A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Jules on April 07, 2012, 10:29:56 PM
-
This was the message posted in MKNEWS in year 2000 where Ed Bicknell announced the end of his managerial contract with MK
I am writing on behalf of Mark Knopfler, John Illsley, Dire Straits and myself to advise that by mutual consent all Management Agreements between the aforementioned individuals and their companies will be terminated with effect from close of business, August 31st, 2000. Until that date Damage Management will operate as normal.
The September 25th release of Mark Knopfler's next solo album Sailing To Philadelphia is going ahead but the film soundtrack A Shot At Glory will probably not be released until the Spring of next year - although this entirely depends on the picture's release date being set. The promotional tour to support the Sailing To Philadelphia album will be taken over by my friend and colleague Paul Crockford, former manager of Level 42 and co-manager of Tears For Fears.
I've been advised that many of you are enquiring about tour dates and that this has been mentioned in some press as a consequence of interviews Mark has been undertaking over the last month. I cannot comment on what Mark may or may not have said to the press because I wasn't present but, at the time of writing , I can categorically state:
1. There are no tour plans at present, although I know that Mark very much wants to play live dates if feasible.
2. I have not spoken to or approached any promoter in any territory re a future MK tour, nor have I been asked to do so.
3. No halls or venues in any territory in the world are on hold or have been provisionally booked for a MK tour.
Although I won't be directly involved it has always been agreed that touring would only be considered around the end of November when everybody has had an opportunity to see how the Sailing To Philadelphia record does. Even if touring were to be a possibility I doubt very much that any tour would start before April/May of next year AT THE EARLIEST.
John Horwood, Jean Seal and myself, would like to thank all of the fans for their support over the years and to ask each and every one of them to look out for the next Blue Nile album, which will be released in the Spring of next year!
It has been an incredible journey.......love and best wishes to you all.
ED BICKNELL (27/07/2000)
-
Very interestin, thanks, jbaent!
And not a single friendly word about Mark...
LE
-
and the tour started in march 2001, how did they set up that rather longish tour so fast?
-
and the tour started in march 2001, how did they set up that rather longish tour so fast?
I
-
Very interestin, thanks, jbaent!
And not a single friendly word about Mark...
LE
I guess he was very dissapointed with Mark, after all that years taken care of him, looks like Mark didnt hesitate to break the relatioship despite their friendship.
Just two years after, when MK played the MK and friends gigs, there were two missing musicians in both bands, Ed Bicknell on the NHB, and Alan Clark on DS. I think it says a lot of how their relationships ended.
That note is a very sad memory to me but it wasnt a surprise. Many of you that were on the TR mailing list might remember Giancarlo Passarella
-
I presume they are still on fairly good terms, because Ed was present at the APRS presentation in 2010 and said some very nice things about Mark in his speech. :)
-
As you say, yeah, a very far memory. Makes sense now more remembering MK always talking rather without respect for his own work about "that philadelphia record..." when announcing songs live on stage... I think since he has British Grove the albums really sound the way he always wanted them to sound. KTGC seems to mark a new turning point in his career...
LE
-
I presume they are still on fairly good terms, because Ed was present at the APRS presentation in 2010 and said some very nice things about Mark in his speech. :)
A friend of mine that was living in Chelsea some years ago saw Ed Bicknell at Kings Road and was talking with him, and Ed mentioned that although they were not friends anymore after that, they were neighbours, and when MK had the motorbike accident, Ed went to see him. They are not friends anymore but they speak to each other and sometimes they share a tea.
Maybe things have improved between them by now, jbaent. The motorbike accident was 2003 and since then Ed has been invited to the Variety Club Lunch in 2006 and also the APRS Presentation in 2010. If they share tea together, things can't be too bad. I hope so anyway.
-
I can see Mark having problems with being pushed around by a record company after having been a prolific artist for 20 years. But then, STP is a superb record and I am quite happy that Red Staggerwing was left out...
-
I always felt that Ed was very good for MK's career.
He was also very professional, moreso than PC (if I may say); just look at the Toronto Internet hub, the fact you don't know where your VIP pre-booked seats are (mine usually front row, very end ::)) I could go on but I just don't think he is managed well.
