Who Controls The Setlist?

[zimbo]

I just wonder if Mark really has control of the setlist. Considering that the record company provides him with a private jet etc I would think that they also have a lot to say about what he plays. I'd say that they give him list of songs that he can play with a certain number from the solo albums and a certain number from DS.

I'd really like to see So Far From The Clyde show up in the setlist but I think the powers that be have decided that the tone of that song will not go well in the pace of the show. Too melancholy.

[Silvertown]

I just wonder if Mark reallyy has control of the setlist. Considering that the record company provides him with a private jet etc I would think that they also have a lot to say about what he plays. I'd say that they give him list of songs that he can play with a certain number from the solo albums and a certain number from DS.

I'd really like to see So Far From The Clyde show up in the setlist but I think the powers that be have decided that the tone of that song will not go well in the pace of the show. Too melancholy.

I believe that Mark totally controls the list. He does what he wants. And I really believe that record company doesn

[Love Expresso]

Any other artist, I would say yes. But the only one who controls this set list must be MK. He maybe adjusts it with Guy who has a so-called position as
"Musical Director". The plane is probably rented by Mark and the band - as usual. All accommodation, hotels, travel, cars etc. is payed by MK. That is one
reason why they carry their own equipment with them, which is quite unusal these days. However that is my opinion. The jet is no luxury, but more practical. it saves time and nerves, instead of driving whole continents by bus this is much better for us to have more or less fresh band...

Do not forget, MK is not touring for money any more, I believe this. Of course everybody involved has to get a good pay out of it, but this is not made for
benefit I am sure. He could make much more money with MfN, WoL, ToL, and so on...

LE

[zimbo]

I beg to differ. The jet and the expensive catering all described in Guy Fletcher's diary are all paid for by the record company. This is not a no frills tour. And yes they do make big money since almost all the shows are sold out. And I believe that the record company requires a certain number of DS songs to be in the setlist. Obviously a DS reunion tour would gross much more. So I don't expect to see TR or RAJ dropped anytime soon.

[emilianomk]

Im sure that mark, who else? marks do what he wants and that its pretty clear

[tobi777]

And yes they do make big money since almost all the shows are sold out.

I don't think they're making so much money. Don't forget the overhead as Guy already pointed out in reply to a rather blunt question about how much they earn 

BTW: Guy also said: '"If Mark was in the greed game, we'd be playing arenas and stadiums, just like the Eagles, U2 etc.etc. " which I can't believe, either. In Germany the do play big stadiums e.g. O2World Berlin (appr. 15000 seats) and obviously decided not to play in cozy theatres like they did in the US. Why?  IMHO it's a bit make believe to think they could play arenas in the US if they only wanted to. I may be wrong but record sales of Mark's last few albums were quite poor - except for Germany and other European countries...

[ds1984]

I just wonder if Mark reallyy has control of the setlist. Considering that the record company provides him with a private jet etc I would think that they also have a lot to say about what he plays. I'd say that they give him list of songs that he can play with a certain number from the solo albums and a certain number from DS.

I'd really like to see So Far From The Clyde show up in the setlist but I think the powers that be have decided that the tone of that song will not go well in the pace of the show. Too melancholy.

I believe that Mark totally controls the list. He does what he wants. And I really believe that record company doesn

[Love Expresso]

I think it has to be the right mixture. Because they have to play the little theatres in the US they have to choose the bigger indoor venues in Europe. A lot of people have to get some benefit from it, I think the band members are not too cheap either, and the crew is quite big for a show that itself is not really big, the stage and the light is quite small in my opinion, but it is a tight schedule, nearly 100 shows, so it is a lot of work, and the US leg will probably have generated some loss that has to be absorbed with the European leg. I have no facts for this but think this is common sense.

LE

[Pottel]

oh pls, where in guy's diary does he state that the record company provides the private jet?
nowhere, he did mention that it was mark  allowing Peita on board for one trip.
there is only one man in control, mark.

[Simon]

And yes they do make big money since almost all the shows are sold out.

I don't think they're making so much money. Don't forget the overhead as Guy already pointed out in reply to a rather blunt question about how much they earn 

BTW: Guy also said: '"If Mark was in the greed game, we'd be playing arenas and stadiums, just like the Eagles, U2 etc.etc. " which I can't believe, either. In Germany the do play big stadiums e.g. O2World Berlin (appr. 15000 seats) and obviously decided not to play in cozy theatres like they did in the US. Why?  IMHO it's a bit make believe to think they could play arenas in the US if they only wanted to. I may be wrong but record sales of Mark's last few albums were quite poor - except for Germany and other European countries...

As far as I am aware there were still tickets available for the Newcastle show on the day of the concert. And this was at a reduced capacity seating configuration. No disrespect but if he can't sell out in his 'home' town then......

[sweetsurrender]

I have to say that Mark is not as well known in the States. So for them to play big arenas would be too much of a gambling in terms of ticket sales, so that's why they have to settle for small theaters, which IMO is a fantastic intimate living room type of atmostphere that I rather prefer. 

I agreed that Mark has absolute control over the setlist.  I wonder though for mundane stuff like hotels, caterers, etc who's in charge? 

Guy mentioned in one of his responses that what's going on in the production room is off limit to him.   

[dustyvalentino]

Zimbo, welcome to the forum, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but your first couple of posts could be perecievd by some as "trolling".

I don't believe the record company pays for the jet - MK doesn't sell a lot of records anymore. But please provide some evidence to the contrary if you have any.

[strat61]

If the record company did provide the jet which it doesn't (they'd be mad to) they would have to to be paid out of the tour profits. Anyway the jet comes out of the tour profit that's why it doesn't make much money and if they took a bus Mark would tour once every 5 years and would have stopped international touring  at 50.

[zimbo]

There seems to be some confusion as to how the record business works. Basically you sign with a label and they pay for your studio time to produce an album and then they finance you to go on tour to support the album. The artist then works for the label and is paid accordingly. In no way does the artist use his own money to finance any of the project.Plus since the record company is footing the whole bill they have a lot of control over the setlist and the venues played in order to get the most for their investment. If you think I'm off base here I suggest you research it a little furthur.

[ds1984]

There seems to be some confusion as to how the record business works. Basically you sign with a label and they pay for your studio time to produce an album and then they finance you to go on tour to support the album. The artist then works for the label and is paid accordingly. In no way does the artist use his own money to finance any of the project.Plus since the record company is footing the whole bill they have a lot of control over the setlist and the venues played in order to get the most for their investment. If you think I'm off base here I suggest you research it a little furthur.

zimbo you are 10 years late at least.

Moreover you take something that is true only for some as a generality.

Touring has become much more profitable now than it used to be. So for an artist such as Mark Knopfler no need to be record-company dependant. And this for a long time now.
What you are writing is true for less known, less popular, or young artist that don't have the finance of their own to do it but multi-millionaire Mark is fully free from that. He's lucky to be able to advance the money needed to set a tour on. For touring purpose Mercury has no input over Mark who decide how-when and where he is doing it.

And although Mark has a recording contract with Mercury, at least since OES, he does finance the recording of his album, that way he keep control over the production and give the final product to the record company which is reduced to a marketing and distribution role.