A Mark In Time
Previous Tours => 2010 Get Lucky Tour => Topic started by: zimbo on June 13, 2010, 05:32:45 PM
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Im sure that mark, who else? marks do what he wants and that its pretty clear
-
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 :disbelief
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...
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :disbelief
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......
-
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. ???
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 put 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.
Correct, this has been the case since the OES album and tour, both of which were financed by MK and JI, hence nervous times for all when initial ticket sales in Australia were poor and shows were cancelled.
-
No need to go in teacher mode zimbo. Mark finances his own records, hence the (fully owned) british grove studio.
I asked you to actually pinpoint the part on guy's forum where he explicitly says so. You have not.
Why not ask it yourself to prove it to us, if you are so sure?
-
Pottel - is it certain he finances his own records? He may own the studio but he may also lease it to his record publisher/label when recording his stuff. That would be logical.
-
Pottel - is it certain he finances his own records? He may own the studio but he may also lease it to his record publisher/label when recording his stuff. That would be logical.
somewhere guy mentions Mark owns it fully (use the search function ::))
-
MK is in charge as far as I am concerned. Mark clearly does what he wants to do since StP. The studio is a clear sign of that. MK doesn't need to tour, he does it because he wants to. Why would he tour and play songs the record company want to hear if he doesn't want to?
P.S. What the hell is 'trolling'?
-
Taken from the all knowing Urban Dictionary -
Trolling
"Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence."
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence.""
That seems to be one of many explanations.....but it doesnt seem a particularly endeering term.....
-
Taken from the all knowing Urban Dictionary -
Trolling
"Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence."
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence.""
That seems to be one of many explanations.....but it doesnt seem a particularly endeering term.....
LOL! Not quite the definition I was expecting, but it gets to the point!
-
That discussion gets me to the point where he said something like "[...] success, (mumbling), I do recommend success for everyone [...]". This could be from the Kill To Get Crimson Bonus DVD or something like that, I don't remember exactly. But something in that sentence makes me think that MK is actually referring to independency and autarky as a result of success.
-
I also believe MK controls it 100 % - and perhaps listen to good advice from Guy (why not).... he once said in a Danish television interview on DR1, and this goes back to the 90
-
Hmm, have you been reading this thread Guy?!!!
http://www.guyfletcher.co.uk/index.php/getluckytour2010/14th_June_-_Bergen_-_Vestlandshallen
I know I talk a lot about the plane in the diaries and the luxury of the cars etc. but it all comes at a price and Mark chooses this option. Very few artists are fortunate enough or indeed actually prepared to fork out on these things which ultimately mean that as a band, we are in as good a shape as possible when we take to the stage each night. Judging by the reports, I think it shows.
If you are reading, thanks for everything!
-
Hey, well spotted, Dusty! Greetings to Guy from over here!
A question that came up to my mind last night (!) was if the addition of Michael McGoldrick to the band is a new unforeseen expense factor... I think PC must have done his maths to let the band grow at eight members for more of the second half of the tour! And because it was in the middle of the night, my thoughts were quite blurry, and I thought, Hey, that is why he started the SimfyLive Thing in London! Rasing some additional money to pay the flute man! ;D In that case, I am more than willing to download some more stuff! 8) 8)
Don't beat me, as I said, it was around 2:30 am...
LE
-
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 :disbelief
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...
I am pretty sure Mark pays it all, and decides it all. Why does he play small arenas in the US, there are less fans overthere. Why does he do bigger venues in Europe: a lot of people want to come to the show and MK is pretty lazy and doesn't want to have a tour for 6/8/10 months.
I am sure MK just says to PCM: I want it like this and that and they organize it. He wants the same drivers as far as possible, he wants the same crew as far as possible. It's the way MK is. And making a lot of money ... I don't think so. How many people are employed, houw many buses, the plane, the Mercedeses, catering, tophotels.
All things cost a lot. I cannot imagine there is any profit in the US (1500 to 2500 people every night. Who have to cover all costs including the venue!
-
I am pretty sure Mark pays it all, and decides it all. Why does he play small arenas in the US, there are less fans overthere. Why does he do bigger venues in Europe: a lot of people want to come to the show and MK is pretty lazy and doesn't want to have a tour for 6/8/10 months.
I am sure MK just says to PCM: I want it like this and that and they organize it. He wants the same drivers as far as possible, he wants the same crew as far as possible. It's the way MK is. And making a lot of money ... I don't think so. How many people are employed, houw many buses, the plane, the Mercedeses, catering, tophotels.