Oh, and there was the appearance on Alan Tichmarch! Next Crocks will have him doing promo on Loose Women! ;D
-
LOL dmg! Those daytime TV shows are really the pits, especially the two mentioned! ::)
Regarding seating - I would really prefer to be able to choose where I sit from MK.com, but on the whole I have been extremely lucky with my seat allocation. Out of four concerts for Get Lucky, I was on the front row, centre for three of them. The only iffy seat was my fourth concert at Bournemouth, front row, very end and in front of huge speakers! In spite of this, the sound was still very good.
-
You lot know more than I do about these things. When you lack the inside information, maybe you should start with what you do know. I understand that there was a working relationship with PC before the split with Ed but it may help to consider these two events - the split with Ed and the signing with PC - as two separate events. Sometimes, just developing a succession of questions helps to clarify matters a bit in one's mind.
In suggesting the following questions, I do not intend to suggest any particualr scenario or sequence of events. If it appears so, I apologise in advance. I am simply suggesting a more analytical style for consideration of this matter.
> Would the signing with PC have happened if Mark had not split from Ed?
> If the answer is "No", was it an amicable split?
> If not, what prompted the split with Ed?
> If there were differences between Mark and Ed, what were those differences?
> If those differences started over managerial, music and/or related matters, what were those matters?
> And did they escalate to become more personal? This is not uncommon but, is that what happened in this case?
> If it did, it can be very difficult to reconcile those differences without one party or the other losing face. If so, is time a healing force following the break in such a long-standing and close relationship?
> Is that what has happened here?
Let's move on to the question of PC.
> Why was PC brought into the managerial fold on behalf of MK in the first place?
> How did that come about?
> What was PC's role in (or with) Damage Management?
> What was the division of responsibility between PC and Ed in terms of managerial responsibility for MK?
> If PC were brought in by MK, did he have a plan in mind?
> Or did MK simply wish to shake up his own management structure in some way but without any clear idea of what the outcome would be?
> Has there been any indication whatsoever that PC, having been brought in, acted to achieve sole responsibility for MK managerially?
> If so, what were those indications?
> If not, did Mark simply turn to him, as if to a port in a storm, when the split with Ed occurred?
> Does MK have exactly the same legal relationship with PC that he had with Ed?
> If not, what are the differences?
> And does PC have the same personal relationship with MK as Ed did?
> If not, what are the differences?
These questions then lead on to the different managerial approaches of PC and Ed. I guess it depends on your definition of professional but there is one different factor here. Mark is in a very different place in his career from where he was over 30 years ago. DS/MK and Ed, in a career sense, grew up together. MK and PC did not. PC came into the managerial fold after the initial success had peaked, perhaps at a time when MK was less sure about his musical future. Another difference is that MK was Damage Management. I'm not saying that Damage didn't have other interests (you'll know more about this) but MK was, as they say, the main man (just as DS had been its main group). With PC, MK simply joined an existing management set-up. As they used to say in the early days of pop and rock music, he joined PC's stable of performers. This is, in my opinion, a very different managerial situation. It is therefore not surprising that we perceive a different management approach.
Having said that, some of the changes that we, as true fans in your case and as a concert-attender in mine, have experienced since the switch to PCM have not been to our liking. As said, the ticketing arrangements have been less than helpful. Since fans want to be fairly close to the stage, not knowing where your seats are on a pre-sale makes it impossible to know whether to apply through the normal channels. If you do, you can select the better seats for yourself but are then left with the problem of off-loading the ones you don't need. There have been some other annoying decisions by PCM, as well. In broad terms, PCM is far less fan-friendly than Damage. Whether that's down to PC or MK, I don't know.
What i can say is that, having met and spoken to both PC and Ed briefly at concerts (neither knows who I am from Adam), Ed was the more personable. I think this is reflected in the way the respective management organisations work and operate.
-
I
-
I
-
And the more successful Mark would be, the more $$$ would come Ed's way.
-
Something missing in the MK/Bicknell story is GH - what about years of recording, Irish influences, a limited tour? What did Ed feel at that point, considering they later parted on the question of ambition (in one sense)?
-
I guess Ed wanted to resurrect DS.
STP was Mark's most "DS-sounding" solo record. It was also the most sucessful, maybe the 2 are related. Maybe Mark started to get pissed off because he realized he could'nt do what he wanted of his very own record, despite being a worldclass artist and a millionnaire. Maybe the last stroke was Ed suggesting to put the DS name on the record and present it as a DS come back ? No doubt that doing so would have made the record sell 20 million units rather than 6... but that's not what Mark wanted. He wanted to ressurect his NHB side, not his DS side, and this is what he indeed achieved with TRD...
