A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: dustyvalentino on September 15, 2023, 12:02:54 PM
-
Extensive interview with Pick Withers!
Drum tech heavy to beware if you just want DS stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUHGkkfh6DE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1TBnAlRuJM
-
Another good interview with Pick
https://www.drummersresource.com/pick-withers-interview/
-
Another good interview with Pick
https://www.drummersresource.com/pick-withers-interview/
Sorry, I think I'll pass this one. I lost interest in Pick after an interview where he said something like he left Dire Straits because he didn't want to be remembered as just "the drummer from Dire Straits". The arrogance and ego of certain ex-Dire Straits band members never cease to astonish me.
All this romantic stuff of the band getting bigger is just an excuse. Good for Pick, now he's certainly not being remembered as a drummer for Dire Straits, no, no.
-
Another good interview with Pick
https://www.drummersresource.com/pick-withers-interview/
Sorry, I think I'll pass this one. I lost interest in Pick after an interview where he said something like he left Dire Straits because he didn't want to be remembered as just "the drummer from Dire Straits". The arrogance and ego of certain ex-Dire Straits band members never cease to astonish me.
All this romantic stuff of the band getting bigger is just an excuse. Good for Pick, now he's certainly not being remembered as a drummer for Dire Straits, no, no.
Unless I am misunderstanding you I really don't agree.
He didn't like the direction the band was going in and wanted to do different things-similar to how Mark felt about the band-so why should he be criticised for this?
Obviously David had different issues and has done a fair bit of moaning but I think Pick has always been respectful even though he must get fed up of talking about DS.
All I am saying is Give Pick A Chance ;D
-
One reason why he left was because the gigs were getting louder and louder. Pick was a lighter player with a skippy feel. Having experienced it myself I totally get where he was coming from.
The feel of the band changed completely after Pick's departure.....arguably not in a good way.
-
One reason why he left was because the gigs were getting louder and louder. Pick was a lighter player with a skippy feel. Having experienced it myself I totally get where he was coming from.
The feel of the band changed completely after Pick's departure.....arguably not in a good way.
Terry brought the oomph that was arguably better for the larger scale gigs but I missed all Pick’s intricate parts, especially on the hi hat and cymbals. He would have been great on the Brothers in Arms record.
-
Another good interview with Pick
https://www.drummersresource.com/pick-withers-interview/
Sorry, I think I'll pass this one. I lost interest in Pick after an interview where he said something like he left Dire Straits because he didn't want to be remembered as just "the drummer from Dire Straits". The arrogance and ego of certain ex-Dire Straits band members never cease to astonish me.
All this romantic stuff of the band getting bigger is just an excuse. Good for Pick, now he's certainly not being remembered as a drummer for Dire Straits, no, no.
Unless I am misunderstanding you I really don't agree.
He didn't like the direction the band was going in and wanted to do different things-similar to how Mark felt about the band-so why should he be criticised for this?
Obviously David had different issues and has done a fair bit of moaning but I think Pick has always been respectful even though he must get fed up of talking about DS.
All I am saying is Give Pick A Chance ;D
Yes I agree. What a strange strange stance from Quiz.... Considering that Knopfler is regarded as the ego. Not his former bandmates. Extroadinary. In fact we should listen more to Mark's former bandmates from 1977-1984 especially to add context to that era.
-
Another good interview with Pick
https://www.drummersresource.com/pick-withers-interview/
Sorry, I think I'll pass this one. I lost interest in Pick after an interview where he said something like he left Dire Straits because he didn't want to be remembered as just "the drummer from Dire Straits". The arrogance and ego of certain ex-Dire Straits band members never cease to astonish me.
All this romantic stuff of the band getting bigger is just an excuse. Good for Pick, now he's certainly not being remembered as a drummer for Dire Straits, no, no.
Unless I am misunderstanding you I really don't agree.
He didn't like the direction the band was going in and wanted to do different things-similar to how Mark felt about the band-so why should he be criticised for this?
Obviously David had different issues and has done a fair bit of moaning but I think Pick has always been respectful even though he must get fed up of talking about DS.
All I am saying is Give Pick A Chance ;D
Yes I agree. What a strange strange stance from Quiz.... Considering that Knopfler is regarded as the ego. Not his former bandmates. Extroadinary. In fact we should listen more to Mark's former bandmates from 1977-1984 especially to add context to that era.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Pick's drumming and admire him as a musician. What I mean is, that every time somebody discusses their "breakup" with MK, you get hints that it may not be without solid reasons. Jack Sonni obviously wanted more from Mark than he was willing to offer, and was waiting for a miracle that never happened.
Pick also gives the vibe that he wanted more "space" in the band, let alone David. It's not just musical differences, it IS ego, but not always on Mark's side.
Keep in mind, without Mark there would be no Dire Straits, no success, no all these great songs and roles for people to occupy. He has the right to have the ego more than everybody else. If instead of being grateful and accepting it as John Illsley did, you start to bite the hand that feeds you, then you get what you deserve.
If after being the founding member of "the biggest band in the world" you rely on Patreon to record your albums, I think you did something wrong with your choices.
-
I think you are 100% wrong.
People evolve in different ways. As in said in the box set thread, I can't imagine Pick being the drummer on Money For Nothing.
No human should have to suppress their own creative needs to suit someone else. If your creativity aligns with Mark's (like Johns) then sure, but if you feel the need to play different music or produce albums then it's totally right to move away.
Pick no longer fitted the loud, heavy hitting rock Mark wanted to pursue.
-
Another good interview with Pick
https://www.drummersresource.com/pick-withers-interview/
Sorry, I think I'll pass this one. I lost interest in Pick after an interview where he said something like he left Dire Straits because he didn't want to be remembered as just "the drummer from Dire Straits". The arrogance and ego of certain ex-Dire Straits band members never cease to astonish me.
All this romantic stuff of the band getting bigger is just an excuse. Good for Pick, now he's certainly not being remembered as a drummer for Dire Straits, no, no.
Unless I am misunderstanding you I really don't agree.
He didn't like the direction the band was going in and wanted to do different things-similar to how Mark felt about the band-so why should he be criticised for this?
