Hi Dusty Valentino, hi MK fans,
I appreciate your feedback, Dusty Valentino, thank you very much. Yeah, what I found out about Sultans seems to have escaped everyone else's attention – it's still just a hypothesis, of course, but based on the facts of music theory, it seems very plausible to me.
Well, I researched some points very passionately and may have uncovered some connections that you die-hard MK experts weren't all aware of or conscious of (e.g. the amp story behind “Communiqué”, or various music-historical connections in general), but overall, there's a lot that you all know already, even better than I do, and a lot of it could have been explored in even greater detail. I made this clear in the book: I cannot and do not want to reinvent the MK world for you MK nerds; my role is to take the known and lesser-known facts and write an exciting story that honors MK's life's work and further deepens the relationship with his music.
Dusty Valentino puts it aptly: You are not really the target audience for this book. You need to be aware that you are perhaps 0.1% of MK's entire audience. There are millions (!) of people out there who love MK's music, who are moved by it, but who are not nearly as obsessed with the details. The vast majority of these people do not play music themselves (or only play music for themselves at home); each of these people has their own life story and their own relationship to Mark's and DS's music. I have already received numerous feedbacks from such people; for many of them, the book was and is very inspiring because it makes them aware of many new things and enables them to listen to Mark's music (or music in general) in a new way and to understand music history from a broader perspective. This is where I can make a contribution in my role; it is my task, which motivates me and gives me pleasure.
By the way, the author's pleasure also plays a role in the choice of narrative style. If a publisher or even MK himself commissions me to write a book and pays me well for it, I will adapt the concept of the book as closely as possible to the client's wishes. There are countless styles of writing, and you have to adapt your style to each newspaper and medium. I believe I could do that — BUT: If I don't receive such a commission, if I write such a book completely independently and at my own risk, then I write it the way I would most like to read it: in a relaxed and personal conversational style, with subjective references and comments, so that the author's personal connection to MK is also noticeable.
This concept is certainly not perfect for everyone, but so far I have received a lot of very positive feedback, especially on this point. There are plenty of dry and pedantic history books out there; people also want to be touched by subjectivity and personal passion. Otherwise, they can just look up the most important facts on Wikipedia.
This also means that I occasionally refer to music that is not by MK, for example (but not exclusively) music by artists from my circle of friends or music I have produced myself. However, this is kept to a minimum, perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the total content of the book, and it ALWAYS concerns music that is indirectly related to MK. And all the people I mention are not just buddies, but top-class musicians who are well known and successful in insider circles in Switzerland, Germany, Europe, and in some cases beyond. For readers from my home country, these people are all household names anyway.
And here I would like to take the liberty of offering a tiny bit of criticism to some die-hard MK nerds: if you're not interested in any of this on principle, perhaps you're lacking a certain openness. I've often noticed that some of you show significantly more interest in every MK or DS cover band (even if they're not particularly good) than in artists who are inspired by MK but then try to process this influence (and many other influences) and turn it into something of their own, with their own songs, their own nuances and ideas. For some MK nerds, there seems to be only one God of music; everyone else (especially if they're not world famous) is irrelevant, even those who inspired MK are often unimportant to nerds (because they could shake their image of God). I'm exaggerating a bit, and I can understand this exclusive enthusiasm for MK – but I assure you, there is a lot of very good music out there in the wider universe to discover. When I write about music, I always want to contribute in some small way to creating more openness to music.
But okay, I promise: I'll try to write a little less subjectively in volume 2, although my writing style probably won't change completely.
I would like to thank you all very much for your interest in the book, for your great passion for MK, for all the fantastic research and collection work, the websites, blogs, and the entire fan network. And thank you for accepting my book for what it is.
Of course, we are all waiting for a book written by MK himself. However, an autobiography is usually much more subjective – a person is often least able to describe their own story objectively. But of course, I would be extremely interested in MK's 100% subjective view. However, not everyone wants to undergo public psychotherapy – and to be honest, I'm not at all sure that MK will ever write such a book.
By the way, my book is already available (there seems to be some misunderstanding about this) in print and as an e-book; you can find all the information (and retailer links) here:
https://richardkoechli.ch/en/books/mark-knopfler-volume-1If anyone is short on cash, or if anyone (rightly) thinks, “hey, we've contributed enough to the book with our research”, I'd be happy to send you a PDF e-book – just send me an email at info@richardkoechli.ch
All the best,
Richard