-
I
-
I guess Ed wanted to resurrect DS.
STP was Mark's most "DS-sounding" solo record. It was also the most sucessful, maybe the 2 are related. Maybe Mark started to get pissed off because he realized he could'nt do what he wanted of his very own record, despite being a worldclass artist and a millionnaire. Maybe the last stroke was Ed suggesting to put the DS name on the record and present it as a DS come back ? No doubt that doing so would have made the record sell 20 million units rather than 6... but that's not what Mark wanted. He wanted to ressurect his NHB side, not his DS side, and this is what he indeed achieved with TRD...
Exactly my thoughts. PC is more a passive manager in a musical sense and MK likes that these days. Ed kept Mark's level high in my opinion with him thinking "he'd better not want to cut this from the album!". PC on the other hand just goes along with any rubbish and even tries to fleece the fans with poker chips and songs like Good as Gold... :disbelief
-
PC on the other hand just goes along with any rubbish and even tries to fleece the fans with poker chips and songs like Good as Gold... :disbelief
;)
LE
-
It may be worthwhile to note that, whatever Mark have said in the past about the STP record, he stills favors it very much these days. In the Get Lucky Tour no less than 4 songs from the record were played (WII, STP, SAN and PW); it seems that together with TRD it is the album he likes the most, both SL and KTGC having a very modest live treatment (almost non-existent for KTGC). And GL was somehow more similar to both STP and TRD than to KTGC and SL. Probably Mark realized that with SL and KTGC he pushed his country/folk side a little bit too far and that now he is back to a nice synthesis between his DS (or STP) and NHB (or TRD) sides. And maybe, that he made peace with Ed, who was not so wrong after all. Probably by now Ed has understood that DS is never to return as a brand (and band).
-
It is also worth noting that as much as I like GH, it is a very mixed bag; sounds like three different albums on top of each other. That may reflect all the different wills involved.
-
GH is a VERY mixed bag. But I seem to remember that that's what they used to promote back then - the voice and guitar of Dire Straits going back to explore his roots. A lot of interesting roots, but not a very coherent record. I haven't heard the whole album from beginning to end for a while, but it's pretty longish. That's a funny thing, though - I used to love very long CDs (bang for the buck :) ), but now I prefer shorter ones, for the sake of coherence. The album feels more like a unit and it doesn't get boring. A perfect example, in my humble opinion of course, is Paul Simon's album last year, So Beautiful or So What. It's under 40 minutes, but it feels just right. Great songs, great themes that make a perfect unit. Speaking of which, here are couple of interesting comments from Paul Simon himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E652VTb2ubI
Sorry for the diversion. Back to Ed and Mark.
-
I met Ed & had a great chat with him at the RAH last year when the 'Straits' debuted.
A really nice, funny man. I also met him after a couple of NHB gigs. Once in Colchester UK, & once at Ronnie Scott's jazz club in London.
A massive part of Dire Straits history.
Cheers BBB
-
Ed should write his memoirs.
-
Quote Jackal: "Ed should write his memoirs"
Hey Jackal you are right about that! ;) It would be nice to read about the period of Dire Straits.
In those years I was too busy raising my children and didn't pay attention to the music of DS,
so I can use some extra information! ;D
Fieneke
-
Picking up on what jbaent said in # 19 above, I have several times experienced the same problem - that is, I write a "reply" and press the "post" button, only to find that the posting has not registered, as it were. Mostly, this has been with longer postings, though not only so. Is there something built into the system here that applies a "timed out" effect to a posting-in-preparation after a period of time?
As for Ed, I think a memoir wouyld be very welcome. As long as it added something of substance to what has been said or written in the past, I'd buy it, I'm sure.
-
Picking up on what jbaent said in # 19 above, I have several times experienced the same problem - that is, I write a "reply" and press the "post" button, only to find that the posting has not registered, as it were. Mostly, this has been with longer postings, though not only so. Is there something built into the system here that applies a "timed out" effect to a posting-in-preparation after a period of time?
to avoid this, when I write a long post, I write it before on Word, and the paste it here. :)
-
Picking up on what jbaent said in # 19 above, I have several times experienced the same problem - that is, I write a "reply" and press the "post" button, only to find that the posting has not registered, as it were. Mostly, this has been with longer postings, though not only so. Is there something built into the system here that applies a "timed out" effect to a posting-in-preparation after a period of time?