Obviously David had different issues and has done a fair bit of moaning but I think Pick has always been respectful even though he must get fed up of talking about DS.
All I am saying is Give Pick A Chance ;D
Yes I agree. What a strange strange stance from Quiz.... Considering that Knopfler is regarded as the ego. Not his former bandmates. Extroadinary. In fact we should listen more to Mark's former bandmates from 1977-1984 especially to add context to that era.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Pick's drumming and admire him as a musician. What I mean is, that every time somebody discusses their "breakup" with MK, you get hints that it may not be without solid reasons. Jack Sonni obviously wanted more from Mark than he was willing to offer, and was waiting for a miracle that never happened.
Pick also gives the vibe that he wanted more "space" in the band, let alone David. It's not just musical differences, it IS ego, but not always on Mark's side.
Keep in mind, without Mark there would be no Dire Straits, no success, no all these great songs and roles for people to occupy. He has the right to have the ego more than everybody else. If instead of being grateful and accepting it as John Illsley did, you start to bite the hand that feeds you, then you get what you deserve.
If after being the founding member of "the biggest band in the world" you rely on Patreon to record your albums, I think you did something wrong with your choices.
As I pointed out in a different threads, there are double standards here. No, MK has no more right or not than anyone else "to have the ego". And, there's certainly no reason for anyone to be more grateful one way or another. It really makes no sense that everyone should be grateful for MK, but not the other way around. Biting the hand that feeds you... not sure anyone in DS ever did that.
People should really put this whole "Mark is a superhuman" stuff away and enjoy the music... this really is a sad place sometimes, when it's about pulling other band members down just to make Mark look extra special.
-
I have to agree.
Mark is human with good points and bad points like anyone else.
There were some silly comments when Manu Katche said in an interview he didn't particularly enjoy working with Mark.
Some people claiming that Katche wasn't up to the job and therefore didn't enjoy the session.
Maybe Mark was just being difficult that day.
-
I think you are 100% wrong.
People evolve in different ways. As in said in the box set thread, I can't imagine Pick being the drummer on Money For Nothing.
No human should have to suppress their own creative needs to suit someone else. If your creativity aligns with Mark's (like Johns) then sure, but if you feel the need to play different music or produce albums then it's totally right to move away.
Pick no longer fitted the loud, heavy hitting rock Mark wanted to pursue.
It's a difficult topic indeed, nobody could be 100% right or wrong here. Should it be this simple, all these people could at least stay friendly to each other. And to me, every story of Mark stopping working with somebody (or musicians stopping working with MK) is more like a marriage breakup gone wrong. With John Illsley again being an exception from the norm. So it's not just creative differences, but musical egos clashing.
There are subjective facts and objective facts. The objective fact is that Mark with the help of his friends and his songs created an independent Dire Straits phenomenon that took over the world, without anybody's interference, pressure from record labels, always having enough new original songs to record, etc.. Complete creative freedom and success, but not a democracy. More like a benevolent dictatorship.
I'd be the first one to dismiss the "superhuman" idea, but let's just not diminish Mark's input into this whole operation. Without the guy, there would be no "A Mark In Time" forum. And as you can see, Brothers In Arms album happened without Pick and was a blast.
I can't imagine Pick playing Money For Nothing as much as I can't imagine Steward Copeland playing "Every Breath You Take", probably the simplest song he ever played. And boy he did it well! Call it not fitting the sound or creative differences, I'd call it if you happen to work with a genius, try to stay working with him and learn from him until you get fired, or become a genius yourself. Well, somebody tried...
-
So it's not just creative differences, but musical egos clashing.
The funny thing about your posts is that you are contradicting the people who were there, experienced it in real life. You are guessing, apparently based on the fact you admire Mark a great deal. Maybe accept some people who actually lived it have more truth to say than you do.
-
It is incredibly cool to hear your from you Chris, please stay and share <3 Before you, Pick and Terry started to explain how it was, I thought that it was drummers with different styles, when in fact it was Mark who chose the style of the drums.
And welcome to a MK forum were the absolute rule number one is: never say something positive about MK. Then you are a praiser, someone who think Mark is a god. I don't think anybody, and certainly not here, think that way.
-
Apart from Pick, who was part of the original DS sound - I think Mark chose the drummers that delivered the style/sound he wanted, not soo much the style. He wrote the songs, then picked the drummers that suited those songs.
-
So it's not just creative differences, but musical egos clashing.
The funny thing about your posts is that you are contradicting the people who were there, experienced it in real life. You are guessing, apparently based on the fact you admire Mark a great deal. Maybe accept some people who actually lived it have more truth to say than you do.
Oh yes, don't get me wrong. I have no idea how I would behave should you put me in the same circumstances as all the people in question here. I just analysed my experience in life vs. what I heard from interviews, and what I heard from Mark's former friends has never appealed to me I'm afraid. I mean I am listening to real people who experienced it in real life, and based on that write my thoughts. I'm not pulling my thoughts out of thin air, ever.
For instance, when somebody discusses Chris Whitten, it would be worth mentioning that you are awesome enough to join some discussions on probably the best, oldest, biggest and most active MK&DS forum in the world. One of the very few band members who actually did it. As you can see, everybody loves it and it's a huge plus in karma to me. So many really great fans here, with decades of experience, research and fun. It's good fun.
-
Apart from Pick, who was part of the original DS sound - I think Mark chose the drummers that delivered the style/sound he wanted, not soo much the style. He wrote the songs, then picked the drummers that suited those songs.
That's an interesting take. And it works for bass as well — once Mark needed a more versatile player, who could tackle bass, acoustic bass and jazz — out goes seemingly irreplaceable John, and welcome Glenn Worf! Of course, you can say it's also because Mark probably didn't want to play with former bandmates as much as ex-Beatles didn't want to work with each other and George Martin to associate it with The Beatles. That's life!
With that being said, I'm not really sure Mark's music is extremely tough on drummers, to be completely honest. I mean he could call a professional like you and you can play every part of any MK song perfectly well, it's not like he wrote songs that couldn't be performed by a good drummer. No "Cherokee" or crazy poly-rhythmic changes, really fast songs, long drum solos, really distinctive styles (as in Bernard Purdie), or tons of improvisation. Do you really need a jazz drummer to play on Brothers In Arms? I don't think so.
