40

I recently turned 40. Since that is generally considered the approximate halfway point until oblivion, I guess it is a big deal. People treat it that way, anyway. At least it is a time to reflect both on what has transpired and on what may come.

First of all, I am so glad that my teen years were the 80's and early 90's. I know that people who experienced the 60's feel privileged, but I feel that way about the 80's. Great music, wonderful excess, Reagan optimism, Atari 2600. My students get jealous. The 80's have a certain cool factor these days, again, akin to when I was growing up in the 80's and everyone loved the 60's. So many of my students tell me that they wished they could have grown up in that decade, perhaps I've got an extra spring in my step when I cover it in class, I don't know. I'm surprised at how much my students know about the 80's. I've got a fun activity I do one day in class where, after they have read the chapter but before I cover it, I give each student ten blank notecards. I tell them they have to capture the "essence" of the 80's by making ten flashcards. They can include politics, pop culture, economics, world events, technology...just capture the decade picking ten things to discuss. As they are making them, I play my 80's mix on the ipod, just to get them in the mood. These kids love Tears For Fears, 80's Michael Jackson, The Cars. All of it. (For me, Tears For Fears' "Everybody Wants To Rule the World" captures the decade more than any other song...it should be the 1980's anthem). Year after year it is a favorite activity, and I am always so impressed with their knowledge of a decade that passed before they were born. I get a lot of John Hughes movies, video games, Reaganomics, SDI, when MTV was cool, etc. When I want to go to my happy place, I think about summers in the mid-80's.

I have been blessed with wonderful family, both the one I was born into and the one that I have made for myself. To start with the former. Being someone a bit obsessed with the past (it is my profession, afterall), I regret not having the chance to speak with my grandparents and ask them about their experiences. I never really knew my Dad's parents, they died when I was small. I do remember my Mom's parents, especially her father. Wonderful memories, but I was too young (elementary and middle school) when they died to have really gotten to know them on adult terms. It's a shame. Something that I would highly recommend doing is preserving the memories of your loved ones. A few years back, I conducted, recorded and transcribed detailed interviews with my father, mother and uncle. Fantastic, and 30 years from now I am sure my kids will love reading them if they are anything like I am about the past.

My three brothers (one is deceased) and sister have been my favorite people. They are all about ten years older than me (they're all half, both of my parents were married before), so growing up they were really the people I looked up to the most. My brothers, well two of the three anyway, were models that I used to try to emulate, impress and just be around as much as I could. (I also have fond memories of my other brother too, as many troubles as he had, I remember him playing with me a lot and taking me places. He had serious problems, but underneath it all, he was great and I had a lot of fun with him). But honestly, my closest relationship through most of my life has always been my sister. She was a big part of my growing up (she had a lot of time to spend with me, because she was always getting in trouble and was always grounded). She is still the person I can talk the most openly with, I think. One of my biggest consistent regrets is that I see them once or twice a year instead of once or twice a week. (I get annoyed sometimes with how my wife talks to her mother and brother 500 times a day on the phone, but part of that too, I suspect, is jealousy. I am close with my siblings and parents, but we don't talk nearly as much nowadays as I would like, and in my more reasonable moments, I see that is a special thing that my wife can communicate daily with her mom and brother). I have also been blessed with wonderful parents. Being one now, I know how tough it is sometimes, and I've only just begun. They made mistakes, as I have and will continue to do, but not many. What impressed me the most was that even though they had their own stresses in life and possibly rough patches in the marriage, they never let that bleed over into my experience growing up with them. That is a skill I am more and more impressed with as time goes on.

Marriage is tough sometimes. I think that many of my natural tendencies lend themselves more to bachelorhood, sometimes. I can be a solitary creature at times. But there is no person on the planet I would rather go through life with than my wife. She is beautiful and still amazes me consistently. But I've got to say, and she would agree because we have talked about it, my true love in life is my daughter, DDI. I feel like I have failed at certain things in life (like a law career), but I know I am an excellent father and I work hard at that every day of my life. That sounds so cliche, I know, but she is the world to me (and she knows it and like most kids do, takes advantage of that when she can). I am excited about my new daughter, DDII, and I anticipate developing a unique and special relationship with her as well. Right now she is just a really cute thing that makes sounds and sleeps, but I can't wait to see her develop her personality and to be a part of that.

They say you can't pick your family, but you do pick your friends. Friends are a second family that we create for ourselves. One of my best friends, a wise Greek, who often regales me with life truths because that is what those Mediterranean types do, once told me that as time goes by and you get older, you only take a handful of friends along with you into old age. And those are the ones who are your true friends. You pick up friends through each stage of life (youth, high school, college, grad school, working life). You develop bonds and meet great people at each stage, but the Greek, as usual, is right. Look at who you still talk to, say, a decade removed from that time. Those are the ones that matter. Then two decades removed. Those are the ones that really matter. Two of my closest friends are coming in from out of town to celebrate my recent birthday with me, I cannot wait to see them and I can say that I have chosen wisely the ones I want to take with me to the end.

