Sir Van Morrison? I don't know what happened to him, but he seems to produce 5 records a year and they are full of covers.
do you mean the time he was invited to russia to perform at a poetry event, sometime in the 80ies? just read an interesting blog post on that...
Yeah, I saw this article too. It's quite remarkable how the "iron curtain" wasn't so iron after all. We've got all sorts of celebrities here, David Bowie travelling in Siberia on Soviet trams and all that, Arnold filming movies, then Yevtushenko and Brodsky would end up working in the US. We've got jazz, many bands copying The Beatles, all music imaginable available. But still, it's not a surprise Bob only performed in Russia once. Technically, twice — this "event" in the 80s and 2008 show. The language barrier is no joke!
-
One of the first US films to be made in Russia after the iron curtain fell...
(https://www.pastposters.com/cw3/assets/product_expanded/(JamieR)__PoliceAcademy7(2).jpg)
-
One of the first US films to be made in Russia after the iron curtain fell...
(https://www.pastposters.com/cw3/assets/product_expanded/(JamieR)__PoliceAcademy7(2).jpg)
It all happened even long before the fall of the Iron Curtain. All sorts of celebrities, Sophia Lorens and Robert De Niros of this world visited, and foreign movies were being made. Everybody who needed to know who Bob Dylan was, knew his work, famous Soviet poets were known worldwide and you could find the Yevtushenko reference on one of Bob Dylan's LPs.
Ah, I can't stop crying about this period as we've lost everything. There's an enormous (and very, very good) museum in Russia I visited recently that's mostly about this time (the 80s and 90s) and I couldn't stop crying, these were happy and fruitful times compared to today. No Bob Dylan or Robert De Niro for the next 50 years I'm afraid. History repeating.
-
Yes, but nothing of the quality level and prestige of Police Academy 7: Mission to Moscow.
-
One of the first US films to be made in Russia after the iron curtain fell...
(https://www.pastposters.com/cw3/assets/product_expanded/(JamieR)__PoliceAcademy7(2).jpg)
It all happened even long before the fall of the Iron Curtain. All sorts of celebrities, Sophia Lorens and Robert De Niros of this world visited, and foreign movies were being made. Everybody who needed to know who Bob Dylan was, knew his work, famous Soviet poets were known worldwide and you could find the Yevtushenko reference on one of Bob Dylan's LPs.
Ah, I can't stop crying about this period as we've lost everything. There's an enormous (and very, very good) museum in Russia I visited recently that's mostly about this time (the 80s and 90s) and I couldn't stop crying, these were happy and fruitful times compared to today. No Bob Dylan or Robert De Niro for the next 50 years I'm afraid. History repeating.
i understand. also, i see you are back home?
-
One of the first US films to be made in Russia after the iron curtain fell...
(https://www.pastposters.com/cw3/assets/product_expanded/(JamieR)__PoliceAcademy7(2).jpg)
It all happened even long before the fall of the Iron Curtain. All sorts of celebrities, Sophia Lorens and Robert De Niros of this world visited, and foreign movies were being made. Everybody who needed to know who Bob Dylan was, knew his work, famous Soviet poets were known worldwide and you could find the Yevtushenko reference on one of Bob Dylan's LPs.
Ah, I can't stop crying about this period as we've lost everything. There's an enormous (and very, very good) museum in Russia I visited recently that's mostly about this time (the 80s and 90s) and I couldn't stop crying, these were happy and fruitful times compared to today. No Bob Dylan or Robert De Niro for the next 50 years I'm afraid. History repeating.
i understand. also, i see you are back home?
Yup... I'm all over the place though.
-
Ah, I can't stop crying about this period as we've lost everything. There's an enormous (and very, very good) museum in Russia I visited recently that's mostly about this time (the 80s and 90s) and I couldn't stop crying, these were happy and fruitful times compared to today. No Bob Dylan or Robert De Niro for the next 50 years I'm afraid. History repeating.
History repeating -- or coming back from hell, as one songwriter put it.
There's are a number of questions I'd love to ask you, Pavel, but 1) they don't have anything to do with MK, so this is hardly the right place for them, and 2) I wonder if I might even put you in danger by discussing them with you.
-
Ah, I can't stop crying about this period as we've lost everything. There's an enormous (and very, very good) museum in Russia I visited recently that's mostly about this time (the 80s and 90s) and I couldn't stop crying, these were happy and fruitful times compared to today. No Bob Dylan or Robert De Niro for the next 50 years I'm afraid. History repeating.
History repeating -- or coming back from hell, as one songwriter put it.
There's are a number of questions I'd love to ask you, Pavel, but 1) they don't have anything to do with MK, so this is hardly the right place for them, and 2) I wonder if I might even put you in danger by discussing them with you.
First of all, thank you for caring! There's not much to discuss really as your guesses are as good as mine, despite me living in the middle of it all.
I'll just say I try my best to be safe.
-
Here's an interesting link to round this thread off, on Dylan's production over the years: https://talkinbobdylan.blogspot.com/2020/11/producing-bob-dylan.html?m=1
My guess is that while Dylan seems to have had very clear ideas of who should play what and how, he didn't care too much about how it was recorded, and the engineer Chris Shaw may have played a major role in shaping that gorgeous sound of his latest albums.
-
https://talkinbobdylan.blogspot.com/2020/11/producing-bob-dylan.html?m=1
This is a great read.
