A hypothetical: If DS continued, and was a democracy...

[Jules]

This is a really good question.  I see it like this. If you take it from post BIA I think you would have seen much more formulaic music, less experimental, OES would have been a much different album had it had songwriting influences from John, Guy, and Alan. We also may have seen more music after this perhaps even without mark, but retreading old ground. Alan certainly loved the success...

The real question is, if DS had been a democracy would they ever have been successful in the first place? I know DK is on record as saying that he saw the straits much more as a cult band with a much smaller following. I think they got to the top because of the drive of MK, damage management, and the few individuals that could keep up....

Yes, DS being a democracy they would had been successful anyway, because the MK hits would had been on the records anyway. In DS records not all the songs are hits, there are always weakest songs in the sense of produce singles that would be aired on radio, which was what made bands successful in the 80's and 90's. Despite having two or three David or John songs, "Brothers in arms" would had "MFN", "WOL" or "BIA" on it. Maybe not "One World", or maybe not "The man's too strong", but what made that record highly successful would had been there anyway.

I would say even more, maybe a David, John or even Alan songs would had been hits arranged by the whole band, with MK guitar leading the track.

[wakeywakey]

This is a really good question.  I see it like this. If you take it from post BIA I think you would have seen much more formulaic music, less experimental, OES would have been a much different album had it had songwriting influences from John, Guy, and Alan. We also may have seen more music after this perhaps even without mark, but retreading old ground. Alan certainly loved the success...

The real question is, if DS had been a democracy would they ever have been successful in the first place? I know DK is on record as saying that he saw the straits much more as a cult band with a much smaller following. I think they got to the top because of the drive of MK, damage management, and the few individuals that could keep up....

Yes, DS being a democracy they would had been successful anyway, because the MK hits would had been on the records anyway. In DS records not all the songs are hits, there are always weakest songs in the sense of produce singles that would be aired on radio, which was what made bands successful in the 80's and 90's. Despite having two or three David or John songs, "Brothers in arms" would had "MFN", "WOL" or "BIA" on it. Maybe not "One World", or maybe not "The man's too strong", but what made that record highly successful would had been there anyway.

I would say even more, maybe a David, John or even Alan songs would had been hits arranged by the whole band, with MK guitar leading the track.

WOL would have been the first to go from BIA.It was almost an afterthought and if more songs weren't required,because John and Dave had to have some of their songs on BIA,it might not even have been written.
There is no sign that John or Dave were ready to write "proper" songs back in 77.If they were then the story of DS might be different.
It is fairly obvious the songs would have been inferior,perhaps vastly,to what appeared on the albums so it is a good job they weren't ready.
I'm extremely happy none of the DS albums were watered down and that we managed to get 6 studio albums from them.
The world is shitty enough at the moment without trying to rewrite history and alter some of my favourite ever albums.

[2manyguitars]

This is a really good question.  I see it like this. If you take it from post BIA I think you would have seen much more formulaic music, less experimental, OES would have been a much different album had it had songwriting influences from John, Guy, and Alan. We also may have seen more music after this perhaps even without mark, but retreading old ground. Alan certainly loved the success...

The real question is, if DS had been a democracy would they ever have been successful in the first place? I know DK is on record as saying that he saw the straits much more as a cult band with a much smaller following. I think they got to the top because of the drive of MK, damage management, and the few individuals that could keep up....

Yes, DS being a democracy they would had been successful anyway, because the MK hits would had been on the records anyway. In DS records not all the songs are hits, there are always weakest songs in the sense of produce singles that would be aired on radio, which was what made bands successful in the 80's and 90's. Despite having two or three David or John songs, "Brothers in arms" would had "MFN", "WOL" or "BIA" on it. Maybe not "One World", or maybe not "The man's too strong", but what made that record highly successful would had been there anyway.

I would say even more, maybe a David, John or even Alan songs would had been hits arranged by the whole band, with MK guitar leading the track.

