(no subject)

[learnedax]

Having just recently yet again argued this point, I went back and listened to the source material for re-analysis. So, if you think the Indigo Girls version of Romeo and Juliet is better than the Dire Straits one, I understand that it's a purely subjective choice, and I now see why you think that. But you're still wrong.

The benefit that IG imparts is a much higher level of vocal passion, and it is a fair criticism that Mark Knopfler is not the most expressive of singers. However, the advantages offered by DS are as follows: first, Mr. Knopfler actually manages to hit the notes cleanly, which gets him points over IG in my book. Second, the musical accompaniment in the DS version is unquestionably better; Mark's a guitar god and he is in fine form here. Third, and perhaps most important, the non-wailing laconic style that DG employes captures the worn-out melancholy of the song vastly better than the emotional breakdown that IG offers.

Yes, it does seem pedantic to beat this to death here, but given how many people seem to disagree with me I thought I'd centralize.

Comments

[solipsistnation.livejournal.com]

Okay, after checking out the Indigo Girls cover, I have to say that anyone who thinks it's in any way better than Dire Straits is smoking some kind of incredible foul tainted crack and needs to hit rehab right quick.

Good lord. Her voice isn't suited to it. The guitar isn't suited to it. Knopfler's guitar makes a song like that-- his playing is so fluid that it becomes a backup vocalist on its own. And he doesn't have that forced, stylized "hi we're folkies" singing voice that makes the Indigo Girls so good when they're doing forced, stylized folkie tunes. He's just a guy, singing. Dire Straits' "Romeo and Juliet" makes me weep. The Indigo Girls' version is so much less powerful it's almost a different song entirely. Shoot, the strumming alone makes it seem like some kind of remedial guitar textbook example.

Makr Knopfler is a very expressive singer-- people who say otherwise have mistaken histrionics for expressiveness.

So, I agree with you utterly, except for your assertion that the Indigo Girls' cover has any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

[tpau]

i love yo dear, but you are smoking crack and not sharing. the indogo girls version rocks the world, and knopfler sounds liek a dyign frog... who has smoked all it's life... unfiltered...

the song is so much better in the IG version!

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I love both versions but I have to give the vote to Knopfler and Dire Straits as well. Amy Ray's throaty, passionate rendition is stirring but it's clearly a folked-up cover of what Knopfler correctly delivers as a ballad. There may be another artist that can deliver the definitive cover, but the Indigo Girls verison isn't it.

[its-just-me.livejournal.com]

You ARE on crack!! Amy Ray makes that song into what it's SUPPOSED to sound like. The Dire Straights couldn't keep up with her passion and catharsis for the song. As far as i'm concerned they walked through the whole performance. There ya go - my two zuzim.

i find it hard to believe people can debate this subject

[ex-drdt.livejournal.com]

since the Girls don't even sing their own songs properly, I can't imagine their interpretation of one of knopfler's masterpieces being anything but vapid. i only just found out today that they even tried to cover this piece, and am mildly disturbed at the prospect. did Amy at least get voice lessons?

i agree that with knopfler, it is all about the guitar. and the deep sexy voice. and the effortless way he just drops songs on us so we can feel them for ourselves, rather than having them felt for us by the singer.

for IG, its all about the earplugs.