SPOILERS: John Illsley will publish a book about Dire Straits

[Robson]

What is the first song in the book John mentions?

[dustyvalentino]

Down to the waterline.

[Robson]

Thank you Dusty

[quizzaciously]

What is the first song in the book John mentions?

Why you're asking that tho

Just finished reading the book and got to say, it's great! Some mistakes were a pity, but overall it's such a big story that mistakes are negligible, as I expected. Totally recommended!

[Robson]

I was very curious. I don't know why I was thinking of Eastbound Train:) My copy will be on December 6

[quizzaciously]

What I found pretty amusing about Mark is the guy can test 100 guitars for 6 hours for a riff on a song, and yet, with people, he pretty much just randomly pick the first choice. At least, that's what I got from the book. The guy in the Pathway Studios wants to do the lighting? He'll do the lighting for us. We need to replace David, here's Hal Lindes — let's take him. And so on, as if he almost doesn't care. At least they went to a whole lot of trouble choosing label and manager!

[quizzaciously]

A couple of my thoughts after reading the book:

1) I don't think we really need a book from MK after that, for one thing, because their lives with John are pretty similar, in my view, growing up and such, and since MK is not going to give away too much personal information or inspiration for songs, and a lot of his biography is out there on the internet anyway, I don't think we'd ever see his book. And all the rest would be the same, minus, again, some personal information.

2) I'm pretty sure all the major turning points and deportations were discussed beforehand with MK or maybe even with heroes themselves, it helps that John speaks with everybody, unlike MK. Besides, the reasoning John provided is extremely plausible and believable, can't argue with facts basically. Every departure is well presented and explained.

[Robson]

These are important observations. Thank you Pavel. I'm looking forward to my book.

[qjamesfloyd]

I think it would be better for a lyrics book like Paul McCartney has just released, but I just don't think writing any book is something Mark would want to do.

[KnopfleRick]

I think it would be better for a lyrics book like Paul McCartney has just released, but I just don't think writing any book is something Mark would want to do.

Yes, I also would prefer a lyrics book. That would be great. I have one by Tom Russell, who is one of the greatest storytellers of our time.

[quizzaciously]

I think it would be better for a lyrics book like Paul McCartney has just released, but I just don't think writing any book is something Mark would want to do.

Yes, I also would prefer a lyrics book. That would be great. I have one by Tom Russell, who is one of the greatest storytellers of our time.

Highly doubt about a lyrics book, it doesn't feel "MK" at all. Of course, the publisher may do something like this one day. The first song will be "The Bug"

[quizzaciously]

I am the only one who doesn't understand why they did 1.5-year tours at all? Why? I feel like it's really a drug, and they just couldn't stop. I get that playing live is great and emotional, but why do it 300 times a year? Obviously, you'll end up with broken marriages, no time to see your kids, everybody leaving the band, complete chaos, and a year to recover afterwards. Just to say that your tour was the biggest?

In the retrospect, it doesn't matter how many people came to shows, 7 million or 3 million, it will always be a relatively small number. Besides, should the band exist longer, smaller tours would sum up to 2-3 bigger ones anyway. Call me an idiot, but I think doing such big tours is a dumb idea. Of course, should Dire Straits invite me on tour I would probably agree because I'm an idiot, but still I'd think it's dumb.

[herlock]

I am the only one who doesn't understand why they did 1.5-year tours at all? Why? I feel like it's really a drug, and they just couldn't stop. I get that playing live is great and emotional, but why do it 300 times a year? Obviously, you'll end up with broken marriages, no time to see your kids, everybody leaving the band, complete chaos, and a year to recover afterwards. Just to say that your tour was the biggest?

In the retrospect, it doesn't matter how many people came to shows, 7 million or 3 million, it will always be a relatively small number. Besides, should the band exist longer, smaller tours would sum up to 2-3 bigger ones anyway. Call me an idiot, but I think doing such big tours is a dumb idea. Of course, should Dire Straits invite me on tour I would probably agree because I'm an idiot, but still I'd think it's dumb.

