Rough and Rowdy Ways

[superval99]

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.

[stratmad]

 

[stratmad]

There the original topic goes...

LE

Well, that's what happens if you start a Dylan thread in an MK forum! 

[dustyvalentino]

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.

[dustyvalentino]

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.

[superval99]

It was 1991 for me too - when OES was released.

[Love Expresso]

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

[Love Expresso]

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? 

LE

[quizzaciously]

There the original topic goes...

LE

Well, that's what happens if you start a Dylan thread in an MK forum! 

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.

[quizzaciously]

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.

[dustyvalentino]

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.

[dustyvalentino]

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.

[stratmad]

"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. 

[dustyvalentino]

"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.

[qjamesfloyd]

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.