After you type a long post, and click the "Post" button, what screen do you see next if your post is not "registered"? Do you see the log in screen?
-
Ed is the man who helped Dire Straits to become and stay huge.
Paul is the man who helps Mark to do what he wants.
-
I have tried what Jean-Francois suggested (write a Word doc and paste into your reply) and it does work (and sorry about the lack of the cedilla, J-F).
As for the screen, I get nothing special. Everything seems OK but, when you check later, your posting has seemingly disappeared. Maybe there is a parallel universe somewhere out there with lots of "lost" postings.
This reminds a little of a discussion I once had about Dylan's first trip to the UK. It was December 1962 and he had got a contract from BBC TV to appear in a play. It was telerecorded for broadcast in January 1963 but the tape was wiped some 5 years later. Audience recordings of his contribution do survive (at least three people made them) but no official BBC recordings are known to exist. Anyway, I was bemoaning the fact that the BBC had not seen fit to retain their recording in 1968, even though Dylan was, by then, well-known and well-established and bemoaning the fact that nobody would now ever see it. One of the people told me not to worry, that the original signal was still out there, travelling through space and that, eventually and not in either of our lifetimes, the means would be developed to send craft out into space to pick up all those long-lost signals and to send them back to earth. I have no idea if this contention is possible within the laws of physics but it was an intriguing idea that has stayed with me beyond the well-oiled evening when it was put forward.
-
As for the screen, I get nothing special. Everything seems OK but, when you check later, your posting has seemingly disappeared. Maybe there is a parallel universe somewhere out there with lots of "lost" postings.
So, after you hit "Post", it sounds like you're going back to the view with all of the threads as if you actually posted. OK, thanks, that was the info I needed.
-
had it happen to me too dan, exactly the way described abpve.
and i love the way Twm uses the word "telerecorded" :-)
-
A "telerecording" is the British word for a "kinescope". It was a technique used by TV companies in the years both before videotape technology was developed and after it was developed but before it was being used universally..
The following is probably something of a simplification but, essentially, much television was "live" in those days, with filmed elements inserted into, or with movie films or filmed documentaries shown between, the "live" programmes. Some programmes were pre-recorded, however, and they used the telerecording/kinescope technique.
The programme was prepared and performed "live", the visuals usually shot by several televison cameras which moved around the studio as required, and the audio recorded simultaneously by various microphones, also moving around the studio but out of sight of the cameras, of course. The director and his or her (usually his) team would cut from one camera/mike to another, as required. The output from this activity would be fed to a television monitor screen to which would be fixed a movie camera, which would film what was shown on the monitor screen. Sometimes this was done in advance, so that a programme could be shown later than it was made; sometimes, it was a technique used to preserve a programme going out live.
There is a Wiki entry on kinescopes, which is quite long. Here's a couple of bits about the use of "telerecordings" in Britain:
In the U.K., telerecordings continued to be made after the advent of commercial broadcast videotape from 1958 as they possessed several distinct advantages, particularly for overseas program sales. Firstly, they were cheaper, easier to transport and more durable than video. Secondly, they could be used in any country regardless of the television broadcasting standard, which was not true of videotape. Thirdly, the system could be used to make black and white copies of color programs for sale to television stations who were not yet broadcasting in color.
The telerecording system could be of a very high quality, easily reproducing the full detail of the television picture. The only slight disadvantage of the system was that it removed the 'fluid' look of interlaced video and 'filmized' the picture, but this would generally not have made a great deal of difference to the viewing audiences.
The system was largely used for black and white reproduction. Although some color telerecordings were made, they were generally in the minority as by the time color programmes were widely needed for sale, video standards conversion was easier and higher quality and the price of videotape had become much reduced. Before videotape became the exclusive transmission format during the early to mid-1980s, any (color) video recordings used in documentaries or filmed program inserts were usually transferred onto film.
Up until the early 1960s, much of the BBC and British television in general's output was broadcast live, and telerecordings would be used to preserve a programme for repeat showings, which had previously required the entire production being performed live for a second time.
....
