What I’m saying is I love the first two albums, the others I still like but less so. I’d never considered the departure of David to be the reason but having just listened to the first album I think there may be some credence to that theory.
Some line ups just have that little bit extra that can’t be explained.
1 Like
Yes
Two different bands altogether and unfair to put them on the same level. While I love JD(Ian wrote some great songs with very deep and emotional lyrics) I’m not a great fan of NO and their dance/pop(ish)stuff. The only thing that stopped NO from going down altogether was Hook and he didn’t hang around very long.
2 Likes
Fair point Tony - they are different bands. But it’s a Sacrament of Penance for both.
3 Likes
Wow,you’re right that should keep me going,many thanks for taking the trouble to point me in the right direction,it’s much appreciated.
Good job I’m an atheist! 
1 Like
Thank God I’m an atheist too!
(Fixed. 
)
3 Likes
Thought the first Dire Straits album was fawned over disproportionately in relation to the content. It was okay but nothing especially special.
The second was the sound of a very tired bar band in a pub. One if the finest examples of regurgitating what you think is your formula only to find it’s a dead end and your formula produced no tunes. A turgid, dreary record.
Thus why I rate Makin’ Movies. Actual memorable songs with great writing and playing. Love Over Gold was overplayed and a little overblown but still had the gold dust. After that, downhill all the way for me. Of its time but it’s certainly not aged well.
1 Like
I listen to dead composer music. I’m named after a very long dead composer, who was a legend in his own time.
1 Like
Dire Straits were a great pub band when I was young. Whether for that reason or not, I liked the first album more than the second and found the others progressively more impressive but less pleasing. After all, how many songwriters can really justify stretching frequently past 4 minutes?
MK is still a fine writer of tunes and a proper player. However, that’s also true of Chet Atkins and Prince, and I don’t play their LPs that often either. As several here have said, these are (mostly) not objective assessments.
More generally, most of us have whole genres that just don’t move us - does that count?
For example, I can respect lots of US country and western players, and lots of bland (to me) disco music without wanting to sit and listen to many records by Townes Van Zandt, Hank Williams, Abba or Burt Bacharach.
Despite all the great tunes, opera as a genre goes in the same bucket, and I will head in the opposite direction rapidly if I get a hint that a rhinestone, a cowboy hat, a helmet with horns or any pop song about Christianity is approaching. This bigotry may mean I miss a few gems, but think of all the truly horrifying music it has meant I have missed!
Perhaps we could have a related thread on those with ten times more ability than material? I could propose Deep Purple and Yes for that, despite a few cracking songs from both.
2 Likes
Nicely put. The opportunity for us to bare our prejudice and irrational biases is a rare treat. I’m loving it.
5 Likes
Depending, of course , on taste… Regardless of taste, I don’t agree with your “should have” - at the very least I would separate out opera as a different genre, and include chamber music (e.g. Vivaldi), while to my mind a collection need not contain every one of any particular composer’s symphonies or piano concertos to be decent.
A lot of mention of Dire Straits on here - to me they were rather nondescript and boring when they first started having hits, so I would have said I didn’t “get” them. However I came to like some of their music many years later - not as anything deep and meaningful, but generally pleasant, elevated by being of remarkably good sound quality, so I now do sometimes enjoy playing.
Lorro1 asked for a range of music which he might listen to, and I was happy to provide him with that.
It’s entirely his choice whether he buys some of it, all of it, or none of it. I have no axe to grind.
He seems content, to judge by his subsequent post, but I’ll leave him to speak for himself, if he wishes to.
Are you always so bad tempered, or are you trying extra hard for just this occasion?
2 Likes
My response was in no way bad tempered, and re-reading it I am puzzled as to why you should have felt that it was. Clearly your reading of it was different, and for causing the impression I did I can only apologise. I was simply picking up on the implication of the part of your post I highlighted that a classical collection not including at least most of the music you listed can’t be considered to be a decent one, pointing out that even for classical music people’s tastes vary, as do opinions as to the range of things that might be appropriate to consider for a decent collection in order to consider that it contains sufficient breadth and depth to be considered a “decent” one.
1 Like
People’s opinions vary, of course, on all sorts of things.
I can only give my own, and I’ve done so.
Let’s leave it at that.
27 years is but the blink of an eye in rock ‘n’ roll terms. 
Though to be fair, post Hooky they’re a bit crap.
Queen - awful.
Van bloody Morrison - bloody awful.
Dire Straits – beyond awful.
Sting – bass and lute plucking bell end. Catastrophically awful.
Elvis Costello – adenoidally awful.
Eva Cassidy – One doesn’t like to speak ill of the dead but gawd she was awful. Lachrymose dreck.
Frank Zappa – Awfully self-satisfied, cold, technocratic, nowhere near as clever as he and his fans thought he was, Apart from the Freak Out album, just awful.
Joe Bonamassa – What’s he for? He’s awful. And his mate Beth Hart as well, she’s an awful screeching banshee. Doubly awful, the pair of 'em.
Suede - materially awful.
Genesis – twee but pompous prog, which gets progressively more awful as it gets poppier. Peter Gabriel was right to get out.
12 Likes
This.
2 Likes
Good lord, did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Is there any music that you do like?
5 Likes