We've all got our interests. When I said that some of my tendencies might be more suited to bachelorhood, it is probably because I get more obsessive than most about my interests. Sh*t, look at these ridiculous Record Guides that I write for a blog that three people read. I mean, who does that? I do. It is a source of exasperation for my long suffering wife that I can sit down for hours on end and analyze the works of Men At Work and be completely content. Music, movies and history...obsessions I have always had. It is just something I've always done, I can remember days of my youth where I would be perfectly content to lie down in front of the speaker of the stereo and listen to record after record after record. By myself for hours and it was heaven. I remember when going to rock concerts was a life event. Nowadays it is not as big of a deal, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't miss that feeling sometimes, that going to see Springsteen was the most significant thing in the world. I can still watch "Jaws" for the 1,039th time and get a thrill. And I am a collector. If there is a band that I get into, it becomes imperative that I track down every record they made. I can become very agitated and stressed if I do not own the complete works of whomever. As frustrated as she gets, I will be forever grateful to my wife for her patience and indulgence. I know that it/I can often verge on the ridiculous.

Finally, a word or two for those who have passed. Longtime readers here know that I enjoy writing obituaries. It is not really a morbid thing, I just find it fascinating to try and capture a life in a few paragraphs. It's funny, my father, who reads GNABB regularly but only occasionally comments, recently told me that he wants me to compose his obituary when the time comes. It'll be an honor, but I found that funny, because he especially enjoys my obits here for some reason. Hopefully I won't have to write that one for awhile yet. I view it as a way to honor the person, honor the accomplishments and to say how they have enriched my life. Be it an artist or famous person whom I never knew personally yet still had a connection with through their work, or someone whom I did know on a personal level. Even pets. So goodbye once a again to Cliff, Maurice, Bunny, Toby, and the many others, both personal and artistic, who have enriched my 40 years.

Thanks for reading and letting me remember the last 40 years. In a recent post on his blog, ANCIANT made a comment about blogs being self indulgent and tools for forcing your silly opinions on others (I'm paraphrasing, as usual he writes it better, as that is his profession). I agree with him, I often feel somewhat ridiculous that I think my opinion matters so much that I can write six years and counting worth of posts and anyone would care. And perhaps this post is the ultimate self-indulgence. But I have loved having this forum over the last six years. Honestly, other than allowing me to write about sh*t that I find interesting, which is a true joy, the main blessing of this blog has been allowing me to keep in touch with friends. I appreciate everyone who still comes around, either regularly or occasionally. ANCIANT and JMW (who talked me into starting GNABB, I wonder if he regrets?) especially have been regular and loyal readers and commenters. I do love the comments, my hope with every post is to start a conversation. I am like a little kid, I check back all the time to see if someone has commented or tried to continue the conversation, either agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's like a child who doesn't get what he wanted for Christmas when I check and it says "no comments." What the f*ck! This is important stuff!! All of it!!! That is what I really see this place as, a place for conversation, debate and exchange of ideas. So I am puzzled when a Grateful Dead record guide is met by the sound of crickets. (I'm joking. I am self-aware. I know my record guides are absurd, but I can't help myself). But I do value and love the comments and conversations we have here occasionally. It is one of the main reasons I keep doing it, I can have regular conversations with dear friends on the East and West Coast, as well as everyone else who drops in here and there. Plus the self indulgence. There is always that.

Dez Record Guides: The Grateful Dead

Much like the Van Morrison Guide, I think that this Dead Guide may actually be useful to some of you, but for different reasons. In the Van Morrison case, it was more due to going through a mountain of material. With the Dead, though, I think it is more of an issue of misconceptions. I know some readers here, for a fact, would really enjoy some of the Dead's material but haven't really given it a shot. The image many people have of The Dead is due to their loyal army of Deadheads. Dope smoking hippies swaying to 45 minute versions of "Dark Star." And while that description can be accurate in a sense, there is so, so much more. I've been on a serious Dead kick for the past several weeks, so I've been itching to write a Guide for them. First, some caveats: I am not a Deadhead. I do not own a wall of Dead bootlegs. There are certain Dead fans out there who have disdain for much of the studio and commercially successful music, and swear by the bootlegs. I shouldn't even call them bootlegs, because The Dead were one of the first bands to encourage the recording and trading tapes of their shows. They even set up a section in the audience for the tapers for optimal sound quality.