British broadcasters used telerecordings for domestic purposes well into the 1960s, with 35 mm being the film gauge usually used as it produced a higher quality result. For overseas sales, 16 mm film would be used, as it was cheaper. Although domestic use of telerecording in the UK for repeat broadcasts dropped off sharply after the move to color in the late 1960s, 16 mm black and white film telerecordings were still being offered for sale by British broadcasters well into the 1970s.
Telerecording was still being used internally at the BBC in the 1980s too, to preserve copies for posterity of programmes which were not necessarily of the highest importance, but which nonetheless their producers wanted to be preserved. If there were no videotape machines available on a given day, then a telerecording would be made. There is evidence to suggest that the children's magazine programme Blue Peter was occasionally being telerecorded as late as 1985. After this point, however, cheap domestic videotape formats such as VHS could more easily be used to keep a back-up reference copy of a programme.
If you ever watch old television cllips of singers and so on, you can sometimes notice something on the screen which stays there, even after the camera pans across what you're watching. If you ever see this, it is likely that there was a mark or fault on the monitor screen and this is a kinescope or telerecording.
By the time DS were appearing on TV, these systems were no longer being used, I guess.
-
Again gotta say that I love those stories of yours ;)
-
If you follow early Dylan recordings, Pottel, then the 1964 QUEST television show, made by CBC (in Canada), is from a kinescope.
I had a very good contact in Canada starting in the late 1970s (he was also a Keouac fan and, in the end, sold his Dylan collection and concentrated on Kerouac). Anyway, when Dylan toured in 1974, there were lots of reports in the local paper and one mentioned this TV show. He followed this up and managed to get an audio recording of the show from CBC (which circulated widely) but, at that stage, even though they had recorded the show kinescopically, they had never developed the film. I think it was his enquiry and the Dylan's 1978 tour that prompted them to check what they had in the archives. A clip was shown in a chat show - I think that was the end of that year but I could be wrong. Anyway, another Dylan fan managed to get a copy of the kinescope.
The other early Dylan television show that has survived is FOLK SONGS AND MORE FOLK SONGS, from March 1963 and broadcast by Westinghouse. That is not a kinescope and, not ot blow my own trumpet, I was the person who was instrumental in getting this from the vaults - and completely legally, too. If I've told this story before, then please let me know. If not, I'll maybe get round to telling it another time. And about a slightly funny follow-up in a bar in Vienna.
-
I seem to remember having both shows in my collection, without further details though.
-
This was the message posted in MKNEWS in year 2000 where Ed Bicknell announced the end of his managerial contract with MK
I am writing on behalf of Mark Knopfler, John Illsley, Dire Straits and myself to advise that by mutual consent all Management Agreements between the aforementioned individuals and their companies will be terminated with effect from close of business, August 31st, 2000. Until that date Damage Management will operate as normal.
The September 25th release of Mark Knopfler's next solo album Sailing To Philadelphia is going ahead but the film soundtrack A Shot At Glory will probably not be released until the Spring of next year - although this entirely depends on the picture's release date being set. The promotional tour to support the Sailing To Philadelphia album will be taken over by my friend and colleague Paul Crockford, former manager of Level 42 and co-manager of Tears For Fears.
I've been advised that many of you are enquiring about tour dates and that this has been mentioned in some press as a consequence of interviews Mark has been undertaking over the last month. I cannot comment on what Mark may or may not have said to the press because I wasn't present but, at the time of writing , I can categorically state:
1. There are no tour plans at present, although I know that Mark very much wants to play live dates if feasible.
2. I have not spoken to or approached any promoter in any territory re a future MK tour, nor have I been asked to do so.
3. No halls or venues in any territory in the world are on hold or have been provisionally booked for a MK tour.
Although I won't be directly involved it has always been agreed that touring would only be considered around the end of November when everybody has had an opportunity to see how the Sailing To Philadelphia record does. Even if touring were to be a possibility I doubt very much that any tour would start before April/May of next year AT THE EARLIEST.
John Horwood, Jean Seal and myself, would like to thank all of the fans for their support over the years and to ask each and every one of them to look out for the next Blue Nile album, which will be released in the Spring of next year!
It has been an incredible journey.......love and best wishes to you all.
ED BICKNELL (27/07/2000)
i posted this again as, for some reason, the message was gone, in fact, many of the answers in this post are cut.
-
Thanks, very interesting to read.
-
Thanks, very interesting to read.