All things cost a lot. I cannot imagine there is any profit in the US (1500 to 2500 people every night. Who have to cover all costs including the venue!
Tickets were more expensive in the US but I agree, can't be much profit after private jets and luxury hotels are paid for.
Don't agree about him being "lazy" though. Four months straight (strait?) at 60 with one day off a week is pretty hard going IMO.
-
Yes, but only 4 months. I agree that's not lazy, but he himself always says he is :D
-
I think its MK's gig as well,he probably confides in a few people that he trusts but thats very few I'd say???I found it strange on one of Guy's posts lately when he said that he had a mortgage or something like we all have mortgages to pay :o :o,I would have thought that these guys were sorted for life at an early age :disbelief :disbelief
-
I think its MK's gig as well,he probably confides in a few people that he trusts but thats very few I'd say???I found it strange on one of Guy's posts lately when he said that he had a mortgage or something like we all have mortgages to pay :o :o,I would have thought that these guys were sorted for life at an early age :disbelief :disbelief
I don't think he makes huge amounts of money as an MK sideman, certainly I've read bits and pieces over the years about other band members in the DS days grumbling because they were on "wages" rather than a cut of the DS cake. Of course Guy gets producers credits and stuff these days so maybe he gets a cut, but MK's sales are a long way off what they once were. I'm sure he's comfortable enough though and loves making a living doing what he does.
-
Yeah, and if you need some cash: Just sell one of your houses! :lol
LE
-
but still, no studio time to pay for, a million or more cd's sold every time.
an average of 60
-
60 euros?
-
It is considered good financial practice to have loans rather than pile in all your cash. Even the biggest companies in the world have debts - all governments have debts - it is a way to manage finances.
-
an average.
50 euros for most european shows, way more expensive for hte us ones.
far less audience in the us. thus, a rough estimate.
-
but still, no studio time to pay for, a million or more cd's sold every time.
an average of 60
-
As an accountant I like this but unfortunately I don't have an idea of real costs in this business.
As a feeling things that are missing:
I think the venue will have part of the tixprice;
Cost of the Mercedesfleet + chauffeurs;
Crew hotels
-
I think mr2bur is right on the money except for the musicians pay, $10,000 per show is way too high IMO. Not even half that.
If you listen to the Trawlerman song it's an analogy to touring and in that song Mark states there may not be much profit in the hold.
Some say I'm a kind of savant. I will leave it up to you to decide.
-
Guy said they are well paid, but not overpaid, lol
-
As a feeling things that are missing:
I think the venue will have part of the tixprice;
Cost of the Mercedesfleet + chauffeurs;
Crew hotels
When I visited each venue website to collect the seating capacity numbers I noticed that many of the venues also listed their booking details. As you can imagine the fees were all over the place, some venues charge a base fee plus a piece of each ticket that they sell, some charge a minimum fee that can slide up to in some cases 10% of the 'adjusted gross'. The venues also charge for things like load in / load out and required union employees - ushers, ticket-takers, stage crew, wardrobe, house manager. Using the averages of 2700 seats and $70 a ticket at 10% comes out to $19k per show. Since this is not by any means an exhaustive, exact exercise; in the name of keeping it simple I made the average fee $35k to the venue and local promoter. Is this right? I don't know, it is a WAG. Some places had much higher ticket prices - NYC for example - the average ticket price was $100. I suspect that this was due in part to a higher fee demand from the venue. I did notice that most venues also collect 20% of any merchandise sold on their premises.
The local limo costs in NA could be broken out from the jet transport but I'm thinking that $15k per ride may include local ground transport. At any rate, they had 3 cars most days 4x per show - hotel to airport, airport to venue and reverse after the show. Some shows didn't require plane rides but lets call it 4 trips x 3 cars x 28 shows x $100 / trip = $35k. Relatively small piece of the cost. In Europe I understand that they use a dedicated limo service, I imagine that costs more, since the drivers and cars are on call 24x7 and have to sleep and eat, although maybe they get in on the catering.
I believe the crew sleep on the buses during overnight transit to the next show, so no hotel necessary for them.
As to the cost for the players. Again I'm WAGing it, but I also didn't account for 3 weeks of rehearsals that they all went through. Also remember that the core group has been with MK for many years and they only go out for 5 months every 2 years. I don't know that they have an agreement with MK to be available on that schedule but if they do perhaps he 'overpays' them a bit to insure that they are available and don't get booked into some other commitment. I'm sure they aren't paid equally, GF as MD most certainly gets more $. If we bump the average $10k / show down to $7.5k that puts another $0.5mm in MK's pocket.