That's why my favourite MK drummer always was and always will be Danny Cummings. The way he serves the song is quite remarkable. Also, never understood any criticism towards you when discussing the On Every Street tour, to me just as well of a job of serving the song.
-
DS music is some of the most complex out there. Tempos constantly changing, dynamics go from almost inaudible to blistering loud. Many of the songs evolved into 15 minute live epics, with multiple sections, moods, feels. Calling Elvis, Tunnel, Telegraph, Sultans, they are all over ten minutes long.
Many of the changes in the songs are signalled by a short piece of melody from Mark's guitar. So in a long guitar solo you are concentrating 110% making sure you don't miss the short series of notes that signal the change to the next part of the song.
-
DS music is some of the most complex out there. Tempos constantly changing, dynamics go from almost inaudible to blistering loud. Many of the songs evolved into 15 minute live epics, with multiple sections, moods, feels. Calling Elvis, Tunnel, Telegraph, Sultans, they are all over ten minutes long.
Many of the changes in the songs are signalled by a short piece of melody from Mark's guitar. So in a long guitar solo you are concentrating 110% making sure you don't miss the short series of notes that signal the change to the next part of the song.
Chris, huge thanks for your participation for this forum and for the DS live sound! I found On the night video earlier in my youth than Alchemy and that performance including your drumming makes me always happy (and feeling young again :))
-
So it's not just creative differences, but musical egos clashing.
The funny thing about your posts is that you are contradicting the people who were there, experienced it in real life. You are guessing, apparently based on the fact you admire Mark a great deal. Maybe accept some people who actually lived it have more truth to say than you do.
welcome to a fan forum. lol. but yes, you are so right with that observation...
-
So it's not just creative differences, but musical egos clashing.
The funny thing about your posts is that you are contradicting the people who were there, experienced it in real life. You are guessing, apparently based on the fact you admire Mark for a great deal. Maybe accept some people who actually lived it have more truth to say than you do.
With all due respect, seeing the development of this topic, it is impossible not to mention, what a nice kick here. We are facing someone who was there, at every show on Dire Straits' longest tour. Chris W, you are living history, thank you for sharing your experience and point of view with us, it is a privilege, your experience has historical value, I don't need to mention anything else. I Think... to be a fan and admire the art of a musician, it is not necessary to attribute something that makes him supernatural in a literal way, a super human, incapable of making mistakes in his attitudes, I regret that this is something practiced by people here, critical sense is essential and avoid traps.
Before playing at Dire Straits, Chris W did a huge tour with the Beatles, Paul MacCartney, where the shows had two, three times more audiences than the Dire Straits shows. I have no doubt that Chris is proud of his musical curriculum, Dire Straits is another chapter in his promising career, we are lucky to know details of how the dynamics of live music worked at that time, the example of Sultans of Swing that Chris brought us demystifies a lot of things.
Thanks, Chris W. :wave
-
So it's not just creative differences, but musical egos clashing.
The funny thing about your posts is that you are contradicting the people who were there, experienced it in real life. You are guessing, apparently based on the fact you admire Mark a great deal. Maybe accept some people who actually lived it have more truth to say than you do.
welcome to a fan forum. lol. but yes, you are so right with that observation...
But you keep missing my point that I base my opinions on interviews and words of real people. To be honest, is quite annoying to have a discussion where all you get from your opposition is "you are 100% wrong and you just a blind MK fanatic". Okay, I'm 100% wrong, you are 100% right, case closed.
-
I totally agree with you Brunno.
As an ex-dire straits fan, or early straits fan, basically someone who loves many of the songs MK wrote, I'm interested in getting insights on how things worked and evolved.
Any first hand testimony is a gem, be it from Chris, pick, terry, Phil, John, dave or anyone who really got involved into that music.
Pick will be remembered for his work with Dire straits by People who love or have loved dire straits.
As for playing loud, even terry williams who is a straight (and straits) rock n roll drummer played louder with DS than with edmunds and the likes.
The meat loaf kit he used with DS tells a lot. In the Mike oldfield book it is hinted at the fact that MK gave him precise indications too.
It's no wonder it could have been frustrating for more subtle drummers.
What separates terry from other DS drummers is ... that he was happy with what he had to do. Good for him !
Pick was a great drummer. The ryhtm parts were much more lively when he played with DS, mk's guitar ryhtm parts were almost funky.
I can understand what he used to say about the diminishing importance of drums and rythm in dire straits.
Jeff porcaro, manu katche and Chris witten brought some interesting drum parts to the OES era.
But if you listen to the great Omar Hakim on BIA, it's not alive at all. Sting knew what to do with a drummer like Omar Hakim, or weather report, etc. But MK just wanted something square, tight and clean.
And loud when live.
-
It is incredibly cool to hear your from you Chris, please stay and share <3 Before you, Pick and Terry started to explain how it was, I thought that it was drummers with different styles, when in fact it was Mark who chose the style of the drums.
And welcome to a MK forum were the absolute rule number one is: never say something positive about MK. Then you are a praiser, someone who think Mark is a god. I don't think anybody, and certainly not here, think that way.
If "something positive" is to pull down other members importance in the band's success, then that's just not the way to do it. This whole "let's compare MK to X" thingy is just sad. Mark doesn't play the drums, so naturally there is a team effort behind any record.
There are many big artists that have switched bands without keeping the same amount of success. Bruce Springsteen is one of them - you won't find many people who prefer "the other band" era to the E Street era. Simply because the other guys are just as irreplaceable as the singer, songwriter and guitarist-guy. Sometimes as a whole, sometimes on an individual basis. Is thinking of MK as a regular member of DS unfair in any way?
-
It is incredibly cool to hear your from you Chris, please stay and share <3 Before you, Pick and Terry started to explain how it was, I thought that it was drummers with different styles, when in fact it was Mark who chose the style of the drums.
And welcome to a MK forum were the absolute rule number one is: never say something positive about MK. Then you are a praiser, someone who think Mark is a god. I don't think anybody, and certainly not here, think that way.
If "something positive" is to pull down other members importance in the band's success, then that's just not the way to do it. This whole "let's compare MK to X" thingy is just sad. Mark doesn't play the drums, so naturally there is a team effort behind any record.