The thing with the Dead is that while some of them were great musicians (Jerry Garcia, Phil Lesh), they all played and improvised together with a telepathy that was otherworldly. I guess that is why hardcore fans can listen to 10 versions of "The Other One" and savor the differences between this 18 minute version vs. that 30 minute version. Jerry Garcia does not get the credit he deserves as one of the great guitarists. It was Garcia who was both the spiritual, in a sense, and musical leader of this circus. But his guitar playing was so fluid and adventurous and deeply rooted in American music traditions. Also, his brief fascination with the pedal steel in the early 70's resulted in some spectacular music as well. Their work from '68 through about '72 was really groundbreaking in a certain sense, yet also quite traditional in another. They were one of the finest practitioners of American roots music, with the two records from 1970 being the high point.

Finally, the common wisdom on The Dead was that they never captured the magic in the studio that was present in their live shows. Certainly it was a different magic, but I'd argue, at least from '68 through about '72, they released some fine, some excellent, records. And they had some great isolated moments on record after that.

NOTE: As I stated above, I'm no Deadhead. So this guide addresses studio and mainstream live releases. I will briefly address the Dick's Picks series, though.

The Grateful Dead (1967) ***
Those music listeners who bought the debut and then showed up to a show expecting something similar were in store for either a rude awakening or a mindblowing experience, depending on their preferences (and pharmaceutical state). The Dead were clearly not comfortable in the studio at this stage, playing concise, tentative versions of songs that they would expand to unfamiliarity onstage. Yet these qualities were also its modest charms.

Anthem of the Sun (part live) (1968) ****
A unique studio/live experiment that really works. All parties were disappointed that the debut failed to capture the true nature of the band, but the sophomore effort definitely did, at least at this stage. They recorded several versions of each song both in the studio and live, sometimes drastically different versions in different keys and tempos, and then freely spliced them together, constructing a sonic mosaic from these disparate pieces. It is experimental art, one of the greatest psychedelic records ever made and while a challenging listen, well worth the effort.

Aoxomoxoa (1969) ***
Docked a star for "What's Become of the Baby" alone, which is one of my least favorite songs by any band that I really like. And being over eight minutes in length, it dominates the second half of this record. That is unfortunate, because much of the rest of this is really great, with Dead standards like "St. Stephen," "China Cat Sunflower," "Cosmic Charlie" and the acoustic/psychedelic gem "Rosemary."

Live/Dead (live) (1969) ****
I'm not a huge fan of this first of many live records, but I must agree that it best captures what The Dead were all about in this crucial early period, opening with a 23-minute signature version of "Dark Star." This is trippy long jams and psychedelic Americana. There are other Dead live records that I prefer, but none are as important as this one.

Workingman’s Dead (1970) ****
American Beauty (1970) *****
I really view these two high points as a double record, as they were released within the same year and are so sonically connected. I give the edge to AB because it is slightly richer, but both are (near) perfect records that use deep American roots music as templates, yet create something unique and of the day. The Jerry Garcia/Robert Hunter songwriting team comes into its own here. These records were such a break from what had come before too, there is no psychedelia, no long jams. Just tight, concise songwriting using American music idioms of folk, country and blues wonderfully. Look at most Dead "hits" collections, and about half of the songs come from these two records. I can't recommend them highly enough.

Grateful Dead (aka Skull and Roses) (live) (1971) ****
Europe ’72 (live) (1972) ****
Garcia (Jerry Garcia solo album) (1972) ****
Ace (Bob Weir solo album) (1972) ****
Rolling Thunder (Mickey Hart solo album) (1972) NR
History of the Grateful Dead, vol. 1 (Bear’s Choice) (live) (1973) NR
In 1972, in order to entice the Dead to re-sign, Warner Brothers offered them a unique deal. Each member could record and release a solo record. Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir and Mickey Hart took them up on the offer. While all three have since released records that really do stand apart as solo careers, these three were essentially Dead records. On Garcia, Jerry played all the instruments save the drums, and on Ace, Weir used The Dead as his band. Songs from these records ended up as Dead concert standards in decades to come. Many fans view Garcia and Ace as the follow-ups to Workingman's Dead and American Beauty, and I agree (put them together and they are a killer, ***** double record). The Dead started using live records to also introduce new material, and both Grateful Dead (not to be confused with debut The Grateful Dead) and Europe '72 are awesome, a mix of classics, great covers, thrilling jams and top notch new material. This was the end of their most accomplished period.

ABOVE: While Jerry Garcia was the heart and soul as well as musical leader of The Grateful Dead and there from the beginning to end, it was a bit dangerous to play keyboards for them. In a Spinal Tapesque twist, four Dead keyboardists have met their demise.