I may have overstated the size of the crew in NA. They used local catering in NA as opposed to hiring on catering staff in Europe. Dropping the crew headcount down to 20 from 30 saves $0.17mm in crew salary.
So maybe MK made a cool $1mm for his effort in NA in 2010. Who knows? It just a guessing game.
-
I think mr2bur is right on the money except for the musicians pay, $10,000 per show is way too high IMO. Not even half that.
If you listen to the Trawlerman song it's an analogy to touring and in that song Mark states there may not be much profit in the hold.
Some say I'm a kind of savant. I will leave it up to you to decide.
Agree (not the savant bit ;) , the musicians won't make anything like that. If you think about what someone might normally make in a year, I would say that these guys are above average but not hugely paid. Then work out four months. I dunno, maybe they each get something like $100,000 to do the tour.
-
Well, touring should be an interesting business as well... I paid
-
an average.
50 euros for most european shows, way more expensive for hte us ones.
far less audience in the us. thus, a rough estimate.
Sorry Pottel I thought you were referring to the price of a CD! :-)
-
but still, no studio time to pay for, a million or more cd's sold every time.
an average of 60
-
Don't forget merchandise - they make up the icing on the cake. And if it wasn't for them then maybe the tour would run at a loss.
-
I think Isaac 8) is funding the whole tour :o :o
Isaac????
-
I think Isaac 8) is funding the whole tour :o :o
Isaac????
These front centre seats are expensive you know! ;)
-
I actually used to be on the board of a venue here in Scotland that stages concerts among other things. It has a top capacity of around 8,000.
We used to just get profits etc for the whole year so at one meeting I asked how much we would make from just one sell out concert, say Pink or Staus Quo or Stereophonics or whatever.
Nobody could give me an exact figure but the sums thrown about were way lower than I expected, after staff costs etc the venue was only clearing around
-
MK has a fortune of 60 million pounds ...
He is one of the 1,000 richest Englishman.
Look here:
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=510&Itemid=9
and I've read some time ago in the press that he has earned with the shangri-la tour 3 million pounds.
We therefore need not worry about his finances.
-
I just wonder if Mark really has control of the setlist.
We must also not forget that "He who pays the piper calls the tune" :)
-
And he is not one of the 1000 richest Englishmen, he is one of the 1000 riches people in the category Music, television, entertainment in England.
I already couldn't believe it, with 60 million pounds one of the 1000 richest.
In Holland number 499 has 50 million euros but we are only with 17 million people
-
Does Guy read this forum?
In today's diary entry he seems to answer our questions:
[...]Still, it is amazing that we have the opportunity to fly home for the day which of course the private plane allows. I share a car with Dan and on the way home we talk about how fortunate we are and how unique our modes of transport really are. I know I talk a lot about the plane in the diaries and the luxury of the cars etc. but it all comes at a price and Mark chooses this option. Very few artists are fortunate enough or indeed actually prepared to fork out on these things which ultimately mean that as a band, we are in as good a shape as possible when we take to the stage each night. Judging by the reports, I think it's working.
-
i now specifically asked, so Zimbo pls read:
also, you mentioned it already, but not in so many words, am i correct to assume that the record company has jack sh
-
*cough*
http://www.tdpri.com/forum/bad-dog-cafe/217643-who-finances-big-concert-tours.html
;)
Not stalking you Zimbo, I'm Hammerhead over at the TDPRI. :)
-
I like the reference to The Wall Tour.
Fact is that the band had a contract with the record company to publish the album before the end of the year (ie a great extra money clause if EMI/CBS could cash in on time for Christmas sales).
But for touring, this was definitively Pink Floyd who was paying the bill and fact is that in the end all Pink Floyd members lost money on the tour as profit did not cover expensive costs due to the restricted size of the chosen venue and number of shows, with the notable exception of Richard Wright that had been fired just after the recording session and did the tour on a salary basis [get lucky]. Roger Waters explain also that at that time they were seriously broke but HE didn't want to make extra show in stadium arena although they were offered great money by a texan promoter to do it. Rest of the band would have said yes but HE vetoed it and the others three did not have the bollocks to go to do it without him.
-
The title of this thread brings me another sentence...
And... who control the person who control the setlist?