There are many big artists that have switched bands without keeping the same amount of success. Bruce Springsteen is one of them - you won't find many people who prefer "the other band" era to the E Street era. Simply because the other guys are just as irreplaceable as the singer, songwriter and guitarist-guy. Sometimes as a whole, sometimes on an individual basis. Is thinking of MK as a regular member of DS unfair in any way?
To me, treating MK as a regular member of DS is a straight-up crime. Without the guy, there would be no Dire Straits, no recording at Montserrat, no Brothers In Arms tour, or On Every Street tour, no arranging of drum parts or piano parts for Telegraph Road, no meeting Bob Dylan and playing with him on Slow Train Coming, no nothing.
Mark is more like a good movie director in this sense... An army of people work on a movie, including actors and others who made a big impact, but it's still "Quentin Tarantino's movie" or whatever. Without this piece, nothing would work. The director has a vision, and passion for the project and sees the final product before it's even been made. Besides, if you worked for Quentin, everybody knows then you are good, because of the quality level established by the director.
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
-
It is incredibly cool to hear your from you Chris, please stay and share <3 Before you, Pick and Terry started to explain how it was, I thought that it was drummers with different styles, when in fact it was Mark who chose the style of the drums.
And welcome to a MK forum were the absolute rule number one is: never say something positive about MK. Then you are a praiser, someone who think Mark is a god. I don't think anybody, and certainly not here, think that way.
If "something positive" is to pull down other members importance in the band's success, then that's just not the way to do it. This whole "let's compare MK to X" thingy is just sad. Mark doesn't play the drums, so naturally there is a team effort behind any record.
There are many big artists that have switched bands without keeping the same amount of success. Bruce Springsteen is one of them - you won't find many people who prefer "the other band" era to the E Street era. Simply because the other guys are just as irreplaceable as the singer, songwriter and guitarist-guy. Sometimes as a whole, sometimes on an individual basis. Is thinking of MK as a regular member of DS unfair in any way?
To me, treating MK as a regular member of DS is a straight-up crime. Without the guy, there would be no Dire Straits, no recording at Montserrat, no Brothers In Arms tour, or On Every Street tour, no arranging of drum parts or piano parts for Telegraph Road, no meeting Bob Dylan and playing with him on Slow Train Coming, no nothing.
Mark is more like a good movie director in this sense... An army of people work on a movie, including actors and others who made a big impact, but it's still "Quentin Tarantino's movie" or whatever. Without this piece, nothing would work. The director has a vision, and passion for the project and sees the final product before it's even been made. Besides, if you worked for Quentin, everybody knows then you are good, because of the quality level established by the director.
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
Roger that.
Somebody whom I find similar to Mark in the cinema field in my other idol, Stanley Kubrick.
Another guy who was a telented genius, who was known for being a perfectionist to the point of tyranny, for being slow (only 13 movies in 45 years of career), for not giving a lot of interviews, keeping it quiet, for not being good at keeping relationships going once the work is over (ask Malcom Mcdowell), but also known to accept input from a talented and respected guy (ask Peter Sellers).
Although it would have been hard to make Dr Strangelove the same without Peter Sellers, you can't seriously say that Kubrick was just a regular member of the film team. Without Kubrick, no Strangelove, whereas somebody else could have played Strangelove.
Geniuses don't want their work to be degraded in any way, so if you're not totally committed to their vision, you are out. That's the price to pay to get masterpieces like Brothers in Arms or 2001, space odyssey...
I'm sure Mark and Stanley held each other in high esteem, although there is no evidence that they even met.
-
It is incredibly cool to hear your from you Chris, please stay and share <3 Before you, Pick and Terry started to explain how it was, I thought that it was drummers with different styles, when in fact it was Mark who chose the style of the drums.
And welcome to a MK forum were the absolute rule number one is: never say something positive about MK. Then you are a praiser, someone who think Mark is a god. I don't think anybody, and certainly not here, think that way.
If "something positive" is to pull down other members importance in the band's success, then that's just not the way to do it. This whole "let's compare MK to X" thingy is just sad. Mark doesn't play the drums, so naturally there is a team effort behind any record.
There are many big artists that have switched bands without keeping the same amount of success. Bruce Springsteen is one of them - you won't find many people who prefer "the other band" era to the E Street era. Simply because the other guys are just as irreplaceable as the singer, songwriter and guitarist-guy. Sometimes as a whole, sometimes on an individual basis. Is thinking of MK as a regular member of DS unfair in any way?
To me, treating MK as a regular member of DS is a straight-up crime. Without the guy, there would be no Dire Straits, no recording at Montserrat, no Brothers In Arms tour, or On Every Street tour, no arranging of drum parts or piano parts for Telegraph Road, no meeting Bob Dylan and playing with him on Slow Train Coming, no nothing.
Mark is more like a good movie director in this sense... An army of people work on a movie, including actors and others who made a big impact, but it's still "Quentin Tarantino's movie" or whatever. Without this piece, nothing would work. The director has a vision, and passion for the project and sees the final product before it's even been made. Besides, if you worked for Quentin, everybody knows then you are good, because of the quality level established by the director.
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
:thumbsup
-
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means
(https://media.giphy.com/media/oKdjMdWXl9ys8/giphy.gif)
-
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
This is sooooo over the top.
For a start Pick left the band. He wanted to pursue different projects. I'm gonna guess he never expected to be a rock star like Mark, or that his other projects would achieve the same success as Dire Straits.
I had many career highlights, probably by far the biggest of which was playing Beatles songs with one of The Beatles, songs that had NEVER been performed live before.
I've played on critically acclaimed hit albums, I've played with Johnny Cash and The Pretenders etc...
As a professional you have to be calm when working with huge stars, so many of us just assess our experience in a calm and reasoned way.
The OES tour was gruelling. Mark was pretty much in a bad mood the entire 14 month tour. This has been well documented before - by Ed Bicknell and John Illsley in various interviews after the fact.
I rank playing with Dire Straits as a career highlight, sure, but it is no more of a highlight than working with McCartney or being in the studio playing on a hit record.