Wake of the Flood (1973) **
From the Mars Hotel (1974) ***
Skeletons From the Closet: Best of the Grateful Dead (compilation) (1974) ***
Blues For Allah (1975) ***
Steal Your Face (live) (1976) NR
Terrapin Station (1977) ***
What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been (compilation) (1977) ***
Shakedown Street (1978) *
Go To Heaven (1980) *
Reckoning (live) (1981) ***
Dead Set (live) (1981) NR
In the Dark (1987) ***1/2
Dylan & the Dead (live) (with Bob Dylan) (1989) *
Built To Last (1989) **
Without a Net (live) (1990) NR
The Very Best of the Grateful Dead (compilation) (2003) ****
From 1973 forward, the Dead do earn their reputation for being relatively disappointing in the studio and saving their best for the road. That is not to say that there are not some great songs on most of these records, because there are. But most of the records are not that consistent, and some are really bad (particularly from the late 70's and early 80's). In the Dark is notable for being one of the more surprising commercial comebacks, including their biggest hit, "Touch of Grey." It was rightfully a big record, after a seven year hiatus from the studio they had some time to hone a solid set of new tunes on the road (Weir's "Hell in a Bucket" and Garcia's lovely "Black Muddy River" are also highlights). The live record with Bob Dylan is often cited as a nadir for both parties. As for compilations, as you might imagine, The Dead are particularly difficult to succinctly anthologize, because so much of what they are about is found in live and sprawling, extended form. But The Very Best serves as a fine single disc intro to the more approachable material.

The Official Unofficial Live Material:
By my count, using Wikipedia's assistance, I found 118 Dead sanctioned live albums or collections, covering the late 60's shows through the early 90's, in addition to the live records released during their career (pre-death of Garcia) that are listed above. They also encouraged bootleggers, and so there is a still thriving market beyond these. I only have a small handful of these 118, and this is where Deadheads feel that the "real" Grateful Dead is represented. The Dick's Picks series was particularly successful, featuring 36 volumes. I went online to find the consensus "best" Dick's Picks, and those seem to be Volume 4 and Volume 8 (both from shows from 1970). I grabbed both, and I'd give Volume 8 a solid **** (haven't listened closely enough to Volume 4 yet to rate it). I would also highly recommend the marathon four disc show, The Closing of Winterland (live) (1978/2003) ****, an all-night New Year's Eve party they played as the last concert at the legendary Winterland Arena in hometown San Francisco before the storied venue shut down. The show went on so long that The Dead served breakfast to the fans the next morning.

Bottom Line: 1968-72 is where to focus as far as studio work goes, with Workingman's Dead and American Beauty being their best. Grateful Dead (1971), Europe '72, Dick's Picks vol. 4 and vol. 8 and The Closing of Winterland are what I would recommend for official live recordings, but I am far from an expert in that arena. Grateful Dead (1971) in particular is manageable and very good, as it is "only" a double album. Deadheads would banish me for recommending a compilation, but The Very Best of The Grateful Dead is an outstanding single disc intro to the best of the studio material.

Damn Cute, I Say

Dead Pool Results

I doubt you recall, but last July I posted about a Dead Pool that I was involved in with a good friend, KE. Original post is here. Briefly, a Dead Pool is a betting pool on celebrity deaths. We set it up with one point per death on our roster, and 2 points if the person was under 50. We had a draft, with 20 slots each. You could drop and add, but no more than 20 people on each roster at any given time and you had to have at least two people under 50.

Things started with a bang, so to speak, the day after the draft I knocked off Andy Griffith. But within the week, KE hit back hard with a little Ernest Borgnine. Things settled down a bit after that, though. The results...

Dez was victorious with a 5-2 score for the year.

Dez: RIP Andy Griffith, Hugo Chavez, Michael C. Duncan, Arlen Spector and George McGovern.

KE: RIP Ernest Borgnine and Margaret Thatcher.

It was fun, but I don't think we are going for a year two. JMW, you mentioned that you are involved in one of these things. How have you done?

ABOVE: I know that Fidel Castro has been dying for about two decades, but I thought 2012-13 might be the season, so I drafted him in the fifth round. Nope. He's still around, allegedly.

Day 2: March 4, 1628

ABOVE: The early area of Massachusetts Bay colony and Plymouth colony. The other names around there are the inconvenient Indian tribes who happened to be there first. Right after the Revolution and when the colonies became states, Massachusetts boldly claimed that their state border went west all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The rest of the country did not agree.