WOL would have been the first to go from BIA.It was almost an afterthought and if more songs weren't required,because John and Dave had to have some of their songs on BIA,it might not even have been written.
There is no sign that John or Dave were ready to write "proper" songs back in 77.If they were then the story of DS might be different.
It is fairly obvious the songs would have been inferior,perhaps vastly,to what appeared on the albums so it is a good job they weren't ready.
I'm extremely happy none of the DS albums were watered down and that we managed to get 6 studio albums from them.
The world is shitty enough at the moment without trying to rewrite history and alter some of my favourite ever albums.

You did read the hyperthetical part? No one is trying to alter anything. This is a what if discussion.

 My point really, regardless of songs is that DS wouldn't have made it as a democracy. As the great man himself said, 'you've got to really want to do it'. I don't think that DK or Pick really wanted it at the level Mark did. They would have been happier with less success, smaller venues, and more musical freedom.

Thoughts?

[wakeywakey]

>You did read the hyperthetical part?
Yes I did but I completely disagree that John and Dave songs would have made little difference to the success of DS.
Both Pick and Dave have said that they were much happier playing pubs and small venues so were happy with the Hope and Anchor while both Mark and John wanted,perhaps needed,Wembley Stadium and the enormous shows-Ed certainly did
Most of the band were great at being backing guys for Mark but couldn't cut it on their own.There is nothing wrong with that and they were part of something magical which is better than most can say.

[quizzaciously]

>You did read the hyperthetical part?
Yes I did but I completely disagree that John and Dave songs would have made little difference to the success of DS.
Both Pick and Dave have said that they were much happier playing pubs and small venues so were happy with the Hope and Anchor while both Mark and John wanted,perhaps needed,Wembley Stadium and the enormous shows-Ed certainly did
Most of the band were great at being backing guys for Mark but couldn't cut it on their own.There is nothing wrong with that and they were part of something magical which is better than most can say.

Exactly, being a musician is not that bad at all. Cliff Richard is a great frontman, but in his backing band, only Hank Marvin could play guitar like THAT!

My thinking is that they all [Dire Straits] wanted to be successful and be famous (who wouldn't?). Though Mark always says fame is a bad thing, however, I think John in his book clearly stated that they really wanted it. If you don't want it, you may never achieve it. They also never knew what will be the level of this success and fame, nobody knows. And it turned out to be so huge that it tore down the whole group, and made MK into the legend and guitar hero we all know and love.

Imagine Mark would be less of a songwriter or a guitar player than we know. Imagine his songwriting and playing would be on the level of his singing. He would struggle to fill the albums, they would need to resort to adding songs from David, John, and whoever else. Mark would have no choice but to agree to the democratic state in the band. And chances are this band would be an obscure band that few people know and follow.

[Knut]

Most of the band were great at being backing guys for Mark but couldn't cut it on their own.There is nothing wrong with that and they were part of something magical which is better than most can say.

You could do the same argument against Mark as you use against the band guys here, if you look at the "modern" MK. The fact that he mostly played smaller venues (as opposed to stadium gigs during summer, like DS used to), is it because he "couldn't cut it any more" or is it because he didn't want to? If it's the latter, you should consider the fact that not everyone needs to be superstars to be perfectly happy with what they achieve.

"Mark could cut it if he wanted to, but the band guys weren't good enough" would sound very fanboy-ish to my ears.

I think most of us agree that Pick in particular did an excellent job back in the early years.

"After four successful albums culminating in ‘Telegraph Road’ (1982), Pick feared that the band were moving more into Stadium Rock territory, an accurate prediction on his part. Not wanting to fall into a hedonistic existence where everyone around you tells you how ‘great’ you are until you actually start believing it, Pick gracefully bowed out of the band, leaving an opening that Terry Williams (another Rockfield studios stalwart) would fill – at least for live work." - this sounds... familiar, no?

Source: https://thedrumdoctor.net/pick-withers-a-road-well-travelled-a-drumdoctor-interview

[dustyvalentino]

MK started off small in 96 but in recent years was playing large venues, similar sizes to peers such as Clapton etc. I saw both McCartney and Knopfler in the same venue within 6 months.

[rmarques821]

I have a very hard time imagining such a scenario because DS was always only a vehicle for Mark's songs. The only possible way to imagine such a situation would be to look at David and John's solo songs and ask ourselves if they are as good as Mark's. The answer is no, of course.
So, if DS had been a democracy it would have never existed in the first place.