Finally, I have no ambition to be an incredible song writer or a millionaire rock star (I've seen what it does to people). So like many before me, I congratulate Mark on his career and success, but I'm not envious or jealous of him.
-
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
This is sooooo over the top.
For a start Pick left the band. He wanted to pursue different projects. I'm gonna guess he never expected to be a rock star like Mark, or that his other projects would achieve the same success as Dire Straits.
I had many career highlights, probably by far the biggest of which was playing Beatles songs with one of The Beatles, songs that had NEVER been performed live before.
I've played on critically acclaimed hit albums, I've played with Johnny Cash and The Pretenders etc...
As a professional you have to be calm when working with huge stars, so many of us just assess our experience in a calm and reasoned way.
The OES tour was gruelling. Mark was pretty much in a bad mood the entire 14 month tour. This has been well documented before - by Ed Bicknell and John Illsley in various interviews after the fact.
I rank playing with Dire Straits as a career highlight, sure, but it is no more of a highlight than working with McCartney or being in the studio playing on a hit record.
Finally, I have no ambition to be an incredible song writer or a millionaire rock star (I've seen what it does to people). So like many before me, I congratulate Mark on his career and success, but I'm not envious or jealous of him.
Fully agree with Chris here, seems so obvious to me that I never understood why the rest of people doesn't get it...
-
Thank you.
-
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
This is sooooo over the top.
For a start Pick left the band. He wanted to pursue different projects. I'm gonna guess he never expected to be a rock star like Mark, or that his other projects would achieve the same success as Dire Straits.
I had many career highlights, probably by far the biggest of which was playing Beatles songs with one of The Beatles, songs that had NEVER been performed live before.
I've played on critically acclaimed hit albums, I've played with Johnny Cash and The Pretenders etc...
As a professional you have to be calm when working with huge stars, so many of us just assess our experience in a calm and reasoned way.
The OES tour was gruelling. Mark was pretty much in a bad mood the entire 14 month tour. This has been well documented before - by Ed Bicknell and John Illsley in various interviews after the fact.
I rank playing with Dire Straits as a career highlight, sure, but it is no more of a highlight than working with McCartney or being in the studio playing on a hit record.
Finally, I have no ambition to be an incredible song writer or a millionaire rock star (I've seen what it does to people). So like many before me, I congratulate Mark on his career and success, but I'm not envious or jealous of him.
Fully agree with Chris here, seems to obvious to me that I never understood why the rest of people doesn't get it...
I don't get what I didn't get here and what's so obvious about it. That for Chris working with Mark Knopfler is not the biggest career highlight? I never stated that. But for some people, it seems like it is. Listen to Chuck Ainlay and how he pretty much compares everybody and every studio to MK's work and studio. And that's a co-producer we are talking about, not even a musician. You can find more examples if you want to.
I'm not trying to kiss MK's butt here, but a lot of people seem to diminish his work as if it's just another musician. It's the songs, man, the songs he wrote. Chris is so lucky to play with all these amazing artists, on these albums and songs, and I'm not an idiot enough to judge which is better. I apologise for being over the top, it's my style. I'm just not satisfied with simple answers, I always dig deeper.
-
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
This is sooooo over the top.
For a start Pick left the band. He wanted to pursue different projects. I'm gonna guess he never expected to be a rock star like Mark, or that his other projects would achieve the same success as Dire Straits.
I had many career highlights, probably by far the biggest of which was playing Beatles songs with one of The Beatles, songs that had NEVER been performed live before.
I've played on critically acclaimed hit albums, I've played with Johnny Cash and The Pretenders etc...
As a professional you have to be calm when working with huge stars, so many of us just assess our experience in a calm and reasoned way.
The OES tour was gruelling. Mark was pretty much in a bad mood the entire 14 month tour. This has been well documented before - by Ed Bicknell and John Illsley in various interviews after the fact.
I rank playing with Dire Straits as a career highlight, sure, but it is no more of a highlight than working with McCartney or being in the studio playing on a hit record.
Finally, I have no ambition to be an incredible song writer or a millionaire rock star (I've seen what it does to people). So like many before me, I congratulate Mark on his career and success, but I'm not envious or jealous of him.
Fully agree with Chris here, seems to obvious to me that I never understood why the rest of people doesn't get it...
I don't get what I didn't get here and what's so obvious about it. That for Chris working with Mark Knopfler is not the biggest career highlight? I never stated that. But for some people, it seems like it is. Listen to Chuck Ainlay and how he pretty much compares everybody and every studio to MK's work and studio. And that's a co-producer we are talking about, not even a musician. You can find more examples if you want to.
I'm not trying to kiss MK's butt here, but a lot of people seem to diminish his work as if it's just another musician. It's the songs, man, the songs he wrote. Chris is so lucky to play with all these amazing artists, on these albums and songs, and I'm not an idiot enough to judge which is better. I apologise for being over the top, it's my style. I'm just not satisfied with simple answers, I always dig deeper.
Well, to play with DS and/or MK is not the biggest career highlight for any session player who work with them/him despite how much you and I could think he's the best. It can be a highlight for someone like Jack Sonni that didn't play with any other, but for the proffesional musicians who play with them? Some yes, some not.
Richard Bennett played half of his career with Neil Diamond and the other half with MK with thousands of the biggest stars of the NAshville scene in betwen. Is MK his bigest career highlight? It's a highlight of course, and probably the biggest as they are close friends, but thats probably true for Neil Diamond.
I use to laugh quite a lot when someone tell me, that saddly happens a lot, that nobody would know Phil Palmer if he didn't played for Dire Straits. I always answer, no, YOU won't know Phil Palmer if he didn't played for DS. He was already well known for playing with Eric Clapton, he also played for Tina Turner, recorded with everyone in the UK and also was musical director for George Michael from long time! Was DS the biggest career highlight for him? In his words, that was Clapton. Yes, DS was a highlight, probably one of the bigs in his long career. The biggest? Not, certainly not.
Same with Chris Whitten. It's quite obvious that someone who played for Paul McCartney, that's his biggest career highlight for sure. DS? yes of course, a big highlight, the biggest? no. He also played with many important bands mostly in the studio so many highlights in his career already. He even played from a Spanish band from where I live, Valencia, names "Presuntos Implicados"!