What Happened:
On March 4, 1628, King Charles I granted a charter to the New England Company for a "plantation in Massachusetts Bay." Although some settlers had gone to what was to become Massachusetts in the years prior, there were conflicting grants and claims. (Plymouth had been established in 1620). This charter established legal authority for Massachusetts to exist as an English colony. In April of 1630, settlement began in earnest.

The Puritans were a tough nut to crack. The Church of England was a bold institution as it was to stand as an alternative to the all powerful Catholic Church. But for these Puritan fellows, that was not enough. Oh no. Puritans felt that the Church of England had not gone far enough to purify itself from all remnants of Catholic corruption (hence their name). The Puritans became a nuisance, because the monarchs of England rightly saw that the religious boldness of the Puritans could easily lead to political boldness, and that certainly would not do. So the Puritans were harassed, so much so that many of them left England for places like Holland. But many Puritans (whose religious roots were in the ideas of John Calvin and such happy doctrines as predestination) wanted a place of their own to worship and live as they pleased. It was the extreme separatist Puritans who sailed off course and ended up settling at Plymouth. A more "moderate" (only moderate when compared to other Puritans) bunch got the Massachusetts charter.

Why This Is Important:
While the establishment of any of the original colonies is a milestone, Massachusetts is most significant, I think, for several reasons. You could make an argument for Jamestown or Virginia, which were earlier and primarily commercial ventures, as the most significant early colonial settlements, but it is from the traditions established in Massachusetts that we get so much of our own political roots.

The "pilgrims" who settled in Plymouth made the famous Mayflower Compact, a written agreement to form a representative local government. Written being the key word, so from the very beginning a break from English tradition of an unwritten constitution. We Americans like it all down in writing. Charles I didn't realize it at the time, but it was very significant that the Massachusetts charter was a written document as well, and that the Puritans brought the original with them to the New World. Later they would insist on holding Britain to its terms, the idea that a charter (or later a Constitution) is a written contract between a government and its people.

On the 1630 trip over, leader/preacher John Winthrop gave a sermon that has to be one of the most important sermons in American history, "A Model of Christian Charity." In it, Winthrop expressed his vision of what Massachusetts would be, using the famous Biblical image of "a city upon a hill." From the beginning, Winthrop and others saw the new societies being established in the New World as different from the Old World of Europe. Massachusetts (and later America) would be the city upon a hill, the ideal for the rest of the world to look up to and emulate. Thus the belief of American Exceptionalism was born, right on one of the earliest boat trips over. Did this ideal ever die out? The "shining city on a hill" was a central image in several of Ronald Reagan's most celebrated speeches. Kennedy used it as well. It is something either cherished or reviled about America, this idea that we see ourselves as exceptional in human history.

ABOVE: John Winthrop. From the earliest days, we knew that we were better than everyone else. Because we're 'Merica. That is my general response when a student in my class questions American actions throughout history. I look at them and say, "but we're 'Merica."

Also crucial early on in Massachusetts, what some historians refer to as the "incubator of American democracy," were the townhalls established in Massachusetts towns. This was the closest the civilized world of this time came to that Athenian democratic ideal of local decisionmaking. All male Church members could vote and discuss local issues at these townhalls. That doesn't sound too democratic by our standards today (it was roughly about half of the white male population of any given locality), but for that time that was a higher percentage of eligible voters than anywhere in Europe.

While the Congregational (Puritan) Church dominated society in much of New England, Massachusetts also established early on a separation between political leadership and religion. There would be no Church of America officially sanctioned by the government. Education was also stressed early on, in large part due to the protestant belief that each individual should have a personal relationship with God without the need for a church to intercede. How do you do that? Read the Bible. So you've got to know how to read. Harvard was established in 1636.

ABOVE: Witches! In 1692 young girls in Salem, Mass. claimed to have been bewitched by older women in town. In all, 20 women were executed for witchcraft during the hysteria. What was really interesting, though, is that the accusers were poor inland girls, while the accused were usually from wealthier merchant families. It was really indicative of a growing class conflict as it was religious.

The "Protestant Work Ethic" that was such a root of early American enterprise was really born here as well. Once cash crops and farming were established in the Southern and Middle colonies (tobacco, rice, later cotton), life became easier there. But New England was not blessed with fertile soil. The Pilgrims really couldn't have picked a worse area along the East Coast to land for farming. In New England, people simply had to work harder to be successful, and farming was not the end all in the region because it couldn't be (notable later because slavery never took hold in New England, there were no plantations). So by necessity, New England became the commercial and business hub of the Colonies. Shipbuilding, commerce and trade, fishing, fur trapping in the interior...the most diverse economy in the Colonies was here. Most people had to work hard to succeed, and comparably to Europe, that was a great equalizer socially. No nobility (or huge underclass) took hold in New England. Why would it? If you were aristocracy, life was good in Europe, so why bother with the hassle. The people who came here, especially to New England it seemed, were ambitious people who wanted to move up the ladder of success. It takes a risk-taker and entrepreneur to simply take that step, make the trip over and start over.