[Angelucci]

To put the premise more simply, with a concrete example: In 2001, David Knopfler released Wishbones and in 2002 MK released Ragpickers Dream. If instead we got a 2002 Dire Straits album with all members bringing songs to the table, I think King Of Ashes, Means Of Survival and If God Could Make The Angels from DK have every chance of making the album instead of Quality Shoe, Daddy's Gone To Knoxville and Old Pigweed - particularly with the added influence of MK.

[dustyvalentino]

To put the premise more simply, with a concrete example: In 2001, David Knopfler released Wishbones and in 2002 MK released Ragpickers Dream. If instead we got a 2002 Dire Straits album with all members bringing songs to the table, I think King Of Ashes, Means Of Survival and If God Could Make The Angels from DK have every chance of making the album instead of Quality Shoe, Daddy's Gone To Knoxville and Old Pigweed - particularly with the added influence of MK.

I haven't heard the DK songs you mention but the MK songs are great! All of this comes down to personal preference - I would for example make a case for Coyote being weaker than any of those three...

[quizzaciously]

To put the premise more simply, with a concrete example: In 2001, David Knopfler released Wishbones and in 2002 MK released Ragpickers Dream. If instead we got a 2002 Dire Straits album with all members bringing songs to the table, I think King Of Ashes, Means Of Survival and If God Could Make The Angels from DK have every chance of making the album instead of Quality Shoe, Daddy's Gone To Knoxville and Old Pigweed - particularly with the added influence of MK.

I haven't heard the DK songs you mention but the MK songs are great! All of this comes down to personal preference - I would for example make a case for Coyote being weaker than any of those three...

I think Coyote suffers from the same type of problem as Monteleone. You need to know the story of writing this song because of MK's kids watching cartoons, and you need to know the cartoon itself, so it's again too much to ask from an average listener. It's not an album filler by any means.

Just listened to these David's songs again, and none of them struck a chord with me, musically speaking. I think this is where personal preference really shines. I wonder if there are people who dislike Mark's music and love David's?

[Jules]

To put the premise more simply, with a concrete example: In 2001, David Knopfler released Wishbones and in 2002 MK released Ragpickers Dream. If instead we got a 2002 Dire Straits album with all members bringing songs to the table, I think King Of Ashes, Means Of Survival and If God Could Make The Angels from DK have every chance of making the album instead of Quality Shoe, Daddy's Gone To Knoxville and Old Pigweed - particularly with the added influence of MK.

I haven't heard the DK songs you mention but the MK songs are great! All of this comes down to personal preference - I would for example make a case for Coyote being weaker than any of those three...

I think Coyote suffers from the same type of problem as Monteleone. You need to know the story of writing this song because of MK's kids watching cartoons, and you need to know the cartoon itself, so it's again too much to ask from an average listener. It's not an album filler by any means.

Just listened to these David's songs again, and none of them struck a chord with me, musically speaking. I think this is where personal preference really shines. I wonder if there are people who dislike Mark's music and love David's?

I love both in a separated way.

However, any David song would be very different if MK is involved with the arrangements, so we can't really judge if David songs would had been good for DS as they were arranged by David for a David record.

[Robson]

"I think Coyote suffers from the same type of problem as Monteleone. You need to know the story of writing this song because of MK's kids watching cartoons, and you need to know the cartoon itself, so it's again too much to ask from an average listener. It's not an album filler by any means.

Exactly!

[Robson]

"I wonder if there are people who dislike Mark's music and love David's?

It is impossible:)

[superval99]

To put the premise more simply, with a concrete example: In 2001, David Knopfler released Wishbones and in 2002 MK released Ragpickers Dream. If instead we got a 2002 Dire Straits album with all members bringing songs to the table, I think King Of Ashes, Means Of Survival and If God Could Make The Angels from DK have every chance of making the album instead of Quality Shoe, Daddy's Gone To Knoxville and Old Pigweed - particularly with the added influence of MK.

I haven't heard the DK songs you mention but the MK songs are great! All of this comes down to personal preference - I would for example make a case for Coyote being weaker than any of those three...

I really loved "Coyote" live and it is one of my favourites from the GL tour and much better than the album version.