Thats what is obvious for me and that's what I don't get anyone else doesn't understand. The fact that we love DS and MK doesn't means that they are the biggest career highlight to anyone who played with them.
-
MK as a songwriter is put on a throne by his fans but he is a good craftsman at the most, he is not relevant when it comes to the best or most influencal songwriters. When his guitar playing thing declined, he needed a new label for what he stands for and he chose to be a "songwriter". But he never is in the same league as Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, Elton John, even Abba, Billy Joel,.and and and. It's just not relevant. His lyrics illustrate stuff and he has a way with words but his songs never are able to reach the hearts of a global audience. There is not one single song from his solo catalogue which would have the same impact than songs from all those classics I listed above. Ok, Romeo and Juliet, that one will stay. It's obvious that people at AMIT don't see it that way but if you take a wider look, I guess you might agree to a certain extent.
LE
-
Hey jbaent, I think you are steering the discussion to where it was never supposed to go. I only used the "biggest highlight" argument as a defence to "thinking of MK as a regular member of DS". It's obvious that for a good session musician their whole work life is a highlight, no matter who they are playing with.
I meant that how on Earth Mark can be thought of as a regular member when everything depended on him, he wrote and produced all the songs, sang them and played lead guitar as well. The thought of this simply blows my mind.
Ironically enough, all the people you've mentioned would drop anything they do and say "yes" the instant MK asked them to join him on tour or in the studio. That's the idea I'm trying to convey in all my long-ass messages.
-
MK as a songwriter is put on a throne by his fans but he is a good craftsman at the most, he is not relevant when it comes to the best or most influencal songwriters. When his guitar playing thing declined, he needed a new label for what he stands for and he chose to be a "songwriter". But he never is in the same league as Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, Elton John, even Abba, Billy Joel,.and and and. It's just not relevant. His lyrics illustrate stuff and he has a way with words but his songs never are able to reach the hearts of a global audience. There is not one single song from his solo catalogue which would have the same impact than songs from all those classics I listed above. Ok, Romeo and Juliet, that one will stay. It's obvious that people at AMIT don't see it that way but if you take a wider look, I guess you might agree to a certain extent.
LE
A bit harsh a statement.
Sultans, MFN, WOL, Brothers are very well known by the crowds.
TOL, TR, PI are very well known by average music lovers.
When I was a high-school student in France, the lyrics of TR were studied in English courses, and analysed to explain US building and history.
As for his solo career, What it is was a hit, and Speedway is very popular,
In 2011 I've been to see MK and Bob Dylan, with a girl friend of mine... We both came with a open mind, I didn't know much about Bob, the girl didn't know anything about either Mark or Bob. We both enjoyed Marks very much, and despite our open mind, Bob managed to get us leave the venue before the end of the concert...
-
MK as a songwriter is put on a throne by his fans but he is a good craftsman at the most, he is not relevant when it comes to the best or most influencal songwriters. When his guitar playing thing declined, he needed a new label for what he stands for and he chose to be a "songwriter". But he never is in the same league as Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, Elton John, even Abba, Billy Joel,.and and and. It's just not relevant. His lyrics illustrate stuff and he has a way with words but his songs never are able to reach the hearts of a global audience. There is not one single song from his solo catalogue which would have the same impact than songs from all those classics I listed above. Ok, Romeo and Juliet, that one will stay. It's obvious that people at AMIT don't see it that way but if you take a wider look, I guess you might agree to a certain extent.
LE
A bit harsh a statement.
Sultans, MFN, WOL, Brothers are very well known by the crowds.
TOL, TR, PI are very well known by average music lovers.
When I was a high-school student in France, the lyrics of TR were studied in English courses, and analysed to explain US building and history.
As for his solo career, What it is was a hit, and Speedway is very popular,
In 2011 I've been to see MK and Bob Dylan, with a girl friend of mine... We both came with a open mind, I didn't know much about Bob, the girl didn't know anything about either Mark or Bob. We both enjoyed Marks very much, and despite our open mind, Bob managed to get us leave the venue before the end of the concert...
And Mark steered away from fame, appearances on TV and awards for a reason. The guy made the Brothers In Arms album. It's filled with hits. Trust me, should he want it, he could be ridiculously famous and "regarded" as a great songwriter, but chose the road less travelled instead.
All the people you've mentioned are household names exactly because they are everywhere and treated as legends, writing good songs also doesn't hurt of course. Mark also writes good songs. Commercial success / Recognition / Fame / Quality of Songs are all so different terms.
As somebody who has worked on Mark's songs almost on a daily basis for 7 years, I can assure you it's way, way, way more underrated than people think.
-
And Mark steered away from fame, appearances on TV and awards for a reason. The guy made the Brothers In Arms album. It's filled with hits. Trust me, should he want it, he could be ridiculously famous and "regarded" as a great songwriter, but chose the road less travelled instead.
He was able to step away because he had done everything there was to be done in stadium rock. He was wealthy enough to never need to work again.
So no sacrifices on his part. He looked uncomfortable playing MFN at the stadium gigs, in his mind he had already moved on.
MK didn't need to work with John or Allan any more, or be compelled to play MFN, Solid Rock, Walk Of Life etc... That's why he went solo. All he retained was Guy as a trusted side kick.
You don't know why he didn't attend awards ceremonies, you are just making assumptions.
-
Ironically enough, all the people you've mentioned would drop anything they do and say "yes" the instant MK asked them to join him on tour or in the studio. That's the idea I'm trying to convey in all my long-ass messages.
But not Jeff Porcaro or Manu Katche.
NO ONE is saying Mark is average. Of course he is one of popular music's greatest artists and song writers. But at the same time, you only get one life, and many of us would not work with someone for a year, two years, a decade, JUST so that some of their stardust (and money) rubs off on us.
At the end of the day, if it makes you happy to play fusion/jazz in front of 200 people, that's what you should do. And that's I think what Pick decided he needed to do to be happy.
-
Hey jbaent, I think you are steering the discussion to where it was never supposed to go. I only used the "biggest highlight" argument as a defence to "thinking of MK as a regular member of DS". It's obvious that for a good session musician their whole work life is a highlight, no matter who they are playing with.