But still his decision to sell his DS shares was an extremely strange thing to do and makes me think in the long run it wasn't a bad choice for MK to cut ties with Ed. Imagine having your part in DS and you just sell it. Sike...
-
Thanks, very interesting to read.
But still his decision to sell his DS shares was an extremely strange thing to do and makes me think in the long run it wasn't a bad choice for MK to cut ties with Ed. Imagine having your part in DS and you just sell it. Sike...
But he did it over 15 years after having retired from Damage Management.
-
Thanks, very interesting to read.
But still his decision to sell his DS shares was an extremely strange thing to do and makes me think in the long run it wasn't a bad choice for MK to cut ties with Ed. Imagine having your part in DS and you just sell it. Sike...
But he did it over 15 years after having retired from Damage Management.
Exactly.
The reason why MK cut ties with Ed wasn't about the money Ed was getting from the DS shares. Actually, Ed deserved any single penny from that shares as he was a very very important part in the success of DS, he took them from small clubs in London to tour as support act of bands like Talking heads and be the headline of many succesful tours over Europe and the US...
The reason why MK cut ties with Ed was because Ed had in mind for MK a succesful career in the same way Sting and Phil Collins were big names in rock world outside their band as solo artists, but MK didn't want to be that kind of rock star. Actually, the own MK when released "The Ragpicker's Dream" told that he wanted STP to sound like RPD but there were many pressures around to make him release STP like it was in the end. I'm sure that pressure came from Ed, trying to keep directing MK career, as he always did, and MK wanted being himself who direct hiw own career.
That's why we always say Paul Crockford is the perfect manager for MK, he does what MK wants, while Ed did the opposite, and the success that DS and MK had say that Ed was right in what he was doing!
I agree. All right.
Mark was and is a Real Artist, one of the greatest forty years now, a musician and composer who made his fortune not only for himself but also for people like Ed.
Ed gave his addressing contribution, advice on how to move in the business field, well deserved his success, too, but starting from the fact that the hen of the golden eggs was Mark.
Sultans of swing, Romeo & Juliet, Once Upon a Time in the West, Telegraph Road, Brothers in Arms, You and your friend are a slew of songs on which Ed has built a brand that has sold more than 120 million of records all over the world.
And so far we all agree.
The Dire Straits were the vehicle for Mark's songs.
Ed was the one who drove that vehicle.
Mark at some point did not want to go the way Ed proposed to him and fired him.
When I happen to see 24Heures of the 92, I think the real fracture between Mark and that kind of life he did, even before his separation from Ed, it had happened in those days, when a journalist asked him if that gigantic tour was designed only to make money.
The doubt came because 216 concerts in 14 months, you can't answer only for the love of music and for the fans, it's not alone for that, it's a lot for money.
Still in that documentary, you could see Ed sitting on a nice sofa with a drink ready for another peaceful evening manager, addicted to calculator and luxurious suites around the world.
For Ed Golden heart it was a pause, for Mark a new beginning, but with lights out.
Ed thought that Mark had retraced his steps and to accept his advice, while Mark thought that Ed was not only a great manager, but also a great friend that would have supported him in his new course, that's why he fired him, as the reckoning is always cited with the scene of Mark still with his helmet on his head, he gives him his final farewell.
Mark with Ed did the right thing.
:wave
-
My though is the actual end of Dire Straits happened 26 April 1986 in Sydney. OES, despite being a fantastic release, was just a try to make the story going on.
-
My though is the actual end of Dire Straits happened 26 April 1986 in Sydney. OES, despite being a fantastic release, was just a try to make the story going on.
Absolutely, On Every Street might as well be the first MK solo album, but the history is history.
-
My though is the actual end of Dire Straits happened 26 April 1986 in Sydney. OES, despite being a fantastic release, was just a try to make the story going on.
Absolutely, On Every Street might as well be the first MK solo album, but the history is history.
....all DS records, and even more from Making Movies, are essentially Mark Knopfler's albums. Exemplary is the fact that in BIA John does not play in some pieces. With OES Ed will have urged him to return to the recording studio as his marriage had gone at that time ...
-
My though is the actual end of Dire Straits happened 26 April 1986 in Sydney. OES, despite being a fantastic release, was just a try to make the story going on.
Absolutely, On Every Street might as well be the first MK solo album, but the history is history.