While such free thinkers like Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams were banished or worse in the early days, it is no coincidence that the center for rebellion against the Empire once the Revolutionary Period began was New England, and especially Boston. A unique way of life had been developed in New England, and men like Sam and John Adams, John Hancock and Paul Revere fiercely wanted to protect it once the British authorities belatedly decided to get a firm hold on these colonial ruffians. But that is for a future post.

Dez Record Guides: Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler

First off, Mark Knopfler is my favorite guitar player. I don't think he's the best, but his playing style appeals more to me than anyone else. He has a crisp, fluid fingerpicking style played on a very clean stratocaster (up until 1985, when he starts to add some distortion, starts playing on a Gibson sometimes and loses some uniqueness). He can also play wonderful acoustically, and on a track or two per record will pull out the resonator guitar (pictured on the album cover of Brothers in Arms). I also love his songwriting with Dire Straits, and even his gruff, pedestrian vocals have a certain charm. Pretty much everything about Dire Straits appeals to me, and they have long been a favorite. I have discussed before how my first concert experience was seeing the Brothers in Arms tour, and it remains one of the best shows I've ever seen. And I don't just say that out of fuzzy happy memories, I have a bootleg copy of that show. It actually does kick serious ass. Mark Knopfler was Dire Straits, so I had every reason to hope that his solo work would be as great. I was wrong.

Dire Straits (1978) *****
One of the more remarkable things about Dire Straits's debut is that it is so out of place for its time. The storytelling with pub rock backing and featuring Mark Knopfler's already distinct fingerpicked guitar playing is completely and blissfully out of step with the disco, punk rock or New Wave of the time.

Live at the BBC (live) (1978/1981/1995) ****
An early club show in support of the debut, it is primarily for the DS enthusiast, but it features some more muscular versions of the debut's songs, especially a superior "Six Blade Knife."

Communique (1979) ***
Definitely treading water, even Knopfler is quick to dismiss the rushed sophomore effort. It should not be completely dismissed, "Once Upon A Time in the West," "Lady Writer," "Portobello Belle" and "Where Do You Think You're Going?" all stand up to the debut's standards, but the rest ranks as the most forgettable DS material. Knopfler knew it too, he made some major line-up changes in preparation for the third record.

Making Movies (1980) *****
Knopfler's personnel moves proved to be perfectly timed, as the more flexible and muscular line-up was able to match his growing ambitions. MM is one of the most beloved records in British rock history (it would take until 1985 for the Americans to figure this band out). Side One is one of the strongest sides on any record: the epic "Tunnel of Love" remains Knopfler's greatest achievement as a songwriter and as a musician, "Romeo and Juliet" is a love song with few equals, and the catchy single "Skateaway" closes the side. The second half only flags slightly. This remains DS's greatest record.

Love Over Gold (1982) ***1/2
Knopfler's ambitions continue to grow, and here they exceed his reach. This is their almost prog effort, with the laborious 14 minute opener "Telegraph Road," which stops and starts so many times that the song can never build the momentum that it should have to actually be compelling. "Private Investigations" is one of Knopfler's most interesting character studies, following a noir bottom feeder P.I. through his shady work.

Twisting By the Pool (aka ExtendedDancEPlay) (EP) (1983) ***
Knopfler seemed to immediately realize that LOG was a bit too labored and unecessarily dense, and the group tossed off this purposely loose and nostalgic four song EP, almost as a way to shake off the weight of the previous record. It is minor, but also pretty fun (which LOG definitely was not), and two of the four songs made it into their regular setlists in the years to come ("Twisting By the Pool" and "Two Young Lovers.") It is a bit hard to find these days, making it somewhat of a collector's item.

Alchemy (live) (1984) *****
Depending on how you like your Straits, you either adore this live effort or it leaves you cold. DS often drastically reworked and expanded their songs in concert. For instance, the five minute studio track "Once Upon a Time in the West" becomes a dynamic 14 minute opener here. ("Tunnel of Love" and "Sultans of Swing" recieve similar expansions, funny that "Telegraph Road," though, is actually shortened). I love it when Knopfler stretches out and builds the tension in his songs through use of dynamics largely missing from the studio versions, and Alchemy remains one of my all time favorite records. It is Dire Straits 101 for me, but it is not for everyone.