I meant that how on Earth Mark can be thought of as a regular member when everything depended on him, he wrote and produced all the songs, sang them and played lead guitar as well. The thought of this simply blows my mind.
Ironically enough, all the people you've mentioned would drop anything they do and say "yes" the instant MK asked them to join him on tour or in the studio. That's the idea I'm trying to convey in all my long-ass messages.
Well, that's my fault then as I'm too lazy to read all messages to catch the whole plot, lol.
MK can't be a regular member when he's the writer of the songs, the singer and main guitar player. But when you are in a band, you are a member of the band. The most important one? Yes, of course. Actually since the start of the band as a four members bands till the end as a 8th members band, he was with John the only one remaining, but at that point the band was more a brand than a band.
However, as Chris stated, two of the most renowned drummers in the 90's scene said no to MK, also Vince Gill who was to be one of the biggest things in country scene, so, not everyone would drop whatever they were doing to join MK. They did in the studio, yes, because they refuse the live slot in the band.
-
Hey jbaent, I think you are steering the discussion to where it was never supposed to go. I only used the "biggest highlight" argument as a defence to "thinking of MK as a regular member of DS". It's obvious that for a good session musician their whole work life is a highlight, no matter who they are playing with.
I meant that how on Earth Mark can be thought of as a regular member when everything depended on him, he wrote and produced all the songs, sang them and played lead guitar as well. The thought of this simply blows my mind.
Ironically enough, all the people you've mentioned would drop anything they do and say "yes" the instant MK asked them to join him on tour or in the studio. That's the idea I'm trying to convey in all my long-ass messages.
I think the same.
-
"Mark was pretty much in a bad mood the entire 14 month tour"
Is it possible? ;)
-
Speaking of MK's mood, Chris do you have any memories of the infamous sausages incident as recalled here by Phil Palmer? :)
There is the sausages story of Dire Straits. Basically we’d been in America for a while, at least 6 weeks or something and everyone was really really tired of the food and wanted something a bit more interesting. So we were doing a gig in Canada and the caterers found a Marks & Spencer there and they bought all the pork sausages that they could find to feed the crew and we’d heard about this before we even got to the gig. We were saying “they’ve found pork sausages and we’re having sausages, mash, baked beans and fried onions for dinner tonight”, and everyone was incredibly excited about that. So we got to the gig and did the sound check and then we went to have dinner and it was fantastic. We had English mustard and onion gravy and everything was just perfect. But Mark and I think John [Illsley] decided, which was quite normal for them, that they were gonna save theirs and have it afterwards. So two plates were put aside for Mark and John both with three or four sausages and they would just microwave it after. But, when they came off stage there was only 2 sausages on Mark’s plate… and he was extremely upset. So he had all the crew marched in one by one and questioned them. I have a vivid picture in my mind of him: he still had his headband on and he was soaking wet in the dressing room, pissed off, and he said to each crew member one by one “Have you eaten my sausages? Because if I find out who it is they’re on the next plane home”, and of course nobody owned up to it and the evening went by and it was forgotten about. But the next gig which was a couple days later we arrived at the gig and Mark was still pretty angry about the sausages but the crew decided they would try and make a joke out of it. So they printed out a new set list with all new songs on it and it said things like ‘Romeo and Sausages’, ‘Money for Sausages’, ‘Sultans of sausages’ etc. And I remember Mark looking down at it and he was still pretty angry and he tore it to shreds and that’s the end of the story but I do know now 20 years later who it was that ate the sausages…
https://olipalmer1.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/interview-with-phil-palmer-180213/
-
FWIW, I don't remember that amount of anger, I don't remember Mark being the main one angry, and I don't remember the 'investigation' the next day.
I have a photo of the spoof set list though - very funny.
-
FWIW, I don't remember that amount of anger, I don't remember Mark being the main one angry, and I don't remember the 'investigation' the next day.
I have a photo of the spoof set list though - very funny.
Thank you, I guess just one of these tales that grows arms and legs over the years :)
-
I think you are right. It makes a book more entertaining.
-
I think you are right. It makes a book more entertaining.
Talking about a book. Your pictures of your tours with Paul McCartney and DS are great, did I read in Instagram that there is an idea of doing a photo book or I imagined it?
-
But the big question is, who ate the sausages?
-
But the big question is, who ate the sausages?
Phil says in that link it was someone called Pete who still works for MK, Pete Mackay?
-
Talking about a book. Your pictures of your tours with Paul McCartney and DS are great, did I read in Instagram that there is an idea of doing a photo book or I imagined it?
Hoping to. It would be this time next year at best.
-
Phil says in that link it was someone called Pete who still works for MK, Pete Mackay?
I don't know who it was, but I guessed at the time it was at least two people, maybe more.
Certain band members were annoyed, nothing more iirc. And the next day everyone had moved on, other than the hilarious set list.
-
Phil says in that link it was someone called Pete who still works for MK, Pete Mackay?
I don't know who it was, but I guessed at the time it was at least two people, maybe more.
Certain band members were annoyed, nothing more iirc. And the next day everyone had moved on, other than the hilarious set list.
So, this kind of fascist series of interviews in MK's dressing room to interrogate each crew member one by one to find out who ate the sausages and send him home.... pure legend ?
-
If pure legend, why? Because the book will be better to read? This builds a false image of a person.
-
If pure legend, why? Because the book will be better to read? This builds a false image of a person.
I think this happens a lot. At least in my country when a famous person "writes" a book...
-
It's just an exaggeration.
To be honest I might be remembering wrong. I was (and am) a vegetarian so had no interest in the whole saga.
My memory is that a few people were annoyed on the night it occurred, and the next day it was more or less forgotten.
-
It's just an exaggeration.
To be honest I might be remembering wrong. I was (and am) a vegetarian so had no interest in the whole saga.
My memory is that a few people were annoyed on the night it occurred, and the next day it was more or less forgotten.
Was that decision influenced by working with Macca?
-
No. I went vegetarian in 1984 after a Waterboys tour of America. I ate so much late night god awful food. At the end of the tour I thought to myself - why am I forcing myself to eat cheap meat that is awful? I am also an animal lover. But all this was 3 to 4 years before I started with Paul.