LE
True. ;D
LE
-
I thought maybe not everyone has fb and in the context of Bob Dylan's album, David Knopfler's words would be interesting.
DK:
I think it has to be said. I have most, if not all, of Bob Dylan’s official studio albums. The last track I really thought was up to his best was a track called “Mississippi” - great song - great production- great delivery - and that was released over two decades ago in 2003.
Since then his touring voice has gone from bad to worse and his writing isn’t really what it was either. I simply can’t watch any more YouTube clips of him murdering his own material. He’s not reinventing - he’s failing to remember.
Dylan isn’t alone in this journey and it’s entirely up to him anyway I suppose and of course the fans will likely show up regardless. I concede it’s a good thing that old musicians feel able and willing to still tread the boards past their prime, but doesn’t there ever come a point where retirement might be the kinder option for all concerned? I don’t know - I’m asking. Where is the cut off point when the demand will continue regardless of the quality of their output while the artist still breathes
-
David who?
LE
-
Mmm, I think Dylan is still pretty sharp.
I read online that John Mellencamp played All Along the Watchtower the other night on the same bill as Dylan, so Dylan played it as well for the first time in 6 years when he came onstage, ha.
-
That's the difference between the Knopfler brothers right there. Can you imagine a post like this from MK? I can't.
But at the same time, I get his point. Life doesn't end with retirement, no need to sing and dance till you're 100.
I have much more respect towards artists who switched to a different source of joy, inspiration and/or income.
-
I thought maybe not everyone has fb and in the context of Bob Dylan's album, David Knopfler's words would be interesting.
DK:
I think it has to be said. I have most, if not all, of Bob Dylan’s official studio albums. The last track I really thought was up to his best was a track called “Mississippi” - great song - great production- great delivery - and that was released over two decades ago in 2003.
Since then his touring voice has gone from bad to worse and his writing isn’t really what it was either. I simply can’t watch any more YouTube clips of him murdering his own material. He’s not reinventing - he’s failing to remember.
Dylan isn’t alone in this journey and it’s entirely up to him anyway I suppose and of course the fans will likely show up regardless. I concede it’s a good thing that old musicians feel able and willing to still tread the boards past their prime, but doesn’t there ever come a point where retirement might be the kinder option for all concerned? I don’t know - I’m asking. Where is the cut off point when the demand will continue regardless of the quality of their output while the artist still breathes
guess he was bitter not being asked to play or produce on his albums? lol
-
I thought maybe not everyone has fb and in the context of Bob Dylan's album, David Knopfler's words would be interesting.
DK:
I think it has to be said. I have most, if not all, of Bob Dylan’s official studio albums. The last track I really thought was up to his best was a track called “Mississippi” - great song - great production- great delivery - and that was released over two decades ago in 2003.
Since then his touring voice has gone from bad to worse and his writing isn’t really what it was either. I simply can’t watch any more YouTube clips of him murdering his own material. He’s not reinventing - he’s failing to remember.
Dylan isn’t alone in this journey and it’s entirely up to him anyway I suppose and of course the fans will likely show up regardless. I concede it’s a good thing that old musicians feel able and willing to still tread the boards past their prime, but doesn’t there ever come a point where retirement might be the kinder option for all concerned? I don’t know - I’m asking. Where is the cut off point when the demand will continue regardless of the quality of their output while the artist still breathes
guess he was bitter not being asked to play or produce on his albums? lol
I don't think so. Has DK produced any albums, apart from his own?
I don't always agree with DK's views, but I think "murdering his material" just about sums it up, and Dylan's been at it for more than 30 years. It's only the live performances, though, not the studio recordings, and not his writing, imho.
-
I thought maybe not everyone has fb and in the context of Bob Dylan's album, David Knopfler's words would be interesting.
DK:
I think it has to be said. I have most, if not all, of Bob Dylan’s official studio albums. The last track I really thought was up to his best was a track called “Mississippi” - great song - great production- great delivery - and that was released over two decades ago in 2003.
Since then his touring voice has gone from bad to worse and his writing isn’t really what it was either. I simply can’t watch any more YouTube clips of him murdering his own material. He’s not reinventing - he’s failing to remember.
Dylan isn’t alone in this journey and it’s entirely up to him anyway I suppose and of course the fans will likely show up regardless. I concede it’s a good thing that old musicians feel able and willing to still tread the boards past their prime, but doesn’t there ever come a point where retirement might be the kinder option for all concerned? I don’t know - I’m asking. Where is the cut off point when the demand will continue regardless of the quality of their output while the artist still breathes
guess he was bitter not being asked to play or produce on his albums? lol
I don't think so. Has DK produced any albums, apart from his own?
I don't always agree with DK's views, but I think "murdering his material" just about sums it up, and Dylan's been at it for more than 30 years. It's only the live performances, though, not the studio recordings, and not his writing, imho.
cannot fully agree here. i have seen a few dylan shows, and am well aware about his live ups and downs, but i have indeed also experienced many live highs and not only bizarre lows.
do not forget, the man has toured like there is no tomorrow for 37yrs in a row now (only paused during covid and when he had that life-threatening heart infection in, i believe 97)
-
It's Dylan's material... surely he can do what he wants with it?
People are still turning up, and he's been doing the same thing for 30+ years so it's not like anyone is going to be surprised.