I think Mark enjoys touring at the beginning of tour, then gets sick of it. Compare his energy in 1985 to his exhaustion in 1986, or his good mood of 1991 to his grumpy, moody, bored to death attitude of 1992. I think John said that after a while, you have no idea where you are and you completely don't care anyway. That's why 1996 was a "baby tour", 4 months seems the right period to enjoy it till the end...

[quizzaciously]

I am the only one who doesn't understand why they did 1.5-year tours at all? Why? I feel like it's really a drug, and they just couldn't stop. I get that playing live is great and emotional, but why do it 300 times a year? Obviously, you'll end up with broken marriages, no time to see your kids, everybody leaving the band, complete chaos, and a year to recover afterwards. Just to say that your tour was the biggest?

In the retrospect, it doesn't matter how many people came to shows, 7 million or 3 million, it will always be a relatively small number. Besides, should the band exist longer, smaller tours would sum up to 2-3 bigger ones anyway. Call me an idiot, but I think doing such big tours is a dumb idea. Of course, should Dire Straits invite me on tour I would probably agree because I'm an idiot, but still I'd think it's dumb.

I think Mark enjoys touring at the beginning of tour, then gets sick of it. Compare his energy in 1985 to his exhaustion in 1986, or his good mood of 1991 to his grumpy, moody, bored to death attitude of 1992. I think John said that after a while, you have no idea where you are and you completely don't care anyway. That's why 1996 was a "baby tour", 4 months seems the right period to enjoy it till the end...

Yes, exactly. And it's funny since they created this themselves and Dire Straits got "too big" in Mark's word, but nobody was standing beside him with a gun telling he need to tour for so long as he did. And as I understand they barely broke even with big tours, right? So it doesn't even makes sense from financial perspective, a complete nonsense.

[herlock]

I am the only one who doesn't understand why they did 1.5-year tours at all? Why? I feel like it's really a drug, and they just couldn't stop. I get that playing live is great and emotional, but why do it 300 times a year? Obviously, you'll end up with broken marriages, no time to see your kids, everybody leaving the band, complete chaos, and a year to recover afterwards. Just to say that your tour was the biggest?

In the retrospect, it doesn't matter how many people came to shows, 7 million or 3 million, it will always be a relatively small number. Besides, should the band exist longer, smaller tours would sum up to 2-3 bigger ones anyway. Call me an idiot, but I think doing such big tours is a dumb idea. Of course, should Dire Straits invite me on tour I would probably agree because I'm an idiot, but still I'd think it's dumb.

I think Mark enjoys touring at the beginning of tour, then gets sick of it. Compare his energy in 1985 to his exhaustion in 1986, or his good mood of 1991 to his grumpy, moody, bored to death attitude of 1992. I think John said that after a while, you have no idea where you are and you completely don't care anyway. That's why 1996 was a "baby tour", 4 months seems the right period to enjoy it till the end...

Yes, exactly. And it's funny since they created this themselves and Dire Straits got "too big" in Mark's word, but nobody was standing beside him with a gun telling he need to tour for so long as he did. And as I understand they barely broke even with big tours, right? So it doesn't even makes sense from financial perspective, a complete nonsense.

I think there were pushed by Ed. Look at Mark interview prior to Sydney 1986. He says that the tour "just grew", and you feel that it has grown way too much for his taste. He refered later to DS as "the beast", something controlling him more than he was controlling it. The break-up between Mark and Ed in 2000 (the infamous helmet story) was the ultimate episode of that: Ed considered that 1996 was just a childish small break. The STP album was supposed, in Ed's mind, to carry the DS sticker on it (it would have been a natural DS album btw) and the 2001 tour was intended to restore DS to its full glory. Mark said a big no to that, pretty harshly.