-
It is incredibly cool to hear your from you Chris, please stay and share <3 Before you, Pick and Terry started to explain how it was, I thought that it was drummers with different styles, when in fact it was Mark who chose the style of the drums.
And welcome to a MK forum were the absolute rule number one is: never say something positive about MK. Then you are a praiser, someone who think Mark is a god. I don't think anybody, and certainly not here, think that way.
If "something positive" is to pull down other members importance in the band's success, then that's just not the way to do it. This whole "let's compare MK to X" thingy is just sad. Mark doesn't play the drums, so naturally there is a team effort behind any record.
There are many big artists that have switched bands without keeping the same amount of success. Bruce Springsteen is one of them - you won't find many people who prefer "the other band" era to the E Street era. Simply because the other guys are just as irreplaceable as the singer, songwriter and guitarist-guy. Sometimes as a whole, sometimes on an individual basis. Is thinking of MK as a regular member of DS unfair in any way?
To me, treating MK as a regular member of DS is a straight-up crime. Without the guy, there would be no Dire Straits, no recording at Montserrat, no Brothers In Arms tour, or On Every Street tour, no arranging of drum parts or piano parts for Telegraph Road, no meeting Bob Dylan and playing with him on Slow Train Coming, no nothing.
Mark is more like a good movie director in this sense... An army of people work on a movie, including actors and others who made a big impact, but it's still "Quentin Tarantino's movie" or whatever. Without this piece, nothing would work. The director has a vision, and passion for the project and sees the final product before it's even been made. Besides, if you worked for Quentin, everybody knows then you are good, because of the quality level established by the director.
I'm not an MK fanatic by any means, I just look at facts. The fact is almost everybody who worked with the man treats this experience as a highlight of their career or most likely even the best part of it. Read or listen to any interviews. The only people who disagree on this are the ones who tried to battle MK and failed miserably or simply couldn't find a middle ground. I'm sure for Chris working with Mark was a highlight despite all the flaws. How can it NOT be a highlight?
It's the job of regular members of the band to use this experience as a trampoline to their own success, either within the band or on their own. If you don't like Mark and his work ethic, then go and become Mark yourself if you're so smart. For some reason, I don't see a lot of Mark Knopflers running around.
Now, here's the problem. You take it WAY too seriously if it's a "crime" to do that. This whole "who is more important than who" in the band thing is just ridiculous. Why is it so important to create large differences in importance? It's like that little dog that barks on everything because it's scared it won't be seen or heard otherwise (except that this is in "third person"). The problem is the comparison. You can of course say that Marks contribution was important - there's no harm in that. It's when one starts to place players in tiers it's getting out of hand.
I met Mark once. No need to be star struck. Just a regular guy, made out of the same flesh as me and you, who happens to have a certain set of skills. I've met famous athletes, too - and some other celebrities. They're just humans, at the end of the day. I bumped into Magnus Carlsen on a subway once, that's pretty much the only time I was a bit star struck - but that was because I wasn't expecting him ;D
Also, everyone benefitted from the DS success - that includes Mark himself. I mean, sure you can always look at the non-original members joining in the same sense as a promising talent in a team sport does when joining a decent team. However, in order to gain fame, this youngster has to perform on par with the best athletes on his/hers team anyway. It's not like "I played in Dire Straits" itself means anything if the work was sub-par. Also, people step down for a number of reasons. You could say that Mark chose, on his own terms, to not be famous - but the same thing applies to the other guys. It's not like they tried their best and failed at it - and Mark tried to avoid it. That would be some weird logic, as we have no evidence that these differences in attitude towards fame exists, do we?
I don't need to be Mark. Maybe you do, but I certainly don't. There is just one, just as there is just one John Illsley.
Also, you should take certain things with a grain of salt. I mean, who on earth will say "no" if you asked them "is X a highlight of your career"? It's like when you ask Guy if the new album is their best one yet. He will always say yes, because it makes no sense to say anything else. I bet what you are referring to as highlights are indeed highlights - but they're just one of MANY highlights (unless someone was just in DS and then started farming potatoes or something). You kind of want to pay some respect to the people you played with, unless there were arguments. And I'm sure there were a few, but not because they tried to "battle MK and lost". It takes two to tango, and there's enough evidence that Mark might be better at guitar playing than man management. That's just my two cents. I mean, if those who have some kind of "unfinished business" with him have similar things with alot of others in the music industry, then sure - it might be their issue, but if it's MK only I strongly believe that it's mainly not their fault in that case.
That said, I base this partly on the rumours that certain songs are written with ex-members in mind (Terminal of Tribute To as an example, or "poor old fakers trying to dance in my old shoes") - assuming that there is some truth to these speculations. The only other guy I know who wrote songs like this is John Fogerty, but from what I recall he was actually screwed over. I guess Springsteen also went in that direction to some excent, but not in a "looking down on people" kind of way. That's just lowlife behavior if indeed true. But, I'm sure you applaud this as you do with everything else he has ever done.
-
I found this omar hakim interview quite interesting. The part about the BIA sessions is very short, at the end of the vidéo. He talks about SFA and MFN, but his observations about MK's unique rythmic style on guitar and how the drums shouldn't clutter the rythm section but play with mark's rythm patterns and let enough space for it are spot on.
Playing live is a différent situation since the overall energy of the band is more important and the drummer is the engine for that, but I think it explains why someone like terry was not the best choice for that album. Album that I really don't like, but Omar was really able to hear what was going on and what was needed. Just like Jeff or Manu or Chris would or did.
https://youtu.be/mrimRg84-eA?si=-1AOGR5FTrMfVlIu
-
I found this omar hakim interview quite interesting. The part about the BIA sessions is very short, at the end of the vidéo. He talks about SFA and MFN, but his observations about MK's unique rythmic style on guitar and how the drums shouldn't clutter the rythm section but play with mark's rythm patterns and let enough space for it are spot on.
There's so many fan questions to ask people like Omar & Chris. I've always wondered if Omar's quick weekend of playing on BiA included any extra tracks that didn't make the record? Does he remember them?
-
Omar's work in the outro of Why Bother was quite unique and wonderful. Nothing like it I can think of in DS studio albums.