Brothers in Arms (1985) ****
Here is where the rest of the world figured out what England already knew. The unlikely blockbuster that was BIA surprised everyone, probably especially Knopfler. The indellible guitar riff of "Money For Nothin'" and the ridiculously catchy "Walk of Life" certainly helped (as did the popular music videos that accompanied them). But it is the album tracks that keep me coming back, like the spooky mercenary tale of "Ride Across the River," the war criminal confessional "The Man's Too Strong," or the gorgeous slowburning title track evoking haunting images of the holocaust. Unusual topics for rock and roll, but Knopfler through superior songwriting and always great musical composition makes them work.

Money For Nothin’ (compilation) (1988) ****
Flawed but still workable compilation, and to be honest, what came after this is not very necessary, so it can be seen as covering the essentials. Some songs had to be severely edited for space conerns, though, lessening their impact.

On Every Street (1991) **
On the Night (live) (1993) **
Encores (live EP) (1993) NR
Knopfler took six years to follow up the blockbuster BIA, and he simply choked. I think he was already looking beyond Dire Straits at this point. Some good songs here (title track, the too long "Calling Elvis," "My Parties"), but most of this is forgettable and bland, and the unforgiveble "Heavy Fuel" is nothing less than embarassing, a blatant attempt at another "Money For Nothin'" but failing in every way that the latter was successful. The live record from the tour brings some more life to some of these songs (especially the great "On Every Street"), but not enough.

Sultans of Swing: The Best of Dire Straits (compilation) (1998) ****
The Best of Dire Straits & Mark Knopfler: Private Investigations (compilation) (2005) ***
SOS is probably the most comprehensive DS compilation, but is weighed down by an emphasis on later material. The single disc version of PI is too short to do either DS or Knopfler justice, while the two disc version is passable, but the haphazard track order makes for a messy listen. Honestly, no compilation has really gotten Dire Straits completely right.

MARK KNOPFLER SOLO WORK


Covering Knopfler's solo career is more challenging, due to the volume of his work. He performed as a guest musician on well over 100 recordings (for Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Randy Newman and many other impressive names). He has produced records, and has recorded eight soundtracks for films. I won't list all of this, but his most notable soundtrack was his first, for 1983's 'Local Hero' (****). The music is just gorgeous, and a couple of tracks became part of Dire Straits's setlists. Screenplaying (compilation) (1993) **** is a nice collection of some of his soundtrack work, covering selections from 'Cal,' 'Last Exit to Brooklyn,' 'The Princess Bride' and 'Local Hero.' As for his "regular" solo work...

Missing...Presumed Having a Good Time (as a member of the Notting Hillbillies) (1990) ***
Neck and Neck (with Chet Atkins) (1990) NR
Golden Heart (1996) **
Sailing to Philadelphia (2000) ***
The Ragpicker's Dream (2002) **
Shangri-La (2004) **
The Trawlerman's Song (EP) (2005) NR
One Take Radio Sessions (live EP) (2005) **
All the Roadrunning (with Emmylou Harris) (2006) **
Real Live Roadrunning (live) (with Emmylou Harris) (2006) ***
Kill To Get Crimson (2007) **
Get Lucky (2009) **
Privateering (2012) NR
As you can see, my view of Knopfler's solo work is low (akin to how I feel about Sting's post-1991 work when compared to The Police). I have to admit that it is critically well regarded (more respected critically than Dire Straits, actually). I don't understand why. By and large, it is subdued to the point of dull, he has reigned in his signature guitar playing in exchange for focusing on being a bluesy singer-songwriter. Some of his lyrics are interesting, but not enough to make up for the overall blandness of the sound. Believe me, the fan I am of Dire Straits, I was very ready to love his solo work as well. Didn't happen. Sailing To Philadelphia is the best of the lot, with a couple of tunes that sound like they could have been excellent latterday Dire Straits (opener "What It Is," "Speedway at Nazareth," the great title track that is a dialogue between explorers Lewis & Clark in the form of a duet with James Taylor). But I just cannot get into the rest of his solo work.

Bottom Line: As far as Dire Straits goes, I would send anyone to Making Movies first, then to Dire Straits and Brothers in Arms. I am a staunch supporter of Alchemy as their peak, but it is not for everyone. I cannot recommend anything from Knopfler's solo work other than the soundtracks to 'Local Hero' and 'Princess Bride.' Screenplaying is a nice collection of Knopfler's early soundtrack work. Knopfler's best solo album is Sailing to Philadelphia, but even than one is just OK. I will admit, however, that critics tend to like his solo work.

Day 1: July 28, 1588

What Happened:

Now hold on there, Dez (you are saying). This list is supposed to be events in American History, and we are not even a country for another 188 years! While that may be true, there are some events leading up to 1776 without which 1776 may not have happened, or at least may not have happened when and how it did. This is one of them.