....all DS records, and even more from Making Movies, are essentially Mark Knopfler's albums. Exemplary is the fact that in BIA John does not play in some pieces. With OES Ed will have urged him to return to the recording studio as his marriage had gone at that time ...
I'd like to live in the parallel universe where Mark never had Dire Straits and went full solo mode from day 1 like Chris Rea and people like that.
To me it's ridiculously funny that his solo band actually is more consistent than Dire Straits ever was, and DS was a "band", now solo MK is "alone". It's funny.
-
My though is the actual end of Dire Straits happened 26 April 1986 in Sydney. OES, despite being a fantastic release, was just a try to make the story going on.
Absolutely, On Every Street might as well be the first MK solo album, but the history is history.
....all DS records, and even more from Making Movies, are essentially Mark Knopfler's albums. Exemplary is the fact that in BIA John does not play in some pieces. With OES Ed will have urged him to return to the recording studio as his marriage had gone at that time ...
I'd like to live in the parallel universe where Mark never had Dire Straits and went full solo mode from day 1 like Chris Rea and people like that.
To me it's ridiculously funny that his solo band actually is more consistent than Dire Straits ever was, and DS was a "band", now solo MK is "alone". It's funny.
the fact that at a certain point in Mark was no longer enough to decide everything about the band, he wanted to continue playing but freer than the boundaries that the DS could have. In fact songs like ANISLA or DWB could not have found space in a rock album. The consequent step was to have a more normal man approach instead of a superstar, and always returning to the subject of the discussion, he had to break with Ed....
-
....on the musical coherence of the band that the soloist can have compared to the 77-91 period in my opinion is given by the fact that in the early years he was more open to changes and experiments than today. Mark in a few years 77-86 from being a complete unknow person has literally climbed the world, obtained recognitions and satisfactions that few have had in such a short space of time. After the tour BIA has reaped the fruits of its success by taking away satisfaction and in part exhausting the 'hunger' it could have previously had...
-
Ed is the man who helped Dire Straits to become and stay huge.
Paul is the man who helps Mark to do what he wants.
Mark was the one who helped Dire Straits to become and stay huge!! without Mark there is no Dire Straits.
-
Ed is the man who helped Dire Straits to become and stay huge.
Paul is the man who helps Mark to do what he wants.
Mark was the one who helped Dire Straits to become and stay huge!! without Mark there is no Dire Straits.
Without Ed and his great talent as a manager, MK wouldn't had arrived that far that soon... It's easy to check, the places where the band played before Ed and the ones after...
-
But I am sure any manager would have done pretty much the same thing, but Mark had the huge talent that also enabled Dire Straits to move forward.
-
But I am sure any manager would have done pretty much the same thing, but Mark had the huge talent that also enabled Dire Straits to move forward.
It's true that without the MK talent, Ed won't had made any miracle with the band, but it's also true that Ed strategies as a manager was crucial to raise the band from small pubs around the UK to tour in medium / big venues around the world. With another manager they could had go further, or could had failed, that's something we'll never know, but to be honest, Ed role has to be properly considered.
-
But I am sure any manager would have done pretty much the same thing, but Mark had the huge talent that also enabled Dire Straits to move forward.
It's true that without the MK talent, Ed won't had made any miracle with the band, but it's also true that Ed strategies as a manager was crucial to raise the band from small pubs around the UK to tour in medium / big venues around the world. With another manager they could had go further, or could had failed, that's something we'll never know, but to be honest, Ed role has to be properly considered, and it was considered because the "Dire Straits Company" had five people from the start, MK, DK, JI, Pick and Ed. And in 1995 when DS oficially disbanded, the DS company was MK, JI and Ed.
Ed was great no doubt, the move to go to States to sign with WB was a real stroke of genius, when the album still didn't take off... :thumbsup
-
This was a collective journey and success, Mark was the core diamond.
-
MK wrote the songs, played lead guitar and did the singing. That's a big part of it, but it is FAR from everything. The band members and management deserve their share of credit from the results. A band is a band, not a one man show. That includes the current lineup as well.
-
A genius product mean nothing without proper management and a great sales and marketing team.
-
I just found in google that there is a book about Peter Grant, with lots of mentions to Ed Bicknell, and also to Paul Crockford, which is a funny story...
The book is "Peter Grant: The Man Who Led Zeppelin" and I made screen captures of that part: