Few serious students of western astrology would consider NOT looking in depth at the Sun, the Moon, and the eight planets (even though Pluto's status as a planet has recently been challenged, I doubt that this has appreciably altered many astrologer's opinions).  

I'd also be quite shocked if many (if any) astrologers neglect the Ascendant or the Midheaven. But after these "biggies" have been analyzed, then what?  These angular points are probably necessary to any thorough analysis, and of tremendous importance when studying Solar Arcs, for example.  This is where the picture becomes cloudy, downright muddy, or very interesting -- depending on your point of view.

So what about the Lunar Nodes, the Vertex, the Equatorial Ascendant, the Part of Fortune (and other Arabic Parts), Chiron, other Asteroids, Transpluto, etc?  The tendency for someone just starting to study astrology is to want to include everything (so as not to miss anything).  Add my name to the guilty on that count.  So why not just punch the appropriate buttons on your computer astrology program and sit in awe at all the "stuff" that prints out.  Now don't get me wrong.  I think programs like Win*Star are great.  It's just that it is so tempting to accumulate reams of paper that really don't help us with the interpretation.  

The trouble is just that so often there is so much "stuff" that something has to give.  To attempt to comprehend even the basics with so many other things there to distract us, we become lost in a quagmire, a veritable astrological maze that becomes more confusing the more we look at it.

Wow!  Now that's impressive (in a kaleidoscopic/psychedelic sort of way).  But just how useful is all that information when it's crunched in with everything else?  Personally, I find that my brain just "shuts down" from over-stimulation when looking at that much information and trying to make any sense of it. 

OK.  [sigh] Now that's more like it!  Can't you almost even breathe easier looking at this chart now that the claustrophobic congestion of astrological "stuff" is removed?  I actually prefer not to have the aspect lines drawn in by the computer, but to draw them in myself.  It seems to be less confusing and you can put the emphasis where you feel it. Like advertising experts recognize, it's important to have some white space in order for the eye to be drawn to the message they want to be read.

I can already hear the voices saying, "But you just have to include Chiron! (or something else)".    I'm certainly not saying Chiron (or whatever) is unimportant or irrelevant. My point is that we can easily risk losing the proverbial tree in this astrological forest unless we set some limits.  

One of the things about astrology that most fascinates me is that no one person can possibly learn all there is to know.  Some degree of specialization or selectivity is necessary.  Otherwise the tendency is to spread ourselves too thin, knowing a little bit about everything but failing to grasp the total person suggested by these symbolic marks on the horoscope page.  Rather than adding clarity with additional measurements we may unnecessarily complicate the big picture.

Particularly when we are just beginning to study astrology, it is so important to fully comprehend the basic concepts.  Only after we're comfortable with these should we consider adding other points to our analytical repertoires.  

Personally, I can't imagine doing without the North node/Nodal axis in any analysis of a natal chart.  Another that I'm especially fond of is the Aries Point.  Others undoubtedly feel the same about other points.  So be it.  Each to his/her own.  We just need to remember that more is not always better.