It was a time when the Protestant Reformation was still sweeping Europe, and the Catholic vs. Protestant choice was often determined through force. Mary I had been catholic, and had forged strong relations with her cousin and husband, Phillip II of Spain. Phillip II had an eye to rule England, but things went south for him once Mary I died and her half sister Elizabeth I, an ardent protestant, gained the crown of England. Finally Phillip II decided to that he had to take England by force, with the excuse to stop the spread of protestantism there, and amassed what was the largest naval fleet in history up to that point, the Spanish Armada.

It was under Elizabeth I that England first became a sea power. There was the search for the mythical "Northwest Passage," but England mainly prospered through robbing the Spanish. Pirates such as Francis Drake and John Hawkins became extremely wealthy harassing and robbing the Spanish of their gold around the world. What was worse, Elizabeth I was knighting them for their efforts.

ABOVE: Sir Francis Drake. Pirate. Knight. Criminal. English hero. Entrepreneur. As he said regarding Calais (below), he "singed the Spanish beard."

The Armada was a massive failure for the Spanish. Nothing went right. The Spanish commander died, so once they set sail Phillip II put Sidonia in charge, a man who had no experience at sea whatsoever and often got seasick. Drake caught the Armada by surprise when they were docked at Cadiz and burned a bunch of ships, putting the invasion off for a year, so it was hardly a surprise and the English had plenty of time to prepare. The English successfully prevented a landing in England the next year, and so the Armada was forced to dock at Calais, preventing them from picking up the Spanish army in the Netherlands. On July 28, 1588, pirate/knight Drake sent burning ships into the harbor at Calais, terrifying the Spanish. Crucially, the Armada broke up its tight formation and the Spanish ships scattered. Although the Spanish ships were massive hulks and looked impressive, they were slow moving and not very maneuverable. The English had smaller and faster ships. With the Spanish fleet out of formation, the English ships were able to pick them off, zig zagging in and out of Spanish cannon range. Then storms hit (The "Protestant Wind," as Englishmen called it), forcing the Spanish ships north around Ireland and Scotland, where half of the fleet sank to the bottom of the ocean. The rest of the mighty Armada crawled back to Spain in utter defeat. The Spanish navy lost over 20,000 men, while the English casualties were about 100 and zero ships lost.

Why is it important to 'Merica?:

First of all, it is difficult to attribute great swings in history to just one event (impossible and foolish, really). BUT, what if Phillip II had been successful in conquering England with his Armada and Army and taken the English throne for himself? Would we all be speaking Spanish today? I wouldn't go that far, but British colonization (leading to 'Merica) would not have unfolded as it did, if at all.

Spain itself still had the largest overseas Empire (Latin America), but it was broke, cocky, overreaching, and had way too much of a good thing. Spain was flush with gold and especially silver from its empire, but as you remember from Economics class, value is based on the combination of supply and demand, and with plentiful supply, Spain had runaway inflation. Had Phillip II conquered England, would it have been a shortlived Spanish rule, or would it have lasted? Would Spain still have crumbled economically the way it did, or would British resources and wealth have saved it? Even if Spanish rule lasted only 50 or 100 years, that would have greatly altered early British colonization. Jamestown was founded in 1607. It was under Elizabeth I that the first English colonial attempts were made in The New World, starting with Sir Walter Raleigh's doomed Roanoke five years prior to the Armada.

Here's what we do know. Spain's fighting spirit was forever dampened by the loss of the Armada. England crucially becomes the most dominant naval power in the North Atlantic. Spain's colonial aspirations in North America dwindle as well, as the Armada is the beginning of the end of Spain as a world power. The subsequent peace with Spain provided opportunity to colonize with only really the French to worry about. And who really worries about the French?

The factors were now in place for a British Empire. A strong and unified nation, religious unity, growing nationalism, a desire for exploration and an entrepreneurial spirit. England's population was booming, and while wealthy landowners fenced off prime land for sheep, a restless and landless class was growing. These people needed a place to go, both for themselves and for peace at home, and colonies were the answer to provide a safety valve. Primogeniture (eldest son in a family inherits everything, leaving other children to fend for themselves) ensured that younger, ambitious sons had to make their way entrepreneurially and could not count on inheritance. Drake, Raleigh, and other important names during this period were not eldest sons. The creation of the joint-stock company (a forerunner to the corporation) allowed the spread of risk in funding these costly, dangerous overseas adventures. So, peace with Spain offers opportunity, population growth provides need and manpower, unemployment and thirst for adventure, profit and religious freedom provides motive, and the joint-stock company offers the means. It was time to colonize! How would a successful Armada and Phillip II's conquering of England in 1588 changed this picture?